Vicar of Jesus Christ?

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Are you denying a literal hell; a literal heaven??

The "~literal heaven~" is where God is, that is, all over. Earth is as much 'heaven' as ‘heaven’, is 'heaven', ['ouranos'].


"~literal heaven~" also is 'sky' or 'cloud' ['nepheleh'] wherein Jesus ascended when He went to where God is in heaven.


I don’t deny either. I believe both, one through sight and senses; the other, through faith and hope.


God only is God of heaven and earth. Man is made of the earth and returns to the earth when he dies, “dust to dust”.

“Hell is prepared” for the devil, his angels and the wicked. The wicked only will eventually find out precisely where hell is and what it will be. The saved will never find out and never will even think about hell. For them, hell sorts under “the former things” which will not come up in their thoughts in their hereafter immortal life.

The hell which is in the thoughts and hearts of the saved, is the hell that Jesus suffered for them ALIVE ---the hell Christ overcame with his LIFE before “God LOOSED the pains of death” (and hell) for Him through death ---through Jesus’ death, that was the death of death and of hell FOR HIS SAVED ONES.


I do not deny a literal hell; in fact, no hell can be long or severe or ‘literal’ enough were only my own sins on the one scale and Christ’s suffering on other. But, as I said, I don’t think about hell; I think about Christ’s hell for my sins which He vanquished and annihilated so that He could forgive my sins and the sins of his Elect, the Church.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

The reference is Mat.18:20. The context is church discipline.
The verse says:
Matthew 18:20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.
---It does not talk of heaven, but rather of the presence of Christ. Christ is with us via the presence of His Holy Spirit dwelling in us.

Yes. Amen. "~---It does not talk of heaven~"; that's what I said.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Local assemblies yes; universal, not.

You contradict yourself; you contradict common sense logic; you contradict Jesus' plain words.

Because everywhere two or three meet in Jesus' Name is where two or three universally meet as much as "~locally~" meet.

And because whenever two or three meet in Jesus' Name "~locally~", they meet today just as they met in the past or would meet forever after universally.

Just as Christ became man in body and flesh and breath, He became man in space and in time and in mind. Jesus’ conscious existence was as physical and temporal as spiritual and eternal.

 

[DHK]

The "~literal heaven~" is where God is, that is, all over. Earth is as much 'heaven' as ‘heaven’, is 'heaven', ['ouranos'].

You are wrong here.
Here are a couple of verses where ouranos is used:

Revelation 3:12 Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.

Revelation 4:1 After this I looked, and, behold, a door was opened in heaven: and the first voice which I heard was as it were of a trumpet talking with me; which said, Come up hither, and I will shew thee things which must be hereafter.
--In both of these verses the word is "ouranos." To say that earth is as much as heaven is heaven, is absolutely wrong. What John saw in heaven was glorious compared to what he saw on this sinful and corrupt earth. The word refers to God's abode.

--It could have the meaning of the atmosphere, but it is used often of God's abode.

"~literal heaven~" also is 'sky' or 'cloud' ['nepheleh'] wherein Jesus ascended when He went to where God is in heaven.


I don’t deny either. I believe both, one through sight and senses; the other, through faith and hope.

God only is God of heaven and earth. Man is made of the earth and returns to the earth when he dies, “dust to dust”.

“Hell is prepared” for the devil, his angels and the wicked. The wicked only will eventually find out precisely where hell is and what it will be. The saved will never find out and never will even think about hell. For them, hell sorts under “the former things” which will not come up in their thoughts in their hereafter immortal life.

The hell which is in the thoughts and hearts of the saved, is the hell that Jesus suffered for them ALIVE ---the hell Christ overcame with his LIFE before “God LOOSED the pains of death” (and hell) for Him through death ---through Jesus’ death, that was the death of death and of hell FOR HIS SAVED ONES.

I do not deny a literal hell; in fact, no hell can be long or severe or ‘literal’ enough were only my own sins on the one scale and Christ’s suffering on other. But, as I said, I don’t think about hell; I think about Christ’s hell for my sins which He vanquished and annihilated so that He could forgive my sins and the sins of his Elect, the Church.

It is good to think of hell and the Lake of Fire as it is the punishment for the lost. It gives one an evangelical perspective and urges them to tell them of the gospel before it is too late.

 

[DHK]

You contradict yourself; you contradict common sense logic; you contradict Jesus' plain words.

Because everywhere two or three meet in Jesus' Name is where two or three universally meet as much as "~locally~" meet.

And because whenever two or three meet in Jesus' Name "~locally~", they meet today just as they met in the past or would meet forever after universally.

Just as Christ became man in body and flesh and breath, He became man in space and in time and in mind. Jesus’ conscious existence was as physical and temporal as spiritual and eternal.

I don't contradict myself. Jesus was not just talking about "any two or three" as so many assume. You must read the entire passage in Matthew 18 and not take scripture out of context. He is speaking of an organized local church that had a problem with a member who needed to be disciplined. First one member went to him. If he would not be reconciled, then that member would take one or two others that in the mouth of two or three witnesses ever word would be established. If he would not be reconciled, then the matter would be brought before the local church. If he would not repent before the local church, it would be the local church's decision even if only 2 or 3 were present to make this decision. And if two or three were present Christ was in the midst of them, when they made that decision. It is entirely a local church matter. Read the context.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

It is good to think of hell and the Lake of Fire as it is the punishment for the lost. It gives one an evangelical perspective and urges them to tell them of the gospel before it is too late.

Like the SDA think of the Law. "There is no fear in love."

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

I don't contradict myself. Jesus was not just talking about "any two or three" as so many assume. You must read the entire passage in Matthew 18 and not take scripture out of context. He is speaking of an organized local church that had a problem with a member who needed to be disciplined. First one member went to him. If he would not be reconciled, then that member would take one or two others that in the mouth of two or three witnesses ever word would be established. If he would not be reconciled, then the matter would be brought before the local church. If he would not repent before the local church, it would be the local church's decision even if only 2 or 3 were present to make this decision. And if two or three were present Christ was in the midst of them, when they made that decision. It is entirely a local church matter. Read the context.

Yes it is "~a local church matter~" whenever someone (like an apostle) "take with him one or two that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established", or, "if two of you (the apostles) would agree on earth that it (would) be done for them of my (Jesus') Father who is in heaven." verses 16 to 19.

But it is entirely a universal matter when in "the kingdom of heaven (where Jesus’ Father is), “I (Jesus) am in the midst of them wherever and whenever two or three come together in my (Jesus') Name." Verse 20.
Verse 20 stands in the context of the “Kingdom of heaven” dealt upon further in verses 20 to 35.

“So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses.”
Is forgiving one another’s trespasses an “~entirely local church matter~”?! No; it is the golden rule in the entire and universal “Kingdom of HEAVEN” upon earth.

 

[herbert]

Part VII

It is a pagan apostate religion.

By what consistent and objective principle do you determine those criteria by which you might come to recognize and affirm Christian orthodoxy? How do you determine who is and who is not “apostate”? If your answer has to do with whether or not the group or individual in question agrees with your interpretation of the Bible, there are a few problems we should address:

1. Just how out of agreement with your interpretation of the Bible must a person be in order to be apostate? Was, for example, Martin Luther apostate? John Calvin? For they held to views which do not align with yours
   
   
2. How might you determine whether or not it is you who’s mistaken concerning key doctrines? (Such as the nature and institution of the Sacraments, Ecclesiology, the role and nature of Scripture)
   
   
3. Your assessment speaks to the question of authority. For how can one determine what does and what does not constitute “apostasy” without the authority to make such determinations? So by what authority do you make your determinations?
   
   
4. How do you distinguish between your own personal obedience to Christian authority and your own being the very Christian authority to which you claim obedience? In other words, as it was stated by another former Protestant: “When I submit only when I agree, the one to whom I submit is me.”
   
   
5. When you read the Christology outlined in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (paragraphs 456-478), how do you reconcile the presence of such a profound articulation of Christian orthodoxy with the claim that the Catholic Church is “pagan”?

It can easily be proved through Biblical references alone can prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that Peter was never in Rome as a leader of a church.

