Mary Queen of Heaven? What?

As already noted - there is only ONE Gospel (Gal 1:6-11) and so it does not matter who is getting saved by the Romans 10 steps - we all do it the same way.

BTW - the letter to Romans includes both Jews and Gentiles.

How odd that the text then does not say to believe and confess "in order to consider proper righteousness".

I am going to stick with the text itself in this case - because Paul is calling for those who are lost to become saved - it matters not if the lost is Jew or Gentile.

The fact that righteousness comes only through the Gospel model of salvation is a point Paul makes repeatedly. The fact that the condition Paul addresses in Romans 10 is the lost condition (and it matters not that they are lost Jews - given that there is only ONE way of salvation) is also clear in the text itself.

Paul states that faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God in Rom 10 -- again a principle that applies to both Jew and Gentile.

So the fact that Paul is identifying failures of the Jews to convince them that they LIKE Gentiles need salvation does nothing to "change salvation" or to change what "results in salvation" since we all know that both Jew and Gentile must "believe" and must "confess".

These are necessary steps common to all the lost who seek salvation.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Hold the phone!

You do recall Steaver's "Bacon" thread right? (My last two or three posts there may be of interest as they apply to this topic as well)

I am an Arminian that accepts not only the principle of "perseverance of the saints" as a necessary step for saints - but I also accept the Arminian free will concept that flatly reject the man-made tradition of OSAS.

I argue that we come to Christ, gain Justification, are born again, are accepted by Christ, are saved - via the steps of Romans 10.

However Romans 2:6-7 makes it clear that once saved we must "persevere in doing good" to remain in that condition.

In Romans 8 we are to walk by the Spirit "putting to death the deeds of the flesh" in order to have that witness from the Holy Spirit that "we are the children of God".

As soon as we decide to turn away from that walk of the saints - we enter into the Matt 18 condition of "forgiveness revoked".

(Just so we are clear on what my argument is in this case).

in Christ,

Bob

 

Don't forget, there's more than the Patriarchate of Rome...so even IF Apostolic succession died in the Roman Church (which btw didn't, as an Orthodox Christian we believe that Rome's Bishops orders are vaild), Christ's promise in Matthew 16:18 & 28:20, where Christ promised the "gates of hell would not prevail against the Church and that he Himself would be with the Apostles until the end of the age, would live on in the Orthodox Church...

From Holy Scripture:

No one else dared join them, even though they were highly regarded by the people. Acts 5:13 (Note: this shows that the early Christians had a reverence for them) ​

We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. Acts 15:24 ​

As they traveled from town to town, they delivered the decisions reached by the apostles and elders in Jerusalem for the people to obey. Acts 16:4 ​

For we are not like many, peddling the word of God, but as from sincerity, but as from God, we speak in Christ in the sight of God. 2 Corinthians 2:17 (Note: this shows that the office they hold is more then self appointed authority). ​

having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone Eph. 2:20 (Note: the word founation is used to describe "the apostles and prophets", not just St. Peter) ​

Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood. Acts 20:28 (Note: this is a clear testimony that the Holy Spirit appointed the Twelve to be "oeverseers" and "shepherds of the church") ​

As you sent me into the world, I have sent them into the world. John 17:18 (Note: the Bible compares the ministry of Jesus to that of the Twelve) ​

The testimony of the early Church:

Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry Clement I Letter to the Corinthians 42:4–5, 44:1–3 A.D. 80​

When I had come to Rome, I [visited] Anicetus, whose deacon was Eleutherus. And after Anicetus [died], Soter succeeded, and after him Eleutherus. In each succession and in each city there is a continuance of that which is proclaimed by the law, the prophets, and the Lord Hegesippus Memoirs, cited in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 4:22 A.D. 180 ​

It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known to us throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors down to our own times, men who neither knew nor taught anything like what these heretics rave about Irenaeus Against Heresies 3:3:1 A.D. 189 ​

[The apostles] founded churches in every city, from which all the other churches, one after another, derived the tradition of the faith, and the seeds of doctrine, and are every day deriving them, that they may become churches. Indeed, it is on this account only that they will be able to deem themselves apostolic, as being the offspring of apostolic churches. Every sort of thing must necessarily revert to its original for its classification. Therefore the churches, although they are so many and so great, comprise but the one primitive Church, [founded] by the apostles, from which they all [spring]. In this way, all are primitive, and all are apostolic, while they are all proved to be one in unity Tertullian Demurrer Against the Heretics 20 A.D. 200 ​

In XC
-

 

That shows that the Spiritual Gift of being an "Apostle" (that we see in 1Cor 12) was highly respected as in fact is listed in 1Cor 12 as first among the gifts. But that gift required that you be someone who lived at the time of Christ and who was one of the 12 or so leaders starting the NT church.

That ended by the start of the 2nd century A.D.

Many OTHER non-Apostles were also evangelizing (Apollos, Silas, Barnabus, Timothy ... etc)

​

This is a reference to non-Apostles that were in error.

However the Acts 15 council was attended by actual living Apostles to render a judgment.

