Coming Against Reformed Theology

[makesends]

It is not the same. The RCC claims to be the universal church but it has provided no proof that it is. But you have not answered my questions in post #155. And I would bet money you never will.

I'm wondering if there is any documentation of the succession --complete records-- like we have of Jesus Christ's lineage back to Adam.

 

[Arial]

I'm wondering if there is any documentation of the succession --complete records-- like we have of Jesus Christ's lineage back to Adam.

Succession of what? Catholics say there is a succession of popes from Peter, and a succession of apostles---which my understanding from Arch are the Catholic priests.

 

[makesends]

Succession of what? Catholics say there is a succession of popes from Peter, and a succession of apostles---which my understanding from Arch are the Catholic priests.

Apostolic Succession

 

[Josheb]

That the office of "Pope" is the continuation of the spiritual aspects of the latter Roman Caesars, is a matter of historical fact.....

....assuming a pre-existing religious bias that is not supported by objective fact, AND one that flies in the face of the Reformation.........

The Reformers realised that the office of Pope is the anti-Christ from their study of Scripture....

And so they sought to reform 16th century RCCism to a time when it was (more) orthodox and (more) consistent with scripture). There is no way to separate the Reformation (or the Reformers) from then-past and then-present RCCism. They were NOT looking to discard RCCism. They were looking to reform 16th century RCCism. BIG difference.


That is a matter of historical fact.

And that fact is the context for the Reformers' using the term "antichrist" to label the Pope and/or papal system.

 

[Arial]

Apostolic Succession

I suppose history may have a record of what the Catholics are calling apostolic succession, but there is no actual apostolic succession. It is often argued even among non-Catholics, that though there is not apostolic succession as in the office of Apostle, there are still modern day apostles. That is only true if on simply uses the definition of the word. And that is not how the Bible uses it when it refers to the twelve and Paul. The Catholics are using it in the same way the Bible uses it, as a Christ appointed office that speaks as the voice of Christ.

The Bible gives a very narrow list of qualifications for an apostle in Acts. They had to have been with Jesus from the time of John the Baptist and witness of His death, crucifixion, and ascension. In the case of Paul, he had an encounter with Jesus after His ascension, and was appointed by Him as an apostle to the Gentiles, knew of His death, the claim that He had resurrected and ascended, and was persecuting those who believed this.
The reason there are no more Apostles, no Apostolic succession, is because they were appointed for a specific purpose---laying the foundation (teachings and truths) of Christ's church----and they completed their purpose. There is to be nothing added and nothing taken away. The Bible is the only word of God.

 

[David1701]

....assuming a pre-existing religious bias that is not supported by objective fact, AND one that flies in the face of the Reformation.........

1) The latter Roman Caesars were called "Pontifex Maximus", in their role as spiritual leader (a title handed over to them by pagan priests).

2) That title (and the spiritual authority that went with it) was then passed on to the office of Pope.

These are undeniable historical facts, whether you like them or not.

And so they sought to reform 16th century RCCism to a time when it was (more) orthodox and (more) consistent with scripture). There is no way to separate the Reformation (or the Reformers) from then-past and then-present RCCism. They were NOT looking to discard RCCism. They were looking to reform 16th century RCCism. BIG difference.

Some of the Reformers initially sought to reform Romanism from within, but quickly realised that they had to come out of her and discard her heresies and pagan practices, whilst warning others that she is the Whore of Babyon described in the Bible.

That is a matter of historical fact.

As long as you don't give the impression that their initial view stayed the same (Why did you do that, by omission?).

And that fact is the context for the Reformers' using the term "antichrist" to label the Pope and/or papal system.

Have you not studied this matter? The Reformers came to the conclusion that the office of Pope was the anti-Christ FROM SCRIPTURE, seeing how the men in that office fulfilled the descriptions of the anti-Christ so incredibly well.

 

[makesends]

I suppose history may have a record of what the Catholics are calling apostolic succession, but there is no actual apostolic succession. It is often argued even among non-Catholics, that though there is not apostolic succession as in the office of Apostle, there are still modern day apostles. That is only true if on simply uses the definition of the word. And that is not how the Bible uses it when it refers to the twelve and Paul. The Catholics are using it in the same way the Bible uses it, as a Christ appointed office that speaks as the voice of Christ.

