Coming Against Reformed Theology

[Arial]

same - universal/catholic/the way/nazarene/christian

succession through the laying on of hands through the centuries

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.

 

[Arch Stanton]

It is not the same. The RCC claims to be the universal church but it has provided no proof that it is.

from Christ giving Peter the keys until today.... authority through the laying on of hands only

 

[donadams]

Heb 1:1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,

2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

“Not by scripture alone”!

That’s the nail in the coffin of “Sola scriptura” it is dead and buried, “false doctrine” like all the sola’s!


For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. Jn 1:17

Jesus Christ is the way, the truth, and the life! Jn 14:6

And this extends to His apostolic church, Christ and His church are one and inseparable! Acts 9:4 Jn 15:5 eph 5:32 acts 2:42

Jesus Christ is the Light of the world! Jn 8:12
Apostolic church the light of the world! Matt 5:14

Must Hear Jesus Christ! Matt 17:5
Acts 3:23
Must Hear the apostolic church! Matt 18:17

Authority of Jesus Christ! Matt 28:17
Authority of the apostles! Jn 20:21

Jesus Christ has Reconciliation!
2 cor 5:19
Apostles have ministry of Reconciliation! 2 cor 5:18

Jesus Christ have power to forgive mens sins! Lk 5:20 Jn
Apostles have power to forgive mens sins! Jn 20:23

Jesus Christ is the truth! Jn 14:6
The apostolic church is the pillar of truth! 1 Tim 3:16

For the apostolic authority in Holy church decided and decreed (bound on earth / bound in heaven) the cannon of Scripture, and is the only authentic interpreter of scripture!

 

[Arial]

from Christ giving Peter the keys until today.... authority through the laying on of hands only

That still doesn't answer the questions I asked and it doesn't prove that the RCC is the one true church of Christ. It is only you and the Catholic religion saying that is what Peter is saying. And they do that by naming themselves as the only true interpreters of Scripture. It is a circular argument that goes something like this: "We are the one true church of Christ, and we can prove that by giving scriptures (sola scriptura !!?), and as the one true church of Christ we are given as the only correct interpreter of scripture. So if we say Christ gave the keys to Peter, and we say he is the first pope, and authority is given to the pope by the laying on of hands (which the scripture does not even say re: Peter) by those we also infallibly, and as the only authority, appoint as priests, then that is infallibly so."

But why won't you answer my questions? I will post them again and you can return to post # 155 and quote them one by one and give the answers. And as a clarifier since it is taking you so long to answer them, my post is in connection with you quoting 1 John, "If they had been of us they would not have gone out from us."and saying that it is referring to the Reformers breaking away from the RCC.

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.

 

[Arch Stanton]

That still doesn't answer the questions I asked and it doesn't prove that the RCC is the one true church of Christ.

Did your church start with Christ giving Peter the keys? Does your church have the NT priesthood?

 

[Josheb]

you mean the former catholics --Luther, etc.

No, I do not. They were all faithful RCs when they began and, in all likelihood, they would have remained RC had the RCC not denied and defied scripture and murderously persecuted those men....


What part of "I will not participate with your attempt to deny the facts of history or hijack the op" do you not understand?

 

[Arch Stanton]

No, I do not. They were all faithful RCs when they began

you don't know that... we don't get to decide on our own. If Luther can do it, so can you. You can then go from 66 to 58 books -- why not? free for all

What part of "I will not participate

THEN STOP BRINGING ME IN TO YOUR CONVERSATIONS!!!

I'll leave you to the inanity going on with @Arch Stanton (although I encourage everyone not to take the RCC bait) but go on record stating the RCC did not exist when Revelation was written so the seven hills city is more likely that of Jerusalem

 

[Josheb]

Re. your comment about Rome and Catholicism: the papacy is the continuation of the spiritual aspects of the latter Roman Caesars.

I disagree. Such an interpretation is not only extremely inferential but it's not something the first century readers would have understood reading the scriptures.

This Reformation was only said to really take off, upon the realisation of the office of Pope as the anti-Christ (not one man, but a succession of men in one office).

