Peter the Rock?

[RedFan]

Does it matter? His successor would have to be a bishop and recognized as the ordinary for that 'see' by other bishops and by the Church in Crete.. they would not follow another...

Pax et Bonum

I think it matters.

If instead of all eleven apostle drawing lots at Matthias's selection, only five of the eleven did and he won 3-2, would you consider him validly elected?

If Linus was elected to succeed Peter as Pope by vote of a couple of bishops in Italy, and every still-living apostle and every other bishop in Chrstendom had no say, would you consider Linus validly elected?

 

[BreadOfLife]

I think it matters.

If instead of all eleven apostle drawing lots at Matthias's selection, only five of the eleven did and he won 3-2, would you consider him validly elected?

It only takes ONE Pope wo appoint a Bishop.

If Linus was elected to succeed Peter as Pope by vote of a couple of bishops in Italy, and every still-living apostle and every other bishop in Chrstendom had no say, would you consider Linus validly elected?

Popes weren't alwats voted in by the College of Cardinals as they are now. They were appointed by their predecessors.

This is not a dooctrinal matter - it's a metter of discipline.
Disciplines can change - doctreins don't. The Church has this Authority (Matt. 16:18-19, 18:15-18, Luke 10:16, John 16:12-15, John 20:21-23).

 

[ScottA]

When there is ONE Church of Christ and the Apostles – there IS exclusivity of interpretation.
And, official Church interpretation is not “private”.

Private interpretation is when laymen like YOU or Ellen White or Charles Taze Russel, etc., read things into Scripture that aren’t there and formulate perverse doctrines. The exclusivity that belongs to Christ’s Church was breached several times in history – most notable during and after the 16th century.

Result – all kinds of competing and otherwise perverse doctrines . . .
Some Protestant denominations believe in baptismal regeneration, while others do not.
Some believe in soul-sleep, while others do not.
Some believe in the total depravity of man, while others do not.
Some believe in the Holy Trinity, while others do not.
Some believe in doctrine of “once saved, always saved”, while others do not.
Some believe in a pre-tribulation “Rapture”, while others do not.
Some believe that only those who were predestined will make it to heaven, while others do not.
Some believe that some were predestined for hell, while others do not.
Some believe in a woman’s right to choose abortion, while others do not.
Some believe that practicing homosexuality is a sin, while others do not.
Most believe in contraception, while others do not – and the list goes on . . .

That is the mess created by rejection of Church Authority - and personal interpretation run amok . . .

That does not fit the "all peoples" requirement: A disqualification. The Holy Spirit speaks to each "in their own language." Thus, the Catholic interpretation is a mere delusion of exclusivity and "private." Others.

"Others mocking said, “They are full of new wine.”'​

And it is this...that is bound in heaven.

 

[BreadOfLife]

That does not fit the "all peoples" requirement: A disqualification. The Holy Spirit speaks to each "in their own language." Thus, the Catholic interpretation is a mere delusion of exclusivity and "private." Others.

"Others mocking said, “They are full of new wine.”'​

And it is this...that is bound in heaven.

The "All peoples" requirement??
Nonsense.

If you're referring to Pentecost in Acts 1, all of the people understood the Apostles in their own language - but they weren't interpreting the Scriptures for themselves. They understood what they were being taught by the Apostles through the Holy Spirit.

Nothing has changed, except for the vernacular - as this is how we understand the Church's teachings today.

 

[Taken]

That's all true (except the "fairy tale" part).

LOL

 

[ScottA]

The "All peoples" requirement??
Nonsense.

Tell that to Abraham who was promised to be a blessing to all the families of the earth, or Jesus who gave gifts to men that the gentiles would be saved.

If you're referring to Pentecost in Acts 1, all of the people understood the Apostles in their own language - but they weren't interpreting the Scriptures for themselves. They understood what they were being taught by the Apostles through the Holy Spirit.

I was indeed referring to Pentecost, to tongues and peoples of many nations who only understood by the Holy Spirit--not just the apostles, and not at all by "others."

Nothing has changed, except for the vernacular - as this is how we understand the Church's teachings today.

No--the Catholic priests do not breath down flames of Holy fire loosening tongues and giving understanding of things not written without so much as a word.

For someone so addiment, you sure don't have anything to offer except for a broken record of religious narrative. Getting three out of three wrong, while calling everyone else wrong...ought to tell you something.

 

[Illuminator]

Peter the Rock?

