jhardin
Junior Member
"...wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the (c)atholic (spiritual) Church." Ignatius 110 A.D.
Posts: 65
|
Post by jhardin on May 20, 2008 1:14:15 GMT -5
You're right...that would place them in line with orthodox Christianity.  Now is where you are supposed to show me that Paul, or any other of the original 12 Apostles taught an Ecclesiastical hierarchy. First... it did, it was the Old Testament. Second, you asked me about "Bible Doctrine"... so I answered you. Where do you find that one of the qualifications for an Apostle is to have "walked and talked" with Jesus? There isn't one. The word "apostle" simply means 'to be sent'. In the context of early Christianity, the Apostles were those who were sent by Jesus Christ. Paul (Saul) was one of those who was "born out of due season".. but he was absolutely sent by Jesus Christ personally.. on the road to Damascus at the same as his conversion... (Acts 9:6) Of course it did... again, it was the Old Testament. Jesus taught His doctrine to the Apostles personally... then they were to take it to the world. Their writings are recorded for us in the New Testament. No he didn't... he gave Peter the "keys of the kingdom of heaven"... not to be an authority over God's kingdom... but as one to unlock the gate. The kingdom of heaven at this time is not above, but in the hearts of men. In the verses previous to verse 19, Peter affirmed that he had received revelation from God the Father as to who Jesus really was. It was by this revelation that Peter was able to preach the gospel to the lost, and thereby "unlock the kingdom of heaven". ANYONE who has received this revelation has the keys... I do, and I am trying to unlock your heart... but it is a very stubborn lock. The Ethiopian eunuch was trying to interpret from the Old Testament in the book of Isaiah. He couldn't understand the dark sayings of the prophecy in that book because he hadn't yet understood that it referred to Jesus Christ. Philip simply preached the gospel to him. Matthew 28:19 also tells us to "teach all nations", not because some particular person has some special knowledge and authority passed down to them from the Apostles through successive teaching... but because WE who are saved have received revelation knowledge of Jesus Christ and are a witness of His grace... And the nations that need to be taught are in darkness and cannot see the truth of the gospel without a preacher... Rom 10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
Rom 10:14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
Rom 10:15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things! Anyway, your seem to be suggesting that only those who fall under the definition of Apostolic Succession are capable of teaching anything theological. How then are you qualified to teach anything through this forum? |
|
|
|
Post by knuckle on May 20, 2008 6:03:45 GMT -5
Joh 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 20, 2008 8:49:35 GMT -5
DISCLAIMER: I HIT THE MODIFY BUTTON INSTEAD OF THE QUOTE BUTTON ACCIDENTALLY ERASING THE ORIGINAL POST. THE TEXT IN QUOTES ARE JHARDIN'S WORDS AND THE OTHER WORDS ARE MINE.
MY APOLOGIES TO JHARDIN. IT WAS AN HONEST MISTAKE I'VE DONE BEFORE. No problem Cepha. After I asked the question I realized that you, as the administrator, must have a "modify" link at the top of every post. It would be easy to make the mistake of hitting the wrong button. Yeah, that's exactly what's happened. It's happened before. Again, I'm sorry.  |
|
jhardin
Junior Member
"...wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the (c)atholic (spiritual) Church." Ignatius 110 A.D.
Posts: 65
|
Post by jhardin on May 20, 2008 18:40:17 GMT -5
Yeah, that's exactly what's happened. It's happened before. Again, I'm sorry. Thou art forgiven.  |
|
jhardin
Junior Member
"...wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the (c)atholic (spiritual) Church." Ignatius 110 A.D.
Posts: 65
|
Post by jhardin on May 20, 2008 19:03:07 GMT -5
Here is a 'non-baptist' historian who makes some interesting comments regarding the history of the anabaptists. Mosheim was a Lutheran historian from the early 18th century (1693 - 1755)... so he would have nothing to gain from presenting the anabaptists as having their roots in a sect earlier than the 15th century....
"The Anabaptists not only considered themselves descendants of the Waldenses, who were so grievously oppressed and persecuted by the despotic heads of the Romanish Church, but pretend, moreover, the be the purest offspring of the respectable sufferers, being equally opposed to all principles of rebellion on the one hand, and all suggestions of fanaticism on the other."
