Do you think you are the first to say what you said to BOL He has being around here forever. Left more spiritually broken bruised people in his wake than any other i know. And he is actually being "nice" right now.
WHY IS THE CHURCH GOING OUT BACKWARD?
- Thread starter marksman
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
WELL then... perhaps he has met his match... as I dislike bullies... with a passion... and I am not afraid of them. When a Christian comes in here and behaves like this person does... it sets a very BAD example. This thread NEEDS to be shut down.
If I may, folks...
BOL is necessary and fun to chat with.
If you ignore his brashness and endless insults, he can help bring more truth to the forum(by making us critically think about his off the wall concepts, then get correct answers).
It is important to allow folks to post their religious ideas, even if the only way they know how to do it is from the septic tank of their minds.
I have seen some amazing FOUNDATIONAL truths revealed from arguing and insults in previous forums, so I just ignore the verbal vomit and concentrate on the subject matter.
These forums will give you more info than any seminary can offer.
BOL is necessary and fun to chat with.
If you ignore his brashness and endless insults, he can help bring more truth to the forum(by making us critically think about his off the wall concepts, then get correct answers).
It is important to allow folks to post their religious ideas, even if the only way they know how to do it is from the septic tank of their minds.
I have seen some amazing FOUNDATIONAL truths revealed from arguing and insults in previous forums, so I just ignore the verbal vomit and concentrate on the subject matter.
These forums will give you more info than any seminary can offer.
WOW... that is about all I can say... and your defence will undoubtedly win to keep him here ... the fact that you enjoy this rude banter is well.... INTERESTING.... I will just make a note to stay out of conversations that the two of you engage in... HOWEVER... with respect to common courtesy... I think these fowl exchanges would do better in private message... but WHATEVER... I can't take back the fact that I contacted Administration already... How sad that you promote engaging with someone who is ARROGANT and RUDE with his words.
This little lamb is so confused at what Christians seem to think is ACCEPTABLE behaviour.
Illuminator
Well-Known Member
If you reject the Nicene/Constantinople Creeds then you reject the book of Acts. You can't have it both ways. The Church is apostolic because Christ founded it upon the Apostles. the selection of Matthias to succeed Judas (Acts 1:16-26). That includes taking note that the word for “office” in 1:20 is episkopos: the word for “bishop.” Thus, we have some sort of equation of apostles and bishops, which is necessary, for we believe that bishops are indeed the successors of (but not identical to) the apostles.
This is the point where you deviate from Acts, and deny succession in Acts 1:16-26.
The argument stems from how the Jerusalem council (Acts 15:1-32; 16:4) is presented in Holy Scripture. Note the high authority of the Jerusalem council, guided by the Holy Spirit Himself (15:28) This is why we deem the Jerusalem Council as infallible, a term incomprehensible to sola scripturists and Modalists. It was infallible because the Holy Spirit was there, as Acts 15:29 clearly states. Changing the meaning of infallibility is a dishonest self-created stumbling block to it's true meaning. You deny the infallibility of the council of Jerusalem by ignoring Acts 15:29.
The Apostle Paul “delivered to them for observance the decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem” (16:4; RSV, as throughout). This is the very opposite of sola Scriptura modes of thought. The Jerusalem council doesn't even seem (from what we know) to have been primarily concerned with biblical arguments and justifications. But however the decision was arrived at, regarding abstaining “from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from unchastity” (15:28), and the non-necessity of circumcision (15:5), it was authoritative and binding. As such, it is a compelling biblical argument for an infallible Church and against sola Scriptura, which precisely denies this.
Now I will be using it as an argument for apostolic succession, too. Here is how it works: the Jerusalem council presents “apostles” and “elders” in conjunction six times:
Acts 15:2 . . . Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question.
Acts 15:4 When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and the elders, . . .
Acts 15:6 The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter.
Acts 15:22 Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, . . .
Acts 15:23. . . “The brethren, both the apostles and the elders, to the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cili'cia, . . .
Acts 16:4 . . . they delivered to them for observance the decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem.