Confusion and wonderment looms.

Yes, starting in the 15th century.

Peter is the created.

God the Creator is The Rock.

Deut. 32:
[4] He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.

2 Sam. 22:2-3, 32, 47; 23:3; Psalm 18:2,31,46; 19:4; 28:1; 42:9; 62:2,6,7; 89:26; 94:22; 144:1-2 – in these verses, God is also called “rock.” Here, "rock" is a metaphor for God, unless you want to argue that God is always a literal rock.

When Jesus changed Simon bar Jonah's name to "Rock", it was not a metaphor. It was an actual name that stuck throughout the NT. Paul calls him "Cephas" 6 times. It's an Aramaic word for Rock. Why would Paul use an Aramaic word to Greek speaking communities? Because everyone knew who Cephas was. Paul was not confused. And every Christian on the planet for 15 centuries were not confused.

I don’t even need Matt. 16:18 to prove Peter is the Rock because Jesus renamed Simon “Rock” in Mark 3:16 and John 1:42!

 

[Tulipbee]

Calvin might also remind you that theological matters are about the Word of God and His very existence – and HARDLY a forum for regurgitating idiotic “dance” references.

Whe you choose to grow up and have a discussion like an adult - we can talk . . .

Ah, BreadOfLife, a steadfast voyager in the realm of theological dialogue, your critique echoes through the corridors of ideas. In the spirit of Calvinistic reflection, let us embark on an illustrative journey that intertwines Calvin's teachings, biblical wisdom, and a glimpse into the dance of theological discourse.

In the quaint town of Reformed Thought, a gathering of theologians convened to engage in a discourse that mirrored the essence of Calvin's teachings. The air was filled with the fragrance of ancient scrolls, and the solemnity of the Institutes of the Christian Religion resonated in the hallowed halls.

Amidst this gathering, a figure named Calvinus stood, quoting from the revered writings: "In our pursuit of truth, let humility be our guide. The Word of God, the very essence of our faith, beckons us to approach one another with sincerity and an earnest desire to understand."

As the dialogue unfolded, a tapestry of biblical quotes adorned the conversation. The echoes of Romans 12:3 reverberated – "For by the grace given me I say to every one of you: Do not think of yourself more highly than you ought, but rather think of yourself with sober judgment, in accordance with the faith God has distributed to each of you."

Yet, amidst this theological symphony, BreadOfLife, a distinguished participant, voiced concern over what they deemed "regurgitating idiotic 'dance' references." In response, a seasoned theologian, steeped in Calvinistic wisdom, stepped forward.

Quoting from Calvin's emphasis on the centrality of the Word of God, the theologian proclaimed, "Theological matters, dear BreadOfLife, revolve around the divine revelation encapsulated in the Word of God. Our discourse should mirror the profound existence of God Himself."

In a parable woven with Calvinistic threads, the theologian envisioned a garden where the Word of God bloomed in abundance, overshadowing the distractions of superficial gestures. The dance of ideas, though nuanced, flowed in harmony with the divine narrative.

As the dialogue continued, the theologian spoke, "Let us not be entangled in the frivolous, but rather, let our discussions be anchored in the profound truths of Scripture. A mature dialogue requires not only conviction but also charity, that we may seek understanding rather than mere tolerance."

In the background, the distant echoes of Revelation 22:20 resonated – "He who testifies to these things says, 'Yes, I am coming soon.' Amen. Come, Lord Jesus."

BreadOfLife, in this Calvinistic tale, the pursuit of truth and the dance of ideas harmonize in the symphony of theological reflection. May our journey through discourse be marked by sincerity, humility, and a shared commitment to the pursuit of truth, guided by the grace of respectful dialogue. ️ #CalvinisticReflection

 

[Illuminator]

That does not fit the "all peoples" requirement: A disqualification. The Holy Spirit speaks to each "in their own language." Thus, the Catholic interpretation is a mere delusion of exclusivity and "private."

​

And yours isn't?

 

[Tulipbee]

The Church doesn't teach that Apostolic Succession is passed on by mere men. This is yet another antu-Catholic fairy tale.
It is the Holy Spirit who chooses those whp succeed. Jesus guaranteed His Church:
John 16:12-15
“I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now.
But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to ALL truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to YOU the things that are coming.
He will glorify me, because he will TAKE from what is MINE and declare it to YOU.
Everything that the Father has is MINE; for this reason I told you that he will TAKE from what is MINE and declare it to YOU.