It may be observed, that they are ot entirely in an error when they boast of their descent from the Waldenses (8th century), Petrobrussians, and other ancient sects, who are unusually considered as witnesses of the truth in times of general darkness and superstition. Before the rise of Luther and Calvin, there lay concealed in almost all the countries of Europe, particularly in Bohemia, Monrovia, Switzerland, and Germany, many persons who adhered tenaciously to the doctrine, etc., which is the true source of all the peculiarities that are to be found in the religious doctrine and discipline of the Anabaptists. ( Mosheim's History of the Anabaptists, p. 490-1)
Another quote by a "non baptist" historian... this one from a Catholic Inquisitor who writes about the Waldensians (which are quoted above as having similar doctrine to Anabaptists...
"Among all sects that have hitherto existed there has none been more pernicious to the [Roman] church than of the Lyonists (Waldensians)... First because this sect reaches back the farthest, for some say that it exists since the time of Sylvester". (The Inquisitor Reinerius in the year 1259)
This statement by Reinerius is especially damaging to the Romans Catholic claim that they are the true Church because they are the only one's who's doctrine God has preserved. It seems that the Anabaptist doctrine has some credibility in this historicity too. ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 20, 2008 20:10:08 GMT -5
Here is a 'non-baptist' historian who makes some interesting comments regarding the history of the anabaptists. Mosheim was a Lutheran historian from the early 18th century (1693 - 1755)... so he would have nothing to gain from presenting the anabaptists as having their roots in a sect earlier than the 15th century.... "The Anabaptists not only considered themselves descendants of the Waldenses, who were so grievously oppressed and persecuted by the despotic heads of the Romanish Church, but pretend, moreover, the be the purest offspring of the respectable sufferers, being equally opposed to all principles of rebellion on the one hand, and all suggestions of fanaticism on the other."
It may be observed, that they are ot entirely in an error when they boast of their descent from the Waldenses (8th century), Petrobrussians, and other ancient sects, who are unusually considered as witnesses of the truth in times of general darkness and superstition. Before the rise of Luther and Calvin, there lay concealed in almost all the countries of Europe, particularly in Bohemia, Monrovia, Switzerland, and Germany, many persons who adhered tenaciously to the doctrine, etc., which is the true source of all the peculiarities that are to be found in the religious doctrine and discipline of the Anabaptists. ( Mosheim's History of the Anabaptists, p. 490-1)Another quote by a "non baptist" historian... this one from a Catholic Inquisitor who writes about the Waldensians (which are quoted above as having similar doctrine to Anabaptists... "Among all sects that have hitherto existed there has none been more pernicious to the [Roman] church than of the Lyonists (Waldensians)... First because this sect reaches back the farthest, for some say that it exists since the time of Sylvester". (The Inquisitor Reinerius in the year 1259)This statement by Reinerius is especially damaging to the Romans Catholic claim that they are the true Church because they are the only one's who's doctrine God has preserved. It seems that the Anabaptist doctrine has some credibility in this historicity too. ;D That always wierds me out...how some Christians choose to divide themselves by doctrines. How many denominations did Jesus start?  |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 20, 2008 20:10:42 GMT -5
Yeah, that's exactly what's happened. It's happened before. Again, I'm sorry. Thou art forgiven. You're a good man! |
|
jhardin
Junior Member
"...wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the (c)atholic (spiritual) Church." Ignatius 110 A.D.
Posts: 65
|
Post by jhardin on May 21, 2008 17:54:06 GMT -5
That always wierds me out...how some Christians choose to divide themselves by doctrines. How many denominations did Jesus start? Just one... it's called "the church"... not Baptist, Catholic, Methodist, Lutheran, or Episcopalian... just "the church". And by studying the context in which Jesus used the term "the church", or "my church"... it becomes obvious He is referring exclusively to the whole of God's adopted children... that is... those who are saved. But we as men do divide ourselves doctrinally, mainly because we question the validity of other denominations because of their doctrine... and we question whether they are a part of the "true church (lowercase c)" because their doctrine of salvation doesn't allow for true conversions... so we separate ourselves from the "goats". |
|
|
|
Post by knuckle on May 21, 2008 22:07:42 GMT -5
Hi guys------------
that said we are also told that all Israel will be saved we through their rejection and them through our acceptance that God may have mercy upon all
kind of blows the doctrinal arguments away doesn't it?
