Some time after, when the reforming spirit had reached its full growth, Dudithius, a learned Protestant divine, in his epistle to Beza, wrote:
"What sort of people are our Protestants, straggling to and fro, and carried about by every wind of doctrine, sometimes to this side, sometimes to that? You may, perhaps, know what their sentiments in matters of religion are to-day, but you can never tell precisely what they will be to-morrow. In what article of religion do these churches agree which have cast off the Bishop of Rome? Examine all from top to bottom, and you will scarce find one thing affirmed by one which was not immediately condemned by another for wicked doctrine."
The same confusion of opinions was described by an English Protestant, the learned Dr. Walton, about the middle of the last century, in his preface to his Polyglot, where he says:
"Aristarchus heretofore could scarce find seven wise men in Greece; but with us, scarce are to be found so many idiots. For all are doctors, all are divinely learned: there is not so much as the meanest fanatic who does not give you his own dreams for the word of God. The bottomless pit seems to have been opened, from whence a smoke has arisen which has darkened the heavens and the stars, and locusts have come out with stings, a numerous race of sectaries and heretics, who have renewed all the ancient heresies, and invented many monstrous opinions of their own. These have filled our cities, villages, camps, houses and nay, our pulpits, too, and lead the poor deluded people with them to the pit of perdition."
"Yes," writes another author, "every ten years, or nearly so, the Protestant theological literature undergoes a complete revolution. What was admired during the one decennial period is rejected in the next, and the image which they adored is burnt to make way for new divinities; the dogmas which were held in honor, fall into discredit; the classical treatise of morality is banished among the old books out of date; criticism overturns criticism; the commentary of yesterday ridicules that of the previous day, and what was clearly proved in 1840, is not less clearly disproved in 1850. The theological systems of Protestantism are as numerous as the political constitutions of France -- one revolution only awaits another." ( Le Semeur, June, 1840.)
It is indeed utterly impossible to keep the various members of one single sect from perpetual disputes, even about the essential truths of revealed religion. And those religious differences exist not only in the same sect, not only in the same country and town, but even in the same family. Nay, the self-same individual, at different periods of his life, is often in flagrant contradiction with himself. To-day he avows opinions which yesterday he abhorred, and to-morrow he will exchange these again for new ones. At last, after belonging, successively, to various new-fangled sects, he generally ends by professing unmitigated contempt for them all. By their continual disputes and bickerings, and dividing and subdividing, the various Protestant sects have made themselves the scorn of honest minds, the laughing-stock of the pagan and the infidel.
These human sects, the "works of the flesh," as St. Paul calls them, alter their shape, like clouds, but "feel no blow," says Mr. Marshall, because they have no substance. They fight a good deal with one another, but nobody minds it, not even themselves, nor cares what becomes of them. If one human sect perishes, it is always easy to make another, or half a dozen. They have the life of worms, and propagate by corruption. Their life is so like death that, except by the putridity which they exhale in both stages, it is impossible to tell which is which, and when they are buried, nobody can find their graves. They have simply disappeared.
The spirit of Protestantism, or the spirit of revolt against God and his Church, sprung up from the Reformers' spirit of incontinency, obstinacy, and covetousness. Luther, in despite of the vow he had solemnly made to God of keeping continency, married a nun, equally bound as himself to that sacred religious promise; but, as St. Jerome says, " it is rare to find a heretic that loves chastity."
Condemnation by members of the protest themselves. And this is what you would have me to join against the 2000 years of continued moral and theological truth of the Catholic Faith?
Agapetus (535-6) burned the anathema, which Bonface II (530-2) had solemnly issued against Dioscorus (530). The later is shown as an antipope, but Agapetus, who sided with him, is shown as a true pope. Adrian II (867-72) said civil marriages were valid; Pius VII (1800-23) declared them invalid. Both men are shown as legitimate popes. Nicholas V (1447-55) voided all of Eugenius IV's (1431-47) "documents, processes, decrees, and censures against the Council [of Basle]. ... to be regarded as having never existed" (Dollinger, op. cit., p. 275), yet both remain on the official list of popes today. On July 21, 1773, Pope Clement XIV issued a decree suppressing the Jesuits, only to have it reversed by a decree restoring them, issued by Pope Pius VII on August 7, 1814. Eugenius IV condemned Joan of Arch (1412-31) to be burned as a witch and heretic, but she was beatified by Pius X (1903-14) in 1909 and canonized by Benedict XV (1914-22) in 1920. Today inside Paris's Cathedral of Notre Dame, one of the most popular images is that of Saint Joan of Arc, France's "natural heroine," with a profusion of candles always burning before it. How could an "infallible pope" condemn a saint to death as a witch? Yet Eugene IV remains on the list of allegedly infallible "successors of Peter."
You know, one of the major problems with Protestants is that they criticized what they don't even understand. I know. Used to do the same thing myself.
It would be nice if you would try to understand the difference between infallibility, which has to do with issues of doctrinal and moral correctness and the propensity of all men to make general administrative screw ups.