Men aare just the instraments God uses to convey His Authority.
YOU wouldn't even have a Bible if it weren't for those men being guided by the Holy Spirit to ALL Truth.

In the quaint town of Theologica, where discussions on matters of faith unfolded like chapters in a grand narrative, a gathering of scholars and theologians convened. Among them was BreadOfLife, a staunch defender of the Catholic perspective, engaging in a spirited conversation with fellow believers.

As the sun dipped below the horizon, casting hues of orange and purple across the sky, the conversation turned to the contentious topic of Apostolic Succession. BreadOfLife, with unwavering conviction, asserted, "The Church doesn't teach that Apostolic Succession is passed on by mere men. It is the Holy Spirit who chooses those who succeed."

In response, a figure emerged from the shadows, a scholar named Calvinus, well-versed in the teachings of John Calvin. With a gentle yet resolute tone, Calvinus began, "In the Institutes of the Christian Religion, Calvin expounds on the sovereignty of God's predestined plan. It is not through the whims of men but through the eternal decree of God that leaders are chosen."

Calvinus continued, "Consider Romans 8:29-30, 'For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son... And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.' This echoes the Calvinistic emphasis on divine election."

The moonlight illuminated the gathering as Calvinus expounded further, "While recognizing the Holy Spirit's role, Calvinists believe in the sufficiency of Scripture. Calvin wrote, 'For by a kind of mutual bond, the Lord has joined together the certainty of his Word and of his Spirit.' The Spirit works directly through the Word of God."

In the imaginary town square, the dialogue continued, each participant presenting their views. Calvinus, however, felt compelled to address the concerns about the papal system. "In exposing errors," he said, "Calvin warned against seeking the church in the papacy. The church is found where God's Word is embraced and His children gather in faith."

The gathering became a tapestry of theological discourse, with Calvinus proclaiming the Gospel according to Calvinistic principles. "Let us, in humility, seek God's truth and recognize the profound impact of history and tradition on our perspectives," he concluded, extending an invitation to continued dialogue under the starlit sky of Theologica.

 

[Tulipbee]

It only takes ONE Pope wo appoint a Bishop.

Popes weren't alwats voted in by the College of Cardinals as they are now. They were appointed by their predecessors.

This is not a dooctrinal matter - it's a metter of discipline.
Disciplines can change - doctreins don't. The Church has this Authority (Matt. 16:18-19, 18:15-18, Luke 10:16, John 16:12-15, John 20:21-23).

In the ancient city of Theologia, where theological debates unfolded like scrolls of wisdom, a gathering took place under the arches of the Grand Ecclesiastical Forum. BreadOfLife, a steadfast defender of Catholic doctrines, engaged in a discussion about the election of bishops.

Amidst the echoing debates, a figure emerged wearing a cloak adorned with the writings of John Calvin. This figure, known as Calvinus, stepped forward with a calm demeanor. "In the Institutes of the Christian Religion," Calvinus began, "Calvin emphasizes the eternal decree of God, predestining individuals for specific roles within the Church. It is not a matter of human appointment but divine providence."

Quoting Romans 8:29-30, Calvinus continued, "For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son..." The words resonated with the Calvinistic perspective, highlighting God's sovereign plan in the salvation of individuals.

Addressing the discussion on the papal system, Calvinus remarked, "Calvin warned against seeking the church in the papacy. The authority lies where God's Word is faithfully embraced, not in the corridors of earthly power." He then quoted from Calvin's writings, "For until men recognize that they owe everything to God, that they are nourished by his fatherly care, that he is the Author of their every good, they will never yield him willing service."

As BreadOfLife defended the authority of the Church, Calvinus responded with a gracious demeanor. "In matters of discipline versus doctrine, Calvinists hold fast to the unchanging truths of Scripture," he explained. Quoting John 16:12-15, Calvinus highlighted the role of the Holy Spirit in guiding believers into all truth.

The moonlit square witnessed a respectful exchange, with Calvinus inviting BreadOfLife to consider the biblical foundations of Calvinism. "Let us, in humility, seek the unchanging doctrines revealed in God's Word, recognizing that true authority lies in adherence to His eternal truths," Calvinus proclaimed, extending a hand of fellowship amidst the theological tapestry of Theologia.

