Peter NOT the 1st pope and the keys of the kingdom

[DJT_47]

It's not enough to just be anti-Catholic, everything must be measured against God's word. Eastern Orthodox prides itself for breaking from Rome; but, when you put its teachings and practices up against God's word it fails miserably.

Eastern Orthodox considers itself the one true church on earth, even truer than Catholicism. Extraordinary claims like this demand extraordinary evidences, but I don't see it. They address their priests as "father" and their churches are littered with icons of Mary and saints, to whom they pray for intercession.

Just a comment regarding the one true church as you mentioned above. That one true church is the one that Jesus adds you to according to Acts 2:47. That's exactly how and why the church

It's not enough to just be anti-Catholic, everything must be measured against God's word. Eastern Orthodox prides itself for breaking from Rome; but, when you put its teachings and practices up against God's word it fails miserably.

Eastern Orthodox considers itself the one true church on earth, even truer than Catholicism. Extraordinary claims like this demand extraordinary evidences, but I don't see it. They address their priests as "father" and their churches are littered with icons of Mary and saints, to whom they pray for intercession.

Just a quick comment regarding the one true church you made mention of above. That one true church is the one the Lord adds you to as noted in Acts 2:47. That's how and why the church of the bible can be replicated today. It's all right there in the bible if we would simply follow it, which most unfortunately don't.

It's simple as it should be and as God intended.

Acts 2:38-47 tells you how one is saved by remission of sins verse 38. Verse 41 of Acts 2 says they that gladly received his (Peter's) word were baptized abd about 3000 souls were added. Verse 47 of Acts 2 tells you that the Lord adds you to the church.

So, that's the principle for conversion and being added to the body of Christ which is his church.

If then, those added to the body in any given area congregate together, they then are a local congregation such as they were in Jerusalem. Same today for starting the church at a new locale, hence, missionary work.

And in Acts 14, you follow Paul's missionary work in Lystra, Antioch, and Liconium, and the scripture says in verse 23 they ordained elders in every church.

Then if you look at 1 Tim 3 it sites the qualifications for bishops (elders) and deacons.

Then if you look at theTitus letter, Paul's instructions to him were to ordain elders in every city, and elders were later referred to as bishops interchangeably.

That's it according to the inspired scriptures. No further organizational structure found in the scriptures, no central church, no overall head over all the churches, no other titles of hierarchy, just those, and ministers, preachers, teachers, with the local bodies head being the Lord.

 

[wattie]

There were and are churches that have largely kept a pure faith seperate from catholicism and didn't need to reform.

Research the Waldenses who fled persecution from mother church organization into the French alps. They claimed to be successors to the early churches. Robert Waldo is a famous leader among them, hence the Waldenses name.. but they also had the nick name Men of the Valleys.. Vallenses.

Other churches that were closely related to them were the Paulicians and Donatists. Some writers looked at the similarities between these groups and concluded they are the same line of churches that go back to the apostles.

They got the nick name ana-baptists for re baptizing by immersion believers
from those larger mother church organizations.

The Puritans I think we're part of this line also.

It isn't possible to prove absolutely complete unbroken line if succession.. but there are markers of biblical churches that were related to each other, going back through to the apostolic times.

 

[ResidentAlien]

There were and are churches that have largely kept a pure faith seperate from catholicism and didn't need to reform.

Research the Waldenses who fled persecution from mother church organization into the French alps. They claimed to be successors to the early churches. Robert Waldo is a famous leader among them, hence the Waldenses name.. but they also had the nick name Men of the Valleys.. Vallenses.

Other churches that were closely related to them were the Paulicians and Donatists. Some writers looked at the similarities between these groups and concluded they are the same line of churches that go back to the apostles.

They got the nick name ana-baptists for re baptizing by immersion believers
from those larger mother church organizations.

The Puritans I think we're part of this line also.

It isn't possible to prove absolutely complete unbroken line if succession.. but there are markers of biblical churches that were related to each other, going back through to the apostolic times.

I agree, this line is better and probably represents a more faithful lineage than Orthodoxy or Catholicism either one.

 

[Inquisitor]

Orthodox church?

