Unfortunately, my friend, they are more far and fewer than they used to be. Let me look for that website I found a year or so ago, and I'll get that to you that lists the bibliocentric churches all across the USA.
MM
What Isn't a Doctrine of Man?
- Thread starter Musicmaster
- Start date
Unfortunately, my friend, they are more far and fewer than they used to be. Let me look for that website I found a year or so ago, and I'll get that to you that lists the bibliocentric churches all across the USA.
MM
Give this a try, and the ones you find local to you, read the information they provide about themselves, and I'll keep looking as well.
www.usachurches.org
MM
Washington Church Directory
Church directory with a list of Christian churches in Washington (WA) to help you find a church or place of worship.
MM
I do not agree........with all due respect!
I am right Because I read the Bible brother. I believe it and accept it as the Word of God. It is the source of all truth.
I have several, well meaning friends who are Catholics. We have had this very conversation many times. They in fact do know very well that what they believe is not Biblical and is man made traditions.
LTLG......... Scripture nowhere argues for “authoritative tradition is equal with Scripture.” That is simply not true and the people I know, know that.
The problem is this......
1. they were taught as children and now at a latter age, they simply can not accept that what they know is wrong.
2. Catholic's simply do not read the Bible.
The Roman Catholic Church argues that Scripture was given to men by the Church and therefore the Church has equal or greater authority to it. However, even among the Roman Catholic Church’s writings (from the First Vatican Council), you will find the acknowledgment that the Church councils that determined which books were to be considered the Word of God did nothing but recognize what the Holy Spirit had already made evident. That is, the Church did not “give” Scriptures to men, but simply “recognized” what God, through the Holy Spirit, had already given. A
I agree.
It is a mind/heart thing.
Some people want to believe so bad that they fall for every magician that comes along. What we see in Hagin and Copeland and Roberts is nothing new. It is "Slight of Hand" done right in front of those who desperity want to believe that God is going to do what these people promise.
The idea that "God wants his people to be healthy, wealthy, and happy all the time and that speaking the right words, in faith, will compel God to deliver on his part of the covenant" is very compelling to those with emotional concerns.
"Mind science (where "name it and claim it" originated) was combined with Pentecostalism, resulting in a peculiar mix of orthodox Christianity and mysticism. Kenneth Hagin, in turn, studied under E. W. Kenyon and made the Word of Faith movement what it is today. Although individual teachings range from completely heretical to completely ridiculous, what follows is the basic theology most Word of Faith teachers align themselves with.
Remember, Adam and Eve listen to Satan thousands of years ago because he spoke to them what they wanted to here!
Nothing has changed!
I always come back to this verse from Matthew 16:19 where Jesus is speaking with Peter:
"I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." (ESV)
This seems to say that Jesus is giving Peter (and possibly the other disciples as well) the power to affect change on both Earth and Heaven. It has always seemed to me that this is the scriptural justification for Apostolic Infallibility. Maybe I'm reading too much into this. Why else would Jesus say this?
It's always interesting to me to see the doctrines of those who have a grudge against God, and based on that grudge, they choose the claim that He doesn't exist! Yes, even self-proclaimed atheists have their won doctrinal code by which they govern their daily lives.
So, I truly admire this young many who went after the doctrine of non-belief by posing to this older man what he HAD to admit was reasonable...not from the Bible, and yet DIRECTLY from the Bible:
MM
So, I truly admire this young many who went after the doctrine of non-belief by posing to this older man what he HAD to admit was reasonable...not from the Bible, and yet DIRECTLY from the Bible:
MM
You have ACCURATELY defined and described this institution which I don't even call a church. I see Catholicism more as a political super power. We don't have a clue what goes behind closed doors. I can't remember who mentioned the word cult... but in my little opinion and coming from a former Catholic... I absolutely agree that the Catholic Church is a cult.
I am so happy to see that it is possible to have a CALM.... INTELLIGENT and HONEST conversation about something that is truly IMPORTANT.
If I may chime in, and generally speaking, when we examine the doctrinal definitions of a sect's teachings about their Jesus, and we can see a Jesus portrayed in that other system of teaching who does not resemble the Christ Jesus in scripture, then one is left with to struggle with their own sense of honesty if they dare claim the two are the same when, deep down, any honest man or woman can see plainly that the two cannot be one and the same.
Matthew 24:24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if [it were] possible, they shall deceive the very elect.
Mark 13:22 For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if [it were] possible, even the elect.