The Chair of St. Peter is protected against doctrinal and moral error. That is infallibility. The quote you gave me above is an example of how personal opinion, which popes have, can mess up the smooth running of the Church (which it has on a number of occasions).
This is far, far different than the constant changing of doctrines which exemplifies Protestantism. Just on this board alone I have seen considerable argument over the issue of baptism and salvation. You will never get this in the Catholic Church because that issue was settled 2000 years ago. There is but one teaching on this doctrine.
However, a pope could believe that the world is flat. He could even publish his opinion. That is his personal opinion and since he is not making it a doctrine of the Church or a moral teaching, it is not covered under the auspices of infallibility.
Condemnation by members of the protest themselves. And this is what you would have me to join against the 2000 years of continued moral and theological truth of the Catholic Faith?
You gotta be kiddin'
Right, because as we all know, there have never been any such disagreements and condemnation within the Papal Church! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bash.gif" alt="" />
Kyle
I tell you, this man went down to his house justified.
Right, because as we all know, there have never been any such disagreements and condemnation within the Papal Church!
That's exactly right! Congratulations!!
Look, man, the Eucharist has always been the Eucharist. It has never been anything else but the Body and Blood of Christ until the Lutherans, Presbyterians, and Anabaptists came along.
Ditto with Baptismal Regeneration.
You may have schismatics and dissidents in the Church, but that is FAR FAR different than changing the official teaching every 100 or so years like Protestantism does.
ONE Church, holy, catholic, and apostolic, with ONE set of teachings found in the Catholic Catechism.
Those living in faith in Christ and faithful to those teachings have every right to expect eternal bliss with Him. Those who are rebellious (who SHOULD leave and join you Prots) can expect..............
well, whatever it will be, it ain't gonna be nice!!
You and the people you quote from all assume that Protestantism is united like Catholicism. Protestants separate over error necessarily and become completely separate groups. Catholics, on the other hand, ignore what's going on in the local churches. Also, the Catholic church has changed over the centuries with the culture. That's why I can go into several Catholic churches in different towns and find contradictory doctrines, many of which are against Scripture and heretical to established Catholic doctrine. Protestants aren't united, and don't claim to be. Catholics aren't as united as they claim to be.
Look, man, the Eucharist has always been the Eucharist. It has never been anything else but the Body and Blood of Christ until the Lutherans, Presbyterians, and Anabaptists came along.
Ditto with Baptismal Regeneration.
As if the sacraments were the only issue!
Quote
You may have schismatics and dissidents in the Church, but that is FAR FAR different than changing the official teaching every 100 or so years like Protestantism does.
Utterly laughable contention, if for no other reason than this: Protestants do not have a single infallible human authority. The question of doctrinal changes within Protestantism is not the same as it is in Catholicism.
Quote
ONE Church, holy, catholic, and apostolic, with ONE set of teachings found in the Catholic Catechism.
Those living in faith in Christ and faithful to those teachings have every right to expect eternal bliss with Him. Those who are rebellious (who SHOULD leave and join you Prots) can expect..............
The POPE is neither the embodiment of the church nor the infallible explicator of the apostolic doctrines. The Papists, and indeed a great number of others, including Protestants and Eastern Orthodox, are in rebellion against the Word of God as long as they set some other authority over above it, be that the Pope, "sacred" tradition, or human reason.
Kyle
I tell you, this man went down to his house justified.
[color:"0000FF"]Matthew 16:18-19 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; [color:"FF0000"]and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. [/color] And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.[/color]
There is the promise. It is iron clad and bound by the precious Blood which Jesus shed on the Cross. Notice to WHOM Jesus was addressing this. He was addressing the first one who would hold the office of covenantal head over the people of God -- St. Peter.
In a covenant relationship, as we see in the federal paradigm you guys are so fond of, it is the federal head who leads the family under him. He protects it, leads it, and is responsible for it. Thus, when Adam, as the federal head of mankind, sinned against God, the entire human race, being within his loins and yet unborn, were cast into the separation from God which the Bible calls "death". Neither you nor I did anything to earn this other than to be under Adam's headship. The covenantal head acts on behalf of the coveantal people.
This is why the Jews were annihilated in AD 70 (remember I said that my reason for coming here was that I was searching for more material on Preterist Eschatology?). The covenantal head of the Jewish theocratic nation, the high priest, condemned Jesus to death, and in doing so, condemned all who were in the nation to the destruction which befell Jerusalem in AD 70.
The covenantal head of the earthly people of God is the Holy Father in Rome. He is the "prime minister" if you please, who is in charge down here. It is the responsibility of this office to exercise proper doctrinal and moral teaching so that the people of the kingdom may obtain the salvation which is in Jesus Christ, and having obtained it through faith, live that life in "covenantal faithfulness" to the end of their days.
The promise of Christ is that His Holy Spirit would thus protect this office from error in these two areas that the people of God might know truth from error. This is completely unlike the mess we view as Protestantism, in which, as my first post [color:"FF0000"]made by Protestants[/color] states, there is a confusion which borders upon the lunatic. Having dozens of differing ideas on baptism, salvation, ordinances vs sacraments, the number of sacraments, even the existence of hell, is not a testimony to the protection of the Holy Spirit upon the Protestant Rebellion.