Isn't that another kind of catholicism? Aka Greek orthodox?

The Orthodox Churches have been running since the first century. Not many western folk are aware of the Orthodox Churches. There are a number of these Orthodox Church organizations.
Greek, Coptic, Eastern, etc.

The Greek Orthodox Church is probably one that you may have seen.

They like the Roman Church stem from the original church movements.

Greek Churches you may recognize in modern Greece are Thessalonica, Corinth, Philippi, Patmos. No doubt, you will also realize that the first three were the recipients of Paul's letters.

There seems to be a vast hole in Western Christian church history.

 

[EDENgate]

Matthew 16 analysis - Peter being the first so-called pope and provided with the keys of the kingdom

MATTHEW 16:15-19 -
Catholics erroneously use these verses, and primarily verse 19, as rationale and justification for claiming Peter was established thereby as the first pope. However, when you read and study these scriptures closely along with others related thereto, you clearly find that is not the case nor is the logic sound.

When linked with Matthew 18:18, Acts 2, Acts 10, and Acts 11, you get the complete and true understanding of the aforementioned Matthew 16 verses. Note Matthew 16:15-19 below:

15He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? 16And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. 17And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. 18And 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. 19And 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.

ESTABLISHMENT OF THE CHURCH, THE EARTHLY KINGDOM -
First of all in the above scripture, notice it says "keys of the kingdom of heaven" and not "to the kingdom of heaven" which is of significance and often glossed-over by most, with "to" being superimposed for “of”. The word "of" means, 'origin', 'connected to', 'belonging to', from' or "pertaining to', whereas 'to' infers 'direction', 'going toward' or 'entry into'; "to" therefore would imply entry into the kingdom whereas "of" would imply the keys are not for entry, but rather, originating from, for, or emanating and/or coming from the kingdom; the origin of the keys being the kingdom of heaven.

Peter was entrusted with the "keys of the kingdom of heaven”, not 'keys to’ the kingdom of heaven or simply for the means of entry into it, and was empowered or sanctioned by heaven as confirmed by the Holy Ghost (Acts 2 and 10), with authority to bind his actions as well. The same words almost verbatim are used in Matthew 18:18-19, providing all of the Lord's disciples with authority likewise to bind on earth, however the reasons were different for this authority which excluded the "keys of the kingdom", and the authority was provided to all the disciples (ye, in the original Greek) as opposed to just Peter (thee per the original Greek) in Matthew 16.

When you consider or link Matthew 16 as relates to Peter and "the keys of the kingdom" with the book of Acts, you find that Peter was the one responsible for establishing the church, the earthly kingdom, first amongst the Jews at Jerusalem (Acts2), and then amongst the Gentiles commencing with the conversion of Cornelius (Acts 10), which action he then defended to the council at Jerusalem in Acts 11. Peter being the one that established the early church, is therefore validation of Matthew 16 and the Lord’s unique statement to him, creating the setting and providing him with the opportunity, wherewithal, and confirmation by heaven via the Holy Ghost to do so (collectively, “the keys”). Note too, that the Holy Ghost falling on individuals uniquely as it did on both occasions, were the only times recorded in the bible for such happening in the manner it did. Both events, that of Acts 2 and Acts 10, were done with heavenly power and authority as noted above, since in both cases, the Holy Ghost demonstrated said power and authority by its physical presence, falling on individuals in both cases as a sign to those present, giving validity to, and substantiation from heaven of Peter’s actions, consistent with the use of the word “of” in Matthew 16:19.

