For Christians-Evangelicalism, what's your take on it?

[Katzpur]

So what part did I not comment on?

Pretty much the entire thing. Re-read what my statement, which you just quoted in your Post #85, said, and tell me why the Bishop of Rome was supposed to lead the Church instead of a group of twelve Apostles (including one, such as Peter, who alone held all of the keys of authority). What evidence do we have that this was the way Christ intended that His Church be organized -- with the Bishop of Rome as its head?

 

[-Peacemaker-]

Not even true. It was St. Peter who first witnessed the Holy Spirit coming to Gentiles. Then it was St. Peter who took charge and settled the dispute of the laws and Gentile in Acts. Not St. Paul. In fact St. Paul took second to St. Peter. The first concil of Jerusalem showcased not only St. Peters leadership (which reinforces the qoute I gave Katzpur) but that it was he whole discredited the Judaizers.

Read Acts. 15 for the whole context and issues but here is what St. Peter says in his decision of the matter;
[6] And the apostles and ancients assembled to consider of this matter. [7] And when there had been much disputing, Peter, rising up, said to them: Men, brethren, you know, that in former days God made choice among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. [8] And God, who knoweth the hearts, gave testimony, giving unto them the Holy Ghost, as well as to us; [9] And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. [10] Now therefore, why tempt you God to put a yoke upon the necks of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?

Jacob couldn't be more right about this. It's completely incorrect to say that Paul split from the original church. Worse yet, it's quite misleading as it implies that Paul is some rogue who is not in harmony with Jesus' teachings. The truth is that the believers came together in Acts and as a church body decided that the new gentile believers didn't need to adhere to some of the Jewish customs.

 

[JacobEzra.]

You and I have had this discussion before, Jacob. At one point, on another thread, I asked you what the phrase "the gates of hell" would have meant. You never actually responded. Instead, you interpreted the entire statement ("the gates of hell shall not prevail against it") and you did so in light of what it means to you personally. I wanted to know what you believe just the phrase, "the gates of hell" to mean? Does it mean the forces of Satan? Does it mean the powers of evil? What does it mean -- that one phrase, "the gates of hell"? What would it have meant to a first-century Jewish follower of Jesus Christ?

What it means to us in the modern century is the same to thous in the first century. The gates of hell shall not prevail. Satan will not destroy the church. No matter how hard he tries. Even though the church is attacked by Satan who temps weak people in the Clergy, or brings people to attack the church such as heretics or even governments (ex; USSR) Christ will not allow his church and followers to be destroyed.

 

[JacobEzra.]

Pretty much the entire thing. Re-read what my statement, which you just quoted in your Post #85, said, and tell me why the Bishop of Rome was supposed to lead the Church instead of a group of twelve Apostles (including one, such as Peter, who alone held all of the keys of authority). What evidence do we have that this was the way Christ intended that His Church be organized -- with the Bishop of Rome as its head?

Take a look at the qoute from Acts I posted in response to fallingBlood showing St. Peter as head in the council in Jerusalem

 

[fallingblood]

Not even true. It was St. Peter who first witnessed the Holy Spirit coming to Gentiles. Then it was St. Peter who took charge and settled the dispute of the laws and Gentile in Acts. Not St. Paul. In fact St. Paul took second to St. Peter. The first concil of Jerusalem showcased not only St. Peters leadership (which reinforces the qoute I gave Katzpur) but that it was he whole discredited the Judaizers.

Read Acts. 15 for the whole context and issues but here is what St. Peter says in his decision of the matter;
[6] And the apostles and ancients assembled to consider of this matter. [7] And when there had been much disputing, Peter, rising up, said to them: Men, brethren, you know, that in former days God made choice among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. [8] And God, who knoweth the hearts, gave testimony, giving unto them the Holy Ghost, as well as to us; [9] And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. [10] Now therefore, why tempt you God to put a yoke upon the necks of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?

You need to read the rest of Acts, as well as Paul. Acts also states that Peter was the missionary to the Jews, while Paul was the missionary to the Gentiles. So even if Peter did some mission work among Gentiles (you also have to understand that there were individuals called "God-fearers" who were interested in Judaism, but didn't want to get circumcised. That was probably who Peter went to (it is also some who Paul probably went to first as well).

So Peter was the missionary to the Jews. That is the role he took, at least after Paul showed up on the scene. More so, the leader of the Jerusalem church is said to be James. Peter and John are pillars in the church, but James seems to hold the greatest power.