The Greek action verb translated as "shall arise" has this meaning:
"passive ἐγείρομαι, to come before the public, to appear, arise: Matthew 11:11; Matthew 24:11, 24; Mark 13:22;"
As a passive sense of the verb, that does not limit the meaning only to an actual action of a person, but can also include the individual arising in...a passive sense...in other words, in the teachings about that person. THAT is passive in the sense of a verb. The object individual didn't have to do something actively, but is passively presented, and in most cases, as an individual who is false if considered to identify in similarity to another to whom there is no actual similarity.
So, the danger in all this is that a false Christ cannot save anyone.
MM
The beauty and justice of this truth is:
27 The sheep that are My own hear and are listening to My voice; and I know them, and they follow Me.
28 And I give them eternal life, and they shall never lose it or perish throughout the ages. [To all eternity they shall never by any means be destroyed.] And no one is able to snatch them out of My hand.~John 10:27-28 Amplified Bible, Classic Edition
Agreed.
This is why the world will follow the A/C after the real church is removed.
A powerful religious man will be in a position to force the worship of the world upon the man of sin.
Yes........you are reading too much into that Scripture.
First of all, while Peter was central in the early spread of the gospel (part of the meaning behind Matthew 16:18-19), the teaching of Scripture, taken in context, nowhere declares that he was in authority over the other apostles or over the entire church.
Nor is it ever taught that the bishop of Rome was to have primacy over the church.
Secondly, Nowhere does Scripture state that, in order to keep the church from error, the authority of the apostles was passed on to those they ordained (the Roman Catholic Church teaching of "apostolic succession"). Apostolic succession is “read into” those verses that the Roman Catholic Church uses to support this doctrine.
The Bible does not teach that the apostles were infallible, apart from what was written by them and incorporated into Scripture. It was the Scriptures that were infallable not the men who wrote them.
Then third, Nowhere in Scripture is the “teaching Magisterium,” or mastery of bishops, taught and treated as of equal weight with Scripture.
Forth, the idea taught by the Roman Catholic Church that the Pope is an Apostle, the Vicar od Christ is not found in the Bible anywhere.
The Bible, NO WHERE declares Apostolic succession! An Apostle had to be an eye witness of the ministry/resurrection of Jesus and NO ONE today can qualify!
So then.......Matthew 16:19 does NOT give the Apostles or the Pope any authority.
"The keys of the kingdom" = Peter would have the right to enter the kingdom himself, and by having the keys and preaching of the gospel would be the means of opening the kingdom of heaven to all who would accept Jesus as the Christ.
If you will read the book of Acts you will see that process at work!
Bind and loosen = Allowed or not allowed!
My wife and I were talking last night about how the horrors of the Tribulation will be what does the final division between the sheep and the goats of those who refuse to be prepared to depart with the Church. I commented how unremarkable it is that half the number of virgins intentionally came unprepared to enter in with the Groom, because it is they who will not have those crowns on their heads as shown in Revelation. The Tribulation saints who are executed will have white robes and palm branches, but no crowns because of their lack of being prepared as commanded in Luke 21.
Therein is why I encourage everyone to take seriously what Jesus commended in Luke 21:36. There are some who think that was only for the Jews in the coming 70AD destruction of the temple, which is fine if they want to believe that, but the context betrays a far different portrait in my mind's eye. It is the Lord who prepares us by infusing us with the oil of His Spirit when we actively seek Him for that filling so that we, as lamps, shine forth His Light to a hungry world, being ready for when He comes to take to Himself those whose lamps are full and providing Light for the path to the wedding feast.
Amen
MM
Without a doubt my dear brother!
LOL..........I am retired! What I teach is now HERE on CFS!
I agree that scripture does not place Peter above the other disciples. That said, the text of Mathew 16:13-20 is quite odd.
13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Cæsarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? 14 And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. 15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? 16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. 17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. 18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. 20 Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ. (KJV)
I have highlighted verses 18 and 19 since these are the items in question. Also, I chose to quote from King James since it uses both second person singular (thou) and second person plural (ye), and that's important. Oh, and it's worth noting that the name 'Peter' (Cephas) means 'rock' (Petra), although I have heard there are different words for small and large rocks in Greek (e.g. similar to 'pebble' and 'boulder' in English) and I'm not sure which one this is.
In verse 18 we see Jesus call Simon 'Cephas' and in the next breath says he will build his church on 'this rock' (Petra). (Different words for the same thing. Maybe that's important?) I realize that Jesus is the cornerstone, a rock, and this could be a play on words, but it could also be Jesus giving Peter a commission to found the church. Given the context, the latter sounds quite reasonable.