You’ve mentioned this before. On one hand, the point is moot. For Christians are nowhere directed by God or the Holy Spirit to consult the Scriptures for the travel itinerary of the Apostles. To look to the Scriptures as a travel itinerary or an encyclopedia of Christian travel history is to demonstrate ipso facto a misunderstanding of the role and nature of Scripture. Further, the question of the time and geography of Christ’s establishment of the Papacy and Peter’s geographical relationship to Rome are quite separate issues. You say Peter went there to be martyred and not as a leader of a Church. But if Christ identified him as playing a unique leadership role in the church at all (which can be demonstrated from Scripture, by the way: "Feed my sheep," Christ said to Peter. "And the Lord said, 'Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.'"), then Peter was a “leader of a church” indeed. This is the same Peter whose pen, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit wrote Holy Scripture. This is the same Peter upon whom Christ breathed, saying “Receive the Holy Spirit” in John 20 (which is why I made a reference to the Apostles literally being God-breathed men, which you denied despite the fact that the event is right there recorded in Scripture). My broader point, though, is to say that wherever St. Peter was among the early christians, he was indeed a “leader.” So as far as I’m concerned even if he just ended up in Rome to be martyred (A point I am not ceding, btw), the succession of the Petrine office could have carried on from St. Peter’s place of martyrdom. Afterall, at this point it is quite safe to say that history, tradition, and archeology have all converged on one point that is important to this conversation: The Tomb of St. Peter lies under the Altar at St. Peter’s Basilica. For God proved many things in Christ, one of those things was the fact that circumstances, geography, and the confusion of historical situations couldn’t thwart His will.

It is only tradition that says that he went there as a prisoner to die. And that is the only reason that Peter was in Rome. That alone should shake the confidence of any Catholics trust in the RCC, for it stands on a shaky foundation.

As I said above, you’re clinging to a moot point as far as Christ’s establishment of the Papacy is concerned. The geographical question is, as I said, not something we must look to the Bible to discover. For the Bible never instructs us to consult its pages to settle matters of travel and geography. Again, the fact that any belief is not explicitly presented in the Scriptures is not alone grounds for its denial and that is the fundamental Biblical problem which your Biblicism cannot account for. It is what's patently unBiblical about Biblicism. And tradition is not “the only reason” Peter was believed to be in Rome. A consideration of the political and social power structure of the time itself might provide some basis according to which a leader of a countercultural movement might go there to Rome, to the very heart of the beast, as it were, to provide leadership to the “resistance” movement growing there.

It is not the true "Church."

I realize that you do not believe that Christ’s Church “constituted and organized as a society in this present world subsists in the Catholic Church governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him” (Lumen Gentium).

Secondly, there is no true "Church," for there is no "church" whatsoever.

After all Christ said “Upon this rock I will build my church.” That was a “singular” reference. He also prayed that “they” his followers “may be one.” St. Paul wrote to numerous local churches while exercising his “catholic” authority as an Apostle. The principle of subsidiarity was a work in the Church then as it is now at work in the Church today. Just as this discussion's title is supposed to be a consideration of the Pope as "Vicar of Jesus Christ," and not the Pope as Christ Himself, so it is that according to the Church's divine institution, certain persons may act as representatives, stewards, pastors, etc. And it is those people who'll be held to account for the management of their responsibilities. For all of them are accountable to Christ, the Head of the Church. And among them, it might be said that the Pope will be held most accountable, for he stands as the representative of Christ to the world in some sense and as the Pastor of pastors. St. Paul's letters are themselves a demonstration of this principle for though regionalized, the churches to whom he wrote recognized his “universal” or “catholic” authority. Further, the Church is described in the New Testament as a “body.” All bodies have a principle of unity by which their numerous parts serve on purpose. Further, the image of a bride and a bridegroom are evoked in Scripture to reveal the union between Christ and His Church. And Christ, in the words of Peter Kreeft, is not a polygamist. And when Christ struck Saul of Tarsus down on the road to Damascus, Christ said aloud “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?” Well, we should be careful to recognize the Scriptural principle at work here by which we ought to form our ecclesiology. For even Christ saw Saul’s persecution of Christians as direct persecutions of Him. That is to say that the Catholic Church (singular) derives its unity from its Head, Christ, who had one physical body on Earth and who still has one physical body in Heaven which, as Scripture records here, Christ understands to be persecuted when his followers on Earth are persecuted. And as a husband becomes one with his wife, so Christ is one with His Bride the Church (Ephesians 5). There is, therefore, in just this one chapter of Scripture (Acts 9) a revelation of a principle according to which Bible-believing Christians should come to recognize the unified and singular nature of Christ’s Catholic Church (and according to whose unity we are able to recognize the legitimacy of a local Church’s claim to orthodoxy). This catholic Church is the Church whose organic unity was present there in acorn form in the first century and which has now grown to a large oak. Even local Baptist churches implicitly and practically recognize a universal authority in their recognition of 27 New Testament books. That universal recognition, though, derives from the organic, institutional, conciliar, ecclesial unity therepresent at the First Council of Nicaea (as I mentioned before). Unfortunately for the Biblicist position, though, apart from at the very least an implied appeal to Catholic Tradition, there is no consistent and objective principle by which independent “Bible churches” might come to recognize the books they hold to be Scripture. A friend of a Baptist friend of mine, for example, after attending a Baptist college, came to become skeptical of St. Paul. He now holds to the entire Canon of the New Testament except for anything St. Paul wrote. And this guy is a Baptist who sees himself as being faithful to the Scriptures. Incidentally, he sees himself as more faithful to them than other Baptists who are “clinging to their received traditions.” The thing that I find refreshing about his position (as lamentable as it is) is the fact that he’s at least being consistent. He believes, like you, that the early Church became corrupted very rapidly, so rapidly in fact, that St. Paul’s letters got in the official Canon of Scripture when they shouldn’t have been included. You, on the other hand, seem to believe that an utterly corrupt early pagan Church (Post-Constantine) was perfectly capable of identifying the rightful texts of the New Testament Canon. Whose position is more consistent with its presuppositions, I wonder- yours or his?

 

[DHK]

Part VII

By what consistent and objective principle do you determine those criteria by which you might come to recognize and affirm Christian orthodoxy? How do you determine who is and who is not “apostate”? If your answer has to do with whether or not the group or individual in question agrees with your interpretation of the Bible, there are a few problems we should address:

Those that are orthodox in the faith not only hold "some of the fundamentals of the faith," but to all of them, which include salvation by faith alone, and not of works. That is just a starter but it is the biggest difference. Baptismal regeneration, transubstantion, praying to the saints, indulgences, purgatory, assumption of Mary, perpetual virginity of Mary, immaculate conception, etc. All of these are not only heretical, they have roots in paganism.
Our former governer general of Quebec would pray daily to her grandparents. She was not a Catholic but a Spiritist. The spirits she prayed to were, of course, demons. It is the same in the RCC. It is connected to paganism and is condemned in the Bible. It is called necromancy.

1. [Just how out of agreement with your interpretation of the Bible must a person be in order to be apostate? Was, for example, Martin Luther apostate? John Calvin? For they held to views which do not align with yours

1. 
   Both Luther and Calvin came out of the RCC, and then protested against it, Luther nailing his 95 Theses against the door of All Saints Church in Wittenberg. Calvin also protested against the doctrine "of the Papists." I could quote some of his vitriol written in his commentaries if you like. 1Pet.5:13 is enlightening.
   OTOH, both of these men were persecutors of the Baptists, as was the RCC at the time of the Reformation.
   All three baptized infants. Thus the Anabaptists were a persecuted lot.
   But do remember that Luther was saved by reading the Bible and discovering that great doctrine that the RCC stands against: "justification by faith."
   

   [*]How might you determine whether or not it is you who’s mistaken concerning key doctrines? (Such as the nature and institution of the Sacraments, Ecclesiology, the role and nature of Scripture)

   Almost all evangelicals across so many denominations agree with me. You and your half-sister stand alone. But you don't follow the Bible; you follow tradition, the tradition of men, and history or the ECF. The Bible proves you wrong, and when proven wrong you go back to historical writings and say, "but this man believed..." It is the Bible that is inspired not Augustine, Irenaeus, Eusbeius, etc. We are people "of the Book," and always have been.
   

   [*]Your assessment speaks to the question of authority. For how can one determine what does and what does not constitute “apostasy” without the authority to make such determinations? So by what authority do you make your determinations?