THE ROCK -
In Matthew 16:18, it's obvious that Peter isn't the rock but rather Christ is, since he is recognized as being the chief cornerstone and/or foundation per the scriptures (Ephesians 2:20, Psalm 118:22-23, Isaiah 28:16, Matthew 21:42-44, 1Cor 3:11, Acts 4:11). Also, Peter in Greek is 'Petros' Πέτρος or Cephas, [masculine gender in the Greek meaning a stone or boulder (Strong's), or rock, individual stone, more insecure or moveable], and the “rock” in Matthew 16:18 is “petra”, πέτρα (feminine gender in the Greek), being rock, cliff, solid formation, solid foundation, bedrock, large rock formation, immoveable and enduring. Also, the church is referred to as being the “bride”, “chaste virgin”, “her” (feminine), etc., and Christ being the bridegroom, which further substantiates the use of “petra” rather than “petros”. If Christ's intent was to build his church upon Peter, why wouldn't he have said "and upon you I will build my church", or “upon petros, or you, Petros I will build my church” and not "upon this rock" (petra)? Also note that if Peter was established as the so-called first pope and head of the church (as erroneously claimed by Catholics), 1. Why did the Lord say “get thee behind me Satan” to him in Matthew 16:23? and 2. Why did the disciples quarrel amongst themselves (Luke 9:46) as to who would be the greatest among them, which occurred AFTER Peter’s statement as to who Jesus was (Luke 9:20 and parallel verse Mat 16:16)? and 3. Why was there contention between Peter and Paul as recorded in Acts 15:2 and Gal 2:11-14 if Peter was the head of the church? and 4. Why did the council at Jerusalem send Peter and John to Samaria (Acts8:14) if Peter was the head of the church, yet taking direction from the council at Jerusalem? Also note that no man (in a religious sense, Mat 23:8-9), is to be called father on earth, yet the pope is commonly referred to as the “Holy Father”. And too, Christ is the head of the church which is his body, not Peter (Eph 5:23, Col 1:18)

Peter was also married.😉

Does it matter what some erect as edifices of paganism and natural worldly venality?

God knows those whom he calls to his grace.

I think any institution that erect a construct entirely counter to the teachings of God and Jesus Christ is also in service to God's will.

I think the parable of the tares serve to allow us to know the difference.

Rather than condemn Rome's creation, I prefer to be grateful I am in Christ and he is in me.

We who know the Old Testament teachings know Jesus is the rock.
Peter, Petrus, was a reference point for that corollary.

Peter is not the rock upon which Jesus founded his church. Jesus is.💞🕊️ Deuteronomy 32.

 

[Inquisitor]

Orthodoxy doesn't have a Magisterium that tells people how God's word is to be interpreted, as in Catholicism. The Catholic catechism reigns supreme for Catholics; however, in Orthodoxy, scripture and tradition are equal to one another. In other words, you can't simply follow God's word, you have to follow tradition as well; and by tradition they mean Orthodox tradition.

All western churches follow tradition in the way they conduct a service.

The way you conduct your service is a bell ringer of a tradition. Who said you should sing before an announcement and a sermon?
That has always been the tradition since the first church in Antioch.

"Scripture only", is another bell ringer, that phrase, often repeated, is from the Reformation movement.

Protestants copied their church service from the Orthodox and Catholic church movements. The older the Protestant church is in church history, the more closely the service is to the Catholic Mass. The old Lutheran Churches are almost identical to the Catholic Mass.

Your New Testament is the direct result of tradition, which letters were read by the early churches. Which letters were listed in the early church letters. Which letters were stamped by the early churches as canonical. Without these first, second, and third century churches, you will not have a New Testament.

 

[Inquisitor]

Orthodox church?

Isn't that another kind of catholicism? Aka Greek orthodox?

Definitely not. The Greek Orthodox Church consists of the churches in Corinth, Thessalonica, and Philippi.

The Greek Orthodox Church is founded on a number of first century churches listed in the scripture.

 

[Inquisitor]

I agree, this line is better and probably represents a more faithful lineage than Orthodoxy or Catholicism either one.

If your interested, these are the differences between the Orthodox Church and the Roman Church.

Roman Catholics deem the Pope as infallible, while Greek Orthodox believers don’t.

Roman Catholics believe that Mary is free from original sin, while Greek Orthodox believers don’t.

Roman Catholic priests cannot marry, while priests in the Greek Orthodox can marry before they are ordained.

Latin was the main language used during Roman Catholic services (1700 years), while Greek Orthodox churches use native languages.

Roman Catholics venerate statues as much as Greek Orthodox believers venerate icons.

Doctrines can be changed in Roman Catholicism, as opposed to Greek Orthodox.

Unlike Roman Catholics, Greek Orthodox believers do not accept the concepts of purgatory and Stations of the Cross.