“Elders” here is the Greek presbuteros, which referred to a leader of a local congregation, so that Protestants think of it primarily as a “pastor”, whereas Catholics, Orthodox, and some Anglicans regard it as the equivalent of “priest.” In any event, all agree that it is a lower office in the scheme of things than an apostle: even arguably lower than a bishop (which is mentioned several times in the New Testament). No matter what word games you wish to play or bible versions you prefer, all agree that it is a lower office in the scheme of things than an apostle.
What is striking, then, is that the two offices in the Jerusalem council are presented as if there is little or no distinction between them, at least in terms of their practical authority. Note there is no mention of common believers present at this council, just apostles and elders.
Therefore, if such a momentous, binding decision was arrived at by apostles and elders, it sure seems to suggest what Catholics believe: that bishops are successors of the apostles. We already see the two offices working together in Jerusalem and making a joint decision. It's a concrete example of precisely what the Catholic Church claims about apostolic succession and the sublime authority conveyed therein. Again, you deviate from Acts you claim to adhere to.
There are three additional sub-arguments that I submit for consideration:
1) The council, by joint authority of apostles and elders, sent off Judas and Silas as its messengers, even though they “were themselves prophets” (15:32). Prophets were the highest authorities in the old covenant (with direct messages from God), and here mere “elders” are commissioning them.
2) St. Paul himself is duty-bound to the council's decree (16:4), which was decided in part by mere elders. So this implies apostolic succession (and conciliarism), if elders can participate in such high authority that even apostles must obey it.
3) Paul previously “had no small dissension and debate” with the circumcision party (15:1-2), but was unable to resolve the conflict by his own profound apostolic authority. Instead, he had to go to the council, where apostles and elders decided the question. All he is reported as doing there is reporting about “signs and wonders” in his ministry (15:12). He's not the leader or even a key figure. This is not what the Protestant “Paulinist” view would have predicted.
Last edited:
Illuminator
Well-Known Member
PAUL WAS ALWAYS SUBJECT TO THE CHURCH
It is incorrect to regard St. Paul as some kind of spiritual “lone ranger,” on his own with no particular ecclesiastical allegiance, since he was commissioned by Jesus Himself as an Apostle.
Question:
if you agree that Paul was commissioned as an apostle “by Jesus Himself” then does he derive his apostleship from Jesus or from Peter?
Both. Why do you feel compelled to make a choice? It’s the usual Protestant “either/or” dichotomous mentality. Calvin does the same thing repeatedly.
Conclusion: Truther deviates from the very book he worships.
It is incorrect to regard St. Paul as some kind of spiritual “lone ranger,” on his own with no particular ecclesiastical allegiance, since he was commissioned by Jesus Himself as an Apostle.
- In his very conversion experience, Jesus informed Paul that he would be told what to do (Acts 9:6; cf. 9:17). He was told what to do by a representative of the Church, Ananias. Jesus did not appear a second time to tell him what to do.
- He went to see St. Peter in Jerusalem for fifteen days in order to be confirmed in his calling (Galatians 1:18),
- and fourteen years later was commissioned by Peter, James, and John (Galatians 2:1-2, 9).
- He was also sent out by the Church at Antioch (Acts 13:1-4),
- which was in contact with the Church at Jerusalem (Acts 11:19-27).
- Later on, Paul reported back to Antioch (Acts 14:26-28).
- Acts 15:2 states: “. . . Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question.”
- The next verse refers to Paul and Barnabas “being sent on their way by the church.” Paul did what he was told to do by the Jerusalem Council (where he played no huge role),
- and Paul and Barnabas were sent off, or commissioned by the council (Acts 15:22-27), and shared its binding teachings in their missionary journeys: “. . . delivered to them for observance the decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem” (Acts 16:4).
- The Jerusalem Council certainly regarded its teachings as infallible, and guided by the Holy Spirit Himself. The records we have of it don’t even record much discussion about biblical prooftexts, and the main issue was circumcision (where there is a lot of Scripture to draw from). Paul accepted its authority and proclaimed its teachings (Acts 16:4).
- Furthermore, Paul appears to be passing on his office to Timothy (1 Tim 6:20; 2 Tim 1:6, 13-14; 2 Tim 4:1-6), and tells him to pass his office along, in turn (2 Tim 2:1-2) which would be another indication of apostolic succession in the Bible. (denied by sola scripturists and Modalists)
Question:
if you agree that Paul was commissioned as an apostle “by Jesus Himself” then does he derive his apostleship from Jesus or from Peter?