Neither is the wholesale moral depravation we are seeing in most "mainline" churches today as they allow for "gay marriage" (an oxymoron if I ever heard one!), abortion "rights", live sexual arrangements, feminism, female "preachers and priests" and a host of other moral degeneracies. Again, where is the protection of the Holy Spirit? Seems considerably absent to me.
And lest you start thumping your chest about how YOUR denomination is more conservative and will never allow for such things....let me remind you that at one time, so were these. Let me further remind you that already the PCA has changed the wording of the Nicene Creed to appease the feminists among them. Won't be too many more years before they have "wimmen preachas".
You watch!!
Your lack of understanding of the truth does not change the truth. Neither is it changed by the many in the Catholic Faith who mangle it, oppose it (as I said, they SHOULD leave), or fail to live it properly. Truth is truth and the Lord Jesus Christ established one office on earth to protect that truth for all time.
In closing, let me ask you this: in a country filled with pagans, when the average pagan looks out of his villge and sees 15 different Christian assemblies, all preaching something different, even to the point of telling him different ways to get to Heaven, how can he not feel that Christianity is a religion of simple minded idiots?
If the men who wrote the paragraphs I posted in the first post could see today what Protestantism has become, they would be spinning in their graves like pinwheels!! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/jawdrop.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/jawdrop.gif" alt="" />
So, are you saying that the Protestant members on this board are unsaved?
UNBLIEVEABLE!!
Let's go back and see what I said please:
Quote
Those living in faith in Christ and faithful to those teachings have every right to expect eternal bliss with Him. Those who are rebellious (who SHOULD leave and join you Prots) can expect..............
Now.............WHO am I talking about here? I was talking about CATHOLICS WHO ARE COVENANT BREAKERS BY THEIR REBELLION!!
I didn't even MENTION anyone on this board.
See?
This is another reason you need an infallible interpretor of the Word of God. You can't even read a simply statement I made without "reading into it". And yet you expect private interpretation of something as deep as the holy scriptures to be without error or presupposition on the part of the reader!! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/Banghead.gif" alt="" />
And BTW, I am willing to bet that there are people on this board who's faith in and love for the Lord Jesus Christ makes me look like a pagan. Much better I attend to my own soul than pass judgment upon others!!
My apologies nonetheless. Offense was not my intention.
Ummm, without scripture, we'll never agree. There is where we differ. Protestants, especially the reformed type (is there another?), believe Gods Word is inerrant and the sole rule of faith. You uphold a tradition not found therein. I doubt you'll get anybody here to put on some Romish glasses and I can tell you aren't currently interested in looking at Gods Word as your ultimate authority.
"There is the promise. It is iron clad and bound by the precious Blood which Jesus shed on the Cross. Notice to WHOM Jesus was addressing this. He was addressing the first one who would hold the office of covenantal head over the people of God -- St. Peter."
Jesus was addressing all the apostles, not just Peter! Jesus said NOTHING about an "office" nor "convenental head" of His church! Jesus IS the covenental head of His church. He remains with us, Matt 28:20.
Again, you said:
"The covenantal head of the earthly people of God is the Holy Father in Rome."
This is not scriptural, please exegete the passage that you believe this is stated in!
Likewise, please do the same for this statement of yours:
"The promise of Christ is that His Holy Spirit would thus protect this office from error in these two areas "
Before you go on castigating protestants, perhaps we could get to the Word, and correct exegesis of it's content?
That was not the point I was answering, William. The accusation I was answering was that Catholics are not unified. My response is that the unity of the Catholic Faith is the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
Prior to that, the unity took place around the canons of councils, didn't it? The council met, and decided what was of God's mind, and told the believers what to believe.
For instance, the Jerusalem Council in Acts. Peter and the apostles got together, discussed and prayed, and at the end said
"....for it seemed go to us and the Holy Spirit..."
All who then obeyed this first canon of the first council were in good stead and unified to the Church. All who disobeyed were....well, let's let St. Paul make a statement as to their condition:
2 Thessalonians 3:6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.
1 Timothy 6:5 Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.
So there was NOT unity among those who followed erroneous ways, was there? Did that withdrawl mean that the apostles were starting another denomination?
Not hardly.
It meant that the ones who were being disobedient were "excommunicated" and kept from the general assembly.
This is a Protestant (VERY Protestant) site. Sutton wrote his book as a PCA Presbyterian. In it he outlines the basic structure of a covenant. You can read the entire book here for free.
The Bible does not give the basic structure of a covenant relationship. This is one of those many things you have to work out through the scriptures.
I am not going to try to give you 150+ pages of exegesis in a limited space like this other than to say that every covenantal structure has a head. If not, then it is not a covenant, pure and simple.
I do hope you will read Sutton's book. It is not long, but full of good stuff.
Brother Ed, Sorry for jumping in the conversation and barraging you with criticism, but like Dave said, it is to be expected because we do not share your beliefs. Moving on...