The Bible gives a very narrow list of qualifications for an apostle in Acts. They had to have been with Jesus from the time of John the Baptist and witness of His death, crucifixion, and ascension. In the case of Paul, he had an encounter with Jesus after His ascension, and was appointed by Him as an apostle to the Gentiles, knew of His death, the claim that He had resurrected and ascended, and was persecuting those who believed this.
The reason there are no more Apostles, no Apostolic succession, is because they were appointed for a specific purpose---laying the foundation (teachings and truths) of Christ's church----and they completed their purpose. There is to be nothing added and nothing taken away. The Bible is the only word of God.

We need an "agreed" emoticon.

 

[Arial]

We need an "agreed" emoticon.

I agree! We do need one.

 

[Josheb]

1) The latter Roman Caesars were called "Pontifex Maximus", in their role as spiritual leader (a title handed over to them by pagan priests).

I once had a friend who named his dog, "Bear."

 

[David1701]

I once had a friend who named his dog, "Bear."

And you think there's some kind of equivalence between that and the title of Pontifex Maximus ("Greatest Bridge-builder", in a religious sense) do you? If so, it's an almost unbelievably inane comparison.

Calling a dog a different kind of animal is, presumably, supposed to be an analogy, implying that the pagan title passed on to the office of Pope, by a Roman Caesar (along with the considerable authority accompanying that title), was nothing more than a meaningless and whimsical appellation that gives a misleading impression about the nature of the office of Pope. Is that what you meant?

What about the numerous other pagan practices and paraphernalia? Is that all misleading too?

Maybe the fact that the Pope sits in the temple of God (the professing church), claiming to have all authority in heaven, on earth and under the earth, is irrelevant?

What about the Pope changing times and seasons (changing the days from sunset to sunset, to midnight to midnight; changing Passover to Easter; changing the Sabbath day from the seventh day of the week, to the first day of the week (and RCism boasts that there is no scriptural authority for this, so it, allegedly, shows their authority), etc.)? This must be inconsequential as well.

It could be that the wearing of purple and scarlet (following on from Roman nobility) by RC leaders is pure coincidence?

Perhaps the myriads of Christians persecuted, tortured and slaughtered by Romanism, throughout the centuries, don't mean that it's drunk with the blood of the saints?

Maybe the Romanist image of a woman holding out a cup to the nations is nothing to do with the same thing described in Revelation?

There's so much more; but, as I posted, it was Scripture that persuaded the Reformers that the office of Pope is the anti-Christ and that Roman Catholicism is the Whore of Babylon.

 

[Josheb]

And you think there's some kind of equivalence between that and the title of Pontifex Maximus ("Greatest Bridge-builder", in a religious sense) do you? If so, it's an almost unbelievably inane comparison.

The comparison is yours, not mine. It is your argument that because the Pope is was/is called some same name as the Caesars that makes him the spiritual inheritor. That is the inane comparison!!! You bought into some fool's irrational argument and shouldn't have!

Calling a dog a different kind of animal is, presumably, supposed to be an analogy, implying that the pagan title passed on to the office of Pope, by a Roman Caesar (along with the considerable authority accompanying that title), was nothing more than a meaningless and whimsical appellation that gives a misleading impression about the nature of the office of Pope. Is that what you meant?

No, what I meant is just because you call something a thing other than what it is does not make it that thing. It does not what I call a dog, the dog is still a dog. The fact is Caesar was never supreme pontiff. From the beginning that title was a delusion. Furthermore, it could more rationally be argued Christianity overthrew and assimilated a pagan practice, subjugating it to the authority of Christ, and in doing so brought hundreds of thousands, maybe millions to Christ. It's no different than having a dedicated building in which to worship, having an evergreen tree involved in the celebration of the Messiah, or usurping formerly pagan holy days for the sake of the gospel.

Or using the word "Christ" when "Messiah" works perfectly well.

Maybe you don't yet see it but some of those posts read like the nut cases that come out during the holidays claiming any Christian who has a Christmas tree is adulterating Christianity or anyone who celebrates Easter is really a pagan.