Both. Why do you feel compelled to make a choice? It’s the usual Protestant “either/or” dichotomous mentality. Calvin does the same thing repeatedly.
Conclusion: Truther deviates from the very book he worships.
Marymog
Well-Known Member
- Mar 7, 2017
- 11,466
- 1,707
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
You sound angry!!!
Why do you care so much about a conversation between @BreadOfLife and @Truther and @Illuminator that has nothing to do with you? Why don’t you just join? Or is your goal to divide everyone?
I enjoy the bantering. It helps me see both sides of an argument.
Curious Mary
You sound angry!!!
Why do you care so much about a conversation between @BreadOfLife and @Truther and @Illuminator that has nothing to do with you? Why don’t you just join? Or is your goal to divide everyone?
I enjoy the bantering. It helps me see both sides of an argument.
Curious Mary
I don't think angry would be the right word... appalled maybe... It has nothing to do with the topic... it has to do with how people talk to one another... with such LACK of RESPECT.... ARROGANCE is the thorn in my side I guess.
Why would I want to join a discussion such as this?? It started out being a good discussion... and then it went sideways...
I have learned this lesson... PEOPLE seem to enjoy the bantering.... I get it now... I thought politeness was important... obviously it is not.
WE have covered it all Mary.
Marymog
Well-Known Member
- Mar 7, 2017
- 11,466
- 1,707
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
I guess the question is why DID you join the discussion if you are so “appalled”?
Once it goes sideways maybe the best option is to bow out so you won’t become appalled?
Politeness is important....
BreadOfLife
Well-Known Member
- Jan 2, 2017
- 20,975
- 3,415
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
As Paul stated:
1 Cor. 4:3
But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged by you or by any human court. In fact, I do not even judge myself. For I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby acquitted. It is the Lord who judges me.
You sit in judgement without examining yourself. You need to ask yourself the following question:
What is worse – a liar, who continues to lie with impunity – or the person who exposes him?
IF you were an honest person – you would choose the latter. But you’re NOT an honest person.
You defend lies about the Catholic Church simply because you “loathe” the Church, as you put it. Supporting a lie just because YOU don’t like something or somebody is condemned by the word of God:
Isaiah 5:20
Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!
Good luck with that . . .
BreadOfLife
Well-Known Member
- Jan 2, 2017
- 20,975
- 3,415
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
I see you’re still under the delusion that the Bride of Christ is your online paramilitary cult - “aggressivechristianity.net”.
Not so, my confused friend.
Their beginnings can only be traced back to 1980 – unlike the Catholic Church, which can be traced ALL the way back to the Apostles . . .
BreadOfLife
Well-Known Member
- Jan 2, 2017
- 20,975
- 3,415
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
BreadOfLife
Well-Known Member
- Jan 2, 2017
- 20,975
- 3,415
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
As I educated you before – walking “down” into a river or lake is a matter of simple physics.
Nobody walks “UP” into the water, Einstein. You walk DOWN into a lake and come UP out of a lake.
It has ZERO to do with total immersion.
Oh – and you DIDN’T address the fact that there is not ONE example of the wording of a Baptism ceremony in ALL of Scripture.
ALL we have is the command from Jesus, which true Christians obey:
Matt. 28:19
Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”
BreadOfLife
Well-Known Member
- Jan 2, 2017
- 20,975
- 3,415
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
Yes, that promise (Acts 2:39) is the gift of the Holy Spirit – that comes from WATER BAPTISM.
When Nicodemus asked Jesus how a man is born AGAIN - Jesus responded:
John 3:5
“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of WATER AND THE SPIRIT, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.
Pretty SIMPLE stuff, Einstein . . .
You are silly again.
Many receive the Holy Ghost prior to water baptism.
The promise was the Holy Ghost, not the promise that God would let them baptize each other in water.
Lol
I see, they both went down INTO the water, then came up OUT OF the water to get a cup of water....LOL
Your floors must be a swamp every time you get in the bathtub to get a cup of water, Catholic.
Similar threads