   Apostasy or those who have gone apostate have moved from truth to error. When Christianity allowed paganism into the church around the time of Constantine; when the tradition of man became more important than the doctrine of the Bible; when the very nature of salvation was changed from salvation by grace through faith in Christ to salvation by works; then apostasy had set in, and "the Church" had become apostate, and an organization had emerged which was not Christian at all. It was the RCC.
   

   [*]How do you distinguish between your own personal obedience to Christian authority and your own being the very Christian authority to which you claim obedience? In other words, as it was stated by another former Protestant: “When I submit only when I agree, the one to whom I submit is me.”

   Ask almost any Baptist on this board. We go to Bible believing churches. The RCC is not one of those churches. The church I go to has a statement of faith that is biblical unlike the RCC catechism. I agree to it. I live by it. So do all the members of the church. We are united because we agree in doctrine. This is the union Christ spoke of in John 17 and the union that Paul spoke about in his epistle to the Ephesians. Remember that when he wrote to the Ephesians he was not writing to "The Church," but rather "a church," a local church, the church in Ephesus.
   

   [*]When you read the Christology outlined in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (paragraphs 456-478), how do you reconcile the presence of such a profound articulation of Christian orthodoxy with the claim that the Catholic Church is “pagan”?

   IMO, the RCC knows some things that are correct about Christ. But their mixture of pagan doctrines, some of which I have outlined for you, puts it more in the realm of a cult than an orthodox religion. Even cults have a germ of truth to them. They stray from the truth of the Word of God. They add to it and in doing so add to their own condemnation.

 

[DHK]

You’ve mentioned this before. On one hand, the point is moot. For Christians are nowhere directed by God or the Holy Spirit to consult the Scriptures for the travel itinerary of the Apostles.

Christians are directed to look to the Bible as their basis for all their doctrine, faith, and practice. If the travel of a man affects the doctrine of the church, then yes, it must be considered.

2 Timothy 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, throughly furnished unto all good works.

To look to the Scriptures as a travel itinerary or an encyclopedia of Christian travel history is to demonstrate ipso facto a misunderstanding of the role and nature of Scripture.

Luke was the author of both The Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts. He was a historian. What greater history is there than the history recorded in the inspired Word of God. As quoted these words are inspired, without error. Other history does not have God's stamp of approval.

Further, the question of the time and geography of Christ’s establishment of the Papacy and Peter’s geographical relationship to Rome are quite separate issues. You say Peter went there to be martyred and not as a leader of a Church. But if Christ identified him as playing a unique leadership role in the church at all (which can be demonstrated from Scripture, by the way: "Feed my sheep," Christ said to Peter. "And the Lord said, 'Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.'"), then Peter was a “leader of a church” indeed. This is the same Peter whose pen, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit wrote Holy Scripture. This is the same Peter upon whom Christ breathed, saying “Receive the Holy Spirit” in John 20 (which is why I made a reference to the Apostles literally being God-breathed men, which you denied despite the fact that the event is right there recorded in Scripture). My broader point, though, is to say that wherever St. Peter was among the early christians, he was indeed a “leader.”

When the Bible contradicts Rome's claims concerning Peter and the papacy it is significant. It can't just be written off as you seem to be doing.
Peter did not have such a unique leadership as you suppose. He is barely heard of after Acts chapter 12. There is mention of him in Acts 15, but the decision of that council is left to James, who is the pastor of the church in Jerusalem.
About ten years later we hear of Peter being sharply rebuked by Paul (Gal.1) for leading Jewish believers astray. Paul points his finger straight at Peter and tells him "you are to blame." It was his sin that caused this unnecessary division. It was the same schism that he had already denounced ten years ago in Acts 15. Now he did a reversal. Paul was the leader then, not Peter.
Jesus did not simply breathe on Peter, but on all the apostles.
Peter was not the leader wherever he was. He abandoned Christ at the crucifixion, denied him three times.
It was John that was at the cross, and John that Christ committed the care of his mother, not Peter.

So as far as I’m concerned even if he just ended up in Rome to be martyred (A point I am not ceding, btw), the succession of the Petrine office could have carried on from St. Peter’s place of martyrdom. Afterall, at this point it is quite safe to say that history, tradition, and archeology have all converged on one point that is important to this conversation: The Tomb of St. Peter lies under the Altar at St. Peter’s Basilica. For God proved many things in Christ, one of those things was the fact that circumstances, geography, and the confusion of historical situations couldn’t thwart His will.

All the apostles except for John were martyred. There was no Petrine office. That is a myth that cannot be proven.
In fact it cannot be proven that Peter's bones or tomb are even in Rome. Here is an article you might consider reading:

While visiting a friend in Switzerland, I heard of what seemed to me, one of the greatest discoveries since the time of Christ—that Peter was buried in Jerusalem and not in Rome. The source of this rumor, written in Italian, was not clear; it left considerable room for doubt or rather wonder. Rome was the place where I could investigate the matter, and if such proved encouraging, a trip to Jerusalem might be necessary in order to gather valuable first hand information on the subject. I therefore went to Rome. After talking to many priests and investigating various sources of information, I finally was greatly rewarded by learning where I could buy the only known book on the subject, which was also written in Italian. It is called, "Gli Scavi del Dominus Flevit", printed in 1958 at the Tipografia del PP. Francescani, in Jerusalem. It was written by P. B. Bagatti and J. T. Milik, both Roman Catholic priests. The story of the discovery was there, but it seemed to be purposely hidden for much was lacking. I consequently determined to go to Jerusalem to see for myself, if possible, that which appeared to be almost unbelievable, especially since it came from priests, who naturally because of the existing tradition that Peter was buried in Rome, would be the last ones to welcome such a discovery or to bring it to the attention of the world.
In Jerusalem I spoke to many Franciscan priests who all read, finally, though reluctantly, that the bones of Simon Bar Jona (St. Peter) were found in Jerusalem, on the Franciscan monastery site called, "Dominus Flevit" (where Jesus was supposed to have wept over [pg. 4] Jerusalem), on the Mount of Olives. The pictures show the story. The first show an excavation where the names of Christian Biblical characters were found on the ossuaries (bone boxes). The names of Mary and Martha were found on one box and right next to it was one with the name of Lazarus, their brother. Other names of early Christians were found on other boxes. Of greatest interest, however, was that which was found within twelve feet from the place where the remains of Mary, Martha and Lazarus were found—the remains of St. Peter. They were found in an ossuary, on the outside of which was clearly and beautifully written in Aramaic, "Simon Bar Jona".

http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/peters-jerusalem-tomb.htm[/quote]

 

[DHK]

As I said above, you’re clinging to a moot point as far as Christ’s establishment of the Papacy is concerned. The geographical question is, as I said, not something we must look to the Bible to discover. For the Bible never instructs us to consult its pages to settle matters of travel and geography. Again, the fact that any belief is not explicitly presented in the Scriptures is not alone grounds for its denial and that is the fundamental Biblical problem which your Biblicism cannot account for. It is what's patently unBiblical about Biblicism. And tradition is not “the only reason” Peter was believed to be in Rome. A consideration of the political and social power structure of the time itself might provide some basis according to which a leader of a countercultural movement might go there to Rome, to the very heart of the beast, as it were, to provide leadership to the “resistance” movement growing there.

The Bible has much to say about geography, and even topography. It tells us times and dates. It gives us very accurate instruction concerning such details. We know when the Day of Pentecost was because of the Jewish calendar. In the OT the dates of the reigns of the kings are specifically given. The journeys of Abraham and the Patriarchs are detailed as are the journeys of Paul. We have plenty of maps of the NT era because of Paul, and also because of some of the writings of Peter. They are not to be discarded. Why would you look down on such a valuable source of information?
The Bible is the most instructive book we have in all of these matters.
I gave you a link some time ago to consider:
http://www.equip.org/article/a-defense-of-sola-scriptura/
I wonder if you ever did?
Here Norman Geisler points out some interesting facts concerning "tradition" and sola scriptura:

Sola Scriptura: Tradition and Scripture Are Not Inseparable
Kreeft’s claim that Scripture and apostolic tradition are inseparable is unconvincing. Even his illustration of the horse (Scripture) and the rider (tradition) would suggest that Scripture and apostolic tradition are separable. Further, even if it is granted that tradition is necessary, the Catholic inference that it has to be infallible tradition — indeed, the infallible tradition of the church of Rome — is unfounded. Protestants, who believe in sola Scriptura, accept genuine tradition; they simply do not believe it is infallible. Finally, Kreeft’s argument wrongly assumes that the Bible was produced by the Roman Catholic church. As we will see in the next point, this is not the case.