This:
Quote
[/i][/b] [color:"0000FF"]Matthew 16:18-19 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; [color:"FF0000"]and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. [/color] And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.[/color]
Does not say this:
Quote
He was addressing the first one who would hold the office of covenantal head over the people of God -- St. Peter.
Quote
There is the promise. It is iron clad and bound by the precious Blood which Jesus shed on the Cross. Notice to WHOM Jesus was addressing this.
I'll give you this. Jesus will keep his church as surely as he died, and Jesus was definitely talking about Peter. Your leap from the text to the doctrine of Papal Succession doesn't follow.
Quote
This is completely unlike the mess we view as Protestantism, in which, as my first post [color:"FF0000"]made by Protestants[/color] states, there is a confusion which borders upon the lunatic. Having dozens of differing ideas on baptism, salvation, ordinances vs sacraments, the number of sacraments, even the existence of hell, is not a testimony to the protection of the Holy Spirit upon the Protestant Rebellion. Neither is the wholesale moral depravation we are seeing in most "mainline" churches today as they allow for "gay marriage" (an oxymoron if I ever heard one!), abortion "rights", live sexual arrangements, feminism, female "preachers and priests" and a host of other moral degeneracies. Again, where is the protection of the Holy Spirit? Seems considerably absent to me.
I'm not sure if you read my last post or not, but you are still referring to Protestantism as being united, when it's obvious that it isn't. The testimony of the Holy Spirit is evident among those who believe God according to his Word. This argument of yours also does not follow.
Quote
And lest you start thumping your chest about how YOUR denomination is more conservative and will never allow for such things....let me remind you that at one time, so were these. Let me further remind you that already the PCA has changed the wording of the Nicene Creed to appease the feminists among them. Won't be too many more years before they have "wimmen preachas".
Apply the above criticism to the statement below:
Quote
Your lack of understanding of the truth does not change the truth. Neither is it changed by the many in the Catholic Faith who mangle it, oppose it (as I said, they SHOULD leave), or fail to live it properly.
Quote
In closing, let me ask you this: in a country filled with pagans, when the average pagan looks out of his villge and sees 15 different Christian assemblies, all preaching something different, even to the point of telling him different ways to get to Heaven, how can he not feel that Christianity is a religion of simple minded idiots?
Some are seen as simple minded idiots because they act as such, others are seen that way because the "word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing." I am quite filled with horror myself when I see "the name of God profaned among the nations" because of many so-called christian groups. I also don't see pagans giving any respect to the Catholics.
William, this is the complete and total lack founded in the idea of "sola scriptura". The Bible does not give you every single thing you need to know.
For instance, where in the Bible does it list which epistles are canonical in nature and which are heretical?
Where does the word "trinity" appear?
You see, you believe in the Trinity because you take certain passages and exegete them.
Same thing with the covenant of God. The structure of a covenant is taught by observing in the scriptures how a covenantal relationship is set up. Then you exegete from there.
To use your favorite phrase, where does it say explicitly that Adam is the "federal head" of mankind?
It don't -- do it?
But I agree with you on this principle because that is one of the principles of covenant which is exegeted out of scripture.
And you, sir, are dodging my question, aren't you?
WHO is the federal head of the Church on earth now?
I kind of don't want to belabor this already "tense" posting, but I will a bit. You said:
Quote
I didn't even MENTION anyone on this board.
I stand with Go-Tribe. Actually I took you to mention everyone on this board (except yourself and Catholic Solidier and any other Catholics that have come by here).
Quote
You can't even read a simply statement I made without "reading into it".
I'm not sure how else one can read it. Yes it is a simple statement that is pretty clear to me.
Quote
My apologies nonetheless. Offense was not my intention.
ONE Church, holy, catholic, and apostolic, with ONE set of teachings found in the Catholic Catechism.
Those living in faith in Christ and faithful to those teachings have every right to expect eternal bliss with Him. Those who are rebellious (who SHOULD leave and join you Prots) can expect..............
Here is the quote.
WHAT (or who) is the SUBJECT of the first paragraph?
CATHOLICS!!
I am talking about Catholics and the Catholic Catechism and those who do not obey it within the Church.
That is not you folks.
Please do not attribute to me an intent that was never there.
However, I think you may be the one who should do some re-reading.
Here's what you said:
Quote
Those living in faith in Christ and faithful to those teachings have every right to expect eternal bliss with Him. Those who are rebellious (who SHOULD leave and join you Prots) can expect..............
well, whatever it will be, it ain't gonna be nice!!
Think carefully about what you've written. First you make the strong point that "Those living in faith in Christ and faithful to those teachings have every right to expect eternal bliss with Him." You've just identified a category of people: Those who will live in eternal bliss with Him.
Then you suggested that the rebellious (which I might add you have indicated by implication not only do NOT have every right to expect eternal bliss with Him, rather something that "ain't gonna be nice) should join "you Prots". If you aren't referring to "you Prots" here on this board, then what "you Prots" are you referring to?