much love--------------knuckle
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 21, 2008 22:17:47 GMT -5
Hi guys------------ that said we are also told that all Israel will be saved we through their rejection and them through our acceptance that God may have mercy upon all kind of blows the doctrinal arguments away doesn't it? much love--------------knuckle LOL! Not really when it's "doctrines" that teach this! |
|
|
|
Post by knuckle on May 21, 2008 23:02:21 GMT -5
Hi Cepha----------------
how so?
much love-----------knuckle
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 22, 2008 7:16:16 GMT -5
Hi Cepha---------------- how so? much love-----------knuckle Hey Knucks, For one to believe anything religiously, they have to be taught it whether by written word or by tradition. That teaching is part of a group of teachings (in our case, The Holy Bible). Any Biblical beliefs about Israel specifically is a doctrinal belief because we have to believe what is taught to us. It is a requirement for us to believe it. The belief about Israel (as we see it) is a teaching for us, therefore, it is doctrinal for us to believe it. |
|
|
|
Post by cradlecathlic27 on May 22, 2008 12:57:32 GMT -5
That always wierds me out...how some Christians choose to divide themselves by doctrines. How many denominations did Jesus start? Just one... it's called "the church"... not Baptist, Catholic, Methodist, Lutheran, or Episcopalian... just "the church". And by studying the context in which Jesus used the term "the church", or "my church"... it becomes obvious He is referring exclusively to the whole of God's adopted children... that is... those who are saved. But we as men do divide ourselves doctrinally, mainly because we question the validity of other denominations because of their doctrine... and we question whether they are a part of the "true church (lowercase c)" because their doctrine of salvation doesn't allow for true conversions... so we separate ourselves from the "goats". Since Jesus started "one" church, which of the 30,000 is "the church". There is no way possible that it is every single one. And you cant say we are all one church because we all believe in different things and we both cant be right. |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 22, 2008 13:03:26 GMT -5
Just one... it's called "the church"... not Baptist, Catholic, Methodist, Lutheran, or Episcopalian... just "the church". And by studying the context in which Jesus used the term "the church", or "my church"... it becomes obvious He is referring exclusively to the whole of God's adopted children... that is... those who are saved. But we as men do divide ourselves doctrinally, mainly because we question the validity of other denominations because of their doctrine... and we question whether they are a part of the "true church (lowercase c)" because their doctrine of salvation doesn't allow for true conversions... so we separate ourselves from the "goats". Since Jesus started "one" church, which of the 30,000 is "the church". There is no way possible that it is every single one. And you cant say we are all one church because we all believe in different things and we both cant be right. True. Before the 16th Century, there was only "one" Church. Even the Orthodox agree to that with the Great Schism. All other Christian groups up until the 16th Century are considered Heretics. That's why they had to begin their own religion "outside" of The Christian Church...so that no one would brand them Heretics. Once you have your own religion and your own leaders outside of The Apostolic Line of Succession, then you could make up new rules, new doctrines, new bibles, new churches, etc... Which is fine by me. To each their own. The only way one could be a Protestant is to completely ignore the facts of Christian History. A great Protestant Theologian says: "To know history is to cease to be Protestant." |
|
jhardin
Junior Member
"...wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the (c)atholic (spiritual) Church." Ignatius 110 A.D.