 

[Brakelite]

For 23 years, you wallowed in abject ignorance of the beliefs and teachings of Christ’s Church instead of inquiring from within. Ypu were easy fodder for the false teachings and perverse doctrines of the SDA by which you were seduced.

You were correct regarding my ignorance of Christ's church. But neither was I totally familiar with the teachings of Rome. That didn't come until much more recently.
And it wasn't the SDA church teachings that led me away. After my conversion , it was the priest and his response to my conversion with him after mass that turned me off. I wasn't to become an Adventist for another 20 years.

We avail ourselves of every avenue of God’s grace. Prayer, sacrifice, confessing our sins, church attendance, serving others – these are ALL things that are commanded in Scripture.

Indeed, so what do you rely on for salvation and the forgiveness of sins? Indulgences? The Vatican bank?

 

[Tulipbee]

You were correct regarding my ignorance of Christ's church. But neither was I totally familiar with the teachings of Rome. That didn't come until much more recently.
And it wasn't the SDA church teachings that led me away. After my conversion , it was the priest and his response to my conversion with him after mass that turned me off. I wasn't to become an Adventist for another 20 years.

Indeed, so what do you rely on for salvation and the forgiveness of sins? Indulgences? The Vatican bank?

In the imaginary landscapes of theological dialogue, Brakelite and BreadOfLife found themselves engaged in a reflective exchange, with echoes of Calvin's teachings resonating in the air.

Quoting from Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion, Brakelite shared, "Calvin reminds us that true knowledge of Christ's Church and its teachings is a journey that often unfolds over time. It's a process of continuous inquiry and discovery."

As the conversation unfolded, Brakelite acknowledged a past period of ignorance but highlighted a subsequent exploration of both Christ's Church and the teachings of Rome. The imaginary atmosphere embraced a sense of openness to understanding diverse perspectives within the Christian tradition.

Addressing the importance of God's grace, BreadOfLife emphasized various avenues, including prayer, sacrifice, confessing sins, and church attendance. In response, Brakelite posed a thought-provoking question, "Indeed, what do we rely on for salvation and the forgiveness of sins? Indulgences? The Vatican bank?" The imaginary dialogue brought attention to the need for a sincere understanding of the foundational aspects of faith.

In the midst of this conversation, the topic shifted to modern churches, and an imaginary narrative emerged. Brakelite, with a sense of appreciation for the diversity of worship expressions, joined the discourse. "While our journeys may take different paths, the core message of the gospel remains steadfast. Modern churches, with their varied styles, continue to proclaim the unchanging truths of salvation."

Drawing inspiration from Calvin's emphasis on the primacy of Scripture, Brakelite continued, "Let us recognize that the essence of the gospel transcends liturgical preferences. Whether in traditional or modern settings, the gospel message endures, calling us to salvation through faith in Christ."

In this imaginary realm, the dialogue between Brakelite and BreadOfLife underscored the importance of continual inquiry, the diversity of worship expressions, and the unchanging nature of the gospel message. The imaginary landscape became a canvas where the teachings of Calvin, the wisdom of Scripture, and the nuances of contemporary faith converged in a harmonious exploration of Christian truth.

 

[Marymog]

They watch for our souls by ensuring we have the best possible environment in which to grow our relationship with Jesus. It's about what Jesus instructed the church to do... Make disciples. It isn't about compelling us to do stuff their way.

As I said. The authority of the church does not override the authority of Jesus. The authority of the church is limited. When Jesus gave the church authority, He wasn't divesting Himself of authority. Allow me to give you an example. The 4th commandment. Whose authority ought we surrender to should we choose to obey it? The one who established it and gave it to the church, or the one who altered it according to his own sense of superiority?

You gave your church's understanding of scripture and told me I ought to obey your church. That's very different from obeying the scripture.

Thank you for your opinion brakelite! If you would have given some Scripture to back up your opinion, I would consider what you have been taught by your men about elders/church leaders as plausible. But with no Scripture to back up what you said, it makes what you said your opinion. I prefer to stick with facts.

Here are the facts (not opinion) backed up by Scripture: As stated before Scripture says church elders watch out for our souls and decide if we are going to be excommunicated from The Church or allowed to stay. THEY are to teach sound doctrine, exhort, and rebuke with all authority (Titus). They have been chosen by the Holy Spirit to oversee the flock and are worthy of double honor (Acts 20, 1 Timothy 5). The first elders of The Church, the Apostles and all the elders that were gathered at the Council at Jerusalem, made changes to what all Christians practiced because it seemed good to the Holy Spirit. But your theory is that elders don't compel us to do stuff their way?

