Former Protestant Pastor Helps Shepherd Catholic Converts

I think if you look closely at the Isaiha verse you will see that the keys are given to the steward, not the king. The steward is the kings mouthpiece or prime minister, literally and speaks with the authority of the king. This can be seen in 2 Kings around chap 18 where Eliakim goes out to I believe it is the Assyrian army to negotiate with them for the king. Now it is interesting that Hezekiak was a king long after David and evidently this office of steward or prime minister was an office that had successors also. This episode (Is 22) clearly is a forshadowning of Christianity becoming the Kingdom of Christ. Christianity has become the new spokesmen for God. It is impossible gramtically to put the keys of Matt 18, 19 to Christ. Unless someone else is speaking which I don't see in the text, when Christ says "I will give YOU the keys to the kingdom" it is quite clear that he is speaking to Peter. Keys also imply successors as well as authority. When I bought my house the former owner gave me a set of keys. At that moment I had control over the whole house and of course I can delgate some of that authority to my wife and kids so to a degree the keys are to the whole Church I think but only through Peter and the Popes. Now if I someday sell this house or die, the keys that I hold that give me authority over my house will be passed on to whoever moves in next. Simple enough I think.

Blessings

[ October 10, 2003, 08:16 PM: Message edited by: thessalonian ]

 

I presented scripture to show Peter was not any more infallible than you or me. You even agreed with me the Pope is also not infallible. I have also read from thessalonian that he does not believe scripture alone.

I have also read on here, can't remember who, that the Pope was infallible because he is guided by the Holy Spirit.

Do you guys know what is infallible?

Christ commanded those who would be exalted to abase themselves. Or was this referring to Baptists of an open fire era?

Bro. Dallas

 

Christ commanded those who would be exalted to abase themselves. Or was this referring to Baptists of an open fire era?

Bro. Dallas </font>[/QUOTE]I know what infallible is from a Catholic perspective. And I know that you believe that men can have a limited infallibility. And I can prove it.

First on infallibility, what is it. From a Catholic perspective we say that Peter (and the Popes) was infallible every time that he spoke on faith and morals and what he said was meant to bind the whole Church to what he said. This can be seen in Matt 16:18 where he declares Christ the son of the living God, John 6:68 where he tells Jesus he has the words of eternal life, in Acts 2:38 where he says "repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins and you shall recieve the Holy Spirit", Acts 15 where he settles the issue of the circumsion of the Gentiles and of course in his two letters. Each of the first four times, the Apostles are addressed and he responds for the group. Clearly what he says is infallible. Every time he speaks for the group of Apostles he is 100% correct infallible. When he speaks his own mind he messes up in the case of Matt 17. This shows that when he is not speaking according to the Catholic definition of infallibility he is quite fallible. We do not say the Pope is fallible all the time. He is not impecable and he can't tell us which way the stock market is going. But when he speaks, binding the whole Church he cannot lie, for God cannot bind a lie and he said he would bind WHATEVER Peter said.

Now for proof that you believe in limited infallibility of men. Peter was a sinner and even spoke errantly in Matt 17 on that we agree. Yet you have his two letters in your Bible I believe and have not scratched out the words he spoke in the Gospels and Acts. Why not? Paul himself says "the good that I would do, I do not, while the EVIL that I would not do, I do." Apparently Paul was a bit of a sinner himself and yet you have not torn his works out of the scriptures. Thus you must believe that he was infallible in a limited sense when he was writing the inspired word of God. Even Ciaphas, the High Priest who participated in the crusifixion was an infallible mouthpiece of God in a limited sense.

John 11:
49Then one of them, named Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, spoke up, "You know nothing at all!50You do not realize that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish."
51He did not say this on his own, but as high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the Jewish nation, 52and not only for that nation but also for the scattered children of God, to bring them together and make them one. 53So from that day on they plotted to take his life.


So you either better start deleting verses in your Bible or own up to the possibility that God can do a limited infallibility through the power of the Holy Spirit.


Blessings

 

Dallas,

No I do not believe in scripture alone. The Catholic Church does not teach it and neither do the scriptures themselves. If you can find the verse I am all ears. I know what your thinking, 1 Tim 3:16. Sorry, doesn't cut it. First of all if that verse is saying Scripture alone then you are limited to the Old Testament, because it says the scriptures that Timothy knew from his childhood. Also rope makes me sufficient for climbing a mountain, but I better have a good set of boots also.