Posts: 65
|
Post by jhardin on May 22, 2008 16:51:43 GMT -5
Since Jesus started "one" church, which of the 30,000 is "the church". There is no way possible that it is every single one. And you cant say we are all one church because we all believe in different things and we both cant be right. LOL! I always laugh when I see someone try to guess how many "Independent Baptist Churches" there are. Karl Keating started it off by claiming there were 15,000... and the number keeps going up to inflate the argument. Anyway... if that's your argument, the Catholic Church is not a church then. I venture to guess that not all Catholics believe EVERYTHING the Catholic Church teaches.. and I KNOW that not all Catholics believe the same on every single point. The church is not a set of cloned doctors of Theology... the "church" is simply those who are "in Christ"... those He gave His life for... and those He will return for. Very simply, the "church" is comprised of those who are saved, and to whom the blood of Christ has been applied. Individual "Churches" (Romans 16:4, 1 Corinthians 7:17, Revelation 1:4)... are simply "called out assemblies" of those same saved individuals. So to say "the church", or "the churches" is equally appropriate in it's own context. What you as a Catholic need to do, is prove that when Jesus referred to "His Church" He was referring to an ecclesiastical hierarchy. I have never seen this proven yet. |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 22, 2008 17:13:16 GMT -5
Since Jesus started "one" church, which of the 30,000 is "the church". There is no way possible that it is every single one. And you cant say we are all one church because we all believe in different things and we both cant be right. LOL! I always laugh when I see someone try to guess how many "Independent Baptist Churches" there are. Karl Keating started it off by claiming there were 15,000... and the number keeps going up to inflate the argument. Anyway... if that's your argument, the Catholic Church is not a church then. I venture to guess that not all Catholics believe EVERYTHING the Catholic Church teaches.. and I KNOW that not all Catholics believe the same on every single point. The church is not a set of cloned doctors of Theology... the "church" is simply those who are "in Christ"... those He gave His life for... and those He will return for. Very simply, the "church" is comprised of those who are saved, and to whom the blood of Christ has been applied. Individual "Churches" (Romans 16:4, 1 Corinthians 7:17, Revelation 1:4)... are simply "called out assemblies" of those same saved individuals. So to say "the church", or "the churches" is equally appropriate in it's own context. What you as a Catholic need to do, is prove that when Jesus referred to "His Church" He was referring to an ecclesiastical hierarchy. I have never seen this proven yet. Matthew 7 24 Every one therefore that heareth these words of mine, and doeth them, shall be likened unto a wise man, who built his house upon the rock: 25 and the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and if fell not: for it was founded upon the rock. 26 And every one that heareth these words of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, who built his house upon the sand: 27 and the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and smote upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall thereof. Matthew 16 17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jonah: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father who is in heaven. 18 And I also say unto thee, that thou art Rock, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. 19 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. John 21 15 So when they had broken their fast, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of John, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs. 16 He saith to him again a second time, Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Tend my sheep. 17 He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep. Simon is given charge to nourish Jesus' flock making him Jesus' Shephard on earth after Jesus leaves. The flock are The Church. Peter is charged with Shepharding them (what Jesus did while He was with us). Whoever's Church is the one founded on The Rock (Peter), there's is The Church that never collapsed. Simon is The Head of The Church. Also, The Early Church Fathers (pre-Bible Chrsitian Leaders) believed this: Tatian the Syrian "Simon Cephas answered and said, ‘You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.’ Jesus answered and said unto him, ‘Blessed are you, Simon, son of Jonah: flesh and blood has not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say unto thee also, that you are Cephas, and on this rock will I build my Church; and the gates of hades shall not prevail against it" (The Diatesseron 23 [A.D. 170]). Tertullian "Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called ‘the rock on which the Church would be built’ [Matt. 16:18] with the power of ‘loosing and binding in heaven and on earth’ [Matt. 16:19]?" (Demurrer Against the Heretics 22 [A.D. 200]). "[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. . . . What kind of man are you, subverting and changing what was the manifest intent of the Lord when he conferred this personally upon Peter? Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys" (Modesty 21:9–10 [A.D. 220]). The Letter of Clement to James "Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter" (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D. 221]). The Clementine Homilies "[Simon Peter said to Simon Magus in Rome:] ‘For you now stand in direct opposition to me, who am a firm rock, the foundation of the Church’ [Matt. 16:18]" (Clementine Homilies 17:19 [A.D. 221]). Origen "Look at [Peter], the great foundation of the Church, that most solid of rocks, upon whom Christ built the Church [Matt. 16:18]. And what does our Lord say to him? ‘Oh you of little faith,’ he says, ‘why do you doubt?’ [Matt. 14:31]" (Homilies on Exodus 5:4 [A.D. 248]). Cyprian of Carthage "The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. . . . If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]). "There is one God and one Christ, and one Church, and one chair founded on Peter by the word of the Lord. It is not possible to set up another altar or for there to be another priesthood besides that one altar and that one priesthood. Whoever has gathered elsewhere is scattering" (Letters 43[40]:5 [A.D. 253]). "There [John 6:68–69] speaks Peter, upon whom the Church would be built, teaching in the name of the Church and showing that even if a stubborn and proud multitude withdraws because it does not wish to obey, yet the Church does not withdraw from Christ. For the Church, which is one and Catholic, is not split nor divided, but it is indeed united and joined by the cement of priests who adhere one to another" (ibid., 66[69]:8). |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 22, 2008 17:16:03 GMT -5
Hermas
"Therefore shall you [Hermas] write two little books and send one to Clement [Bishop of Rome] and one to Grapte. Clement shall then send it to the cities abroad, because that is his duty" (The Shepherd 2:4:3 [A.D. 80]).