Also, it isn't lost on me that when you quoted from your original post that I asked you to clarify (notice I did not say I took offense...I just wanted you to tell me what you meant) that you neglected to include the part that was in question, namely your reference to "an eternal fate that can be characterized as 'not nice'"
Trust the past to God's mercy, the present to God's love and the future to God's providence." - St. Augustine Hiraeth
Those living in faith in Christ and faithful to those teachings have every right to expect eternal bliss with Him. Those who are rebellious (who SHOULD leave and join you Prots) can expect..............
Others have asked this already, however you seem to be avoiding the answer.....So since all Catholics who leave and join us Protestants are "lost" according to RCC theology you believe everyone one of us is "presently" lost--correct?
Sorry for jumping in the conversation and barraging you with criticism, but like Dave said, it is to be expected because we do not share your beliefs.
Oh, no! Thank you for your comments.
Quote
I'll give you this. Jesus will keep his church as surely as he died, and Jesus was definitely talking about Peter. Your leap from the text to the doctrine of Papal Succession doesn't follow.
Okay. Let me approach this from yet another tack.
What was it that God was doing in the salvation plan? He was restoring all that was lost in the Garden when Adam fell. There are little "keys" in scripture which pointed me in this direction years ago. For instance:
[color:"0000FF"]Luke 3:38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.[/color]
And then there is this:
[color:"0000FF"]1 Corinthians 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.[/color]
I hope you see something fascinating here. Adam is called "the son of God" Can't tell you how many times I just missed that reading the geneology.
And then Jesus, the MAN, is called "the Last Adam".
WOW!!
Do you start to sense that God is connecting the dots here? The first man fails -- the Last man does not. And the death of the last man PAYS for the sin of the first man so that the program of God begun in the Garden can be regenerated. Death is defeated by death. A new man -- the Last Adam -- now takes the place of the first one who failed.
The Last Man is called by the first man's name. The first man is called by the Last Man's name. This is NOT an accident in scripture. God is pointing to something very important.
And WHAT was the role of Adam? He was the "federal head" (a term lovingly used around dese parts!! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> ) He was to be the head of manking ON EARTH.
God was still the head over all, wasn't He? The federal headship of Adam over mankind did in no way dimminish the headship of God over all Creation as its "covenantal head", right?
Do you see the parallel beginning to form now? Jesus is in Heaven, the covenantal head over all Creation. He is King of kings and Lord of lords. But by being so, this does not mean that there are not kings on earth with real authority. Their authority does not take away from His overall authority, indeed, they are expected to act out their authority in ultimate submission to His!!
Likewise, since Jesus is now in Heaven, there must be a covenantal (federal) head over the earthly and physical people of God in this life. That is the Holy Father. His headship simply follows that patter of federal headship over the people of God ON EARTH But like kings and dominions here on earth, he as federal head of the Church is expected to rule and reign IN SUBJECTION TO THE KING OF KINGS!
You see, this was Adam's destiny, had he not failed. He would have been the ruler over earth (at least for as long as God left him here). God's intent was to always have a family on earth with a covenantal head over that family. A head who would teach, discipline, lead, and guide in love. That is the office which Adam could have had and which the Holy Father holds now.
I hope that makes sense. Sometimes I ramble.
Quote
I'm not sure if you read my last post or not, but you are still referring to Protestantism as being united, when it's obvious that it isn't.
No, I'm saying that the scandal is that it is not. By your own self definition, which I have read numerous times, the Protestant Reformation was returning to the orginal teachings of Jesus the Christ and St. Paul, His apostle. Well, if that was true (which it obviously can't be) then there would be a united religion called Protestantism, right? See my point? The numerous schisms in Protestantism alone, [color:"FF0000"]each one of them claiming that their teachings are a return to the teaching of the Bible, and that the Holy Spirit guides them into "all truth" [/color] is a moot testimony that in fact the Reformation was NOT of the Holy Spirit.
Quote
I also don't see pagans giving any respect to the Catholics.
Are you talking about nowadays or in history? In history, the annals of the Church are filled with the praises of those Catholic missionaries who came to pagan lands and brought to them the worship of the true and living God.
The Federal Head is Christ, and always has been. Where in scripture does it say the federal head is Rome or it's bishop? For that matter, where is this position in scripture?
Jesus is not on earth. How can he be the federal head when He is not HERE?
This smacks of the Manichean heresy of dualism: that the physical body is bad and the spiritual is all that really counts.
Where is this in scripture?
It is taught in principle in the OT and the NT follows suit. God was the King of the Jewish nation. But while God was in Heaven, it was the high priest who was the covenantal head over the nation. As I mentioned before, the sin of the high priest as federal head over the Jewish theocracy is what doomed the Jews to near extinction in AD 70 when the judgment of God fell upon them (Matt. 23 - 24).
Jesus is not on earth. How can he be the federal head when He is not HERE?
Oh, come now! Don't you have His body in your eucharist here on earth?
Quote
Where is this in scripture?