Sola Scriptura: The Principle of Causality Is Not Violated
Kreeft’s argument that sola Scriptura violates the principle of causality is invalid for one fundamental reason: it is based on a false assumption. He wrongly assumes, unwittingly in contrast to what Vatican II and even Vatican I say about the canon,13 that the church determined the canon. In fact, God determined the canon by inspiring these books and no others. The church merely discovered which books God had determined (inspired) to be in the canon. This being the case, Kreeft’s argument that the cause must be equal to its effect (or greater) fails.

I realize that you do not believe that Christ’s Church “constituted and organized as a society in this present world subsists in the Catholic Church governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him” (Lumen Gentium).

If we demonstrate that it was impossible for Peter to have ever have been in Rome, then how could the RCC have succeeded from Peter. That destroys your belief. Even the scripture you present can be shown to be in error, that is interpreted wrongly. That is a common practice--to hold on to scripture that is wrongly interpreted for the sake of a pre-conceived idea.

After all Christ said “Upon this rock I will build my church.” That was a “singular” reference.

Let's look:
Matthew 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
--Verse 16 is Peter's testimony. Verse 17 is Christ's praise and affirmation that what he spoke was not of the flesh. Verse 18 is a play on words.

Verse 18:
Matthew 16:18 καγω δε σοι λεγω οτι συ ει πετρος και επι ταυτη τη πετρα οικοδομησω μου την εκκλησιαν και πυλαι αδου ου κατισχυσουσιν αυτης
--He calls Peter "petros" meaning "little rock" or stone.
--Then He refers to "this rock "petra" which means a massive rock, referring to Himself, as Peter described Him in verse 16. Christ is the Rock, and always has been. He is referred to the Rock throughout the Scriptures, not Peter. (1Cor.10:4; Rom.9:33; 1Pet.2:8)
The last reference was written by Peter himself and refers to Christ as a rock. Why would he contradict the Lord's words?

He also prayed that “they” his followers “may be one.”

Those are true disciples of Christ, not Roman Catholics; the ones who have departed from the faith. Do you really know the history of your own church?
Here is a small part of it:
http://www.hindujagruti.org/hindu-issues/hatkatro-khaamb/francis-xavier

 

[DHK]

St. Paul wrote to numerous local churches while exercising his “catholic” authority as an Apostle. The principle of subsidiarity was a work in the Church then as it is now at work in the Church today.

Paul established churches, not "The Church." When he wrote about unity in the Epistle to the Ephesians he was writing about unity in that church.

Just as this discussion's title is supposed to be a consideration of the Pope as "Vicar of Jesus Christ," and not the Pope as Christ Himself, so it is that according to the Church's divine institution, certain persons may act as representatives, stewards, pastors, etc. And it is those people who'll be held to account for the management of their responsibilities. For all of them are accountable to Christ, the Head of the Church.

Each pastor is the head of his local church, and thus accountable to Christ. There is no position of "Pope" in the Bible. The position in and of itself is a sign of apostasy.

And among them, it might be said that the Pope will be held most accountable, for he stands as the representative of Christ to the world in some sense and as the Pastor of pastors.

But he is not. He is a sinful man, no more holy than any other man.

St. Paul's letters are themselves a demonstration of this principle for though regionalized, the churches to whom he wrote recognized his “universal” or “catholic” authority.

They recognized Paul as an apostle. He had apostolic authority granted him directly from God. It was not "papal". After John died apostolic authority died, for he died at the end of the first century and by that time the canon of scripture was complete. Apostolic authority was no longer needed.

Further, the Church is described in the New Testament as a “body.” All bodies have a principle of unity by which their numerous parts serve on purpose.

That description is given in full in 1Cor. 12. Now consider these two verses to give you the context:
1 Corinthians 12:26 And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it.
27 Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.
--If one member suffers then all the members suffer with it.

In our church there is a member suffering with cancer. We all pray for her. We all know each other's burdens. The chapter speaks of a local church, not a universal church, not something like the RCC. It cannot. How can someone in Africa, Europe, Asia, etc., no about the sufferings of the member of our church suffering. They can't and don't. The entire analogy is about a local church and has nothing to do with the RCC.

Further, the image of a bride and a bridegroom are evoked in Scripture to reveal the union between Christ and His Church.

The bride consists of all born again believers. But the RCC doesn't know the meaning of "born again." They have redefined it. How can they even consider being a part of the bride?

And Christ, in the words of Peter Kreeft, is not a polygamist.

Who said he was? Kreeft is one confused person.

And when Christ struck Saul of Tarsus down on the road to Damascus, Christ said aloud “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?” Well, we should be careful to recognize the Scriptural principle at work here by which we ought to form our ecclesiology. For even Christ saw Saul’s persecution of Christians as direct persecutions of Him. That is to say that the Catholic Church (singular) derives its unity from its Head, Christ, who had one physical body on Earth and who still has one physical body in Heaven which, as Scripture records here, Christ understands to be persecuted when his followers on Earth are persecuted.

--"You do err not knowing the Scriptures neither the power of God."

When Paul said "he persecuted "the church of God," at the time of his conversion there was only one church, that is the local church of Jerusalem. There wasn't any other church, and that is the church he was referring to. The RCC was not in existence yet, and you would be foolish to claim that it was.

And as a husband becomes one with his wife, so Christ is one with His Bride the Church (Ephesians 5). There is, therefore, in just this one chapter of Scripture (Acts 9) a revelation of a principle according to which Bible-believing Christians should come to recognize the unified and singular nature of Christ’s Catholic Church (and according to whose unity we are able to recognize the legitimacy of a local Church’s claim to orthodoxy).

--He was writing to the church at Ephesus.
--The RCC was not in Ephesus.
--The RCC is not a church according to the Biblical definition of a church. It is a monstrosity of an organization, more like a business than a church.

This catholic Church is the Church whose organic unity was present there in acorn form in the first century and which has now grown to a large oak.

Its practices were condemned by Christ from the very beginning. In history it was not found until the time of Constantine. It was "Christianity paganized."

However Christ said:
Matthew 15:7 Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying,
8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.
9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

--Read the entire passage beginning with verse one. But as Christ said the RCC substitutes doctrines or the Bible, and teaches in its place "the commandments or traditions of men." It is apostate.

Even local Baptist churches implicitly and practically recognize a universal authority in their recognition of 27 New Testament books. That universal recognition, though, derives from the organic, institutional, conciliar, ecclesial unity therepresent at the First Council of Nicaea (as I mentioned before).

This is wrong. The "Church" did not determine the Canon; God gave the Canon of Scripture to the church, which in turn the church recognized. God is always in control.

Unfortunately for the Biblicist position, though, apart from at the very least an implied appeal to Catholic Tradition, there is no consistent and objective principle by which independent “Bible churches” might come to recognize the books they hold to be Scripture. A friend of a Baptist friend of mine, for example, after attending a Baptist college, came to become skeptical of St. Paul. He now holds to the entire Canon of the New Testament except for anything St. Paul wrote. And this guy is a Baptist who sees himself as being faithful to the Scriptures. Incidentally, he sees himself as more faithful to them than other Baptists who are “clinging to their received traditions.” The thing that I find refreshing about his position (as lamentable as it is) is the fact that he’s at least being consistent. He believes, like you, that the early Church became corrupted very rapidly, so rapidly in fact, that St. Paul’s letters got in the official Canon of Scripture when they shouldn’t have been included. You, on the other hand, seem to believe that an utterly corrupt early pagan Church (Post-Constantine) was perfectly capable of identifying the rightful texts of the New Testament Canon. Whose position is more consistent with its presuppositions, I wonder- yours or his?

First, anecdotal experiences don't count for much in my books.

Second, this utterly corrupt organization did not give us the Bible; God did.

 

[herbert]

DHK,

I am reading your responses. As I said, I won't be getting to all of this new material right away. But I will in time. For now, I'd say that you're almost constantly begging the question or tearing down straw men. All the while you're ascribing to Scripture things it doesn't claim for itself. You're also basically hand-waving over centuries of complex history with little to no attention to actual historical detail. Nearly everything you say presupposes the very thing in question between us.