Calling the leader of Christianity the "supreme bridgebuilder" is not the problem. Taking on that title with hubris, failing to do so in a manner consistent with while scripture, adulterating the whole scripture view with added abuses, or taking on the title with hubris ma all be problems worthy of disdain and criticism, but the title itself is not the problem. Furthermore, calling a Church leader some name or title does not make it so, any more than naming a dog "Bear" makes the dog a bear. The essence of your protest with don and Arch is that the Pope is not the supreme bridgebuilder (especially when it came to the Reformation) but you lose your own argument when you try to say that is necessarily, automatically rooted in in Imperial Rome when it's not. That is not a fact of history; it's a pseudofact of propaganda.

And you let don bait you into an off-topic discussion so the two of you are now arguing over the veracity of RCCism, not the kind of "coming against Reformed Theology cited in this op. It's easy to get baited. I said I'd let you have the last word and realize I did not. So.... I'm gonna do that now. If you like, you can post an op on the paganisms within Roman Catholicism and the religious institution calling itself a "Church," and I will be happy to participate in that discussion. You and I have done that before. While I do not agree with all your arguments, I support the effort to get RCs to see the very real problems within RCCism. I know you feel similarly about my disdain for Dispensational Premillennialism. I want your arguments to be the best they can be. The maximus pontiff thing is flawed.

I'll let you have the last word on this and hope some return to the op will then occur. Maybe give the opening post a re-read (as I just did).

 

[David1701]

The comparison is yours, not mine. It is your argument that because the Pope is was/is called some same name as the Caesars that makes him the spiritual inheritor. That is the inane comparison!!! You bought into some fool's irrational argument and shouldn't have!

Pontifex Maximus was not a name, it was a title. It was given to the office of Pope, precisely because the Roman Caesar wanted to confer upon that office the spiritual authority that went with it.

Why would someone who accepts what happened be a "fool" and "irrational", in your eyes? Don't you think that that's a rather irrational reaction? I certainly do.

No, what I meant is just because you call something a thing other than what it is does not make it that thing. It does not what I call a dog, the dog is still a dog.

I think you mean, "Yes, that is what I meant...", since that is what I assumed and what I posted. That's another irrational reaction by you.

The fact is Caesar was never supreme pontiff. From the beginning that title was a delusion.

This is getting ridiculous.

The latter Caesars were regarded as God-men and claimed spiritual primacy over all people in the Roman Empire, no matter what kind of religion they practised. The title "Pontifex Maximus" was given to Caesar, by pagan priests (it had been the title of the head of their religion). It was nothing to do with Christianity.

Furthermore, it could more rationally be argued Christianity overthrew and assimilated a pagan practice, subjugating it to the authority of Christ, and in doing so brought hundreds of thousands, maybe millions to Christ. It's no different than having a dedicated building in which to worship, having an evergreen tree involved in the celebration of the Messiah, or usurping formerly pagan holy days for the sake of the gospel.

We are not to learn, never mind assimilate, the ways of the heathen. Any Christians who do, are demonstrating that they are not being led by the Lord.

Or using the word "Christ" when "Messiah" works perfectly well.

Christ and Messiah mean the same thing. What is your point?

Maybe you don't yet see it but some of those posts read like the nut cases that come out during the holidays claiming any Christian who has a Christmas tree is adulterating Christianity or anyone who celebrates Easter is really a pagan.

Maybe you don't see it yet, but celebrating pagan festivals, with pagan symbolism, is not a mark of someone being led by the Lord in that area.

Calling the leader of Christianity the "supreme bridgebuilder" is not the problem. Taking on that title with hubris, failing to do so in a manner consistent with while scripture, adulterating the whole scripture view with added abuses, or taking on the title with hubris ma all be problems worthy of disdain and criticism, but the title itself is not the problem. Furthermore, calling a Church leader some name or title does not make it so, any more than naming a dog "Bear" makes the dog a bear. The essence of your protest with don and Arch is that the Pope is not the supreme bridgebuilder (especially when it came to the Reformation) but you lose your own argument when you try to say that is necessarily, automatically rooted in in Imperial Rome when it's not. That is not a fact of history; it's a pseudofact of propaganda.

Hubris is a separate issue.