Yes, and I have read the Reformers use of John's term many times and always considered it political rhetoric. Not once have I ever thought they mean the rhetoric literally. There are only four options: either they were 1) they misread the temporal markers and implicit urgency of John's epistles to either think the antichrist that was coming in John's day is some kind of immortal human, or they changed the antichrist from being a human to being a system (either way that's bad exegesis), 2) they were millennialists who (fore)saw an end to the papal system that never occurred and thereby proved their eschatology wrong and them unreliable exegetes, 2) idealists who saw no literal end to the papacy and, instead, considered it simply one example of many possibility in which evil was/is manifested, or 3) they used the term rhetorically and did not literally think the Pope or the papal system was literally the literal antichrist and the end times was literally upon them.

This doctrine was still very prominent, until it was undermined by that jesuitical deception Dispensationalism.

Argumentum ad populum


I'll let you have the last word because this op is not about eschatology (and any commentary about the "antichrist" is necessarily eschatological). Arguing Calvin considered the papal system the antichrist is, logically speaking, an appeal to ridicule. It's not a logical argument, it's a fallacious argument. The Pope or the papal system could be the most reprehensible person/system on the planet but that would not necessarily mean the entire rest of Catholic doctrine and practice is wrong. RC thought, doctrine and practice should be considered on its (lack of) merits and that's not what this op about. The opposition to Reformed theology cited in this op is not RCCism. As I said previously, Post 23 is bait. Those two guys like to hijack every thread they can and turn them into an apologetic for RCCism and ridicule of Prots. I've said my piece.

Count me out.

 

[Josheb]

you don't know that...

I do.

we don't get to decide on our own. If Luther can do it, so can you. You can then go from 66 to 58 books -- why not? free for all

Non sequitur

THEN STOP BRINGING ME IN TO YOUR CONVERSATIONS!!!

Never happened. I jumped into an already existing conversation, and you've proven my point.

Thanks

Have you anything op-relevant to contribute to the thread?

 

[Arial]

Did your church start with Christ giving Peter the keys? Does your church have the NT priesthood?

My church started with By grace you are saved, through faith, and that is not of yourselves, it is a gift of God, that no one can boast. It starts with the substitutionary death of Christ on the cross, His resurrection, and ascension. There is a NT priest, not a priesthood.

Still waiting for your answers to questions in post #155.

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.

 

[donadams]

Actually, God did train up the reformers and send them to us. And none of them tried to change the truth.

To oppose the church that He established and to oppose the truths he himself revealed with the sola’s how absurd!

 

[donadams]

Got scripture for that?

“Christians are to be taught”

Since when???

I thought we are to read scripture and make our own doctrine!

Sacred Scripture is the only infallible source of truth!

Who is the infallible authority that is going to teach us?

These have been the argument from the Protestant side for ever!

FYI nobody buys indulgences!
It was always a donation for a holy purpose, and voluntary, many ways to obtain indulgences that don’t involve donation, and they have nothing to do with salvation!

So your anti-catholic accusations such as “salvation by the shilling” are completely absurd!

 

[Arch Stanton]

Never happened

denial.... you put [at arch...]. I pray that someday you will open your mind to the true Church that Christ established 2,000 years ago. We, as Christians, are not meant for the buffet, but for the banquet!!!

 

[Arch Stanton]

My church started with By grace you are saved, through faith, and that is not of yourselves, it is a gift of God, that no one can boast. It starts with the substitutionary death of Christ on the cross, His resurrection, and ascension. There is a NT priest, not a priesthood.

There is a NT priesthood and Christ is the High Priest. Your ecclesial community is foreign to the Early Church Catholic.

 

[Mr GLee]

denial.... you put [at arch...]. I pray that someday you will open your mind to the true Church that Christ established 2,000 years ago. We, as Christians, are not meant for the buffet, but for the banquet!!!

Did you mean the church that began with the fist of second born used to represent born again ?

The father of lies a murderer from that very beginning murdered him was replaced with Seth pass on the scon birth seed (vchrsit to the next .the seed Christ became sight as the birth of the Son of man Jesus.

Abel the first listed martyras a apostle sent with the gospel .Abel's blood like blood of all born again cries out for the propmised new bodies .

 

[Arial]

There is a NT priesthood and Christ is the High Priest. Your ecclesial community is foreign to the Early Church Catholic.

The church in the NT did not have priests.

 

[David1701]

I disagree. Such an interpretation is not only extremely inferential but it's not something the first century readers would have understood reading the scriptures.