As for this particular set of responses to you, this is the second to the last. After the IXth one, I'll be able to go back and address that list from earlier and then begin circling back around. Thanks for sticking with me here, DHK!

Part VIII

You need to study ecclesiology.

I don’t believe that a failure to study ecclesiology accounts for our difference in perspective. In my view, it’s the paradigm from within which we approach these topics that we come to reach our respective conclusions concerning the nature and role of Christ’s Church. I realize we don't agree. So rather than telling me that I need to study ecclesiology, it may be more helpful to share with me the foundation upon which you’ve built your preferred ecclesiology.

word translated "church" is ekklesia, a Greek word meaning "assembly," and can only be translated assembly or congregation. Christ never established a universal or invisible church. He only established "churches." The "First Baptist Church at Jerusalem," was a local church. The church in Samaria was a local church. The church at Antioch was a local church. They had no connection with one another. Paul established over 100 churches on three different missionary journeys, all independent one of another. There is no "Church" spoken of in the Bible, only churches, as the word ekklesia means.

You say that the early local churches “had no connection with one another.” To me, this contradicts Scripture and the otherwise valid early Christian witness on a number of points (some of which I mentioned above):

1. Christ “connects” the churches He established. By virtue of their common Founder, they do indeed share a special and supernatural connection.
2. The Apostles’ teaching “connects” the churches.
3. The churches are "connected" in Baptism (St. Paul says there is one Lord, one faith, one Baptism).
4. The churches comprise the Body of Christ, which is unified with its Head
5. The Bible speaks of the manifold wisdom of God being made known through the Church, not local churches. Surely, this requires a "connection" of some kind to exist amongst these local assemblies. For the church’s job description there in Ephesians 3:10 couldn’t be applied to any single, local congregation or assembly.
6. The principles of ecclesial unity outlined in the New Testament transcend local geography and bring about that supernatural unity through which Catholics, though they are many, share in one loaf.
7. The Apostles’ Creed professes belief in “the holy catholic church.”
8. Christ prayed for our unity in John 17. Why would Christ pray for an absurdity or an impossibility? He prayed for a unity which would be witnessed by the unbelieving world and would thereby attest to His identity. Why would He pray for a thing which was nonsensical? He wouldn't. And that's why your ecclesiology needs to be made to conform to Scripture, and not the other way around.

After Judas died, he was replaced by Matthias in Acts chapter one. After that there were no successors to the apostolic office. Revelation 21 speaks of the 12 walls of the New Jerusalem with the names of the 12 apostles written on the foundations. Often the apostles are simply referred to as "The Twelve." Paul refers to himself as "one born out of due time." He alone was accepted as an apostle by "The Twelve" for he met all the qualifications: Acts 1:22 Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection. --He had to be a witness of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. The leaders of the RCC are not.

You say "After that (The appointment of Matthias) there were no successors to the apostolic office." Please show me a Bible verse which presents that idea. And bear in mind the fact that I am not saying that the Bishops of the Catholic Church are themselves “Apostles.” I am saying, instead, that they exercise a certain stewardly role as "successors to" the Apostles. They sit in the seats of the Apostles. The Church is then "apostolic" in its ministry and in its continuation of the Apostles’ work according to the guidance of the Holy Spirit. So I agree with what you say about the uniqueness of the number 12 here and about St. Paul’s unique apostolic identity. Where we part ways, though, would, it seems, be in our understanding of the furtherance of those apostolic offices held by the original Apostles. For where you seem to see those seats as transitional symbols of authority whose role was overtaken by Scripture (Which is really an anachronistic notion which is nowhere presented in Scripture, by the way), I have come to accept the Church’s teaching that the sacramental maintenance of apostolic ministry continued on past the times of the Apostles and is still binding today when it comes to matters of faith and morals.

Christ never changes.

Christ, in His divinity, never changes. That is sound Catholic teaching. Christ, in his Body, however, did. He was formed in the womb of His Mother, Mary. He was raised by Mary and His stepfather, Joseph, also. He grew into adulthood. So Christ provides for us a certain picture of the development of all life on Earth, even a life which is divine. Here on Earth, through the Incarnation we see that divinity itself is subject to a certain change not through nature and being, but through development. Similarly, the Church grows and develops in its self-understanding according to the caretaking of the Holy Spirit while not changing in its established nature.

The Bible never changes.

But “the Bible” does change. It’s closed now. But at one time, not all of its contents were yet recorded, much less collected in one volume of documents. It came into being in and through time. God's Word is presented to us through Scripture. But just as Christ subjected Himself to need, thirst, etc. through Scripture, God's Word carries with it all of the idiosyncracies of human language, of linguistic convention, of cultural nuance. So it is that as the Holy Spirit revealed Christ's identity to St. Peter, the Holy Spirit holds the Key to the unlocking of Scripture. At the time of Christ’s birth, your Bible didn’t yet exist as it currently sits upon your shelf. And you rightly trust that the Holy Spirit worked within the early Church, which was Catholic, and which was indeed connected (which, again, allowed St. Paul, for example, to exercise a certain catholic authority in the Christian communities he traveled amongst). You have also expressed the idea that the Holy Spirit worked through the Apostles, yet, apparently you deny the possibility that the same Holy Spirit may still be at work maintaining the fundamental integrity of that New Testament-era Church to this very day. Why? By what Biblical principle of rupture do you come to such a position? Is there something in the New Testament itself which presents the notion of some great Apostasy? If so, where is this key passage? And how have you come to know that you’ve rightly interpreted it and applied it in such a way as to determine that the Catholic Church is pagan and apostate? There are indeed many historical and philosophical leaps between bald Scripture and the conclusions to which you cling.

In Him, Herbert

 

[herbert]

Part IX, the last one of this "set" of responses! I'll now get back to those matters and come back around to respond to the Geisler material, etc.

The RCC changes always.

You’ve said this before. And I agree that certain things change through development (as Christ changed from Babe to Man). But such is a far cry from the change of which you speak. You are suggesting that the Church changes in its nature, essence, teaching, etc. If you could please provide one instance of such change, we could begin evaluating your position. As for the question of the Pope’s recent remarks about Zika virus, which you previously presented as a demonstration of such change, I was very pleased that you have come to the point of granting the benefit of the doubt to things as I’ve presented them. As I said, his remarks are confusing and, on the surface, seem to present ideas and practices which do indeed contradict settled moral teaching. Again, though, since the Church’s Magisterium doesn’t exercise its stewardly authority through ideas taken from off-the-cuff papal interviews, even if the Pope’s remarks were expressed in direct contradiction to the teaching of the ordinary (and extraordinary, for that matter) Magisterium, they’d present a problem, yes. But they wouldn’t present a demonstration of the change of which you speak.

My faith in the Bible and its promises remain sure and steadfast.

I share in that confidence that the promises contained in the Bible shall forever remain true. But those promises weren’t made by the Bible. Those promises were made by God and are relayed to us through Sacred Scripture. So it is that I don’t, properly speaking, have faith in the Bible. I have faith in Christ. From that faith do I derive my trust in the Bible’s truths.

You hold to the Bible and say I’m mistaken. I hold to the Bible and say you’re mistaken. It’s what we perceive of as each other’s misinterpretations of the Bible that are in question here, then, not the Bible's status. We hold to the same New Testament. However, we don’t recognize the same New Testament Church, nor do we even agree on what her qualities, characteristics, and essential components are. The Catholic, though, says that our Church affiliation should be in harmony with our assurance in Christ. As should our trust in Scripture. So Scripture, Christ, and Christ’s Church should be as one continuous fabric to the Christian.

Again the RCC doesn't even know the meaning of what it is to be born again, the most important essential of entering into the kingdom of God. Pitiful!

When you say things like this, the way I read them sounds something more like this: “Again the RCC doesn’t agree with my understanding of what it means to be born again, the most important essential of entering into the kingdom of God. Pitiful!” Do you see how where you see "Scripture," I see "Scripture + DHK's interpretion"?

You are suggesting that using contraceptives is immoral. But when the Pope suggests it for a similar reason it is not immoral. Look at your duplicity. This is arrogance and hypocrisy on your part. And that is why I say that either it is a change of doctrine or the Pope going against established doctrine: Which one?