In verse 19, Jesus uses 'thee' and 'thou', meaning he is talking to Peter alone. If he were speaking to multiple disciples then the appropriate words would be 'you' and 'ye'. We can understand here that the keys to the kingdom of heaven are for Peter alone. Likewise, it is for Peter alone to loose or bind on earth and also in heaven. This seems to reinforce the commission implied in verse 18. If Peter did indeed receive commission, it's reasonable for him to use that power to delegate to whomever he chose, hence we have the lineage of Popes.
Please note I am not Catholic. You may recall I was not raised in the church (indeed I was raised atheist). I say this so you don't think that I am quoting what I was taught as a child. Quite the opposite, I came to this observation entirely on my own and it was only after I mentioned this on various forums that I realized it was basically a Catholic catechism.
Is there an alternate way to read this that i am missing? I would like to hear it.
Last edited:
Not really. If I were talking to someone with a name that is akin to the metaphor I want to use that is not a direct reference to the person whose name I referenced for comparison, then there's nothing remarkable about the individual so much as the message I am conveying. Yahshuah could just as easily have referenced Peter with the personal "you" as the one upon whom the Church would be built. However, we have this:
1 Peter 2:6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.
So, I'd say that it's safe to say that not even Peter thought what Jesus said was a reference to him personally. Furthermore, it seems utterly unlikely to me that the Church could ever have been built upon a mere man, given that all our salvation is rests upon the Lord Himself, and that apart from the Lord, the Church would never have existed. We are shown so little about the extent of the work that Peter did in building the Church. The NT shows to us one man who was perhaps the most instrumental in carrying that torch for the building of the Church among a population (Gentiles) that was in far greater numbers than the Jews. So if Peter were preeminent, then James sitting as the chief in the council of the apostles in Jerusalem is an odd phenomenon to any awareness for the preeminence of Peter among the others, especially given the correction Paul leveled against him in his legalistic folly in being so spineless in the face of the Judaizers.
What would that mean, "...found the church..."? As stated before, Christ is the Gardner, or the Lord of the vineyard, who "planted" what the husbandmen (apostles) cultivated:
Matthew 21:40-41
40 When the lord therefore of the vineyard cometh, what will he do unto those husbandmen?
41 They say unto him, He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out [his] vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits in their seasons.
Peter simply cannot fit that role of the lord of that vineyard, but is rather one of the husbandman (caretakers and defenders of the vineyard until harvest).
Does that help?
There is a cultic following behind that thinking, but behind the words Jesus spoke is a passion for the message itself, couched in language about the solidity of stone, rock, or even pebble, because the message is geared toward the object of Christ's purpose for coming to this world, and laying down His Life a fulfillment of all that had pointed to Him alone, not to Peter or any other man. I don't recall Peter ever raising anyone from the dead as did Paul? He did indeed heal, even his shadow, but he did not work all that was done among and through some of the others of which we are told.
If I were speaking to you face to face about something I am absolutely passionate about, I may indeed use you as the object of fixation of my eyes and comparison, especially if your given name is something that I can use as a simile to express a solidity to the plans I had set forth. That would not mean that I would build it all upon you personally. Peter did indeed do his greatness, and he did indeed do greater things than did Christ, as is true of all the apostles.
The question in my mind is how anyone arrives at the thought that Peter was so much a cut above the others who corrected him in his gross error, and whom Peter followed around at times, adding his thoughts and words here and there, but not the one whom the Lord used to the extent as He did Paul.
MM
I will try to answer this for you. The keys were NOT given to Peter alone. Jesus gives them to all those who make the same confession made by Peter and that is for those who know Christ as Saviour.
Now, it has to be that way my dear brother because if not then God would be making Peter in a higher position than everyone else and that is not what the Scriptures teach us.
Romans 2:11........
" For God does not show favoritism."
If you are a child of God - YOU have the keys to the kingdom! The keys were the badge of authority of the office of the scribes who interpreted the Scriptures. Take the time to read Nehimiah 8.
Today we all have the Scriptures in the completed Bible.
Now, the church was NOT built on Peter but on what Peter said in verse #16............
"Thou art the Christ the Son of the living God!
Peter was a failure! He was a flawed man whom God used greatly but he was still a sinner. Jesus is the Rock upon which the church is established.
And yes.....Jesus was speking to Peter because Peter was the one who answered His question to all the disciples in verse #13.
I agree that one must use a bit of common sense when reading the Bible. That said, the Bible literally shows Jesus telling Peter - and Peter alone - that he will receive the keys to the kingdom of heaven. In light of this, where does a literal interpretation of the Bible end and a figurative interpretation begin? After all, we each have different thresholds for where we draw that line and some never draw it. Is this the source of the bulk of the schisms we see today?