That the office of "Pope" is the continuation of the spiritual aspects of the latter Roman Caesars, is a matter of historical fact. The pagan title and authority, in spiritual matters, were passed on to the office of Pope.

Of course, 1st C. readers would not have known about this passing of the baton, but they would have known about the Roman Caesar and the claim that the one in that office was a "god-man" with all spiritual authority; and his demand to have his spiritual primacy acknowledged.

Yes, and I have read the Reformers use of John's term many times and always considered it political rhetoric. Not once have I ever thought they mean the rhetoric literally. There are only four options: either they were 1) they misread the temporal markers and implicit urgency of John's epistles to either think the antichrist that was coming in John's day is some kind of immortal human, or they changed the antichrist from being a human to being a system (either way that's bad exegesis), 2) they were millennialists who (fore)saw an end to the papal system that never occurred and thereby proved their eschatology wrong and them unreliable exegetes, 2) idealists who saw no literal end to the papacy and, instead, considered it simply one example of many possibility in which evil was/is manifested, or 3) they used the term rhetorically and did not literally think the Pope or the papal system was literally the literal antichrist and the end times was literally upon them.

All wrong...

The Reformers realised that the office of Pope is the anti-Christ from their study of Scripture. It is ludicrous to suggest that it was merely a, necessarily deceptive, political expedient!

Argumentum ad populum

I know that the appeal to the majority (of Reformers) is not proof, but this thread is about coming against Reformed theology; and Reformed theology taught that the Pope is the anti-Christ.

It appears that you are coming against Reformed theology, in this area...

I'll let you have the last word because this op is not about eschatology (and any commentary about the "antichrist" is necessarily eschatological). Arguing Calvin considered the papal system the antichrist is, logically speaking, an appeal to ridicule. It's not a logical argument, it's a fallacious argument. The Pope or the papal system could be the most reprehensible person/system on the planet but that would not necessarily mean the entire rest of Catholic doctrine and practice is wrong. RC thought, doctrine and practice should be considered on its (lack of) merits and that's not what this op about. The opposition to Reformed theology cited in this op is not RCCism. As I said previously, Post 23 is bait. Those two guys like to hijack every thread they can and turn them into an apologetic for RCCism and ridicule of Prots. I've said my piece.

No-one has stated that the entirety of Catholic doctrine and practice is wrong. You know this; and you know that everyone else knows this, so why appeal to an obvious straw man? I suspect an emotional element (since your rational ability is fine), perhaps based upon relatives and/or friends who are in Catholicism.

 

[Mr GLee]

There is a NT priesthood and Christ is the High Priest. Your ecclesial community is foreign to the Early Church Catholic.

I would offer

The new testament priesthood came after the tribe of "Judah" the tribe of the Son of man. Jesus Previously Levites peached after the letter of the law of Moses (death). Jesus the Son of man by the gospel of grace the loving spirit of the law .The unseen things of our one Holy Father

The new priesthood propmised in Joel . Men and women prophets preaching the gospel from all the nations of the world A family of new creatures that call no man on earth Holy Father ,Holy See etc

Saul fulfilled the office of a Pope seeking to be venerated purposely avoiding waiting for born again Samael . . Then he was cut off from all manners of communication. And Saul sought after legion of what some call patrons saints. When a description of Samuel was made then the the mystic was able to commune . Saul receiving a lying sign from the king of lying signs to wonder after (Satan the legion) bowed down and worshiped the dirt.. . that dying mankind returns to.

1 Samuel 13:10-12King James Version10 And it came to pass, that as soon as he had made an end of offering the burnt offering, behold, Samuel came; and Saul went out to meet him, that he might salute him.1And Samuel said, What hast thou done? And Saul said, Because I saw that the people were scattered from me, and that thou camest not within the days appointed, and that the Philistines gathered themselves together at Michmash;Therefore said I, The Philistines will come down now upon me to Gilgal, and I have not made supplication unto the Lord: I forced myself therefore, and offered a burnt offering

Acts 2:15-17King James Version15 For these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day.16 But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel;17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:

The first century reformation came destroying the priesthood of Levites, the letter of the Law. . death

Romans 7:6 But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.

 

[Arch Stanton]

The church in the NT did not have priests.

The Apostles were Bishops

 

[Arch Stanton]

Did you mean the church that began with the fist of second born used to represent born again ?

Born again = baptism