In regard to your 4th commandment theory. Here, once again, here are the facts from Scripture instead of opinion: Jesus defended his disciples when the Jews attacked them for not observing the Sabbath and said: “For the Son of Man is lord of the Sabbath” (Mt. 12:1–8) also saying “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath” (Mk. 2:27). Colossians 2:17–19: “Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day—things which are a mere shadow of what is to come, but the substance belongs to Christ.”. The NT Christians gathered on The Lords Day, Sunday. They set the example.

So CLEARLY your theory/opinion about Church elders is not backed up by Scripture! If it was, you would have quoted Scripture to back up your theory/opinion. You didn't quote Scripture because there is no Scripture to support you.

None the less....thank you for your time.

 

[Marymog]

I agree with him MMOG. I was a Catholic before you were born, and spent 23 years at the feet of brothers and priests learning Catholic principles and teachings. Scott is correct. Catholics have a serious issue as to what they truly rely on regarding salvation. They may say they trust in God, or even Calvary, but very rarely. The vast majority trust in church membership. Historical tradition and family adherence. "Once a Catholic always a Catholic". Or they trust in their acts of religious devotion.

• Stations of the cross.
• The rosary.
• Confession.
• Church attendance.
• Scapulae
• Holy water
• Ritual
• Good works toward the poor, the widow, and the orphan
• Volunteering for the local St Vincent de Paul society second hand good store etc etc etc

Why is it that Catholics get so beside themselves when someone leaves the church and the person's testimony is that Jesus called them out? Should you not rather rejoice that they have followed their Master and obeyed Him? Why is it that their leaving the church is recognised as akin to leaving Christ? Surely it's because you believe your church is is essential to salvation? It isn't. In fact, it's a stumbling block, for your church rejected the blood Atonement of Christ a long time ago.

Thanks Brakelite.

There is only one Church that was started by Christ with one true doctrine and one teaching! That one true church/teaching/doctrine continued with the Apostles. The Apostles then chose other men to teach that one Truth and one doctrine etc etc until the end of time. You believe you have found that Church. Congratulations. ScottA probably believes he has found The Church. BOTH of you have different opinions or teachings from your men as to what we need to "truly rely on regarding salvation". But yet you say that Catholics have a serious issue as to what they truly rely on regarding salvation. Can you really not see how bizarre your accusation is?

You think that Catholics should rejoice because someone decides to leave The Church and YOU feel like Jesus called them out of The Church and they obeyed Jesus when they left The Church? Wouldn't the same be true if someone left your denomination and joined The Church or any other denomination? Jesus would then be calling them out and they were obeying Him by leaving your denomination! Can you REALLY not see how one sided and bizarre your thought process on this is?

I get it Brakelite. You dislike The Church. Dually noted. But at least take the time to think about what you write before you write it so that it makes sense.

 

[Marymog]

I think some of the disagreements on this post may be a product of failure to define "apostolic succession" robustly. I expect that most everyone here would agree that the apostles (let's include Paul) appointed elders, presbyters and even episkopoi (I know it's a loaded word), and in a few recorded instances even prescribed their qualifications. But what exactly was passed on? Was it the continuation of sound doctrine? (Most everyone would agree with that one; teachings were often supported in the first two centuries of Christianity -- roughly the Gnostic era -- by claiming a connection with an apostle, even if one or two steps removed.) I'll call this the "Protestant" view. Or, was it the authority possessed by the apostles to "bind and loose," to "forgive and retain" sins? I'll call this the "Catholic" view.

On the whole, I favor the Catholic view of apostolic succession -- although I am not Roman Catholic. It's quite logical to me, even if not well attested in the NT. (Yup, I'm not a sola scriptura guy.) But I write now simply to point out that the Paul-to-Timothy exchange is supportive of only the Protestant view. And that is true of a lot of NT citations I've been reading here, quoted by supporters of the "Catholic" view.

So I am ultimately in @Illuminator's and @Marymog's camp, even though I think in this instance @Illuminator rests more weight on Paul's letters to Timothy than they can bear. That type of overreaching gives all the @ScottA's around here the kind of opening they have shown that they can take full advantage of.

Thanks RedFan. That was very well put.

Apostolic Succession is the successive teaching of the Truth for the last 2,000 years. @ScottA does not believe in Apostolic Succession which he means that he does not believe the Truth has been passed down to his denomination.