It is taught in principle in the OT and the NT follows suit. God was the King of the Jewish nation. But while God was in Heaven, it was the high priest who was the covenantal head over the nation. As I mentioned before, the sin of the high priest as federal head over the Jewish theocracy is what doomed the Jews to near extinction in AD 70 when the judgment of God fell upon them (Matt. 23 - 24).
Who is our high priest? (Hint: It's not the Pope!)
Kyle
I tell you, this man went down to his house justified.
I would imagine that you should alrady know, our soteriology will differ as well. I find much fault with your post, your understanding of ecclesiology and soteriology being quite problematic.
Quote
No, I'm saying that the scandal is that it is not. By your own self definition, which I have read numerous times, the Protestant Reformation was returning to the orginal teachings of Jesus the Christ and St. Paul, His apostle. Well, if that was true (which it obviously can't be) then there would be a united religion called Protestantism, right?
Nope. We are the same as the Biblical Church. I don't see the words "Roman Catholicism" in scripture either, nor does it appear in early church writings. What the reformation was, was a return to Biblical Christianity, not Roman mythology.
Quote
In history, the annals of the Church are filled with the praises of those Catholic missionaries who came to pagan lands and brought to them the worship of the true and living God.
Simply perspective. What I see is missionaries bringing the bondage of Rome and her false gospel.
Good one! But the problem still remains. There has to be a way for the covenantal head to fulfill the duties and responsibilities which go with that position.
This was one of the chief problems I encountered with the idea of a "spiritual church" as posited by the Reformers. Just HOW does Christ speak CLEARLY AND PERSPICUOUSLY to an earthly people if He is in Heaven and His voice is not heard?
And no, it is NOT the Bible.
Sorry. That won't wash and the number of Protestant denominations that abound with varying different interpretations of the scriptures, yet all claiming to be led of the Holy Spirit is a moot and eloquent argument against that idea.
There MUST be a head who is SEEN and HEARD by the family he is leading.
Now....he may not be the best father, he may have his own sins to deal with, but in matters of morality and doctrine, he is to be listened to. Especially if he is being protected from error by the Holy Spirit.
Kyle...my turn. You asked me a good question. Here's one for you.
WHY is it that you, as a Reformed person, can believe that the Holy Spirit is powerful enough to bring the unwilling sinner to faith, but He is not powreful enough to rule the mind of the one who sits in the Chair of St. Peter?
Isn't that a tad inconsistent? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />
BTW -- thank you for your overall gracious tone in disagreement.
Matthew 16:18-19 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. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
First, this verse was not speaking to “the first one who would hold the office of covenantal head over the people of God -- St. Peter.” However, Rome’s claim to this raises many questions: (1) What of the “disciple Jesus loved?” –that wasn’t Peter? (2) nobody including Peter state anyplace that Peter is the Pope (note, 1 Pet 5:1-2 where Peter calls himself their “fellow elder,” not Pope) (3) Paul most certainly did not think Peter was in Rome in all his prison epistles as he is not mentioned, or if Peter was in Rome he abandoned Paul (2 Tim 4:16, naughty Pope) (4) Paul is not bashful here as he states he was in no way behind the chiefest Apostles (1 Cor 12:11), so if Peter is Pope, so must Paul be Pope, however please note that it was upon Paul that the care of all the churches was placed—2 Cor 11:28, and (5) in Acts 15, “Pope” Peter though he was at the Jerusalem Council was not even in charge <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/drop.gif" alt="" /> James was, thus (6) far from being Pope Peter, Peter was one of the ones actually “sent” to do work (as opposed to the one doing the sending) in Acts 8:14. Peter was an Apostle, Peter was an elder—but Peter was NOT the Pope!
The rock of which Christ spoke is that common confession made by all who a part of the Church—Jesus is the Christ the Son of the living God! If you will note in Christ’s address He changes from direct address to the 3rd person (this rock). Thus, you have a clear distinction between Peter (petras) and the demonstrative pronoun (petra). Note that this promise is future and not present tense. The future is seen in Matt 18:18 where the promise was conferred upon all the disciples. Thus, Christ was speaking to all the Apostles in Matt 16.
Second the head of the New Covenant is Christ, not Peter. This is clearly given to us in Scripture (Heb 12:24). The head of the church is Christ (Eph 5:23; Col 1:18 and Peter agrees; 1 Peter 2:6-8).
Even if he did to say that, it would be consistent with the Council of Trent. Why would you think it would be uncivil for him to express the belief that Protestants are unsaved? I would cartainly hope it would not seem uncivil to OrthodoxCatholic if we were to say we believe Catholicism is a false Gospel and cannot save. Although, we'd need to say WHY we believe thusly and explain the centrality of sola fide, sola gratia, Sola Scriptura, etc.
True godliness is a sincere feeling which loves God as Father as much as it fears and reverences Him as Lord, embraces His righteousness, and dreads offending Him worse than death~ Calvin
Even if he did to say that, it would be consistent with the Council of Trent. Why would you think it would be uncivil for him to express the belief that Protestants are unsaved? I would cartainly hope it would not seem uncivil to OrthodoxCatholic if we were to say we believe Catholicism is a false Gospel and cannot save. Although, we'd need to say WHY we believe thusly and explain the centrality of sola fide, sola gratia, Sola Scriptura, etc.
