It's About Liberty: A Conservative Forum
Topics => Faith & Family => Topic started by: CatholicCrusader on September 05, 2012, 08:04:03 AM
-
Jesus said his Church would be "the light of the world." He then noted that "a city set on a hill cannot be hid" (Matt. 5:14). This means his Church is a visible organization. It must have characteristics that clearly identify it and that distinguish it from other churches. Jesus promised, "I will build my Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it" (Matt. 16:1 8 ). This means that his Church will never be destroyed and will never fall away from him. His Church will survive until his return.
Among the Christian churches, only the Catholic Church has existed since the time of Jesus. Every other Christian church is an offshoot of the Catholic Church. The Eastern Orthodox churches broke away from unity with the pope in 1054. The Protestant churches were established during the Reformation, which began in 1517. (Most of today’s Protestant churches are actually offshoots of the original Protestant offshoots.)
Only the Catholic Church existed in the tenth century, in the fifth century, and in the first century, faithfully teaching the doctrines given by Christ to the apostles, omitting nothing. The line of popes can be traced back, in unbroken succession, to Peter himself. This is unequaled by any institution in history.
Even the oldest government is new compared to the papacy, and the churches that send out door-to-door missionaries are young compared to the Catholic Church. Many of these churches began as recently as the nineteenth or twentieth centuries. Some even began during your own lifetime. None of them can claim to be the Church Jesus established.
The Catholic Church has existed for nearly 2,000 years, despite constant opposition from the world. This is testimony to the Church’s divine origin. It must be more than a merely human organization, because any merely human organization would have collapsed early on. The Catholic Church is today the most vigorous church in the world (and the largest, with a billion members: one sixth of the human race), and that is testimony not to the cleverness of the Church’s leaders, but to the protection of the Holy Spirit.
FOUR MARKS OF THE TRUE CHURCH
If we wish to locate the Church founded by Jesus, we need to locate the one that has the four chief marks or qualities of his Church. The Church we seek must be one, holy, catholic, and apostolic.
The Church Is One (Rom. 12:5, 1 Cor. 10:17, 12:13)
Jesus established only one Church, not a collection of differing churches (Lutheran, Baptist, Anglican, and so on). The Bible says the Church is the bride of Christ (Eph. 5:23–32). Jesus can have but one spouse, and his spouse is the Catholic Church. His Church also teaches just one set of doctrines, which must be the same as those taught by the apostles (Jude 3). This is the unity of belief to which Scripture calls us (Phil. 1:27, 2:2).
The Church Is Holy (Eph. 5:25–27, Rev. 19:7–8 )
By his grace Jesus makes the Church holy, just as he is holy. This doesn’t mean that each member is always holy. Jesus said there would be both good and bad members in the Church (John 6:70), and not all the members would go to heaven (Matt. 7:21–23). But the Church itself is holy because it is the source of holiness and is the guardian of the special means of grace Jesus established, the sacraments (cf. Eph. 5:26).
The Church Is Catholic (Matt. 28:19–20, Rev. 5:9–10)
Jesus’ Church is called catholic ("universal" in Greek) because it is his gift to all people. He told his apostles to go throughout the world and make disciples of "all nations" (Matt. 28:19–20). For 2,000 years the Catholic Church has carried out this mission, preaching the good news that Christ died for all men and that he wants all of us to be members of his universal family (Gal. 3:28 ). Nowadays the Catholic Church is found in every country of the world and is still sending out missionaries to "make disciples of all nations" (Matt. 28:19). The Church Jesus established was known by its most common title, "the Catholic Church," at least as early as the year 107, when Ignatius of Antioch used that title to describe the one Church Jesus founded. The title apparently was old in Ignatius’s time, which means it probably went all the way back to the time of the apostles.
The Church Is Apostolic (Eph. 2:19–20)
The Church Jesus founded is apostolic because he appointed the apostles to be the first leaders of the Church, and their successors were to be its future leaders. The apostles were the first bishops, and, since the first century, there has been an unbroken line of Catholic bishops faithfully handing on what the apostles taught the first Christians in Scripture and oral Tradition (2 Tim. 2:2). These beliefs include the bodily Resurrection of Jesus, the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, the sacrificial nature of the Mass, the forgiveness of sins through a priest, baptismal regeneration, the existence of purgatory, Mary’s special role, and much more —even the doctrine of apostolic succession itself. Early Christian writings prove the first Christians were thoroughly Catholic in belief and practice and looked to the successors of the apostles as their leaders. What these first Christians believed is still believed by the Catholic Church. No other Church can make that claim.
Pillar of Fire, Pillar of Truth
Man’s ingenuity cannot account for this. The Church has remained one, holy, catholic, and apostolic—not through man’s effort, but because God preserves the Church he established (Matt. 16:18, 28:20).
He guided the Israelites on their escape from Egypt by giving them a pillar of fire to light their way across the dark wilderness (Exod. 13:21). Today he guides us through his Catholic Church.
The Bible, sacred Tradition, and the writings of the earliest Christians testify that the Church teaches with Jesus’ authority. In this age of countless competing religions, each clamoring for attention, one voice rises above the din: the Catholic Church, which the Bible calls "the pillar and foundation of truth" (1 Tim. 3:15).
Jesus assured the apostles and their successors, the popes and the bishops, "He who listens to you listens to me, and he who rejects you rejects me" (Luke 10:16). Jesus promised to guide his Church into all truth (John 16:12–13). We can have confidence that his Church teaches only the truth.
Adapted from this source: http://www.catholic.com/documents/pillar-of-fire-pillar-of-truth (http://www.catholic.com/documents/pillar-of-fire-pillar-of-truth)
-
CC, I respect your faith and respect the Catholic Church. But I have reasoned disagreements with some very basic tenets and assumptions of Catholic doctrine. I will withhold those disagreements, unless you indicate that the purpose of your thread is to have a discussion of them on the merits. The last thing I want to do is get in an argument over sectarian Christianity that leads only to people trying to convince each other of the rightness or wrongness of one sect over the other.