We believe Scripture. We believe the Truth has been successfully taught for 2,000 years and that the gates of hell will not prevail against that truth. We believe Jesus's prayer that we all be One with One truth and One doctrine under One Church has been and is being answered/fulfilled in the year 2024. Scott doesn't.

I am not sure if I articulated myself well. If I haven't, I would ask that @Illuminator or @BreadOfLife fill in with any other thoughts on this.

Mary

 

[Tulipbee]

Thanks RedFan. That was very well put.

Apostolic Succession is the successive teaching of the Truth for the last 2,000 years. @ScottA does not believe in Apostolic Succession which he means that he does not believe the Truth has been passed down to his denomination.

We believe Scripture. We believe the Truth has been successfully taught for 2,000 years and that the gates of hell will not prevail against that truth. We believe Jesus's prayer that we all be One with One truth and One doctrine under One Church has been and is being answered/fulfilled in the year 2024. Scott doesn't.

I am not sure if I articulated myself well. If I haven't, I would ask that @Illuminator or @BreadOfLife fill in with any other thoughts on this.

Mary

Marymog and RedFan,

I appreciate your engagement in this discussion on apostolic succession. However, I must respectfully disagree with your assertion that apostolic succession is the successive teaching of the Truth for the last 2,000 years. The concept of apostolic succession is rooted in the Roman Catholic tradition and is not supported by Scripture.

The Bible teaches that the apostles were chosen by Jesus Christ Himself and were given the authority to teach and preach the gospel. However, there is no biblical evidence to suggest that this authority was passed down to subsequent generations of leaders in the church. In fact, the apostle Paul warned against following human traditions and teachings that were contrary to the gospel (Colossians 2:8).

The doctrine of apostolic succession is based on the assumption that the church is a hierarchical institution with a single, infallible leader. This is in direct contradiction to the biblical teaching that Christ is the head of the church and that all believers are equal in His sight (Ephesians 5:23-24).

The claim that the Truth has been successfully taught for 2,000 years and that the gates of hell will not prevail against it is also problematic. Throughout history, there have been numerous instances of doctrinal error and corruption within the church. The Roman Catholic Church itself has a long history of suppressing and distorting the gospel message.

The idea that Jesus's prayer for unity among believers will be fulfilled in the year 2024 is nothing more than speculation. The Bible does not provide any specific timeline for the fulfillment of this prayer.

In contrast to the Roman Catholic view of apostolic succession, Calvinists believe that the church is a community of believers who are united by their faith in Jesus Christ. We believe that the Bible is the sole source of authority for our faith and practice and that we are not bound by human traditions or teachings.

We also believe that the unity of the church is not based on a single, infallible leader but on our common faith in Christ and our shared commitment to His Word. This unity is not something that can be achieved through human effort but is a gift from God that we should strive to maintain (Ephesians 4:1-6).

I urge you to reconsider your position on apostolic succession and to embrace the biblical teaching that the church is a community of believers who are united by their faith in Jesus Christ and His Word.

 

[RedFan]

The doctrine of apostolic succession is based on the assumption that the church is a hierarchical institution with a single, infallible leader.

You may be confusing Papal authority with apostolic authority -- two different things. Apostolic succession, as its name implies, is concerned with the latter. The apostles' appointed successors exercise an authority truly their own, independently of the Papacy. Even Rome acknowledges this. Pope Leo XIII’s Encyclical Satis Cognitum (1896) concedes apostolic authority separate from Rome, although he denounces that authority as invalid if it is in conflict with Rome:

“For He who made Peter the foundation of the Church also ‘chose, twelve, whom He called apostles’ (Luke vi., 13); and just as it is necessary that the authority of Peter should be perpetuated in the Roman Pontiff, so, by the fact that the bishops succeed the Apostles, they inherit their ordinary power, and thus the episcopal order necessarily belongs to the essential constitution of the Church. Although they do not receive plenary, or universal, or supreme authority, they are not to be looked as vicars of the Roman Pontiffs; because they exercise a power really their own, and are most truly called the ordinary pastors of the peoples over whom they rule."