I know we’ve made some headway on this point. But for the record, I stand with the Church’s teaching. That means that, yes, I affirm that, in every case, when a person seeks to deliberately frustrate or disregard one natural and essential element of the conjugal love, such an act is objectively immoral. Fulton Sheen expressed it well when he said the following: “The root principle of birth-control is unsound. It is a glorification of the means and a contempt of the end; it says that the pleasure which is a means to the procreation of children is good, but the children themselves are no good. In other words, to be logical, the philosophy of birth-control would commit us to a world in which trees were always blooming but never giving fruit, a world full of sign-posts that were leading nowhere. In this cosmos every tree would be a barren fig tree and for that reason would have upon it the curse of God.” Further, our previous discussion of Onan and the Biblical text associated with his situation would, on its face, affirm the position of the Church, not your more narrow interpretation of the text. Though you attribute Onan’s death strictly to his disobedience, the passage more broadly indicates that Onan was both disobedient and immoral. That he was struck down for his two-fold offense. For there is nothing in the text which would indicate that his act was not inherently immoral. Indeed, the sin of Onan is, on very basic and rational grounds, is exploitative and unnatural. For as Archbishop Sheen said above, his act represents an “unsound root principle.” He is acting in violation of the very nature of his flesh and frustrating that natural order which God put into place, and doing so for his own selfish ends.

Polygamy has always been condemned and is out-rightly condemned by the Bible. This is a no brainier.

You say that it’s a no brainer. Tell that to the Anabaptist John of Leiden. Even Martin Luther, in cases of serious necessity, allowed (on Biblical grounds) for polygamy- though he saw monogamy as the normal state of matrimony. The issue, however you examine it, from a non-Catholic perspective, is anything but a no brainer.

What is according to the "Church " is irrelevant; what is done according to the Bible is what is important. The "Church" does not have the teaching of Christ. The RCC has a catechism which teaches people how to go to hell. They don't know the meaning of what it is to be born again. The RCC is not the pillar and ground of the truth. They hardly know what the truth is.

How is it that the Jesus Christ can say “...And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.” And you come to the conclusion that “What is according to the ‘Church’ is irrelevant”? For such a position isn’t just inconsistent with Catholic ecclesiology, it’s even inconsistent with your own Biblicism. For however you define “Church,” whether as a Baptist might or as a Catholic does, according to Christ Jesus, it is there, in the Church, where a special authority is found.

In Him, Herbert

 

[DHK]

DHK,

I am reading your responses. As I said, I won't be getting to all of this new material right away. But I will in time. For now, I'd say that you're almost constantly begging the question or tearing down straw men. All the while you're ascribing to Scripture things it doesn't claim for itself. You're also basically hand-waving over centuries of complex history with little to no attention to actual historical detail. Nearly everything you say presupposes the very thing in question between us.

I do pay attention to historical detail, and present it as it is recorded in the Bible and as it agrees with the Bible. But when revised history disagrees or tradition disagrees with the Bible how can I agree with something that contradicts the inspired words of God.
Our differences lie in our basis of authority.
You measure things according to the RCC Catechism.
I measure things according the inspired scriptures.

As for this particular set of responses to you, this is the second to the last. After the IXth one, I'll be able to go back and address that list from earlier and then begin circling back around. Thanks for sticking with me here, DHK!

My pleasure.

Part VIII
I don’t believe that a failure to study ecclesiology accounts for our difference in perspective. In my view, it’s the paradigm from within which we approach these topics that we come to reach our respective conclusions concerning the nature and role of Christ’s Church. I realize we don't agree. So rather than telling me that I need to study ecclesiology, it may be more helpful to share with me the foundation upon which you’ve built your preferred ecclesiology.

You say that the early local churches “had no connection with one another.” To me, this contradicts Scripture and the otherwise valid early Christian witness on a number of points (some of which I mentioned above):

Perhaps I should have been a bit more clear. Let me restate my position. Of course they had some connection with each other. They even shared each others letters. For example:

Colossians 4:16 And when this epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and that ye likewise read the epistle from Laodicea.

At the close of every epistle he gives his greetings, not only from himself but from others and also to those that he knows. It is worth noting the absence of Peter in the epistle written to the believers in Rome.
Romans 16:3 Greet Priscilla and Aquila my helpers in Christ Jesus:
4 Who have for my life laid down their own necks: unto whom not only I give thanks, but also all the churches of the Gentiles.
5 Likewise greet the church that is in their house. Salute my wellbeloved Epaenetus, who is the firstfruits of Achaia unto Christ.
--This entire chapter is filled with such greetings. Many believe that the church in Rome started in the house of Priscilla and Aquilla, as Paul greets the "church that is in their house." He knew Aquilla and Priscilla from their work in Ephesus (Acts 18). But Paul himself had never been there at the time of the writing of this epistle.

What I meant is that there were no connection between any of the churches in any official denominational or organizational manner. No church was above another. They had no organizational ties whatsoever.
His epistles were copied and read in different churches even as he commanded them to do.

1. Christ “connects” the churches He established. By virtue of their common Founder, they do indeed share a special and supernatural connection.

There is nothing supernatural about their connection. Their common denominator is Paul, the Apostle. He either started the church or cared for them in some way. God gave this apostle "care of all the churches," as he testified.

1. The Apostles’ teaching “connects” the churches.

2. Paul's teaching is applicable to every local church in every age all over the earth, not just in the first century. It is not denominational, but transcends all denominations.

3. The churches are "connected" in Baptism (St. Paul says there is one Lord, one faith, one Baptism).

4. The baptism he is speaking of is baptism of believers only upon confession of their faith by immerssion. It is one kind of baptism. Thus it eliminates what the RCC believes on baptism. You might take note that the Greek word "baptidzo" means "to immerse" literally. There is no example of an infant in the Bible being baptized, not even once.

5. The churches comprise the Body of Christ, which is unified with its Head

6. Your preconceived idea has clouded your interpretation. I have already given you an example of how 1Cor.12 should be interpreted. It can only refer to a local church Each local church has many members, and those members make up one body. It is the local church which is a body with Christ at the head of that local church. The Bible is the foundation and Christ is the head of every local church. There is no room for a great organization like the RCC here.

7. The Bible speaks of the manifold wisdom of God being made known through the Church, not local churches. Surely, this requires a "connection" of some kind to exist amongst these local assemblies. For the church’s job description there in Ephesians 3:10 couldn’t be applied to any single, local congregation or assembly.

8. Wrong! It was applicable only to the church at Ephesus. Let's look at it in its context:

Eph 3:8 Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ;
Eph 3:9 And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:
Eph 3:10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,
Eph 3:11 According to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord:
--Paul starts of saying "unto me," that is Paul was given a privilege and responsibility to "preach among the Gentiles...the riches of Christ." He is speaking to the believers in Ephesus, explaining these things to them.
In verse 9 he refers again to a mystery, that is something that was previously hidden but now has been revealed. In fact that is what he says in the same verse. What was this mystery?
He had already explained it a little earlier in verse 6:
Ephesians 3:6 That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:
--Today both Jews and Gentiles are fellow heirs and partakers of His promise in Christ by the Gospel. IOW both Jewish believers and Gentile believers are now one in Christ. The Jews would never have thought this possible before this time. There was still some division in the church; some mistrust between the two: Gentiles and Jews. Paul is writing to bring both groups together. This is the reality, a historical situation that existed in that church. I don't think that in the church you go to or in the church I attend we have a problem with Jewish believers getting along with Gentile believers. This was the problem being addressed here in this specific church.

1. The principles of ecclesial unity outlined in the New Testament transcend local geography and bring about that supernatural unity through which Catholics, though they are many, share in one loaf.

2. No it doesn't. Paul addressed specific churches, each having its own unique problems. For example, only the church at Corinth had a problem with spiritual gifts and abused the gift of tongues. We believe those gifts have ceased with the completion of the canon of Scripture.
3. Philemon was written to address the problem of a runaway slave. Do you have that problem?

