Fundamental Preaching.com

Quote:Jim, this is simply not possible for several reasons.

1. The use of the word "EVERY" in verse 6.
Quote:
Rom 2: 6Who will render to every man according to his deeds: Note that "every man" will stand before Christ at this judgment, not just the "saved".


You know, it is possible for us to form opinions of what the Bible says and then, because we have these presuppositions, to miss certain things. In essence we read right by them. I have heard this called "presuppositional blindness".

Jim, "every" means EVERY, doesn't it? It doesn't mean some! So this first of all must mean that Jesus will judge every man at this judgment seat.

If you were to walk in a room and yell, ?Everybody listen up.?, would you be referring to everyone in the world? No, you wouldn?t. So, to answer your question, no, it doesn?t always mean ?everyone? in your context.

Apparently we are at odds about the judgment seat of Christ vs. the Great White Throne judgment. They are two very clear distinct judgments in scripture.

Quote:These people in these verses, who according to your interpretation are believers are receiving the CURSE of God!! They are being sent into eternal perdition!

Jim, this simply cannot be the judgment seat for believers because, according to your soteriology, believers cannot go to hell. They are elect and eternally secure and cannot lose their salvation. Yet the "reward" that some are getting here is eternal cursing!!

I am very confused here, did you not read my post?:

Quote:This refers to the Great White Throne Judgement for the unsaved alone. Christians will not be there. The Great White Throne judgment is the final judgment for the dead in sin and life to be transferred from Hell to the Lake of Fire. Most of the "they" in Romans 2 refers to the unsaved. The "we" as Paul notes in verse 2, refers to christians, there is a clear distinction between the two.

My extreme apologies, I had pasted from another of my posts and was not paying attention to my earlier posts on Christian judgment. This is unfolding quickly and you are correct, Romans Chapter 2 is indeed referring to the judgment seat of Christ. However, I do assert that there is still a distinction between the two seats, hence the confusion. While it is entirely possible that both of these judgments occur at the same time, it is understandable that there would be two judgments in reference to 2 Cor. 5:10:




For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.


Is this the same seat? Very possible. Could it be two different seats? Yes it could. I will study some more, but on the sake of staying on course, I will relinquish this argument as it serves no purpose for the subjects at hand.

I guess my whole point of the fact that we are all judged after death would be in reference more to the fact that there are rewards in heaven and those rewards manifest themselves in crowns.

But let?s keep to the subject, and I am sorry for rambling and going of the path there. We will talk about the judgment seat of Christ and the Great White Throne judgment at another time.

Ending this post will return to subject on next:

APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION


NOTE: I have written so much it will require two posts to get through...my apologies...


First, to Jim, since your questions arose first. I felt that a header might be needed so it is easy to see what I am going to discuss.

Quote: 10:18
But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world.

However, while the early church did not have the written Word, we had the reason to have the apostles and disciples at that time. Romans 10:18 finishes the apostolic dispensation as the finality of John the Revelator on the Island of Patmos ended that dispensation. The church no longer needed apostolic authority.

First, I think I need some clarification. If Revelation ended the apostolic dispensation, then several books of the Bible would be omitted. Revelation was not the last to be written. It was written much prior to books such as 3 John. However, this comment could just come from a misunderstanding of what you are trying to say.

However, I fail to see how that passage in Romans says anything related to the ending of Apostolic authority. Christ did not give authority to all believers. He gave them to the disciples after the resurrection and it was given to the apostles at Pentecost. I see nowhere in scriptures to the effect that it ended.

However, in case this is a part of the confusion, I think we will both agree that there is no new revelation. Revelation ended when the last canonical book was penned. However, that is not what we are discussing. The Catholic Church does not teach there is new revelation. Apostolic succession has to deal with, mostly, the signs of the true church and the authority of the successors.

Quote:It was the Holy Spirit which gave the power and authority to the apostles, not the apostles themselves.

I agree with you wholeheartedly. Christ through the Holy Spirit gave the disciples authority, and the apostles were given authority by the Holy Spirit in Acts to form the Church. Nowhere do I claim that the apostles gave themselves authority. However, apostolic succession deals with the apostles transferring their authority, which was given to them by the Holy Spirit, to their successors to keep the Church faithful and true.

Quote: The Holy Bible, the Word of God, is our only authority now. Not the local church(it some authority but not as we are arguing), which the catholic church is no different in authority than any other local church.