Taking to oneself a pagan title is not a godly thing to do (obviously). The title of Supreme Bridge-builder was from pagan religion, passed on to pagan Rome, then the so-called "Pope" (itself a title of blaphemy).

And you let don bait you into an off-topic discussion so the two of you are now arguing over the veracity of RCCism, not the kind of "coming against Reformed Theology cited in this op. It's easy to get baited. I said I'd let you have the last word and realize I did not. So.... I'm gonna do that now. If you like, you can post an op on the paganisms within Roman Catholicism and the religious institution calling itself a "Church," and I will be happy to participate in that discussion. You and I have done that before. While I do not agree with all your arguments, I support the effort to get RCs to see the very real problems within RCCism. I know you feel similarly about my disdain for Dispensational Premillennialism. I want your arguments to be the best they can be. The maximus pontiff thing is flawed.

I find your condescension insulting, especially when you are wrong.

I'll let you have the last word on this and hope some return to the op will then occur. Maybe give the opening post a re-read (as I just did).

You are coming against Reformed theology, so my posts are entirely appropriate to the title of this thread. It's not only TULIP that gets attacked, but the Reformed teaching that the office of Pope is the anti-Christ and that Roman Catholicism is the Whore of Babylon. These truths are close behind justification by faith and the Bible as our sole authority in faith and morals.

 

[Arch Stanton]

Peter is not the RCC.

keys of authority

 

[Arch Stanton]

You have been proven wrong over and over.

not even once

 

[Arial]

not even once

A prime example of the abuse of Scripture. Just call your religion the "us" and the "our," and wallah---you have proof!

Should the Catholic reformers have stayed with a religion that forbid lay people from possessing the Bible in the common language? That hanged, burned, decapitated and hung heads on bridge spikes, any who were caught translating the Bible into languages they could read and speak? A church organization that did the same to all dissenters of their tyrannical reign, who failed to bow down to them? WHo had self appointed priests, full of sexual perversions, greed, self seeking, self serving, men of ill character, putting them in the place of Christ? Who invented doctrines nowhere found in Scripture, worshiped human saints they named as saints, extracted indulgences with the promise of heaven, set up idols and prayed to them?

Should they have stayed? Was that truly Christ's one true church? The only thing that has changed is the human slaughter.

 

[Arial]

keys of authority

A prime example of the abuse of Scripture. Just call your religion the "us" and the "our," and wallah---you have proof!

Should the Catholic reformers have stayed with a religion that forbid lay people from possessing the Bible in the common language? That hanged, burned, decapitated and hung heads on bridge spikes, any who were caught translating the Bible into languages they could read and speak? A church organization that did the same to all dissenters of their tyrannical reign, who failed to bow down to them? WHo had self appointed priests, full of sexual perversions, greed, self seeking, self serving, men of ill character, putting them in the place of Christ? Who invented doctrines nowhere found in Scripture, worshiped human saints they named as saints, extracted indulgences with the promise of heaven, set up idols and prayed to them?

Should they have stayed? Was that truly Christ's one true church? The only thing that has changed is the human slaughter.

 

[ReverendRV]

There was most definitely succession through the laying on of hands. The Apostles were Bishops [an office] and they laid hands on the next generation. Do you need verses for that?

Hey Arch. Isn't it better to hold to the Biblical example of Church Councils, rather than Apostolic Succession?

 

[Arch Stanton]

Hey Arch. Isn't it better to hold to the Biblical example of Church Councils, rather than Apostolic Succession?

Not sure what you mean ReverendRV. Acts 15 shows the first real council and after the apostles died, the church/councils continued. Hope all is well!

 

[ReverendRV]

Not sure what you mean ReverendRV. Acts 15 shows the first real council and after the apostles died, the church/councils continued. Hope all is well!

Isn't the Biblical Model, a Church Council instead of a Pontif?

 

[Arch Stanton]

Isn't the Biblical Model, a Church Council instead of a Pontif?

The Magisterium of the Church

CCC 85 "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ."47 This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.

86 "Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith."48

87 Mindful of Christ's words to his apostles: "He who hears you, hears me",49 the faithful receive with docility the teachings and directives that their pastors give them in different forms.

Blessings Reverend!