4. The Apostles’ Creed professes belief in “the holy catholic church.”

5. The "Apostles' Creed" wasn't written by the Apostles!

6. Christ prayed for our unity in John 17. Why would Christ pray for an absurdity or an impossibility? He prayed for a unity which would be witnessed by the unbelieving world and would thereby attest to His identity. Why would He pray for a thing which was nonsensical? He wouldn't. And that's why your ecclesiology needs to be made to conform to Scripture, and not the other way around.

7. My ecclesiology speaks of believers in Christ, also called saints in Christ, those who have come to an age where they have understood the gospel and trusted Christ as their Savior, and then have been biblically baptized after that. These ones who voluntarily associate themselves together in order to carry out the Great Commission of Christ and observe His two ordinances (baptism and the Lord's Supper). These regenerated baptized members make up our local churches which have existed throughout ages outside of the RCC and have exhibited in their lives the life of Christ.
8. Whereas the RCC has propagated their faith through the sword, by murder, by persecution, by keeping the masses of people in the dark, illiterate, keeping the Bible away from them.
9. It is said that Xavier converted more to the RCC than any other, but when you read the actual history he was no better than a member of ISIS. It was "convert or be killed." They had no choice. They were "forced baptisms." Those were his "converts" in Goa, India. I gave you a link to read in a previous post. I hope you read it.
10. The same with other crusades and inquisitions. Convert or die. That is not Christianity. And that is why your "ecclesiology is absurdly wrong.

 

[utilyan]

That's interesting. Starting when? Since 33AD?

I'm going read into history how the Early Church Fathers mention these cannibalistic heretics known as the Catholics who sprung up with a anti-sola scriptura heresy right?

Show us that first historic encounter.

 

[DHK]

You say "After that (The appointment of Matthias) there were no successors to the apostolic office." Please show me a Bible verse which presents that idea. And bear in mind the fact that I am not saying that the Bishops of the Catholic Church are themselves “Apostles.” I am saying, instead, that they exercise a certain stewardly role as "successors to" the Apostles. They sit in the seats of the Apostles. The Church is then "apostolic" in its ministry and in its continuation of the Apostles’ work according to the guidance of the Holy Spirit. So I agree with what you say about the uniqueness of the number 12 here and about St. Paul’s unique apostolic identity. Where we part ways, though, would, it seems, be in our understanding of the furtherance of those apostolic offices held by the original Apostles. For where you seem to see those seats as transitional symbols of authority whose role was overtaken by Scripture (Which is really an anachronistic notion which is nowhere presented in Scripture, by the way), I have come to accept the Church’s teaching that the sacramental maintenance of apostolic ministry continued on past the times of the Apostles and is still binding today when it comes to matters of faith and morals.

Peter sets forth the qualifications of an apostle in Acts 1:15-26. The most important qualification that is stated is that he be an eyewitness of the resurrection of Christ.
Acts 1:21 Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,
22 Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.
--Today there are no witnesses of his resurrection, and there haven't been for the last 2,000 years or more, thus no apostolic succession. This is the most important and basic reason.

Added to that, what makes you right and others wrong? There are many others who claim the same thing. Encyclopedia Britannica says:

The Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Old Catholic, Swedish Lutheran, and Anglican churches accept the doctrine of apostolic succession and believe that the only valid ministry is based on bishops whose office has descended from the Apostles. This does not mean, however, that each of these groups necessarily accepts the ministries of the other groups as valid.

http://www.britannica.com/topic/apostolic-succession
--What makes your claim any more valid than the Swedish Lutheran? I am sure they have done their homework as well. The fact is that anyone claiming succession to the apostles is claiming something they cannot prove. The RCC's claim to succession is ludicrous. How was Francis chosen? He is not a successor, but he was elected. That is not apostolic succession. That is chosen among a group of men and then going through a process of selection. There is no "apostolic succession" here at all. How does he establish any link with the Apostles?
Apostolic succession needs to be established directly through history as: Peter appointed...who appointed...who appointed...who appointed...who appointed...all the way through to the present time. That has never been done. Peter never appointed anyone to take "his place." He didn't have a place except that of martyrdom. Tradition says he was crucified upside down. Are the Catholics that want to take his place there, in his martyrdom? There is no evidence of Peter being either Pope or bishop; zada, zero, none. The RCC claim to apostolic succession fails.

There is another type of succession that goes by doctrine. I (and some others) call it "spiritual kinship theory."--That in every age since the apostles there have been congregations of believers that have believed what the apostles have taught in doctrine and Baptist, and thus are very much like independent Baptists today.

Again the Encyclopedia Britannica says:

A number of Christian churches believe that the apostolic succession and church government based on bishops are unnecessary for a valid ministry. They argue that the New Testament gives no clear direction concerning the ministry, that various types of ministers existed in the early church, that the apostolic succession cannot be established historically, and that true succession is spiritual and doctrinal rather than ritualistic.

--They are correct in this last statement. And that is why we hold to sola scriptura. Our doctrine is the same as the apostles doctrine. It is measured against what they taught. Our church is a NT church. It is not a monstrosity of an organization which knew no such existence in the first century.

Matthias fulfilled the office left vacant by Judas. He was the twelfth Apostle. It was fulfilled according to prophecy. Except for Paul's appointment, there were no others. The apostolic office ceased. We now have the apostolic writings in their place, that is the completed scriptures.

When the apostles and prophets approached their deaths they did not give successors to take their places. Instead, they left their inspired writings. Peter said, "Moreover I will endeavor that even after my death you may often have occasion to call these things to mind." (2 Pet. 1:15). This would have been an excellent opportunity for Peter to tell us that he was leaving a successor through which we could recall the things of Christ, if indeed that was the truth regarding it. However, he said "This, beloved, is now the second epistle that I am writing to you wherein I stir up your pure mind to remembrance, that you may be mindful of what I formerly preached of the words of the holy prophets and of your apostles, which are the precepts of the Lord and Savior." (2 Pet. 3:1-2). Thus, Peter plainly declared that the things of Christ would be recalled through his writings. The inspired writings, therefore, are the only infallible succession that we have from the apostles and prophets.

The apostle Paul also demonstrated this fact. He said, "For I am already on the point of being sacrificed; the time of my departure has come." (2 Tim. 4:6; Catholic Edition RSV). Again, this would have been a wonderful opportunity for an apostle to teach that unerring guidance was to be handed down through their successors. He was writing to the young man Timothy who had received his spiritual guidance from him. Surely, if successors were to be ordained, he would have mentioned it to him so that he would know where to obtain unerring guidance. Or, if perhaps he had made Timothy his successor, surely he would have instructed him regarding it in order that he and others would know about it. However, there is no hint whatsoever of successors as this apostle approaches death. On the contrary, he points Timothy, as well as all men, to the sacred writings which the inspired men left us:

"For from thy infancy thou hast known the Sacred Writings, which are able to instruct thee unto salvation by the faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is inspired by God and useful for teaching, for reproving, for correcting, for instructing in justice; that the man of God may be perfect, equipped for every good work." (2 Tim. 3:15-17). Taken from:
http://www.bible.ca/cath-apostolic-succession.htm

 

[DHK]

Christ, in His divinity, never changes. That is sound Catholic teaching. Christ, in his Body, however, did. He was formed in the womb of His Mother, Mary. He was raised by Mary and His stepfather, Joseph, also. He grew into adulthood. So Christ provides for us a certain picture of the development of all life on Earth, even a life which is divine. Here on Earth, through the Incarnation we see that divinity itself is subject to a certain change not through nature and being, but through development. Similarly, the Church grows and develops in its self-understanding according to the caretaking of the Holy Spirit while not changing in its established nature.

When Christ became a man he never gave up his deity. He was, is and always will be God.
In this he never changes. He never changes in his promises. He never changes in his doctrine. He never changes in his faithfulness.
Hebrews 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.

But “the Bible” does change. It’s closed now. But at one time, not all of its contents were yet recorded, much less collected in one volume of documents. It came into being in and through time. God's Word is presented to us through Scripture. But just as Christ subjected Himself to need, thirst, etc. through Scripture, God's Word carries with it all of the idiosyncracies of human language, of linguistic convention, of cultural nuance. So it is that as the Holy Spirit revealed Christ's identity to St. Peter, the Holy Spirit holds the Key to the unlocking of Scripture.

The Bible did not have "idiosyncrasies." It was inspired of God and completed in ca. 98 A.D. The Apostles knew which books were inspired. The early believers knew which books were inspired. Paul warned that false teachers would come afterward, as did the other Apostles. That doesn't take away from the completed canon of Scripture.