-
CC, I know a Catholic young lady who has found this new social site very interesting. She's been participating in discussions and has been trying to get more people to join as it's new and she's helping the creators get the word out. That's all I know about it. I thought perhaps you might be interested or know someone who might be.
https://www.awestruckglobal.com/ (https://www.awestruckglobal.com/)
-
CC, I respect your faith and respect the Catholic Church. But I have reasoned disagreements with some very basic tenets and assumptions of Catholic doctrine. I will withhold those disagreements, unless you indicate that the purpose of your thread is to have a discussion of them on the merits. The last thing I want to do is get in an argument over sectarian Christianity that leads only to people trying to convince each other of the rightness or wrongness of one sect over the other.
You know what? I had a little deja vu reading your post. Did I do a thread like this once before? I forget. Oh well.
Anyways, I have no problem being challenged on my beliefs and debating them, as long as the challenge is factual and not one of the many false allegations I have heard lo these many years.
-
CC, I know a Catholic young lady who has found this new social site very interesting. She's been participating in discussions and has been trying to get more people to join as it's new and she's helping the creators get the word out. That's all I know about it. I thought perhaps you might be interested or know someone who might be.
https://www.awestruckglobal.com/ (https://www.awestruckglobal.com/)
I'll check it out.
-
This could be interesting, but let us consider the premise, rather, of "Why we should be a member of the church Christ built." There is much in what you postulated that I agree with. Jesus only built ONE church. The concept of sects, divisions, or denominations, are anathema to him, and to his teachings in scripture. There are quite likely identifiers we can find in scripture, even beyond the ones you list.
First and foremost, I would say is authority. Christ said, I will build MY church."Matthew 16:18
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."
So, according to scripture, which I assume we agree is the word of God, Jesus is the builder. Not Peter. The one, UNIVERSAL church, is founded by Christ himself, not anyone else. In fact, if someone else claims to be the founder, then it is most certainly already NOT the church that Christ built. Agreed?
-
The next question is When was that church that Christ built founded? For assuredly we can say, that if the scriptures are the word of God, and I believe they are, then the church had to be established at the scriptural time. That turns out to be the day of Pentecost, some fifty days after Jesus was raised from the dead. All scripture previous to this refers to the church and kingdom, which are synonyms, as future tense.
Acts 2:47
"Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved."(Since we know that you cannot add to that which does not already exist, we know that upon this particular day, the church had been built. We can quibble over the precise moment in time, but this is the first record of the church being in existence, since it is the first time souls were added to the church. It also clears up WHERE the church was established, which is Jerusalem, according to scripture.
This was according to prophecy:Isaiah 2:2 "And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the LORD's house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it. 3 And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem."
And:Micah 4:1 "But in the last days it shall come to pass, that the mountain of the house of the LORD shall be established in the top of the mountains, and it shall be exalted above the hills; and people shall flow unto it. 2 And many nations shall come, and say, Come, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, and to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for the law shall go forth of Zion, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem. (KJV)"
Lest there by any doubt that the term " house of God" is synonymous with the church see: 1Tim 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. (KJV)
-
Notice that before the day of Pentecost the kingdom is spoken of as future tense:
Mark 1:15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel. (KJV)
Matt 10:7 And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand. (KJV)
Luke 10:9 And heal the sick that are therein, and say unto them, The kingdom of God is come nigh unto you. (KJV)
Matt 6:9 After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. 10 Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven. (KJV)
Matt 16:18 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. (KJV)
Mark 9:1 And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power. (KJV)
Luke 22:18 For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come. (KJV)
Luke 19:11 And as they heard these things, he added and spake a parable, because he was nigh to Jerusalem, and because they thought that the kingdom of God should immediately appear. (KJV)
Acts 1:6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel? (KJV)
-
Now notice that the kingdom is referred to in the present tense after the events on the day of Pentecost:After Acts chapter two the Church is always spoken of as being in existence.
Acts 2:47 Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved. (KJV)
Acts 5:11 And great fear came upon all the church, and upon as many as heard these things. (KJV)
Acts 8:1 And Saul was consenting unto his death. And at that time there was a great persecution against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judaea and Samaria, except the apostles. (KJV)
Acts 11:22 Then tidings of these things came unto the ears of the church which was in Jerusalem: and they sent forth Barnabas, that he should go as far as Antioch. (KJV)
Acts 13:1 Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. (KJV)
Acts 14:27 And when they were come, and had gathered the church together, they rehearsed all that God had done with them, and how he had opened the door of faith unto the Gentiles. (KJV)
Col 1:13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son: (KJV)
Rev 1:9 I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ. (KJV)
Notice how clearly we have established that the builder was Christ, that the location was Jerusalem, and the time was the day of Pentecost?
There are many more scriptures within this context to establish what the true church that Christ built is, but I will leave them for another day. But give consideration to this: If the builder establishes a building(in this context his people) and gives us a blueprint, whatever does not match that blue-print is not that same building is it? So, if it is established that any denomination was built at a different time or a different place, or by a different builder, then it is also equally established that it is NOT the church that He built, isn't it?
-
Okay, you're throwing a whole lot at me. How about going with one thing at a time.
And bear in mind, I don't log in all that often so don't be surprised if it takes while for me to respond.
-
Okay, let us simplify. The church was founded by Christ, as prophesied. The church was founded at Jerusalem, as prophesied. And the church was founded on the day of Pentecost, as prophesied.
The point being, the ONE world-wide church was founded by Christ, at Jerusalem, on the Day of Pentecost. Any church founded by anyone else, at any other place, and any other time, is NOT the church that Christ built, at least according to scripture, which I hold to be the word of God, and is therefore infallible, does not contradict itself, and is always fulfilled. Right?
-
Okay, let us simplify. The church was founded by Christ, as prophesied. The church was founded at Jerusalem, as prophesied. And the church was founded on the day of Pentecost, as prophesied.........
1) The Church was founded by Christ: Correct.
2) The Church was founded at Jerusalem: Correct, but irellevant because the Church is for all nations and all peoples.
3) The Church was founded on the day of Pentecost: Thats arguable. I would probably say the Church was founded by Jesus, but had its life breathed into it on Pentecost. But we won't quibble over that.
..........The point being, the ONE world-wide church was founded by Christ, at Jerusalem, on the Day of Pentecost. Any church founded by anyone else, at any other place, and any other time, is NOT the church that Christ built, at least according to scripture, which I hold to be the word of God, and is therefore infallible, does not contradict itself, and is always fulfilled. Right?