It is not at all uncivil for you to express that you believe that we papists have a "false gospel". It is only uncivil when it degenerates into personal attack.
Good one! But the problem still remains. There has to be a way for the covenantal head to fulfill the duties and responsibilities which go with that position.
This was one of the chief problems I encountered with the idea of a "spiritual church" as posited by the Reformers. Just HOW does Christ speak CLEARLY AND PERSPICUOUSLY to an earthly people if He is in Heaven and His voice is not heard?
And no, it is NOT the Bible.
Sorry. That won't wash and the number of Protestant denominations that abound with varying different interpretations of the scriptures, yet all claiming to be led of the Holy Spirit is a moot and eloquent argument against that idea.
Hardly, sir. It but shows the extent of the depravity of man. And why should we trust the Bishop of Rome, who must himself claim to be guided by the Holy Spirit?
Quote
There MUST be a head who is SEEN and HEARD by the family he is leading.
Christ by the Spirit through the Scripture and the Sacraments (which are visible tokens of the Word!). I've said this before, have I not?
Quote
Kyle...my turn. You asked me a good question. Here's one for you.
WHY is it that you, as a Reformed person, can believe that the Holy Spirit is powerful enough to bring the unwilling sinner to faith, but He is not powreful enough to rule the mind of the one who sits in the Chair of St. Peter?
Isn't that a tad inconsistent?
I believe the Holy Spirit is plenty powerful enough to rule the mind of the man who presides as Bishop of Rome. But it never was a matter of the Spirit's power, but of God's own word. There is no justification in the revealed word of God for the institution of the papal office.
Kyle
I tell you, this man went down to his house justified.
I can't formulate a long reply as I am on my way out the door, but remember, Matthew 16 would be meaningless if there were no covenant. If we as believers live and operate in a covenantal paradigm of salvation, then our praxis here on earth must fit within that paradigm. And as I have tried to express before, there simply must be a head over the covenant family here on earth who can be SEEN, HEARD, and OBEYED regarding the teaching of doctrine and morals for the believers here on earth.
That Jesus is the covenantal Head over all the Church is without argument, but the Church is not united yet, is it? We are still separated by the barrier of physical death, so that no one can see or hear or follow Jesus by the senses of this physical earth. Therefor, He must have a representative, a "prime minister" who takes His place, speaks on His behalf, and leads His flock.
And as we see by the doctrinal and moral chaos and confusion therein, Protestantism is not that voice.
WHY is it that you, as a Reformed person, can believe that the Holy Spirit is powerful enough to bring the unwilling sinner to faith, but He is not powreful enough to rule the mind of the one who sits in the Chair of St. Peter?
Because scripture expressly claims the former, and is conspicuously silent on the latter. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> It is a matter of purpose.
Without scripture upholding your claims, we simply aren't going to accept them. Scripture no where sets forth any such authority for one man, nor any such position within Christs established Church. Therefore, I am under no obligation to believe it.
Since you are unwilling to exegete ( I don't think there needs to be 150 pages), I will surmise that you can't adequately defend your postulations!
Here you are saying that in God's first plan, Adam failed and so God had to make another plan, which was to send His Son, to start all over again? Hmmmm where have I heard this before?
And then you say:
"Likewise, since Jesus is now in Heaven, there must be a covenantal (federal) head over the earthly and physical people of God in this life. That is the Holy Father"
Where in Scripture is this stated or even implied? Why can't we have the Word to guide us along with the Holy Spirit? Why must we have someone to touch, feel, and listen to on earth?
According to Church Fathers, all the apostles were given to same privileges as Peter, to preach the gospel and to call sinners to repentance. Though it was first given to Peter, because he was the one to first answer Christ,
" You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God."
The "rock", refers first to Christ, as it does throughout Scripture, and secondly to Peter's faith, announced in his reply to Jesus' question. The bishops and elders are taking over from the apostles to guide the church.
John 20:29 "Jesus said to him,"Thomas, because you have seen Me, You have believed, blessed are those who have not seen Me and yet have believed."
Heb 11:1 "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."
You sure have lots of little "keys" YOU found in Scripture that no one else seems to have seen! How's that?
And as I have tried to express before, there simply must be a head over the covenant family here on earth who can be SEEN, HEARD, and OBEYED regarding the teaching of doctrine and morals for the believers here on earth.
This is not attested to in the Scripture ANYPLACE. As matter a fact there are plenty of times in Scripture where there is no "physical" covenant head "on the earth" administrating the covenant, though there is/was a covenant remnant. Amongst others the inter-testament period is a formidable example.