Scripture nowhere says that the WORD OF GOD = scripture alone. Not one verse. If it does please show me. It does however say that WORD OF GOD = Oral Tradition + Written Tradition (scripture).

Where, 2 Thes 2:15 "Hold FAST to the TRADITIONSSSSSS you have recieved, whether BY WORD OF MOUTH, or in writing from us.

Note that he clearly says that the oral is authotative as well as the oral. There are other verses such as 2 Tim 2:2 where Pauls says "what you have HEARD from me in the prescence of many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will teach them to others." and of course in John's final letter he says he has much more to say but will deliver it in person.

There are many other reasons to reject Sola Scriptura as biblical but this is good for starters.

Hope that helps.

Blessings

 

that is the point of this discussion of Peter/the Pope and/Mary. The Apostolic age is ended.

The Apostolic age has ended.

The Apostolic age has ended.

can you hear that? The Apostles were inspired in their writing, so too Luke, Jude, etc. Now, the Apostolic age is ended. Peter never claimed a headship of any kind over the church, because Christ never gave him a headship of any kind different than any one of the other Apostles.

Bro. Dallas

 

2 Tim. 3.16 says "ALL" scripture. yes. Paul was referring to the OT. But listen to this:

What about 1 Thess. 1.5?

How do you get around 1 Tim. 3.15? Here the Apostle says by inspiration the church is the ground and pillar of the truth, he doesn't say a man is. He says the church is.

Bro. Dallas

 

So would you say. "6 All Scripture and tradition is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work."? Certainly the Pharisees would have thought that.

But just take a look and see how Jesus addresses their traditions.

Mark 7"3-9, "For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they carefully wash their hands, thus observing the traditions of the elders; and when they come from the market place, they do not eat unless they cleanse themselves; and there are many other things which they have received in order to observe, such as the washing of cups and pitchers and copper pots. The Pharisees and the scribes ^asked Him, "Why do Your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat their bread with impure hands? "But in vain do they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.' "Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men." He was also saying to them, "You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition."

Not all traditions are good. Some are from God and others from the Devil.

Acts 17:11 says, "11 Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so."

So are you saying with the RCC that is not necessary. If you believe that then you are more trusting than the Bereans who were commended.

Ever read the early church father Tertullian on baptism. He disagrees with the RCC.

 

" 2 Tim. 3.16 says "ALL" scripture. yes. Paul was referring to the OT."

First of all, I have no problem with scripture being used of rebuking, correcting and instructing. I just did some correcting and instructing with a pretty good chunck of scripture and will use it liberally in our posts as I have in the past. I hope I live long enough to use every single verse in defending the faith. 1 Tim 3:15. But it is not all I will use and it is not all the early Church used. They did not just quote scripture but used reason, logic, and nature itself as well. Of course these things had to be in harmony with scripture. It is only your lack of understanding of Catholicism that tells you it is not.




"What about 1 Thess. 1.5?

"5because our gospel came to you not simply with words, but also with power, with the Holy Spirit and with deep conviction. You know how we lived among you for your sake. 6You became imitators of us and of the Lord; in spite of severe suffering, you welcomed the message with the joy given by the Holy Spirit."


Don't see where this says that the Gospel was only given to them exclusively in writing. In fact I find it hard to picture the Apostle Paul trapsing across Europe and Asia with a pack of camels a mile long carring a bunch of scrolls that took 10 years for him to get enough to supply to 100 people. More likely he preached the gospel to them orally.

"How do you get around 1 Tim. 3.15? Here the Apostle says by inspiration the church is the ground and pillar of the truth, he doesn't say a man is. He says the church is."


Dallas,


I don't need to get around it because my views and the teachings of the Catholic Church are in complete harmony with it.
We have different views of what the Church is. You believe it is some sort of body of believers that isn't really visible and spans many denominations. That is all well and good, but I believe in the visible reality of the Church. A "light set on a hill for all to see". The Church is the guardian of the truth. But the Church isn't me except when I submit to it as the bride of Christ, then I am a part of it. The Church is the collective body of believers in the visible Catholic Church and those informally joined through baptism, but not fully in communion due to a lack of understanding not of their own fault.

Blessings

 

Not all traditions are good. Some are from God and others from the Devil.

"Acts 17:11 says, "11 Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so.""