 

[Cameron143]

If your interested, these are the differences between the Orthodox Church and the Roman Church.

Roman Catholics deem the Pope as infallible, while Greek Orthodox believers don’t.

Roman Catholics believe that Mary is free from original sin, while Greek Orthodox believers don’t.

Roman Catholic priests cannot marry, while priests in the Greek Orthodox can marry before they are ordained.

Latin was the main language used during Roman Catholic services (1700 years), while Greek Orthodox churches use native languages.

Roman Catholics venerate statues as much as Greek Orthodox believers venerate icons.

Doctrines can be changed in Roman Catholicism, as opposed to Greek Orthodox.

Unlike Roman Catholics, Greek Orthodox believers do not accept the concepts of purgatory and Stations of the Cross.

Very informative.

 

[Inquisitor]

Very informative.

I think so too.

Researching the Orthodox Church threw up some surprises. Especially the church in Antioch. Paul started his first missionary journey from Antioch and returned to Antioch, at the end of the first missionary journey.

Looks like home base for Paul for some time during his Christian life. Now that's a church that was drilled in Christian doctrine and behavior.

 

[wattie]

There is an issue here with the Orthodox church having come from the likes of Corinth.

Corinth was a port city, had many different peoples coming in and out of it. It had a strong pagan influence and the church at Corinth was infected with this background.

So.. unless the churches planted coming out of this reformed.. there is a high chance they were also infected.

I suppose they could have purified their faith, given Paul's admonishment to the church at Corinth.

It's really the likes of Antioch and Colosse and Ephesus that were more faithful, with Paul commending them on several points.

But I would like to see what did happen from the Corinth church planters to spread christianity.

But here is a quote for the ana-baptists..

Cardinal Hosius (Catholic, 1524), President of the Council of Trent:
“Were it not that the Baptists have been grievously tormented and cut off with the knife during the past twelve hundred years, they would swarm in greater number than all the Reformers.”—Hosius, Letters, Apud Opera, p. 112, 113.

1200 years! and Cardinal Hosius was writing around 1524.

 

[Angela53510]

If your interested, these are the differences between the Orthodox Church and the Roman Church.

Roman Catholics deem the Pope as infallible, while Greek Orthodox believers don’t.

Roman Catholics believe that Mary is free from original sin, while Greek Orthodox believers don’t.

Roman Catholic priests cannot marry, while priests in the Greek Orthodox can marry before they are ordained.

Latin was the main language used during Roman Catholic services (1700 years), while Greek Orthodox churches use native languages.

Roman Catholics venerate statues as much as Greek Orthodox believers venerate icons.

Doctrines can be changed in Roman Catholicism, as opposed to Greek Orthodox.

Unlike Roman Catholics, Greek Orthodox believers do not accept the concepts of purgatory and Stations of the Cross.

My grandparents were Ukrainian Greek Orthodox. I went to weddings and funerals at the church, which had a big dome, and amazing "decorations" compared to the Baptist churches I went to for Sunday School. (I am still a Baptist!)

I agree with what you have posted about differences. But you I have missed some important things. Orthodox Christians rely on the Bible, whereas Catholics rely more on their hierarchy and traditions. Of course some Catholics do read the Bible, but it is not the norm! Whereas reading the Bible is very important to Orthodox believers. I think that has helped that church to stay closer to God, instead of relying on priests, rituals, etc.

Further, Latin was the language for all Catholic worshipers! That only ended in 1963, 59 years ago. All those centuries, Latin was the only language allowed all over the world. It kept the people ignorant, so the church could have power over the people. Really, very sad!

Whereas Orthodox churches kept to the language in the country where it's parishioners lived. Ironically, in Canada, the language they used was Ukrainian, which 3rd generation people like myself didn't know. (I'm learning it now!) So they lost from the second generation and on down! My dad spoke only Ukrainian, along with his sisters, till they started school. My dad just stopped believing, although God was gracious to answer my prayers of 30 years that God would save him, 5 months before he died!

