The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum 3 Quotes from Protestants

OrthodoxCatholic,

Sorry sir, YOU are dead wrong!

You said

"There is the promise. It is iron clad and bound by the precious Blood which Jesus shed on the Cross. Notice to WHOM Jesus was addressing this. He was addressing the first one who would hold the office of covenantal head over the people of God -- St. Peter."

Jesus was addressing all the apostles, not just Peter! Jesus said NOTHING about an "office" nor "convenental head" of His church! Jesus IS the covenental head of His church. He remains with us, Matt 28:20.

Again, you said:

"The covenantal head of the earthly people of God is the Holy Father in Rome."

This is not scriptural, please exegete the passage that you believe this is stated in!

Likewise, please do the same for this statement of yours:

"The promise of Christ is that His Holy Spirit would thus protect this office from error in these two areas "

Before you go on castigating protestants, perhaps we could get to the Word, and correct exegesis of it's content?

In His Hands,

Ruth

That was not the point I was answering, William. The accusation I was answering was that Catholics are not unified. My response is that the unity of the Catholic Faith is the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Prior to that, the unity took place around the canons of councils, didn't it? The council met, and decided what was of God's mind, and told the believers what to believe.

For instance, the Jerusalem Council in Acts. Peter and the apostles got together, discussed and prayed, and at the end said

"....for it seemed go to us and the Holy Spirit..."

All who then obeyed this first canon of the first council were in good stead and unified to the Church. All who disobeyed were....well, let's let St. Paul make a statement as to their condition:

2 Thessalonians 3:6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.

1 Timothy 6:5 Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.

So there was NOT unity among those who followed erroneous ways, was there? Did that withdrawl mean that the apostles were starting another denomination?

Not hardly.

It meant that the ones who were being disobedient were "excommunicated" and kept from the general assembly.

Brother Ed

In order for us to discuss this, you first have to read Ray Sutton's book on the covenant of God: THAT YOU MAY PROSPER -- Dominion By Covenant.

FREE BOOKS FROM I.C.E.

This is a Protestant (VERY Protestant) site. Sutton wrote his book as a PCA Presbyterian. In it he outlines the basic structure of a covenant. You can read the entire book here for free.

The Bible does not give the basic structure of a covenant relationship. This is one of those many things you have to work out through the scriptures.

I am not going to try to give you 150+ pages of exegesis in a limited space like this other than to say that every covenantal structure has a head. If not, then it is not a covenant, pure and simple.

I do hope you will read Sutton's book. It is not long, but full of good stuff.

Cordially in Christ,


Brother Ed

Brother Ed,
Sorry for jumping in the conversation and barraging you with criticism, but like Dave said, it is to be expected because we do not share your beliefs. Moving on...

This:

Does not say this:




I'll give you this. Jesus will keep his church as surely as he died, and Jesus was definitely talking about Peter. Your leap from the text to the doctrine of Papal Succession doesn't follow.


I'm not sure if you read my last post or not, but you are still referring to Protestantism as being united, when it's obvious that it isn't. The testimony of the Holy Spirit is evident among those who believe God according to his Word. This argument of yours also does not follow.


Apply the above criticism to the statement below:



Some are seen as simple minded idiots because they act as such, others are seen that way because the "word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing." I am quite filled with horror myself when I see "the name of God profaned among the nations" because of many so-called christian groups. I also don't see pagans giving any respect to the Catholics.

Ben

I will also direct you to Ray Sutton's book on the covenant of God:

THAT YOU MAY PROSPER -- Dominion by Covenant

You may read it for free here:

FREE BOOKS FROM I.C.E.

This is a very Protestant website.

William, this is the complete and total lack founded in the idea of "sola scriptura". The Bible does not give you every single thing you need to know.

For instance, where in the Bible does it list which epistles are canonical in nature and which are heretical?

Where does the word "trinity" appear?

You see, you believe in the Trinity because you take certain passages and exegete them.

Same thing with the covenant of God. The structure of a covenant is taught by observing in the scriptures how a covenantal relationship is set up. Then you exegete from there.

To use your favorite phrase, where does it say explicitly that Adam is the "federal head" of mankind?

It don't -- do it?

But I agree with you on this principle because that is one of the principles of covenant which is exegeted out of scripture.

And you, sir, are dodging my question, aren't you?

WHO is the federal head of the Church on earth now?

Brother
Ed

Ed-

I kind of don't want to belabor this already "tense" posting, but I will a bit. You said:


I stand with Go-Tribe. Actually I took you to mention everyone on this board (except yourself and Catholic Solidier and any other Catholics that have come by here).


I'm not sure how else one can read it. Yes it is a simple statement that is pretty clear to me.


ok. Thanks.

Here is the quote.

WHAT (or who) is the SUBJECT of the first paragraph?

CATHOLICS!!

I am talking about Catholics and the Catholic Catechism and those who do not obey it within the Church.

That is not you folks.

Please do not attribute to me an intent that was never there.

Thank you.

Cordially in Christ,


Brother Ed

Hello, Ed,

First off; I accept your apology.

However, I think you may be the one who should do some re-reading.