More so, the original movement was Jewish. If you notice, the fight (one of them) between Paul and the Jerusalem church (which consisted of James, Peter, and John, among other Jews), was about whether or not people had to be circumcised (become Jews) before entering into the movement. One should notice that the Jerusalem Church, including Peter, were of the opinion that yes, converts had to become Jews. Paul was not.

So it was Paul who accepted Gentiles into the movement (as Paul was the one who said that they did not have to convert to Judaism to be part of the movement).

Taking a very small portion of Acts out of context really doesn't prove anything. One has to take Acts and Paul together in order to see the big picture. So what I said is actually true.

St. Paul also proposed celibacy and advocated it to people. Your point being?

My point being that Catholicism has definitely changed since then and really is not the original. Paul stated and argued that leaders had every right to marry. Yes, he said that it would be best not to; however, if they had the desire, they should. The Catholic stance contradicts that.

I dont get what the point is your trying to make. Can you clarify?

Paul supported women being leaders. He would have supported women clergy (just a different name for what he already supported).

Same with Judaism, but can you say Judaism has not been continued from ancient times? Neither is human species, but does that not mean we are original?

Yes, I can say that Judaism has continued from ancient times. Judaism is extremely broad though. What I can't say is that the original form of Judaism, or even the Judaism from the time of Jesus, has continued to present time. It is something different.

As for human species, of course it is not the original. All one has to do is look at how far we have evolved in order to see that.

 

[Katzpur]

What it means to us in the modern century is the same to thous in the first century. The gates of hell shall not prevail. Satan will not destroy the church. No matter how hard he tries. Even though the church is attacked by Satan who temps weak people in the Clergy, or brings people to attack the church such as heretics or even governments (ex; USSR) Christ will not allow his church and followers to be destroyed.

Okay, so "the gates of hell" means "Satan"? That's all I was looking for. The thing is, that is not what "the gates of hell" would have meant to Peter and the Apostles. That would have been the farthest thing from their minds. To Jesus' Apostles, "the gates of hell" would have had no such sinister connotations. The phrase "the gates of hell" would have simply denoted the entrance to the underworld, the realm of departed spirits, the deceased. They would have interpreted His statement to mean that His Church would continue to exist even in the spirit world. It would be eternal, and not even death could put an end to the reality of His gospel and the promise of salvation it offered. That is what it would have meant to a first-century Jewish convert to Christianity, Jacob. It would have had nothing to do with Satan or the forces of evil.

 

[Katzpur]

Take a look at the qoute from Acts I posted in response to fallingBlood showing St. Peter as head in the council in Jerusalem

I was going to respond, but it looks as if fallingblood already did.

 

[Villager]

The need for personal conversion (or being "born again")

An essential as stated by Jesus. This involves a deliberate decision to 'put to death' the selfish desires of the will, and accept the will of God in all one's decisions as a 'new creation'.

A high regard for biblical authority

... there being no other acceptable, objective authority upon which agreement can be reached. Nevertheless, Christians believe that their own authority as the pillar and foundation of truth is instrumental and necessary in making the Bible the final arbiter in matters of faith and practice, and they also believe that their authority is recognised, if not necessarily approved, by the world.

An emphasis on teachings that proclaim the saving death and resurrection of the Son of God, Jesus Christ

It was the death that paid the penalty, resurrection was the proof of valid and completed payment. Christians believe in penal substitutionary atonement, atonement for the evils of mankind by the punishment of Jesus in the place of mankind. Those who accept their own evil, who accept that completed sacrifice, and live in gratitude for it, are accounted saints, and evince their gratitude in their behaviour. If that behaviour is not apparent, faith is reckoned absent also. In effect, the real authority, the only authority in the world, is behaviour.

Any attempt to earn righteousness in the sight of God is treated by Christians as blasphemy, and persons who encourage such a belief are regarded as the enemies of the truth and the church.

Christians do not believe that God made anyone in order to send them to hell. Christians do not believe that a decision to follow Christ is irrevocable, but that anyone can apostasise at any time (though not more than once).

 

[sojourner]

and just to define a heresy... its anything that the catholic church does not agree with

That could be said of any group though -- even JWs.

 

[sojourner]

RCC was not formed. It was a continuation after the schism between the east and west. Just liek the EO was not formed. They were already there.

It was formed as a denomination separate from the EO.