You are half right:
Yes, any church founded by anyone else, at any other place, and any other time, is NOT the church that Christ built. So therefore we can exclude all protestant denominations because they are no older than 500 years, and most of them are far younger than that.
No, the Bible is not infallible. Evangelicals and Fundamentalists commonly say the Bible is infallible but that is a misconstrual of the word. I know they mean well, but they are abusing a good and useful theological term.
Fallible means able to make a mistake or able to teach error. Infallible means the opposite: the inability to make a mistake or to teach error. When we use these words, we use them regarding an active agent—that is, we use them about someone making a decision that either may or may not be erroneous (in which case that someone is fallible) or that definitely cannot be erroneous (in which case that someone is infallible).
Put another way, the active agent is alive and capable of making decisions. A human being is an active agent. Normally human beings are fallible. Sometimes they decide rightly, and sometimes they decide wrongly. In a few instances (such as the pope when speaking ex cathedra or the bishops united with the pope when speaking through an ecumenical council) human beings may decide infallibly.
But a rock is never infallible. Nor is it fallible. It is neither because it makes no decision about anything. Ditto for a plant. No sunflower ever made the right decision—or the wrong decision. In fact, no sunflower ever made any decision, properly speaking. The same can be said of a book. No book, not even the Bible, is capable of making a decision. This means it would be wrong to say that the Bible is either infallible or fallible—such terms should not be used about it or about any other book.
The proper term to use, when we are saying that the Bible contains no error, is inerrant. In its teaching, a particular book may contain truth or may contain error; most likely it will teach some of each. The one exception is the Bible. The Church teaches that everything the Bible asserts (properly understood, of course) is true and therefore without error. Like other disciplines, theology has words of art. For them to convey their true meaning, we must use them accurately.
-
We need not waste time quibbling over terms. The idea, as you expressed it is correct, and you clearly understood the meaning of what I wrote. The scriptures give us all knowledge needed for life and Godliness and it contains no error or contradiction. It will not fail us, if we will heed it.
Responding to your belief that it is irrelevant where a church started, as we discuss the marks of the true church, it can be said and I think clearly supported that ANY church not fitting ALL the marks of the true church is by definition, NOT the true church. And that is QUITE relevant.
You are getting close to the truth on denominationalism. There is no division in the church that Christ built. The ONLY church that he built was ONE church. It does not matter if the denomination was founded in 300 AD or in 2012 AD. It is not the church that Christ built. I am merely a Christian. The bible being the word of God, containing everything we need for life and Godliness, ("2 Peter 1:3
According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue:") we need add nothing to it. And we must certainly take nothing away from it.(Revelation 22:19
King James Version (KJV)
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.) That authority is given to NO man. Jesus gave the Apostles the authority to speak his word, as the spirit gave them remembrance. "John 14:26 also: "Matthew 24:35
Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away."
King James Version (KJV)
26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you." Jesus' words to his Apostles were clear. No man has the right to change the word of God. They could tell his word as he had given it to them and they did. But, the word stands, even today. We need nothing else, according to the scriptures themselves. Since the last Apostle died at the end of the 1st century, there will be no further inspired writings, according to scripture. See also:1 Corinthians 2:9-13
King James Version (KJV)
9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
-
I like the KISS principle (Keep It Simple Stupid!), it helps clarify things. I would argue the "early church" did not have any of the trappings and rituals found in most denominations now, so most denominations could be viewed as comprising modern contrivances. I favor a church that regardless of denomination focuses on the basics - Christ is the Son of God; Christ was born a man and died for our salvation, Christ rose from the dead and ascended into Heaven, Christ will come again; Baptism; Communion; The Lords Prayer; prayers and salvation is through Jesus alone.
-
I like the KISS principle (Keep It Simple Stupid!), it helps clarify things. I would argue the "early church" did not have any of the trappings and rituals found in most denominations now, so most denominations could be viewed as comprising modern contrivances. I favor a church that regardless of denomination focuses on the basics - Christ is the Son of God; Christ was born a man and died for our salvation, Christ rose from the dead and ascended into Heaven, Christ will come again; Baptism; Communion; The Lords Prayer; prayers and salvation is through Jesus alone.
Amen!
-
......Responding to your belief that it is irrelevant where a church started, as we discuss the marks of the true church, it can be said and I think clearly supported that ANY church not fitting ALL the marks of the true church is by definition, NOT the true church. And that is QUITE relevant.
......
But the physical location of where the Church was founded has nothing to do with the marks of the true Church. Again, the marks of the church are as stated in the OP. The Church is one, holy, catholic, and apostolic. Where it was founded is not relevant to those four marks.
.......You are getting close to the truth on denominationalism.....
I know.
........There is no division in the church that Christ built......
Not true. There is division. You see, just because I believe the Pope and Bishops of the Catholic Church are the true successors of the Peter and the Apostles does not mean that I don't think my protestant brethren are part of the Church as well: I do. They are my brethren, but they are my seperated brethren. I would liken the situation to a brother who runs away from home and disavows our parents. Technically he is still my brother, but yet he has chosen to forsake all the family traditions and special days we get together and everything else.
Protestants are Christians and accepted as brothers, something that the Catechism of the Catholic Church is actually quite clear about (something that you may not have known). Yet, they are seperated from us.
.........The bible being the word of God, containing everything we need for life and Godliness.....
Again, not true. Can the Bible break bread with you? Can the Bible pray for you and you for it? Can a Bible baptise you? Christianity and the Church came before the Bible did, not the other way around. The Church gave us the Bible as we know it today; the Bible does not give us the Church. Show me someone who says, "My church is Bible-based", and I will reply, "My Bible is Church-based, for it came to us from the Church." Don't misunderstand me: The Bible is the only book that is God-breathed; I know this. But to say it is all we need is simply not true.
And by the way, the Word of God is not confined to the pages of a book. The Word lives; the Word is Jesus. All that Jesus said and did is the Word of God, yet all that Jesus said and did is not written in the Bible. Divine Revelation is transmitted in writing and orally. Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition together make up the Word of God.
II. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TRADITION AND SACRED SCRIPTURE
One common source. . .
80 "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal." Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own "always, to the close of the age".
. . . two distinct modes of transmission
81 "Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit."
"And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching."
82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, "does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence."
- Catechism of the Catholic Church
-
...Christianity and the Church came before the Bible did, not the other way around. The Church gave us the Bible as we know it today; the Bible does not give us the Church. Show me someone who says, "My church is Bible-based", and I will reply, "My Bible is Church-based, for it came to us from the Church."...
That is a fair point. I've always known this, but have never pondered the chronology, and the chronology is not unimportant. Christianity in its purest form; closest to Christ and those who knew Him; preceded both the Bible and the Catholic Church.
Pure Christianity as practiced and preached by those who new Jesus, and those who were then touched by their evangelism - certainly looked nothing whatsoever like the religious institution of Catholicism. Catholicism evolved from those apostolic Christians, as surely as protestant churches evolved from Catholicism.
There are Christians whose religion is based on faith. That encompasses almost every Christian who ever existed.
But there are the select few Christians whose religion is based not on faith, but on knowledge; those who touched and spoke with the risen Christ. Their religion did not require faith, because they had first-hand knowledge. That knowledge is what drove them from cowering in the upper rooms after the crucifixion, to joyful martyrdom after the resurrection.
Those men - the ones who didn't just believe, but who knew - those men were not Catholic. And no matter the tradition that names Peter a "Pope". He wasn't. He was a Jew who knew the truth of Jesus Christ and died to tell it. He was certainly an instrumental historical link between those early Christians who knew Jesus and the "church" they established that evolved into Catholicism, but he wasn't Catholic.
-
But the physical location of where the Church was founded has nothing to do with the marks of the true Church. Again the marks of the church are as stated in the OP. The Church is one, holy, catholic, and apostolic. Where it was founded is not relevant to those four marks.
Well that is an interesting assertion. I wonder how you get there? If I am searching for a cow, and someone gives me a detailed description, as Christ has given us for the church, to say it has these particular four marks there for it MUST be THE cow, could lead to some interesting misunderstandings. It has four legs, horns, a tail, and is black. If that is the only part of the description you looked at, you might come up with two African trombone players, being followed by the cops.....technically accurate, but not at all what you are looking for. The other parts of the description, such as cloven hoofed, ruminant, gives milk, four nipples, wearing a bell, and with a green numbered tag in the left ear, gives a much greater chance that you get THE cow. Or at least a cow at all.
Not true. There is division. You see, just because I believe the Pope and Bishops of the Catholic Church are the true successors of the Peter and the Apostles does not mean that I don't think my protestant brethren are part of the Church as well: I do. They are my brethren, but they are my seperated brethren. I would liken the situation to a brother who runs away from home and disavows our parents. Technically he is still my brother, but yet he has chosen to forsake all the family traditions and special days we get together and everything else.
Protestants are Christians and accepted as brothers, something that the Catechism of the Catholic Church is actually quite clear about (something that you may not have known). Yet, they are seperated from us.
Here is one of these places that we surely have some misunderstanding. There ARE denominations. I do not and did not deny that. But, THE church was commanded not to be divided. THE church that Christ built was not built to be divided. And the key to removing divisions is to go all the way back to the beginning and BE the church that Christ built. What ever divisions men have built afterwards are NOT of Christ. They are of men. The fact that men choose to divide the church means men are the problem. How terrible is it, that even after the clear teachings, we have some men saying I follow Pope Benedict, and others saying, I follow Martin Luther, and yet others saying I follow Calvin, and others following Wesley? Is Christ divided? God forbid. I choose to follow Christ and Christ alone. The teachings he gave us through his Apostles are everything we need to know on life and Godliness.
1 Corinthians 1:10-21
King James Version (KJV)
10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.
11 For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.
12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.
13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?
14 I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;
15 Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.
16 And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.
17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.
18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
Again, not true. Can the Bible break bread with you? Can the Bible pray for you and you for it? Can a Bible baptise you? Christianity and the Church came before the Bible did, not the other way around. The Church gave us the Bible as we know it today; the Bible does not give us the Church. Show me someone who says, "My church is Bible-based", and I will reply, "My Bible is Church-based, for it came to us from the Church." Don't misunderstand me: The Bible is the only book that is God-breathed; I know this. But to say it is all we need is simply not true.
I believe it is all we need to KNOW. Christians surely have each other and surely need each other. We have INSTRUCTION on that, and I think it was clear enough that I was talking about knowledge and instruction, but if I was not, certainly, we need the body of Christ, the blood of Christ, we need to be baptized, we need each other, clearly.
It is a basic belief for me, when I get into thinking about questions and cannot find certain answers, that I do not need to know. (perhaps sometime we can enjoy some of those discussions) But, I trust the scriptures when they tell me that everything is there pertaining to life and Godliness, that all the knowledge that I MUST have to serve Christ is contained there.
And by the way, the Word of God is not confined to the pages of a book. The Word lives; the Word is Jesus. All that Jesus said and did is the Word of God, yet all that Jesus said and did is not written in the Bible. Divine Revelation is transmitted in writing and orally. Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition together make up the Word of God.
Half true, at best. Yes, there is more that is not recorded, that would fill all the books of the world, but these were recorded that we might believe.
John 21:24-25
King James Version (KJV)
24 This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true.
25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.
1 John 5:12-14
King James Version (KJV)
12 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.
13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.
14 And this is the confidence that we have in him, that, if we ask any thing according to his will, he heareth us:
The sacred tradition argument is directly opposed to the word of God and Jesus taught strongly against substituting the traditions of men for the word of God.
Matthew 15:2*3
Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.
But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?
Matthew 15:6
And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.
Mark 7:3
For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders.
Mark 7:5
Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands?
Mark 7:8
For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
Mark 7:9
And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
Mark 7:13
Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.
Galatians 1
King James Version (KJV)
1 Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;)
2 And all the brethren which are with me, unto the churches of Galatia:
3 Grace be to you and peace from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ,
4 Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father:
5 To whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.
6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
9 As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
10 For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.
11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.
13 For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it:
14 And profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers.
15 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace,
16 To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:
17 Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.