At the time of Christ’s birth, your Bible didn’t yet exist as it currently sits upon your shelf. And you rightly trust that the Holy Spirit worked within the early Church, which was Catholic, and which was indeed connected (which, again, allowed St. Paul, for example, to exercise a certain catholic authority in the Christian communities he traveled amongst). You have also expressed the idea that the Holy Spirit worked through the Apostles, yet, apparently you deny the possibility that the same Holy Spirit may still be at work maintaining the fundamental integrity of that New Testament-era Church to this very day. Why? By what Biblical principle of rupture do you come to such a position? Is there something in the New Testament itself which presents the notion of some great Apostasy? If so, where is this key passage? And how have you come to know that you’ve rightly interpreted it and applied it in such a way as to determine that the Catholic Church is pagan and apostate? There are indeed many historical and philosophical leaps between bald Scripture and the conclusions to which you cling.

My statement referred to the Bible as we have it today. I know how the OT came to be and how the NT came to be. God gave us His Word. Further councils only recognized what God had already given us. The "Church" never gave us the Word at all. It was given by God.

I believe you mean "rapture". This is another discussion completely on the topic of eschatology.
Starting with 1Thes.4:15-18, I could lay out for you an entire defense for the doctrine and outlined for things to come, which would include "a Great Apostasy." For even Jesus said: "When I come will I find faith on the earth?"

 

[BobRyan]

hello Herbert -

Again I thank you for your kind response. Here is another point where I think you would have fully agreed with me when you were a Baptist. --

As a Baptist - - you would have rejected belief in the following --

1. Purgatory
2. Indulgences
3. Communion "with the Dead"
4. Mariolotry
5. Priests with the magic powers to "confect the body soul and divinity" of Christ -- Powers retained even if the priest is excommunicated.
6. Infant baptism
7. Authority to edit/change the Commandments of God.
8. Lateran IV - "Extermination" of heretics and Jews.
9. Doctrine of Discovery
10. Infallibility claimed for certain Papal statements and laws of ecumenical councils.
11. Pope as head of all Christian denominations.

About the only thing that church did right as a denomination after their failed attempt at sustaining the dark ages - was that in the 18th century they forever "extinguished" the Jesuit order according to Pope Clement XIV

Hello again BobRyan-

I did believe in the Bible and the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. As far as general knowledge goes, I did believe that history and science were beneficial to the pursuit of truth and knowledge. But as far as matters related to the faith went I'd say my faith boiled down to Justification by Faith Alone, Penal Substitutionary Atonement and Sola Scriptura.
I did not believe in Purgatory, Indulgences, Infant Baptism, Papal Infallibility, or that the Pope in Rome was somehow some Head Pastor of all Christians.

Then perhaps you can identify to some extent with the fact that this is where most of us stand today.

As for the other points you presented, I would say they are a blend of mischaracterizations, points of confusion, and misrepresentations of historical context. If you'd like to explore the Canons of Lateran IV, the dynamics within the Medieval authority structures (and how they were changing quite abruptly at the time),

Indeed - are ecumenical council - laws - infallible or not? If they are simply flawed best-effort statement of the time subject to being horribly flawed to the point of crimes against humanity ( in the case of extermination of Jews and heretics in Lateran IV) - then we may have some common ground in how we view them even on that point.

how the Church understood its relationship to the many indigenous peoples around the world at the end of the 15th Century and what that has to do with the Doctrine of Discovery, and the other topics, as I said, I am happy to do so.

Indeed - if the command to murder those people that Catholic explorers found - who would not convert to catholicism is simply another example of crimes against humanity - blunders and mistakes of the dark ages -- and nothing at all of the "infallible" sort -- then there again we may have common ground in how we view it.

But at this point, there are indeed many things to discuss. And the fundamental linchpin doctrine upon which, it seems, you and DHK latch everything else you hold dear, is the mistaken and ironically unBiblical notion of Sola Scriptura.

It is one thing to 'claim' that sola scriptura is "unbiblical" it is quite another thing to SHOW that Isaiah 8:20, and Acts 17:11, and Gal 1:6-9,, and Mark 7:6-13 are "unbiblical"

And of course - I have no objection to focusing on that one point for this thread.

(But the thread title does not limit itself to just that one discussion). Still you may agree with me that if the sola scriptura teaching holds up - then Catholicism does not. In which case the broader subject "Vicar of Christ" may indeed be addressed - on one focused discussion point and would be seen to stand or fall.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

like DHK, you've mistaken your interpretations of Scripture for Scripture itself. It is, then, by your interpretations of Scripture that you dismiss others, and not by Scripture itself. You've also adopted an anachronistic reading of history which suits your philosophically Biblicist outlook.

Herbert - thank you for your kind response.

I think you and I would both agree that a response such as that - is precisely how the Jewish magisterium would have loved to respond to Christ - as they were condemned by Christ's sola-scriptura argument in Mark 7:6-13.

They could have said - as you have "well that is your opinion of what the Bible says -- and we have our own opinion of it". But the text of Matt 22 says that when Christ hammered the established church magisterium "sola scriptura" even some of the opposition admitted 'he had put them to silence'

David Anders, an adult convert to the Catholic Faith recently wrote the following. I think it applies to everything you shared above:

"The Protestant doctrine of sola Scriptura is not an article of faith in the Christian religion because it has not been revealed by divine authority.

Which only works for those who do not consider the Bible a "divine authority" in the case of Gal 1:6-9 and Acts 17:11 nor Christ in Mark 7:6-13.

Stated differently, no divine authority – Not Christ, not a prophet, not God himself, and not even the Bible – has identified the canon of scripture (whatever that might be) as the Church’s Rule of Faith.

Your 'unknown Bible' comment "whatever that might be" is only "unknown" to some catholic apologists. By contrast Josephus stated that the content in our 39 books of the OT had been canonized for over 400 years by the time of Christ.

As a Baptist - you would have known and fully accepted all of this - right out of the Bible itself.

(My point is to keep a bridging context going where we discuss you as a Baptist considering how to become Catholic and having many of these same points of view as listed above -- as your "starting point')

BobRyan-

Great point. It is indeed competing interpretations which we're dealing with here and not simply bald Scripture. The only difference between us, in a certain way, is that you think you're on the right side of the interpretation process and I think the Catholic Church is on the right side of things.

Or as I would say -- I think the Bible is right and you think the RCC is right. So "again" another way to say it.

So as I see it, your Mark 7 and your Matthew 22 references represent the logical non sequitur which both you and DHK are making.

A "claim" on your part - but the key is 'can you show it to be true'? Can you show that the teaching and methods of Christ in Mark 7 can be ignored?

Can you 'show' that Gal 1:6-9 can be ignored?

Can you "show" that Isaiah 8:20 is to be ignored and so also with Acts 17:11.

That is where the "rubber meets the road" as they say - when it comes to "sola scriptura' testing.

It's indeed a giant leap to go from saying "Scripture is divinely revealed and authoritative (when rightly interpreted)" to saying "Scripture is our sole authority." That's just an unwarranted leap.

Actually the argument is that the scripture is the "rule" the "standard" by which all doctrine, tradition, practice is to be 'tested'.

Tested to "SEE IF those things are SO"
Tested to "SEE IF we are to declare that Apostle, that angel - ACCURSED" as Paul says in Gal 1:6-9.
Tested to "SEE IF there is any light in them" as Isaiah 8:20 says.
Tested to "SEE IF they invalidate worship by their commandments of men" as Mark 7:6-13 states.


It's a conclusion which does follow directly from these Biblical examples.

The content found in the Bible (including what's there in Mark 7 and Matthew 22) simply doesn't explicitly teach Sola Scriptura

A speculative claim to be sure - but can you "Show it" to be true? You are still avoiding the details in the examples given -- keeping the text under study - at such a distance will never serve to support your claim.

We're dealing with about 1,000 topics right now. But I am willing to stay here and seek to iron all of this stuff out together if you fellas are!

in Him,

Herbert

Agreed. But step one is to take at least one of the examples given - and show that your claim holds up in light of the details we see there. Or would you like me to take Acts 17:11 and Mark 7:6-13 to show how my view of it holds up when compared to the actual details?

in Christ,

Bob