 

[sojourner]

I'd be curious to hear some examples of Scriptures that "scholarly exegesis" has proved false. If I was guessing I'd say that usually those passages are the ones that are the most counter cultural in our day and age such as the verses by Paul defining the role for women in the church.

2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,

I didn't say the scriptures were proved false. you're acting as if there's only one interpretation that can be gleaned from the texts. Since the texts are multivalent, exegesis is required to figure out the interpretations that make sense.

2 Tim. is not referring to most of the NT when it says "scripture," because when that letter was written, the canon had not been decided.

 

[Villager]

In fact, most Xians don't believe in the inerrancy of scripture.

Many people who call themselves Christians do not believe the Bible inerrant. But they may be exceedingly errant about the Bible– and about themselves being Christians, too. After all, if the Bible is unreliable, how can they be reliable?

What these people really ought to do is at last set up an honest denomination, one that actually states in black and white that the Bible is unreliable. Because there is no mainstream denomination that does not formally accept the inerrancy of the Bible, and if 'errantists' are members, they are hardly so with propriety.

Inerrancy didn't come about until the Reformation solas.

That's not true at all. The RCC has always maintained that 'Sacred Scripture' is inerrant.

 

[sojourner]

I've always found it fascinating how many Catholics have this idea that the original Church on AD 33 was nearly identical to the Catholic church today with all it's beliefs and practices. The picture they paint is that of Peter donning a Pope hat and presiding over all the little Christians as they pray the rosary. Peter holds confession two times a week and they ardently practice their seven sacraments. Catholics may retort that it wasn't their intention to paint such a picture but that's the result of the choice of words they use when they boast about the Catholic church as the first church. The reality is that it's through reading the NT that we see the oral traditions that circulated around that time. It was a process of hundreds and hundreds of years that extra-biblical traditions infused themselves into Christianity. My understanding is that even the sacred Catholic doctine of transubstantiation wasn't hammered out until about 1000 years after Jesus came. The Evangelical goal has been to get back to the basics of Christianity and practice it in it's purest form.

"Extra-biblical tradition" has always been the foundation of praxis for the church, since there was no NT to set precedence for the early church.

 

[sojourner]

Catholicism is not considered heretical in any way by Evangelicals.

:biglaugh::biglaugh::biglaugh:

Tell that to the evangelical maniacs who went around on Easter Sunday one year, putting posters on the windshields of all the cars at our Episcopal church (thinking we were RC) denouncing the Pope as the "antichrist" and saying that all Catholics were going to hell.

 

[sojourner]

Because there is no mainstream denomination that does not formally accept the inerrancy of the Bible, and if 'errantists' are members, they are hardly so with propriety.

RCC, EO, Anglican, Presbyterian USA, United Methodist, United Church of Christ, Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) -- these are all mainstream denominations. None of them buy into the inerrancy of scripture.

Don't be so judgmental about who's a "real Xian" and who isn't. You're not God, so you're not qualified to make that judgment.

 

[Villager]

RCC, EO, Anglican, Presbyterian USA, United Methodist, United Church of Christ, Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) -- these are all mainstream denominations. None of them buy into the inerrancy of scripture.

Quite right, they don't 'buy in' to it, no. They are serious people. They state it in official documents that readers may consult.

Don't be so judgmental about who's a "real Xian" and who isn't.

Do I need to be?

 

[sojourner]

Quite right, they don't 'buy in' to it, no. They are serious people. They state it in official documents that readers may consult.

You said that there are no mainstream denominations that don't buy into the inerrancy of scripture. I just pointed out several mainstream denominations that don't buy into it, proving your statement false.

Do I need to be?

Why would I think you'd need to be, when I asked you not to be???

 

[Villager]

You said that there are no mainstream denominations that don't buy into the inerrancy of scripture.

I don't need to use that sort of language.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

I didn't say the scriptures were proved false. you're acting as if there's only one interpretation that can be gleaned from the texts. Since the texts are multivalent, exegesis is required to figure out the interpretations that make sense.

2 Tim. is not referring to most of the NT when it says "scripture," because when that letter was written, the canon had not been decided.

Who's arguing that? This is a realities of Christianity, always has been...always will be...

 

[Walkntune]

I didn't say the scriptures were proved false. you're acting as if there's only one interpretation that can be gleaned from the texts. Since the texts are multivalent, exegesis is required to figure out the interpretations that make sense.

There are many interpretations but I still find the Holy Spirit revealed version the best.