18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.
19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.
20 Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not.
21 Afterwards I came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia;
22 And was unknown by face unto the churches of Judaea which were in Christ:
23 But they had heard only, That he which persecuted us in times past now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed.
24 And they glorified God in me.
Colossians 2:8
Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
I am afraid that scripture teaches STRONGLY against the traditions of men argument. The inspired word of God I am happy to obey as best I can. But any attempt to modify the word of God must be met with suspicion and held up to the light of scripture. And then what good is it? If they say LESS than Christ taught us, it has no value, for it is less. If they say MORE than Christ taught us it has no value, for it has added to the word of God, and attempted to bind the traditions of men as the word of God. And if it says something DIFFERENT then it has no value because it is different from the word of God.
-
.........Colossians 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
I am afraid that scripture teaches STRONGLY against the traditions of men argument...........
Yes it does. The problem, though, is that Sacred Tradition that I mentioned is not a tradition of men. It is authentic Tradition of apostolic origin. As Paul said, "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle" ( 2 Thessalonians 2:15).
Pay attention to that: He said by word (oral) or epistle (written). That mirrors exactly what I said: "Divine Revelation is transmitted in writing and orally. Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition together make up the Word of God."
Many protestants hear the word "tradition" and automatically go to Colossians 2:8. That is a mistake. In this discussion it is important to keep in mind what the Catholic Church means by tradition. The term does not refer to legends or mythological accounts, nor does it encompass transitory customs or practices which may change, as circumstances warrant, such as styles of priestly dress, particular forms of devotion to saints, or even liturgical rubrics. Sacred or apostolic tradition consists of the teachings that the apostles passed on orally through their preaching. These teachings largely (perhaps entirely) overlap with those contained in Scripture, but the mode of their transmission is different.
They have been handed down and entrusted to the Churchs. It is necessary that Christians believe in and follow this tradition as well as the Bible (Luke 10:16). The truth of the faith has been given primarily to the leaders of the Church (Eph. 3:5), who, with Christ, form the foundation of the Church (Eph. 2:20). The Church has been guided by the Holy Spirit, who protects this teaching from corruption (John 14:25-26, 16:13).
Paul illustrated what tradition is: "For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures. . . . Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed" (1 Cor. 15:3,11). The apostle praised those who followed Tradition: "I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you" (1 Cor. 11:2).
The first Christians "devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching" (Acts 2:42) long before there was a New Testament. From the very beginning, the fullness of Christian teaching was found in the Church as the living embodiment of Christ, not in a book. The teaching Church, with its oral, apostolic tradition, was authoritative. Paul himself gives a quotation from Jesus that was handed down orally to him: "It is more blessed to give than to receive" (Acts 20:35).
This saying is not recorded in the Gospels and must have been passed on to Paul. Indeed, even the Gospels themselves are oral tradition which has been written down (Luke 1:1–4). What’s more, Paul does not quote Jesus only. He also quotes from early Christian hymns, as in Ephesians 5:14. These and other things have been given to Christians "through the Lord Jesus" (1 Thess. 4:2).
Fundamentalists say Jesus condemned tradition. They note that Jesus said, "And why do you transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?" (Matt. 15:3). Paul warned, "See to it that no one makes a prey of you by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the universe, and not according to Christ" (Col. 2:8). But these verses merely condemn erroneous human traditions, not truths which were handed down orally and entrusted to the Church by the apostles. These latter truths are part of what is known as apostolic tradition, which is to be distinguished from human traditions or customs
-
The first Christians "devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching" (Acts 2:42) long before there was a New Testament. From the very beginning, the fullness of Christian teaching was found in the Church as the living embodiment of Christ, not in a book. The teaching Church, with its oral, apostolic tradition, was authoritative. Paul himself gives a quotation from Jesus that was handed down orally to him: "It is more blessed to give than to receive" (Acts 20:35).
This saying is not recorded in the Gospels and must have been passed on to Paul. Indeed, even the Gospels themselves are oral tradition which has been written down (Luke 1:1–4).
This is one of the problems that I tend to have with the entire concept. I believe and accept a man named Christ lived, preached and said pretty much what is given in the New Testament. But I have also played "Telephone" - the New Testament wasn't written down for generations after his death. Add in the failings of man, the temptation to bend those words to aggrandize ones own position and power, and both intentional and unintentional translation mistakes through at least 3 languages, and the chances that the written words that have reached us are the exact ones Jesus spoke are pretty remote. Anyone who has read or translated text in both languages, knows that often the precise nuances and meanings are somewhat difficult to convey. Compromises are made. Subtle meanings are lost, and new ones introduced. Not only within the text, but as the language itself changes.
You speak English right?
The Lord's Prayer (Fæder ure) in Anglo Saxon (Old English) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQVyol7N1Jo#ws)
Not in the 11th century you didn't, and the text of the lords prayer was probably originally spoken by Jesus in Aramaic, translated and first written down in Greek, and then variously translated to Latin for Catholic Mass, and later into English and other Germanic languages, from Latin or Greek manuscripts after the reformation, when a more widespread ability to read the text on one's own was demanded.
Granted, one can argue that God has protected his word through the centuries - and divinely inspired the translators and printers to make the specific meanings of the words in whatever "authoritative edition" a perfect translation of the original spoken words. If so, it is a miracle of God's that I seldom hear celebrated.
Thomas Jefferson made his own version of the bible "cutting verse by verse out of the printed book, and arranging the matter which is evidently his, and which is as easily distinguishable as diamonds in a dunghill." - and before we blame Jefferson for his blasphemy, lets remember the Catholic Church did the same thing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_New_Testament_canon) when it canonized the current selection of works found in the new Testament - a process that took at least 35 years and wasn't made formal until over another 300 years later. If God had wanted to, he could have written everything in flaming letters in the sky for all to see, presented in a language each could understand, , and none could deny their meaning or the divinity of their origin. He didn't. I believe that is a fact well worth pondering upon.