Now why were these beareans noble minded? Seems to me you can make a case that they were because "THEY RECIEVED THE WORD WITH GREAT EAGERNESS". They listened to Paul. Note that in the same chapter the thessalonians, Jews, who have the same scriptures and know them well, reject Paul. They do not accept his words and so they are not noble.


"Ever read the early church father Tertullian on baptism. He disagrees with the RCC. "

Yes, I have read Tertullian. All of his writings. He was much more Cathoic than Baptist that is for sure but unfortunately turned to Montanism later in his life and it corrupted his thoughts. Not sure what you are refering to here. I do recall he spoke about Baptism and if I was a betting man I would say he was in favor of Baptismal regeneration. Hardly a Baptist dogma. Now did tertullian agree with what you teach on other things, let's say, the Eucharist? Not likely.

As for bad traditions I agree. There are bad ones. But clearly there is an oral tradition passed on with the scriptures. With the hundreds upon thousands of Protestant Churches with conflicting beliefs which ones have the correct batch. Or is it as one Baptist pastor told me that God intended the truth to be split among the Protestant denominations so the devil couldn't find it all. Ya right.

Blessings.

[ October 10, 2003, 09:33 PM: Message edited by: thessalonian ]

 

"As for bad traditions I agree. There are bad ones. But clearly there is an oral tradition passed on with the scriptures.'

The oral tradition was not just other things it was the gospels as we know them The gospels were written much after Jesus departed.

You do know there are differences within the RCC as well?

 

This is not what I believe. Catholic means universal. There is no universal church. I believe in a local visible body of immersed believers. You do know baptism means immersion don't you?

I posted on another thread what I believe concerning the church. I can't remember which one. but I will find it and post the link.

Dallas

 

I think Carson stated it well about the numbers of people in the Catholic Church who need to be born again. I was one of those. For the first 18 years of my life I never knew what it meant to be born again. Once I understood what that meant I began to share that with the rest of my family. But never once did I ever hear about salvation in any of the Catholic churches I attended. It was a protestant who told me about my need for Christ and salvation. Shortly before that time God began to work in my heart and then the messanger came.

Christianity is not about a church but about a relationship with God through Jesus Christ.

 

here is a link to what I believe about the church. scroll down to 'for information'

 

I agree with you. But Christ did establish a church and there is a doctrine of the church taught in the Bible.

 

Thess now says of me and the SDA denomination "I never said you or the SDA church was not trinitarian".

Yet from the quote above - he makes it "appear" that instead of teaching the trinitarian nature of the Godhead as a doctrine - the SDA church merely discusses the subject as "opinions" that church members debate.

The fact it is - it is voted by the entire world body and every 5 years that vote is confirmed and affirmed by repeated gatherings of the world body of SDAs. INSTEAD of making it "an opinion" of some.

But as with any group of 12 million a very small group may differ with almost anything - even so Thess has found 1 or 2 SDAs in his life that differ on the subject of the Trinity. (I only found that such a small group of dissenters even existed about 8 years ago).

So "instead" of the "varied opinion" view of that teaching (and believe me we DO have subjects were there are varied opinions and there is no world body of the church in session voting and declaring which side of the debate they are all on) - this particular doctrine is "in stone" for the SDA church.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Carson is wrong here - in numerous ways.

#1. Christ affirms in John 16 that the Spirit will guide you into all truth. In John 16 the ministry of the Holy Spirit (the scope) is said to be the WORLD "explicitly" IN the text. Carsons supposition fails here.

#2. IN John 14 Christ states that the Holy Spirit will give us peace. Carson's attempts to limit the scope of Christ's words in John 13-17 to just the 12 fails here as well.

#3. In 1John 2 John writing to the church says "you have NO need for anyone to teach you for His Annointing teaches you" -- Carsons "limiting" function fails here as well.

#4 Hebrews 8 the CORE of the New Covenant is stated as "God HIMSELF" as our teacher "They shall NOT say each one to His brother - know the Lord - for ALL shall know me" and God promises to directly write on EACH heart His own Word His own Law.

The "supposition" that Catholic leadership stands as the great roadblock between man and God is explicitly denied in scripture's teaching of the "EVERY MAN" ministry and the "WORLD" teaching ministry of the Holy Spirit.

In Christ,

Bob

 

This is a good point Dallas. But to follow it you must believe that "ALL scripture is inspired by God AND is to be used for instruction doctrine and reproof".

You must accept and believe it.

In Carson's opening post (and in the title to this subject) we see the claim that some pastors converted to Catholicism.