However, the argument above is not necessary as Christ is the HEAD of the present covenant. It is a BETTER covenant (Heb 8:6-10; 10:16; 12:24) with a PERFECT mediator (Heb 1:1-4; 8:6). Please note that Jesus is a physical human being, fully human, fully divine. He presently rules over His people from Heaven and at the Second Coming He will rule in the New Heavens and the New Earth. He presently administrates His covenant through His Word and Spirit, etc. He will not and can not be replaced. There is no where in Scripture where the Pope is made the covenant head and he may never be as he is not higher than Christ! In the O.C. one covenant head would die (Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, David each died) and then in God's providential plan was replaced by another, but in the N.C. this is not possible as Christ can't die for he "continueth ever, for he hath an unchangeable priesthood" (Heb 7:24).
There are some other arguments that we will probably get to later like the fundamental reformational principle of the priesthood of all believers, the position of elders in the church (who can be SEEN, HEARD, and OBEYED regarding the teaching of doctrine and morals for the believers here on earth), etc.
Orthodox Catholic Stated: Condemnation by members of the protest themselves. And this is what you would have me to join against the 2000 years of continued moral and theological truth of the Catholic Faith?
I am really curious why you would post these three statements(Didithius, Mr Walton and ..”another” author..?) on a “protestant” site and what, exactly, you hoped to accomplish. And secondly, why you would post the quote and not give any credit to the writer of this diatribe against protestantism so that we could all know from whom such statements may be quoted. Since you didn’t give any credit to the writer...let me post a quote from your author so that all here may know this writers true colors :
Quote
Catholic Mystery writer also states:Must, then, all who wish to be saved, die united to the Catholic Church? All those who wish to be saved, must die united to the Catholic Church.
Since you freely promote this catholic mystery writers views against protestantism, I would assume you also must agree with his quote above. And if you do, and I’m sure your must, did you not think that we would “protest” vehemently. And we have.....and have you accomplished your purpose....? Was it fruitful?
I’ll leave it to you to identify the mystery writer...if you desire.
Your objection is noted and, of course, completely false.
You believe in "faith alone" even though you do not find the direct wording "faith alone" in the Bible that context. In fact, the only place it is found actually opposes your idea -- where James says that "faith alone" is DEAD.
You neither find the word "Trinity" yet you accept the concept.
You accept 66 books of epistles and writings as as being of God even though there is no place in the scriptures which gives you a list of the epistles and writings of men which are to be considered canonical.
IF -- and I don't know this for sure -- you are a Presbyterian, you babtize your babies even though there is no place in the Bible which states that infants are to be baptized, a point that Baptists of all persuasions are all to happy to point out to Presbyterians and other sacramentalists.
No, sir, it is not the Bible you reject, for you are inconsistent in what you profess. It is the interpretation that the Catholic Faith gives to the PRINCIPLES TAUGHT THEREIN. You prefer your understanding to that of the Catholic Church.
Eph 2:8-9 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. (KJV)
That is exactly what I believe.
Quote
It is the interpretation that the Catholic Faith gives to the PRINCIPLES TAUGHT THEREIN.
That has two problems. The primacy of Rome isn't found in scripture. The popish position isn't found in scripture. Therefore Roman interpretation is actually tradition since these principles cannot be from scripture.
I am really curious why you would post these three statements(Didithius, Mr Walton and ..”another” author..?) on a “protestant” site and what, exactly, you hoped to accomplish.
Well, just to stir things up, I suppose <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />
Actually, it was to show the concerns from even Protestant folks regarding the nature of Protestant thought....which as shown is quite fractured and schismatic.
DaveVan3 said: I am really curious why you would post these three statements(Didithius, Mr Walton and ..”another” author..?) on a “protestant” site and what, exactly, you hoped to accomplish.
OrthodoxCatholic said: . . . . the nature of Protestant thought....which as shown is quite fractured and schismatic.
Of course, Biblical history shows us that this is NOT all that uncommon.
For example, Lamentations 2:14 (ESV) Your prophets have seen for you false and deceptive visions; they have not exposed your iniquity to restore your fortunes, but have seen for you oracles that are false and misleading.
In fact, you might say it's a product of our fallen natures. And, sadly, some of us in this argument may be wrong, VERY wrong. ETERNALLY WRONG. I pray that is not so, however. I pray that God's grace will cover us all.
I am really curious why you would post these three statements(Didithius, Mr Walton and ..”another” author..?) on a “protestant” site and what, exactly, you hoped to accomplish.
Well, just to stir things up, I suppose <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />
Actually, it was to show the concerns from even Protestant folks regarding the nature of Protestant thought....which as shown is quite fractured and schismatic.
Brother Ed
Really and what protestants are these I don't recognize their names perhaps if you could give us where this was sited from (book title, page number etc...) then I could possibly consider this as something actually worth my time.
Until then I must consider this just another ad hominem attack and another example of protestant bashing. Really sir if you nothing better to do why must you post?
Peter
If you believe what you like in the gospels, and reject what you don't like, it is not the gospel you believe, but yourself. Augustine of Hippo
![[Linked Image]](https://www.the-highway.com/forumuserpics/kami_sig1.gif)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/Smileys/dontfeedtrolls.gif)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/pilgrim/pil_sig2.gif)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/Smileys/pencil.gif)