-
This is one of the problems that I tend to have with the entire concept. I believe and accept a man named Christ lived, preached and said pretty much what is given in the New Testament. But I have also played "Telephone" - the New Testament wasn't written down for generations after his death. Add in the failings of man, the temptation to bend those words to aggrandize ones own position and power, and both intentional and unintentional translation mistakes through at least 3 languages, and the chances that the written words that have reached us are the exact ones Jesus spoke are pretty remote.........
If were were talking about anything else, like the works of Plato or Virgil, I might agree with you.
But in this case you are leaving out the most important "ingredient": GOD.
The scriptures are written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. If you take God out of the picture then sure, you can find a million reasons to pick the Bible apart, beccause without God the Bible is just another book.
But God is not out of the picture, the Bible is not just another book, and Jesus was not just some nice guy who said profound things. Jesus is the Son of God, God come in the flesh. Jesus is fully God and fully man, two natures perfectly joined in one being. He is the center of the Universe.
Now sure, some Bible translations may have translators errors, and there are some crappy translations out there. But it is not hard to find a translation that is faithful to the original texts.
-
CC, there is no doubt that Paul told them what he KNEW himself. Study and you will find, as I showed you in the scripture, that he was NOT taught by oral tradition, but rather divine inspiration. He was an apostle, as though one born out of season, but Jesus appeared to him directly. And the other apostles accepted him. He even stood and rebuked the other Apostles in Jerusalem over the circumcision issue. And the others Accepted his correction.
That is wholly different from what was aptly called the "telephone game." The concept of new revelation is to be rejected by reasoning men. It allows us to constantly reinterpret. God does not change. There is pressure on the Pope every day to change the word of God. And often they do. But, it is my contention that they do so in violation of the scriptures, not because someone found some dusty tradition that had been forgotten. Again, God does not change, nor does his word.
Yes, certainly, Paul had taught many Christians directly, telling them by mouth what he later wrote to remind them of, but that is not an excuse to ignore the written word. Our memories may fail us. Our consciences betray us as do the desires of our heart, but the word stands.
As for the accuracy of scripture, that can be established in many physical ways. Scripture has been around a long time, copied and recopied, translated into many languages, spread over all the earth, and then translated back again...and yet there are very few words even that are disputed from one text to another. None that significantly affect the doctrine. The word of God stands firm. The words of men are like dandelion spores spreading on the wind. One never knows where they will end up. And the rock stands as a firm foundation for us. I have no faith in claims of an oral tradition of 2000 years and more, that changes from time to time, as compared to the unchanging written word of God.
If you want to prove my point by the way, look into the acceptable recipe for unleavened bread and read of the rabbi's discussions on this. Are we willing to accept traditions or let the bible speak? Again, simple enough for me to allow God's word to speak and the words of men float away on the wind.
-
If were were talking about anything else, like the works of Plato or Virgil, I might agree with you.
But in this case you are leaving out the most important "ingredient": GOD.
The scriptures are written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
The scriptures weren't even written by the apostles. They were written by someone else at least 100 years later based on an oral tradition that was divinely inspired. How do we know they were written with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
But God is not out of the picture, the Bible is not just another book, and Jesus was not just some nice guy who said profound things. Jesus is the Son of God, God come in the flesh. Jesus is fully God and fully man, two natures perfectly joined in one being. He is the center of the Universe.
So God and/or Jesus was standing over every Monk, Historian and copier and guided that particular translation to perfection? How come they didn't help out those who produced the imperfect and bad translations you admit exist? How is one to know the good translations from the bad? Apparently even the Church can't tell:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/u-s-catholic-bishops-update-bible-translation-remove-booty-virgin/ (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/u-s-catholic-bishops-update-bible-translation-remove-booty-virgin/)
So which was God's Own word- "Virgin" or "young woman"? - I think we can agree they are not synonymous. So was the bible wrong before? Or is it wrong now? Or is that version of the bible wrong and always has been? Is the Bible a "living Document" as the Liberals like to believe the Constitution is- free to be "updated" to "fit with the times?" Is this the first time the Catholic Church has made such revisions? The Truth of God doesn't change, but Language does, and it is very imprecise by its nature- making it a horrible means of conveying "truth" through the centuries.
Given this revision is happening today, how is one to know that the original traditions were faithfully committed to paper in the first place? How are we to know that the men who produced the first Cannonized testament selected the correct texts, and rejected the incorrect ones? As I said, one could ( and you did) argue that God has protected his word through the centuries, but the presence of bad or false editions simply proves that such protection is, at the very least, wanting. Since God would not be found wanting for any particular exercise of his power, One can only presume God wanted (or at least allows) the ambiguity - the false texts spread with the true. Like the flaming letters in the sky, false or bad translations of the bible could erupt suddenly into flames, give an electric shock as you open them, or entail any number of divine warnings to leave them be. They do not. Again, I pose there is good cause for introspection on that fact.
-
Scripture has been around a long time, copied and recopied, translated into many languages, spread over all the earth, and then translated back again...and yet there are very few words even that are disputed from one text to another. None that significantly affect the doctrine.
Whose doctrine? Not all sects of Christianity even agree on which texts compose the bible. When you drop entire texts that is a whole bunch of words in dispute is it not? If there weren't differences in opinion about the meanings of the words themselves and the traditions they imply, then the reformation wouldn't have happened, and all of the different sects wouldn't exist.
The word of God stands firm. The words of men are like dandelion spores spreading on the wind. One never knows where they will end up. And the rock stands as a firm foundation for us.
God's truths don't change, but the imperfect understanding of men does. Just because something is written down, doesn't make it unchanging- for the world itself will change around it. This isn't to say that truth isn't to be found in a modern bible, or that even a significant portion is untrue - only that it is and must be mixed with the imperfection of 2000 years of men,and will be until Heaven itself issues its own authoritative edition. And it hasn't. There are no letters from Jesus, no Book of Jesus - only the tales told of him by the apostles- who could only report what they saw and actually understood. God sent his own son to Earth, and while here, he did not spend even a minute of his time committing God's words to paper that we know of. Again, this is another opportunity for introspection.
-
...If were were talking about anything else, like the works of Plato or Virgil, I might agree with you.
But in this case you are leaving out the most important "ingredient": GOD.
The scriptures are written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. If you take God out of the picture then sure, you can find a million reasons to pick the Bible apart, beccause without God the Bible is just another book.