How many of those were bible believing fundamentalists that ACCEPTED the infallability of the scriptures and the ACCURACY of the account God gives for the origin of man and the fall of man and the problem the Gospel is addressing?

When asked that pointed question - carson has made every effort to duck - because it reveals the embarrassing fact, that fundamentalist Bible believing pastors DON't convert to Catholicism.

The RC response has been to whine that when I point that out they have no substantive response.

Well - why do you suppose that is? Is it because there is a REASON why some groups of non-Catholic pastors would be more inclined to convert than others?

Do you suppose it has "something" to do with how they were treating God's Word BEFORE they converted?

Come on - I can't believe even an RC member would not "notice" the connection.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Carson Weber,

You said, 'The successors to these same men, gathered around Peter, are the bishops of the Roman Catholic Church.

You are simply making the assumption that the charism (gift) of being led into all truth is given to every Christian. Of course, we know that this is not true because Christians everywhere disagree on just about every significant

Ray is saying, 'Please, take time, about two minutes, to find out who the Apostle John was speaking to in chapter two. He is writing to three groups of Christians. Those who are the father's who will guide the church are called, fathers. The second group were called 'young men,' meaning they had a degree of spiritual stability. The third group John focused on were 'little children.' These were Christian who had just come into the faith and at times submitted to the temptations of the evil one. Once you understand this classification of men/women you will begin to understand many things in the Christian faith. As I view it, when John speaks of ministry of the Holy Spirit by way of instructing God's people in their understanding of the Word of God, he is speaking to the newest of Christians. He is not speaking to the father's of the faith ' . . . because they have known He Who was from the beginning.' These men understood most, if not all, spiritual truth that was delivered to them in the manuscript.

The Apostle John emphasizes at least twice that these spiritual children [John 2:1a; 13h, 18a;28] of his have an inner anointing. [I John 2:20 & 27] He uses two Greek words, {teknia} I think it means more like a newly born baby, while in the other passages he uses the word {paidia} suggesting a child who is about five to ten years old. At any rate John know that the believers who need spiritual understanding are those young in the faith.

I am not trying to be contentious, but the Apostle John in no way was saying that this 'anointing' was only for, if you will, the Catholic elite. The word of God was not written just to the Magisterium, the Archbishops, and bishops to understand. The Bible, the Word of God, was written to and for even the 'teknia' the new believers who have come into the faith.

One of the concepts on the Protestant Reformation was the "Priesthood of all Believers." Each Christian has the {chrisma, khrismah, Greek for anointing. Every Christian has access [Hebrews 4:16] to Almighty God, through Jesus Christ and each Christian has a right to study and learn the Word of God as the Spirit directs.'

You said in your statement above something to the effect that all Christians just about disagree on every significant tenant of Christianity.

I am saying, 'That all orthodox and evangelical Christians believe in all of the cardinal doctrines of God's holy Word. We all believe that Christ is Divine and is God, the Trinity, Original Sin, a literal Creation, redemption through the blood of Christ, the judgment of the wicked dead and their ultimate place in Hell, Heaven for His people and so on. I am sure the Catholic Church also believes in these major doctrines. So what you were saying in your post needs to be reevaluated in the light of I John chapter two. Even new born saints need to learn and feed on the precious Word of God.

It is relatively unimportant to us that Catholics think because there is not a complete unanimity among non-Catholic churches including the Catholic church. In the afore mentioned major doctrines both Protestants, Baptists, and Catholics agree. This is something to celebrate!

 

Ray to Carson -- You said, 'The successors to these same men, gathered around Peter, are the bishops of the Roman Catholic Church.


Actually - there were THREE Papal lines - EACH with successors ALL at the same time. (Catholics call it the Great Schism).

They called each other antichrist. RAised papal armies and slaughtered each other.

Then the Emperor demanded that ALL of them resign - setup HIS OWN council - elected a NEW Pope and that is the one that we have today as his "successor".

The RCC has been somewhat willing to confess its list of what it calls "wicked Popes" some of whom were NOT rival lines - but just the run-of-the-mill "successors" - and not too morally astute - basically morally corrupt.

Catholics usually make it a point not to talk about that when going through Carsons list above on the wonders of having successors.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob Ryan,

Thanks for the new information. I read the thick text, "The History of Christianity," and may have read this, but I don't recall this apparent happening in the life of the Catholic Church. It may be new to other brethren also.

Blessings . . .