Ignatius of Antioch
"Ignatius . . . to the church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the Father" (Letter to the Romans 1:1 [A.D. 110]).
"You [the church at Rome] have envied no one, but others you have taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force" (ibid., 3:1).
Irenaeus
"The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome] . . . handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus" (Against Heresies 3:3:3 [A.D. 189]).
Tertullian
"[T]his is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: like the church of the Smyrneans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John, like the church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter" (Demurrer Against the Heretics 32:2 [A.D. 200]).
The Little Labyrinth
"Victor . . . was the thirteenth bishop of Rome from Peter" (The Little Labyrinth [A.D. 211], in Eusebius, Church History 5:28:3).
Cyprian of Carthage
"The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. ... ’ [Matt. 16:18]. On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. . . . If someone [today] does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; first edition [A.D. 251]).
"Cornelius was made bishop by the decision of God and of his Christ, by the testimony of almost all the clergy, by the applause of the people then present, by the college of venerable priests and good men, at a time when no one had been made [bishop] before him—when the place of [Pope] Fabian, which is the place of Peter, the dignity of the sacerdotal chair, was vacant. Since it has been occupied both at the will of God and with the ratified consent of all of us, whoever now wishes to become bishop must do so outside. For he cannot have ecclesiastical rank who does not hold to the unity of the Church" (Letters 55:[52]):8 [A.D. 253]).
"With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source" (ibid., 59:14).
Eusebius of Caesarea
"Paul testifies that Crescens was sent to Gaul [2 Tim. 4:10], but Linus, whom he mentions in the Second Epistle to Timothy [2 Tim. 4:21] as his companion at Rome, was Peter’s successor in the episcopate of the church there, as has already been shown. Clement also, who was appointed third bishop of the church at Rome, was, as Paul testifies, his co-laborer and fellow-soldier [Phil. 4:3]" (Church History 3:4:9–10 [A.D. 312]).
And on and on and on and on...
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 22, 2008 17:20:02 GMT -5
This is what Jesus used to do to teach...He would refer to the teachings of the Church's ancestors.
And Christianity's ancestors are the Church Fathers.
This is why it's so easy for a Catholic to defend their faith...The Church Fathers already did it in the pre-Biblical years.
Before there was even a Bible there was The Church that created it
Amen.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 22, 2008 17:22:05 GMT -5
How many denominations did Jesus start? |
|
jhardin
Junior Member
"...wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the (c)atholic (spiritual) Church." Ignatius 110 A.D.
Posts: 65
|
Post by jhardin on May 22, 2008 19:00:28 GMT -5
Matthew 7 24 Every one therefore that heareth these words of mine, and doeth them, shall be likened unto a wise man, who built his house upon the rock: 25 and the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and if fell not: for it was founded upon the rock. 26 And every one that heareth these words of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, who built his house upon the sand: 27 and the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and smote upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall thereof. Are you suggesting that the "rock" in this passage is referring to Peter?... 1Co 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ. 1Pe 2:5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
1Pe 2:6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.
1Pe 2:7 Unto you therefore which believe [he is] precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,
1Pe 2:8 And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, [even to them] which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.
1Pe 2:9 But ye [are] a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:According to 1 Peter chapter 2... which by the way is written by the one you claim is "the rock"... Peter denies your claim, and affirms that Jesus Christ is the "rock". And His people are those (according to verse 9) that have been called out of darkness into his marvellous light. Peter didn't say ANYTHING about an ecclesiastical hierarchy that he was the head of in this passage. Doesn't that seem odd to you? ANYONE who is called by God to preach the Word of God is a nourisher of Jesus flock. This verse doesn't single Peter out in any way. The church of Jesus Christ is truly united, and is not divided... but this is concerning the spiritual sense. Everyone who is saved is held together by the bond of the Holy Spirit by which we are all called children of the adoption... Rom 9:4 Who are Israelites; to whom [pertaineth] the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service [of God], and the promises;
Rom 9:5 Whose [are] the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ [came], who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.
Rom 9:6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they [are] not all Israel, which are of Israel:
Rom 9:7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, [are they] all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
Rom 9:8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these [are] not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.
Just as not all who are called Israelites are israelites... not all who are called Christians are Christians. You can claim that a member of the Catholic Church is a Christian because of their association with the "Mother"... but that doesn't make them Christians... I think you know that. |
|
