The Church vs. The Individual

Theo1689

Well-known member
You don't have to ... free will to accept the truth or not

Yes, we accept the truth, you don't.
You simply ripped my question out of context.

Where does your proof-text instruct us to submit ourselves to a man who wears a dress in a country inside Italy?

You quote a lot of "proof-texts", which you errantly ASSUME all refer to Rome. My point is that they don't.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
and I would counter that with your past.... was Theo a Bishop, Priest, Deacon in Christ's One Church? 🤔

Christ's church never had "priests".
That's a Jewish thing.
The giving of the Holy Spirit obliterated the need for "prophets" or "priests".

And while I'm not one myself, my church has Biblical elders (ie. "bishops", from "episcopos", "overseers") and deacons.

Christian bishops are not "super-priests", like they are in Rome.
And for Christians, a "cardinal" is simply a pretty red bird.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
Lk 10:16 Whoever listens to you listens to ME. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me. 🥱:whistle::coffee:

To paraphrase Inigo Montoya...

"You keep quoting dat verse.... I don't t'ink it means what you t'ink it means."

As for your yawn and your cup of coffee, if you're that tired, I suggest you go back to bed.
 

Arch Stanton

Well-known member
Christ's church never had "priests".
That's a Jewish thing.
The giving of the Holy Spirit obliterated the need for "prophets" or "priests".
so much for Jude :(
And while I'm not one myself, my church has Biblical elders (ie. "bishops", from "episcopos", "overseers") and deacons.
With apostolic succession? I didn't know you were Catholic or Orthodox 🧐
And for Christians, a "cardinal" is simply a pretty red bird.
I would think several St. Louis Cardinals are Christians.
 

cjab

Well-known member
Indeed! the receiver of the keys (y)
Nothing to say he was the only receiver of the keys, as at that time he was just the first to make the confession.

As the 'Chamberlain/Steward' what would you call it?
There is NOTHING from the apostles about the chair of Peter being the custodian of the keys. In fact one could have said that the apostolic keys were afterwards shared amongst all the other apostles. Nothing to suggest they weren't.

Because if Peter had died before the others, you would have had the perverse situation of a non-apostle (i.e. the successor to Peter) having authority over a living apostle and potentially over 11 (or 10) other living apostles of greater authority.

....Robert Louis Stevenson would have competition ;)

Good thing the Holy Spirit 'guides' the Church.... even the early Christians prayed day and night for Pierre
To suggest the keys were kept by Rome for eternity is just a flight of fancy.

Acts 12:5 Peter thus was being kept in prison, but PRAYER BY THE CHURCH was fervently being made to God on his behalf.
OK. But I don't see the particular place where Peter died as having any claim to his keys. And more to the point, nor did any of the other churches. Rome was only ever primus inter pares until Leo I wrested control after the chaledonian episode.
 

Anselm01

Active member
So you just ignore scripture because you don't want to believe what Jesus said, nor what Paul wrote.
Ignorance is truly bliss.
No, I do not buy into your interpretation of it.
How many verses have your magisterium interpreted?
That is not relevant to this discuss. Please start a thread about that if you want greater clarification.
Your logic is seriously flawed, but that is typical of cults, they have to throw logic out in favor of their false teachings.
How is it flawed?
I told you, I do not interpret scripture. That would be YOU trying to convince yourself that my tradition is to interpret scripture.
But you do interpret Scripture. Everyone does. You may desire your opinion be on par with what God's word teaches, but that is not the case. Sorry.
It also shows that you are NOT indwelt by the Holy Spirit, because you are unable to receive Spiritual revelation. Without Spiritual revelation you are unable to understand Spiritual truths, it is folly to you.

You are to be pitied, as your relationship is not with God through the indwelling Spirit, but rather through men and their church that are devoid of the Spirit of God, just like the actions of yours Popes prove.
There it is... I was wondering when we were going to get to the "if you don't agree with me you are a reprobate" claim. Well, two can play that that game. The fact that you fail to agree with me shows that you do not have the Holy Spirit and are therefore unable to understand spiritual truths.
My sin does not increase. Your argument is with God whom you seem to believe approves of and uses those who are not redeemed and whose terrible sin brings no one to Christ.
How do I know if your sin increases or decreases... I guess I have to take your word for it... God can use anyone He wants to use. God even uses the enemies of Israel in the Old Testament.
You are living a delusion and you are against scripture:

Rom 6
6 What shall we say then? Are we to remain in sin so that grace may increase? 2 Absolutely not! How can we who died to sin still live in it? 3 Or do you not know that as many as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 Therefore we have been buried with him through baptism into death, in order that just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too may live a new life.
The Church never encourages Christians to remain in sin. That is why we have reconciliation. You are misrepresenting the Church here.
Nonsense. If sin is not decreasing then God is NOT using you.
You are even now still justifying your sin. Does your sin also still increase?
I never said sin was okay in any context.
No. Why do you keep trying to sell this nonsense of "interpret scripture"
You have made that up. It is a false premise you keep trying to sell without proof.
It is not false to say you interpret Scripture because you do.
Why do you think Christ sent the Helper, the Holy Spirit? Just because you are devoid of the leading of the Holy Spirit and prefer to be lead by men who are without the Holy Spirit, does not detract from the revelation received from the Spirit.
God sent the Holy Spirit to lead His Church. What you state is false.
I gave you scripture, but you are unable to discern Spiritual truth because it is folly to you and you have to use your natural mind to interpret it the way it suits your natural mind.
Again with this... I say the same for you. Now what?
God is not a powerless entity that have left us to the devices of depraved men like your Borgia pope and others worse than even him.

You still think your Church has Christ... Your church and it's history that you are so proud of, tell a completely different story.
God did not leave us alone with a Bible, either. Besides, most Christians could not read until the mid-19th century, so a Bible would have been of no use to 99% of Christians until around 1850.
I already gave you a verse. I know it is difficult for you to understand because you have to try and interpret it, but you don't know if your interpretation is correct. Go back one post and see for yourself what Jesus says about your tradition that

The fact that you did not even recognize that I quoted scripture and Jesus speaks volumes.
What do you mean? Do you mean that secondhand stories are revealed to you as truth? How can you verify it?
13 thus making void the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And many such things you do.
And I quoted 2 Thessalonians 2:15 where Paul states to stand firm in traditions he taught, whether spoken or written. Next.

2 Thessalonians 2:15
15 So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.
Do you think your traditions of Marian prayer and adoration and making her equal to Christ does not make void the the word of God...
Mary is not equal to Christ. Next.
There is a spirit of stupor clouding your mind.
Well, I think there is one clouding your mind.... No what?
 

Arch Stanton

Well-known member
Nothing to say he was the only receiver of the keys,
Indeed there is.... Mt 16
There is NOTHING from the apostles about the chair of Peter being the custodian of the keys.
read Isaiah 22 for a clearer picture
In fact one could have said that the apostolic keys were afterwards shared amongst all the other apostles. Nothing to suggest they weren't.
Nothing to suggest they were..... think of Joseph, Eliakim, Mordecai
Because if Peter had died before the others, you would have had the perverse situation of a non-apostle (i.e. the successor to Peter) having authority over a living apostle and potentially over 11 (or 10) other living apostles of greater authority.
Yes indeed.... look at John and Clement
To suggest the keys were kept by Rome for eternity is just a flight of fancy.
again, it could just as easily have been Antioch
OK. But I don't see the particular place where Peter died as having any claim to his keys. And more to the point, nor did any of the other churches. Rome was only ever primus inter pares until Leo I wrested control after the chaledonian episode.
see above... Clement and John
 
Top