But God is not out of the picture, the Bible is not just another book, and Jesus was not just some nice guy who said profound things. Jesus is the Son of God, God come in the flesh. Jesus is fully God and fully man, two natures perfectly joined in one being. He is the center of the Universe.
I agree with your assertion entirely. But to someone who is struggling to figure things out, and isn't fully "there" yet with the faith required to make this assertion with confidence, it is just an assertion.
The truth should be preached, and not watered down. But for unbelievers or seekers, it needs to be more than an assertion, or minds close. At least mine did, before I became a Christian. I was never less than a seeker of truth, but before I made a decision for Jesus Christ, hearing people make assertions sounded like little more than Charlie Brown's parents.
-
I agree with your assertion entirely. But to someone who is struggling to figure things out, and isn't fully "there" yet with the faith required to make this assertion with confidence, it is just an assertion............
True. Thats is why someone must first hear the call of God and answer the call in their heart. That does not come from a book, is comes from the spirit. God called Abraham from the desert before there were any books.
Once a person believes, then they can read the Bible and appreciate it.
-
I agree with your assertion entirely. But to someone who is struggling to figure things out, and isn't fully "there" yet with the faith required to make this assertion with confidence, it is just an assertion............
True. Thats is why someone must first hear the call of God and answer the call in their heart. That does not come from a book, is comes from the spirit. God called Abraham from the desert before there were any books.
Once a person believes, then they can read the Bible and appreciate it.
That is basically the point I was trying to get to. Faith comes from inside. God's relationship is with individuals, not churches. Jesus taught us to pray directly to God. I have seen the word and truth of God in many things, places, and people - not just in the bible. God provided us with no written proof, no writing in the sky, no supernatural effects and even his own son wrote nothing down while he was here. God wants us to find the truth through faith, not bring us to faith through truth.
"You don't fix faith River, Faith fixes you."
The Bible IS just a book. It is God in your heart that makes it more. There was a lot going on with Luther, but I believe that was the fundamental truth behind the reformation. I do not need a priest in order to confess my sins, nor do I believe the Pope (or any other clergy) is infallible. The very fact that indulgences were ever sold is proof enough of the potential vileness of men- especially men with power and control of wealth.One could argue that those were not "true" men of God, but you know that because of your faith in Godand your personal relationship with him, because everyone else around those men at the time would have told you otherwise.
The Apple gave us Knowledge of Good and Evil, and God has been trying to teach us to see and know the difference ever since.
-
I agree with your assertion entirely. But to someone who is struggling to figure things out, and isn't fully "there" yet with the faith required to make this assertion with confidence, it is just an assertion............
True. Thats is why someone must first hear the call of God and answer the call in their heart. That does not come from a book, is comes from the spirit. God called Abraham from the desert before there were any books.
Once a person believes, then they can read the Bible and appreciate it.
That is basically the point I was trying to get to. Faith comes from inside. God's relationship is with individuals, not churches. Jesus taught us to pray directly to God. I have seen the word and truth of God in many things, places, and people - not just in the bible. God provided us with no written proof, no writing in the sky, no supernatural effects and even his own son wrote nothing down while he was here. God wants us to find the truth through faith, not bring us to faith through truth.
"You don't fix faith River, Faith fixes you."
The Bible IS just a book. It is God in your heart that makes it more. There was a lot going on with Luther, but I believe that was the fundamental truth behind the reformation. I do not need a priest in order to confess my sins, nor do I believe the Pope (or any other clergy) is infallible. The very fact that indulgences were ever sold is proof enough of the potential vileness of men- especially men with power and control of wealth.One could argue that those were not "true" men of God, but you know that because of your faith in Godand your personal relationship with him, because everyone else around those men at the time would have told you otherwise.
The Apple gave us Knowledge of Good and Evil, and God has been trying to teach us to see and know the difference ever since.
I knew I wasn't the only one who saw it this way.
-
I reject the concept that the bible can be re-interpreted. God lives. His son, the WORD and He are One. I believe in His protection of his word. The truth is there and discernible for those who will look. Those who wish to change God;s word are in error.
-
I reject the concept that the bible can be re-interpreted.
What do you mean RE-interpreted. Every time you read it you interpret it. In fact, thats the cause of denominationalism, everybody reading the Bible and coming up with their own opinion. Thats why Jesus chose Apostles to teach, not books to hand out. The Church Jesus established is a "teaching" Church. His mandate to the Apostles was to teach, preach, and baptise (Matthew 28:19-20).
God lives. His son, the WORD and He are One.
Actullay, the Son IS the Word: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.... ....The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us" (John 1:1,14))
Those who wish to change God;s word are in error.
I don't know who does that.
On the other hand, I do know that protestant removed books from the Old Testament, so thats not too good. Read: LINK (http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/deuteros.htm)
-
Okay, some of this is so basic that I did not take the time to explain it. The word means what it means. God is no respecter of persons. There is not one standard fro me and one for you. It means exactly what it means whether you are reading it or I am reading it. Certainly it is true that to whom much is given, much is expected, but the meaning does not change. One may have a deeper, fuller understanding. The meaning was always there. it cannot and SHOULD NOT be changed by men to accommodate their moods and ideas. In other words, if homosexuality was proscribed by scripture under the new covenant, it is still proscribed today. No pope or church council or whatever they might call themselves, has any right or authority to change that.
Actually the order is to teach, baptize, and teach. But all that is based on the word, not any man's opinion. When you say the church has authority you by necessity remove that authority from Christ, who is reigning as King, seated upon the throne of heaven, and it is my opinion from long study of scripture that he does not abide that.
Yes, the Son is the Word. Without doubt. He is also God, without doubt. And without doubt, according to scripture, there is ONLY one God. This is difficult to understand and a long discussion can ensue from here. I think it would distract from our premise, which is that you can determine the true church by comparing it to the descriptions which identify it. The discussion of monotheism vs. polytheism is too long and distended for this venue, I think. (one God as opposed to multiple gods.) And in truth, I do not think we have an issue in this. Having dealt with various Catholics over time, they usually understand this issue on a basic level, they simply express it differently than I do.