So the Orthodox Church kept the vernacular. In the US there is the Orthodox Church of America, and I think they use English. I'm proud of my Ukrainian heritage (although family members have been killed fighting for Ukraine!) but my grandmother was illiterate. She was the oldest of 10 children, was born in Ukraine, and came to Canada when she was 6. She never went to school, her help was needed for a multitude of jobs, including cooking, cleaning, taking care of her younger siblings, and pulling the plough in spring! (That seems like abuse to me!) But she went to church and would follow along in her Bible, and she gradually began to read it. She also learned to read English reading an English Bible. But she could never read anything else. It's so sad she was deprived of an education, because she was a brilliant woman. But she was content, being able to read her Bible in 2 languages!

So language and the Bible were also important differences between Catholic & Orthodox Churches.

 

[Rosemaryx]

, although God was gracious to answer my prayers of 30 years that God would save him, 5 months before he died!

Beautiful Angela...
This encourages me to keep praying for my unsaved children...
...xox...

 

[Angela53510]

I forgot to mention that the Orthodox Church dates back to Paul's church plants and even earlier. Antioch had a bishop, along with Rome, Alexandria, Constantinople, Jerusalem! So Rome was only one church with a bishop. They never used the word, pope (papas) till the 4th century, AD. And Rome stole the title from the bishop in Alexandria, Egypt!

 

[ResidentAlien]

The official title of Eastern Orthodoxy is the Orthodox Catholic Church.

 

[wattie]

Problems that began to infect the early churches:

* One bishop was being put over muliple congregations.. watering down the precedent of one pastor/bishop per church

* rites, rituals and indulgences became fleshly means of earning eternal life.

* Believers baptism by immersion was being changed to sprinkling and baby baptism.

* Saints were being elevated to a status not found in the bible.

Which churches didn't join in with these problems?

 

[Rosemaryx]

Beautiful Angela...
This encourages me to keep praying for my unsaved children...
...xox...

@Angela53510 ...

 

[XavierJesusLovesIndia]

Ok, so since the discussion has turned to the Orthodox Church, here's a brief history: for the first 1000 years, in both East and West, there was only One Church. In the Nicene Creed, Universally Accepted, it was professed that the Church is "One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic". The word Catholic means Universal. Then, in 1054 A.D. a minor controversy broke out about Unleavened Bread. The Greek Churches use Leavened Bread. The Latins use Unleavened. A very minor issue. Both Churches share the fundamentally same believe that the Eucharist is the real Body and Blood of Christ, and not a mere symbol, as John 6, 1 Cor 10 and 11 also imply. Finally, both Churches recognize the Bishops and Presbyters (Priests) are distinct Orders.

Anyway, Pope Francis and Patriarch Bartholomew (leader of the Greek Orthodox Church) agreed to hold some kind of Council in Nicaea in 2025, inviting all Christians to join. See: https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/nicea-iii-2025 Nicaea I was in 325 A.D. and this is to commemorate that. Nicea defended the Divinity of Christ against Arians who denied it and the Trinity.

Now, let's come back to the Papacy: Even a cursory glance at the Church Fathers of the First Millenium (when there was no East-West/Catholic-Orthodox Schism, but only One Universal Church in both East and West) shows they did recognize that the Chair or See of Peter in Rome has a special authority and that all the Bishops of the Church should be in communion.

Some examples: observe how the Fathers of both East and West agree in exegeting Mat 16:18 about the Chair of Peter.

St. Augustine (Latin/Western): “Number the Bishops from the Chair of Peter itself. And in that order of Fathers see who succeeded whom, That is the Rock against which the gates of hell do not prevail.” Psalmus contra partem Donati, 18 (A.D. 393).