Here's what you said:


Think carefully about what you've written. First you make the strong point that "Those living in faith in Christ and faithful to those teachings have every right to expect eternal bliss with Him." You've just identified a category of people: Those who will live in eternal bliss with Him.

Then you suggested that the rebellious (which I might add you have indicated by implication not only do NOT have every right to expect eternal bliss with Him, rather something that "ain't gonna be nice) should join "you Prots". If you aren't referring to "you Prots" here on this board, then what "you Prots" are you referring to?

Also, it isn't lost on me that when you quoted from your original post that I asked you to clarify (notice I did not say I took offense...I just wanted you to tell me what you meant) that you neglected to include the part that was in question, namely your reference to "an eternal fate that can be characterized as 'not nice'"

Others have asked this already, however you seem to be avoiding the answer.....So since all Catholics who leave and join us Protestants are "lost" according to RCC theology you believe everyone one of us is "presently" lost--correct?

How about CHRIST, the God-MAN, the sole mediator between man and God, because He IS both Man and God?

EDIT:

Another thing, Ed:


Who, exactly, is the Pope's earthly covenant helpmeet analogous to Mary in heaven?

Oh, no! Thank you for your comments.


Okay. Let me approach this from yet another tack.

What was it that God was doing in the salvation plan? He was restoring all that was lost in the Garden when Adam fell. There are little "keys" in scripture which pointed me in this direction years ago. For instance:

[color:"0000FF"]Luke 3:38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.[/color]

And then there is this:

[color:"0000FF"]1 Corinthians 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.[/color]

I hope you see something fascinating here. Adam is called "the son of God" Can't tell you how many times I just missed that reading the geneology.

And then Jesus, the MAN, is called "the Last Adam".

WOW!!

Do you start to sense that God is connecting the dots here? The first man fails -- the Last man does not. And the death of the last man PAYS for the sin of the first man so that the program of God begun in the Garden can be regenerated. Death is defeated by death. A new man -- the Last Adam -- now takes the place of the first one who failed.

The Last Man is called by the first man's name. The first man is called by the Last Man's name. This is NOT an accident in scripture. God is pointing to something very important.

And WHAT was the role of Adam? He was the "federal head" (a term lovingly used around dese parts!! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> ) He was to be the head of manking ON EARTH.

God was still the head over all, wasn't He? The federal headship of Adam over mankind did in no way dimminish the headship of God over all Creation as its "covenantal head", right?

Do you see the parallel beginning to form now? Jesus is in Heaven, the covenantal head over all Creation. He is King of kings and Lord of lords. But by being so, this does not mean that there are not kings on earth with real authority. Their authority does not take away from His overall authority, indeed, they are expected to act out their authority in ultimate submission to His!!

Likewise, since Jesus is now in Heaven, there must be a covenantal (federal) head over the earthly and physical people of God in this life. That is the Holy Father. His headship simply follows that patter of federal headship over the people of God ON EARTH But like kings and dominions here on earth, he as federal head of the Church is expected to rule and reign IN SUBJECTION TO THE KING OF KINGS!

You see, this was Adam's destiny, had he not failed. He would have been the ruler over earth (at least for as long as God left him here). God's intent was to always have a family on earth with a covenantal head over that family. A head who would teach, discipline, lead, and guide in love. That is the office which Adam could have had and which the Holy Father holds now.

I hope that makes sense. Sometimes I ramble.


No, I'm saying that the scandal is that it is not. By your own self definition, which I have read numerous times, the Protestant Reformation was returning to the orginal teachings of Jesus the Christ and St. Paul, His apostle. Well, if that was true (which it obviously can't be) then there would be a united religion called Protestantism, right? See my point? The numerous schisms in Protestantism alone, [color:"FF0000"]each one of them claiming that their teachings are a return to the teaching of the Bible, and that the Holy Spirit guides them into "all truth" [/color] is a moot testimony that in fact the Reformation was NOT of the Holy Spirit.


Are you talking about nowadays or in history? In history, the annals of the Church are filled with the praises of those Catholic missionaries who came to pagan lands and brought to them the worship of the true and living God.

Cordially in Christ,

Brother Ed

Ben

The Federal Head is Christ, and always has been. Where in scripture does it say the federal head is Rome or it's bishop? For that matter, where is this position in scripture?


God bless,

william

Contradictory. If it can be deduced from the Bible, the Bible does give it.


God bless,

william

Jesus is not on earth. How can he be the federal head when He is not HERE?

This smacks of the Manichean heresy of dualism: that the physical body is bad and the spiritual is all that really counts.

Where is this in scripture?

It is taught in principle in the OT and the NT follows suit. God was the King of the Jewish nation. But while God was in Heaven, it was the high priest who was the covenantal head over the nation. As I mentioned before, the sin of the high priest as federal head over the Jewish theocracy is what doomed the Jews to near extinction in AD 70 when the judgment of God fell upon them (Matt. 23 - 24).

Brother Ed

Oh, come now! Don't you have His body in your eucharist here on earth?


Who is our high priest? (Hint: It's not the Pope!)