As they traveled from town to town, they delivered the decisions reached by the apostles and elders in Jerusalem for the people to obey. Acts 16:4
​

That statement in now way limits itself to Apostles.

In Eph 2 there is no reference that new apostles will be raised up in every age. Only that the church is founded upon the work done by those that had already come along.

This is a good text refuting the entire notion of Apostolic succession - because the statement in Acts 20 is being addressed to the Elders in the area of Ephesus.

Every church had an overseer, and Elder - (we would call them Elders and Pastors today). Nothing here about the church of Ephesus having its own resident apostles.

At the time of Christ speaking this in John 17 - (The Last Supper) Christ had sent BOTH the 70 and the 12 into the world. In John 17 Christ states explicitly that the pray said then applied NOT ONLY to the disciples but to ALL that should believe through them in all ages.

What is specifically missing from this list is any text at all saying that "so and so was given apostolic succession from James or from Peter" --

IN the OT there actually IS such a thing as High Priestly "succession" but nothing like that is documented in the NT.

in Christ,

Bob
​

 

You're missing the point, Bob, that all of these individuals (Silas, Timothy, the Ephesian presbyters etc) were appointed by our acting with the authorisation of the Apostles.

 

Certainly we can all agree that the NT leaders were at that time - being directed by the Acts 15 Jerusalem council and that the evangelists they sent out (including Barnabus, Mark, Silas and yes even Paul) were setting up churches wherever they went.

But after the death of the last of the Apostles -- the church continues under some kind of order - but without any Apostles.

And there is nothing in the NT about "apostolic succession".

Which of course - would be impossible anyway - given the 3 competing lines of Popes ALL of them having successors and ALL of them terminated by Emperor Sigismund.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Here is what the text "does" say -

Rom 10
8 But what does it say? "THE WORD IS NEAR YOU, IN YOUR MOUTH AND IN YOUR HEART"--that is, the word of faith which we are preaching,
9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, [b]you will be saved; [/b]
10 for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.


And since there is only ONE Gospel (Gal 1:6-11) and thus only ONE way of salvation - the salvation above applies to both Jew and Gentile.


Paul makes no argument at all in Romans 10 that Jews are saved one way and gentiles saved an entirely different way.

Thus when Paul indentifies the actions resulting in salvation the point is crytstal clear.

Paul points out in Romans 10 that the Jews need that salvation every bit as much as gentiles. But that does nothing to change the form of the solution that is provided - and the fact that it applies to all lost people.


in Christ,

Bob

 

To take your last point first, Apostolic Succession isn't just (or even primarily) about Popes - I think you'll find Agnus Dei would have something to say if it was! It's about bishops. The members of the two, later three, lists of Popes during the Rome-Avignon schism were all validly consecrated bishops, whether or not they were valid Popes. And it was the Council of Constance, comprised of bishops which ended the schism.

I would also question your assertion that the concept of AS is not found in the pages of the NT. We've hashed this out here before, but there is, for example, Paul's injunction to Timothy: "And the things you have heard from me among many witnesses, commit these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also." (2 Tim 2:2). (There are other examples as well, but time does not permit right now.)

 

1. Please show where any Catholic or (other denomination) claims that Bishops are all "Apostles".

2. Please show where the Bible states that Timothy - or anyone Timothy appointed - was "an Apostle".

3. Please show that Paul EVER claimed to bestow the 1Cor 12 gift of being an Apostle on ANYONE!

4. Please show that the 1Cor 12 gift of being an Apostle - is bestowed through election to church leadership as a deacon or elder.

This appears to be the key weakness in the argument you described.

I find many references in RCC literature to Popes sitting in Peter's chair - as Apostles via some mythical concept of Apostolic succession - but nothing about all Bishops or all Cardinals being "Apostles". Thus the defrocking of ALL Popes at the time of Sigismund is another "wall" blocking those claims.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Re #1, #2 and #3, we are talking about successors to the Apostles, not the Apostles themselves. And the RCs, Orthodox and Anglicans certainly do claim that their Bishops are the successors of the Apostles. Re #4, I don't see what that has to do with the debate.

 

Talk about reading all kinds of stuff into the scriptures and adding and embellishing unnecessarilly!!!

 

BillySunday proposed it as a way to get the RCC back on top of the list of denominations -

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=1538297#post1538297

in Christ,

Bob

 

The only text in all of scripture mentioning the queen of heaven - and even "burning incense to the queen of heaven" is found in the book of Jeremiah and it is condemned there -- as a pagan practice.

turns out - it was a pagan practice "still" even in the 5th century AD when the RCC "baptized that practice" trying to come up with a way to coopt it and use it for a christian-ish idea.

That is how they rationalized adoption of that particular pagan practice.

 

How does that differ from the kind of exegesis practiced by dispensational premillennialists? They take a little bit here and a little bit there and pretty soon they have a whole new theory that is nowhere expressly stated in scripture.

 

Indeed that happens. Two wrongs do not make a right.

Exegesis is much better than simply inserting wild ideas into the text as it pleases your denomination.

in Christ,

Bob