St. Jerome (Latin/Western): My words are spoken to the successor of the fisherman, to the disciple of the cross. As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the Rock on which the Church is built! (Letter 15, para 2). See source online here: https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3001015.htm

St. Theodore (Greek/Byzantine): "Order that the declaration from old Rome be received, as was the custom by Tradition of our Fathers from of old and from the beginning. For this, O Emperor, is the highest of the Churches of God, in which first Peter held the Chair, to whom the Lord said: Thou art Peter ...and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." (Theodore, Bk. II. Ep. 86)

If anyone wants to read more such sources, from the East, please see: https://www.fisheaters.com/easternfathers.html

Study the History of the First Millenium and you will see that, while, sure, a few mistakes were made here and there, on the whole Christianity flourished greatly and did very well. How, after all, did almost all of Europe become Christian? Take the e.g. of Ireland. You will see it was Rome, under Pope Celestine, that sent St. Patrick to Ireland. At his arrival, almost the whole nation was pagan/polytheist/unbaptized. At his death, nearly the entire was Christian/Monotheist/Trinitarian. This is a very well known fact. Now, take another e.g. Great Britain. Did Angels perhaps come from Heaven and make it Christian to begin with? Not at all, again it was Pope St. Gregory the Great that sent St. Augustine of Canterbury there, with 40 monks. By prayer and preaching, fasting and sacrifices etc, virtually the entire nation was converted to Jesus Christ. Similar instances happen with St. Remy in France and St. Boniface in Germany. Virtually always, the Church of Rome was at the centre of Evangelism of new areas for Jesus Christ, and also, being in Europe herself, kept Europe and the Entire Church, Greek, Latin, Syrian etc, united in One Universal Church. Unfortunately, in the Second Millenium, some divisions broke out.

God Bless.

 

[DJT_47]

Ok, so since the discussion has turned to the Orthodox Church, here's a brief history: for the first 1000 years, in both East and West, there was only One Church. In the Nicene Creed, Universally Accepted, it was professed that the Church is "One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic". The word Catholic means Universal. Then, in 1054 A.D. a minor controversy broke out about Unleavened Bread. The Greek Churches use Leavened Bread. The Latins use Unleavened. A very minor issue. Both Churches share the fundamentally same believe that the Eucharist is the real Body and Blood of Christ, and not a mere symbol, as John 6, 1 Cor 10 and 11 also imply. Finally, both Churches recognize the Bishops and Presbyters (Priests) are distinct Orders.

Anyway, Pope Francis and Patriarch Bartholomew (leader of the Greek Orthodox Church) agreed to hold some kind of Council in Nicaea in 2025, inviting all Christians to join. See: https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/nicea-iii-2025 Nicaea I was in 325 A.D. and this is to commemorate that. Nicea defended the Divinity of Christ against Arians who denied it and the Trinity.

Now, let's come back to the Papacy: Even a cursory glance at the Church Fathers of the First Millenium (when there was no East-West/Catholic-Orthodox Schism, but only One Universal Church in both East and West) shows they did recognize that the Chair or See of Peter in Rome has a special authority and that all the Bishops of the Church should be in communion.

Some examples: observe how the Fathers of both East and West agree in exegeting Mat 16:18 about the Chair of Peter.

St. Augustine (Latin/Western): “Number the Bishops from the Chair of Peter itself. And in that order of Fathers see who succeeded whom, That is the Rock against which the gates of hell do not prevail.” Psalmus contra partem Donati, 18 (A.D. 393).

St. Jerome (Latin/Western): My words are spoken to the successor of the fisherman, to the disciple of the cross. As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the Rock on which the Church is built! (Letter 15, para 2). See source online here: https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3001015.htm

St. Theodore (Greek/Byzantine): "Order that the declaration from old Rome be received, as was the custom by Tradition of our Fathers from of old and from the beginning. For this, O Emperor, is the highest of the Churches of God, in which first Peter held the Chair, to whom the Lord said: Thou art Peter ...and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." (Theodore, Bk. II. Ep. 86)

If anyone wants to read more such sources, from the East, please see: https://www.fisheaters.com/easternfathers.html

Study the History of the First Millenium and you will see that, while, sure, a few mistakes were made here and there, on the whole Christianity flourished greatly and did very well. How, after all, did almost all of Europe become Christian? Take the e.g. of Ireland. You will see it was Rome, under Pope Celestine, that sent St. Patrick to Ireland. At his arrival, almost the whole nation was pagan/polytheist/unbaptized. At his death, nearly the entire was Christian/Monotheist/Trinitarian. This is a very well known fact. Now, take another e.g. Great Britain. Did Angels perhaps come from Heaven and make it Christian to begin with? Not at all, again it was Pope St. Gregory the Great that sent St. Augustine of Canterbury there, with 40 monks. By prayer and preaching, fasting and sacrifices etc, virtually the entire nation was converted to Jesus Christ. Similar instances happen with St. Remy in France and St. Boniface in Germany. Virtually always, the Church of Rome was at the centre of Evangelism of new areas for Jesus Christ, and also, being in Europe herself, kept Europe and the Entire Church, Greek, Latin, Syrian etc, united in One Universal Church. Unfortunately, in the Second Millenium, some divisions broke out.