Even so, who has the authority to interpret the Word of God? The individual? The complete lack of any authority in Protestantism is exactly why it is what it is today: fractured. There are over 30,000 individual denominations by name worldwide, not even including the ?non-denominational? churches which are nothing more than a single church denomination. They all believe something different. Some Lutherans may not agree with the Calvinist idea of predestination, for example. So, who has the authority to settle those disputes?

There is, strictly speaking in a logical sense, a complete need for a hierarchy and an authority. Otherwise, it is up to the individual believer reading his Bible, and all that means is you?ll have a different interpretation for every believer out there. The Catholic Church, however, has one belief, one unified body, and one teaching, no matter where you go. Sure, some Catholics don?t understand it fully and some like to pick and choose what they want to believe, but that doesn?t change the church?s teaching or its authority.

Quote: It is not limited to pen or anything else for that matter.

Then you agree with the Catholic Church. Tradition is a part of the gospel, which is not limited to the pen. They go hand in hand. There would be a problem if Tradition contradicted scripture. However, I believe that is not the case, and that is best left to individual doctrinal discussions rather than painting it with a broad brush here.

Quote: Now I do believe we have a guideline to not add anything or take anything away from that Gospel as common sense would tell us that any time anything is added or taken from anything, then it is no longer whole, and therefore a lie. Not only common sense, but we are warned in Deuteronomy and the Revelation of the ramifications of doing such.

Agreed. Tradition neither takes away from scripture nor adds to it. Please, as a preface, don?t get confused about small letter t tradition and big letter t Tradition. We are not adding to the Bible by saying things like priests should wear certain color vestments at certain times of the year. It is doctrinal things like apostolic succession that form a part of Tradition, not the little things like how the sanctuary is arranged.

Quote: My extrapolations of your content suggest that the differences we have stem from the end of apostolic dispensation, or in your belief the transfer of apostolic succession, am I correct in assuming this?

I didn?t know your opinion on the subject before. But, now, it seems we do have differences on that matter now that you have shown me your opinion and interpretation. I will take your questions one at a time.

Quote: If so, please explain what exactly apostolic succession is

Apostolicity is the mark by which the Church of today is recognized as identical with the Church founded by Jesus Christ upon the Apostles. It is of great importance because it is the surest indication of the true Church of Christ, it is most easily examined, and it virtually contains the other three marks, namely, Unity, Sanctity, and Catholicity (universality).

In explaining the concept of Apostolicity, then, special attention must be given to Apostolicity of mission, or Apostolic succession. Apostolicity of mission means that the Church is one moral body, possessing the mission entrusted by Jesus Christ to the Apostles, and transmitted through them and their lawful successors in an unbroken chain to the present representatives of Christ upon earth. This authoritative transmission of power in the Church constitutes Apostolic succession. This Apostolic succession must be both material and formal; the material consisting in the actual succession in the Church, through a series of persons from the Apostolic age to the present; the formal adding the element of authority in the transmission of power. It consists in the legitimate transmission of the ministerial power conferred by Christ upon His Apostles. No one can give a power which he does not possess. Hence in tracing the mission of the Church back to the Apostles, no lacuna can be allowed, no new mission can arise; but the mission conferred by Christ must pass from generation to generation through an uninterrupted lawful succession. The Apostles received it from Christ and gave it in turn to those legitimately appointed by them, and these again selected others to continue the work of the ministry. Any break in this succession destroys Apostolicity, because the break means the beginning of a new series which is not Apostolic.

I don?t know if you need further clarification or if that explains the concept well enough. I hope it does.

Quote: how it relates to the local church,

Well, the thing about Catholicism is that even though there are local churches in a sense, we are all a part of the same universal church in a broader scope.

If you are referring to the Church leadership positions at the local parishes, then Apostolic succession is what I said above: an unbroken chain of succession from the apostles to the priests of today. The apostles confirmed bishops, bishops confirmed their successors, those bishops confirmed priests for their region and successors for themselves, etc. So, we firmly believe that our priests in every one of our parishes, every bishop, every cardinal, and every pope have an unbroken line of apostolic authority that can be traced back to the apostles themselves.

OK, we are tlaking about works or grace right?

OK, Jim is back on track now.

What does this mean?:

Quote:Ephesians
2:8
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
2:9
Not of works, lest any man should boast.