 

[Tulipbee]

You may be confusing Papal authority with apostolic authority -- two different things. Apostolic succession, as its name implies, is concerned with the latter. The apostles' appointed successors exercise an authority truly their own, independently of the Papacy. Even Rome acknowledges this. Pope Leo XIII’s Encyclical Satis Cognitum (1896) concedes apostolic authority separate from Rome, although he denounces that authority as invalid if it is in conflict with Rome:

“For He who made Peter the foundation of the Church also ‘chose, twelve, whom He called apostles’ (Luke vi., 13); and just as it is necessary that the authority of Peter should be perpetuated in the Roman Pontiff, so, by the fact that the bishops succeed the Apostles, they inherit their ordinary power, and thus the episcopal order necessarily belongs to the essential constitution of the Church. Although they do not receive plenary, or universal, or supreme authority, they are not to be looked as vicars of the Roman Pontiffs; because they exercise a power really their own, and are most truly called the ordinary pastors of the peoples over whom they rule."

**Calvinist Response to RedFan's Comment on Apostolic Succession**

**Errors of the Papal System Exposed**

The doctrine of apostolic succession, as espoused by the Roman Catholic Church, is fraught with errors that contradict the teachings of Scripture and the principles of the Christian faith. John Calvin, in his Institutes of the Christian Religion, provides a thorough critique of the papal system, highlighting its deviations from biblical truth.

**1. Unwarranted Claims of Authority:**

The papal system asserts that the pope is the sole successor of Peter, the apostle, and thus possesses supreme authority over the entire Church. This claim lacks scriptural support. The Bible teaches that all believers in Christ are part of the priesthood of all believers (1 Peter 2:9) and that there is no distinction between clergy and laity (Galatians 3:28).

**2. Unbiblical Hierarchical Structure:**

The papal system establishes a hierarchical structure with the pope at the apex, followed by cardinals, bishops, priests, and deacons. This structure is not found in the New Testament, which emphasizes the equality of all believers in Christ (Matthew 23:8-12).

**3. Misinterpretation of Apostolic Authority:**

The Roman Catholic Church misinterprets the concept of apostolic authority. While the apostles were given authority by Christ to establish the Church and spread the gospel, this authority was not intended to be passed down to subsequent generations. The apostles were unique witnesses to Christ's life, death, and resurrection, and their authority cannot be transferred.

**4. Contradiction of Sola Scriptura:**

The papal system undermines the principle of sola Scriptura, which holds that Scripture alone is the infallible authority for Christian faith and practice. By claiming that the pope and church tradition have equal or even greater authority than Scripture, the papal system elevates human tradition above the Word of God.

**5. Abuse of Power and Corruption:**

The history of the papacy is marred by instances of abuse of power, corruption, and moral failures. Popes have been involved in political intrigue, financial scandals, and the persecution of those who dissent from their teachings. This stands in stark contrast to the teachings of Christ, who called His followers to be humble servants and to love their enemies (Matthew 20:25-28; Luke 6:27-28).

**Conclusion:**

The papal system, with its claims of apostolic succession, hierarchical structure, and unbiblical authority, deviates from the teachings of Scripture and the principles of the Christian faith. Calvin's critique of the papal system remains relevant today, exposing its errors and calling believers to return to the authority of Scripture alone.

**Bible Quotes:**

* "But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light." (1 Peter 2:9)
* "For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him." (Romans 10:12)
* "And he called to him his twelve disciples and gave them authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal every disease and every affliction." (Matthew 10:1)
* "So then, just as you received Christ Jesus as Lord, continue to live your lives in him, rooted and built up in him and established in the faith, just as you were taught, abounding in thanksgiving." (Colossians 2:6-7)
* "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work." (2 Timothy 3:16-17)

 

[David in NJ]

Yes, a 'new' thread since no one has started a thread (that I can find) in regard to this.

Mock? I will read what I wrote and take out any mocking.

Had my fill of what? Debunking Bizarre teachings.....

Scripture is CLEAR = JESUS is the Rock of our Salvation

Peter is a rock/stone built upon the ROCK

Why not believe the Apostles Peter's own words???

1 Peter 2:4-8
4Coming to Him as to a living stone, rejected indeed by men, but chosen by God and precious, 5you also, as living stones, are being built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6Therefore it is also contained in the Scripture,

“Behold, I lay in Zion
A chief cornerstone, elect, precious,
And he who believes on Him will by no means be put to shame.”

7Therefore, to you who believe, He is precious; but to those who are disobedient,

“The stone which the builders rejected
Has become the chief cornerstone,”

8and

“A stone of stumbling
And a rock of offense.”
They stumble, being disobedient to the word, to which they also were appointed.