God Bless.

You cannot justify wrong by time or the amount of people that adhere to it.

Because there was a significant amount of time that had or has elapsed, and tradition established thereby doesn't justify what was going on if in fact it was wrong and inconsistent with God's word.

 

[XavierJesusLovesIndia]

You cannot justify wrong by time or the amount of people that adhere to it.

Because there was a significant amount of time that had or has elapsed, and tradition established thereby doesn't justify what was going on if in fact it was wrong and inconsistent with God's word.

What is gratuitously asserted is gratuitously denied.

1) Firstly, do let me know how you know there are to be 27 Books in the NT Canon without Apostolic Tradition? Based on Apostolic Tradition, it was the Catholic Church, in the 4th Century, (382 A.D.) that determined this: "A council probably held at Rome in 382 under St. Damasus gave a complete list of the canonical books of both the Old Testament and the New Testament (also known as the 'Gelasian Decree' because it was reproduced by Gelasius in 495), which is identical with the list given at Trent." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Rome

Martin Luther said: "We are compelled to concede to the Catholics that they have the Word of God, that we received it from them, and that without them we should have no knowledge of it at all" (paraphrase).

Yet Luther called the Epistle of St. James "an Epistle of Straw": "Therefore, St. James' Epistle is a perfect straw-epistle compared with them, for it has in it nothing of an evangelic kind." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luther's_canon#Hebrews,_James,_Jude_and_Revelation You see, important decisions like the Canon of Scripture were never left to the private judgment of one individual. They were taken by Bishops in Councils.

2. Second, what Tradition are you talking about that allegedly contradicts the Scriptures? Apostolic Tradition never contradicts the Apostolic Scriptures. In another thread, you mentioned you believe Baptism washes away sins, as it says in Acts 22:16, correct, DJT? I agreed with that, and gave some Scriptural references supporting that view. The Church Fathers also agreed, and that view is called Baptismal Regeneration: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptismal_regeneration

Even Infant Baptism is an Apostolic Tradition. Origen says: "The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine sacraments, knew there are in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit” (Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 248]). See for source. https://www.catholic.com/tract/early-teachings-on-infant-baptism

And if you want a Scriptural Reference for that, it is the famous passage in Acts 2:38-39: "38 Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.”

Children are not excluded from the gift of the Holy Spirit, hence they too can be baptized. Also, based on Col 2:11-12 etc, it is evident that Baptism in the NT has replaced Circumcision in the OT. But Circumcision was administered to children born in Jewish households. So, also, Baptism is given to children born in Christian households. In other passages in Acts, we read that entire households were baptized, a description that almost certainly would have included children: "33 At that hour of the night, the jailer took them and washed their wounds. And without delay, he and all his household were baptized." (Acts 16:33). Compare: "And every male in Abraham’s household, including those born in his household or bought from a foreigner, was circumcised with him." (Gen 17:27). Baptism is the NT equivalent of circumcision. That is very clear.

Wiki says: "Most Christians belong to denominations that practice infant baptism. Branches of Christianity that practice infant baptism include Catholics,[3] Eastern[4] and Oriental Orthodox,[5] and among Protestants, several denominations: Anglicans,[6] Lutherans,[7] Presbyterians,[8] Congregationalists[9] and other Reformed denominations,[citation needed] Methodists,[10] Nazarenes,[11] Moravians,[12] and United Protestants.[13] Opposition to infant baptism is termed "catabaptism". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infant_baptism

Apostolic Tradition does not contradict the Apostolic Scriptures. It may contradict someone's interpretation of it, though.

God Bless.