It is an erroneous understanding to claim that protestants "removed" books. (Though, I am NOT a protestant, I think I understand this in a general sense.) We all look to a given book and determine whether we believe it to be scripture, or the words of men. It is absolutely true there were many other "writings" available at the time. Many of them made no claim to be scripture. Some of them discuss only history, some just love stories, or whatever. These books are sometimes called Apocryphal books, but none of them have any impact on theology. Some may be helpful in understanding history, or culture, but it is clear enough to the impartial observer that they are not Inspired by God. For example Josephus wrote some historical books. I find them quite valuable for gaining understanding, but of no value for understanding God's will in my life. I have personally read each of the Apocryphal books long ago and do not feel i am missing anything by not carrying them with me each day for personal study.
I reject the concept that the bible can be re-interpreted.
What do you mean RE-interpreted. Every time you read it you interpret it. In fact, thats the cause of denominationalism, everybody reading the Bible and coming up with their own opinion. Thats why Jesus chose Apostles to teach, not books to hand out. The Church Jesus established is a "teaching" Church. His mandate to the Apostles was to teach, preach, and baptise (Matthew 28:19-20).
God lives. His son, the WORD and He are One.
Actullay, the Son IS the Word: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.... ....The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us" (John 1:1,14))
Those who wish to change God;s word are in error.
I don't know who does that.
On the other hand, I do know that protestant removed books from the Old Testament, so thats not too good. Read: LINK (http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/deuteros.htm)
-
It's really quite simple.
John 3:16
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him* should not perish, but have everlasting life.
*True Church
-
It's really quite simple.
John 3:16
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him* should not perish, but have everlasting life.
*True Church
::thumbsup::
Simple!
-
Okay. We have some serious misconceptions here of what the Church is.
In the Old Testament, the Hebrews were called the People of God, which is more acurately translated as the Family of God. My means of "covenant" (covenants being how outsiders were brought into families by the Hebrews) the Hebrews were brought into God's famly, thus making him their "Father".
In the Bible there are six covenants: Adamic, Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic, and the New Covenant in Christ. And we see that each covenant casts its net wider: Two people, a family, a tribe, the 12 tribes, a Kingdom, and finally the whole world. This is God's plan of salvation, and this is why it is so critical to understand that to be a Christian is not about "are you saved" or "a personal relationship", but rather it is about being part of the Family of God and an adopted son/daughter of the Father.
This is the Church, under ther new and final covenant. We are the Family of God. Thats why we call each other brother and sister, and why we call God "Father". Thats why the Church has feasts and special days, as any family would
Being a Christian is not just some personal relationship with Jesus, a phrase coined by evangelicals only in recent history. Its about being part of a Family. Its about showing up to the family meal (Sunday Mass communion), and celibrating on the familiy's special days. I have heard people say, "The church is inside of me." Frankly, that's hogwash, and a non-sequitur. The Church is far far more than that.
-
Okay. We have some serious misconceptions here of what the Church is.
In the Old Testament, the Hebrews were called the People of God, which is more acurately translated as the Family of God. My means of "covenant" (covenants being how outsiders were brought into families by the Hebrews) the Hebrews were brought into God's famly, thus making him their "Father".
In the Bible there are six covenants: Adamic, Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic, and the New Covenant in Christ. And we see that each covenant casts its net wider: Two people, a family, a tribe, the 12 tribes, a Kingdom, and finally the whole world. This is God's plan of salvation, and this is why it is so critical to understand that to be a Christian is not about "are you saved" or "a personal relationship", but rather it is about being part of the Family of God and an adopted son/daughter of the Father.
This is the Church, under ther new and final covenant. We are the Family of God. Thats why we call each other brother and sister, and why we call God "Father". Thats why the Church has feasts and special days, as any family would
Being a Christian is not just some personal relationship with Jesus, a phrase coined by evangelicals only in recent history. Its about being part of a Family. Its about showing up to the family meal (Sunday Mass communion), and celibrating on the familiy's special days. I have heard people say, "The church is inside of me." Frankly, that's hogwash, and a non-sequitur. The Church is far far more than that.
No sir. You are describing what it is to be a member of the Catholic Church. And you are averring Catholic doctrine as Christian truth, and expecting non-Catholics to accept it because you aver it.
This is why I hesitate to move forward with threads like this. They inevitably boil down to Christians telling each other that their sect is wrong.
If you want to engage in Catholic boosterism, you have an open forum to do so, right here. But please, avoid telling other Christians that the faith they hold is false faith.
I would ask the same of anyone who would tell you that yours is false.
John 3:16. It is plain to me.
ETA: It strikes me that a more accurate title for what this thread has quickly grown into would be "Why I am a true Christian and you are not."
::bashing::
-
In the Old Testament, the Hebrews were called the People of God, which is more acurately translated as the Family of God. My means of "covenant" (covenants being how outsiders were brought into families by the Hebrews) the Hebrews were brought into God's famly, thus making him their "Father".
Hmm, it would appear that the words do matter. If God protected his word, why does it not translate as "Family of God" in the written text, if that is what is meant?
Being a Christian is not just some personal relationship with Jesus, a phrase coined by evangelicals only in recent history. Its about being part of a Family. Its about showing up to the family meal (Sunday Mass communion), and celibrating on the familiy's special days. I have heard people say, "The church is inside of me." Frankly, that's hogwash, and a non-sequitur. The Church is far far more than that.
If you have a Brother, cousin, sister etc who never show up for family meals, are they considered no longer part of your family? I have cut off all contact with my Mother, Father and Sister because they are selfish, narcissistic, immoral jerks whom I want no where near my children. but I wouldn't claim they weren't part of my "family". What of the Prodigal Son? Was he no longer "family" during the period that he didn't come to dinner?
The New Covenant under Jesus, also came with new rules. I am certainly not a Bible Scholar, so please correct me, but I don't believe Jesus every prayed in Public or with a large group. He sought solitude and quiet. That to me implies a personal relationship with God, with no intermediary, not even Jesus himself. No Ritual is required, only and open, honest and quiet heart. Certainly the Covenant of Jesus carries with it many rules as to how to treat and interact with your new and extended family- but many, if not most, of those rules applied to Christians and non-Christians alike. Jesus repeatedly pointed out that the one family everyone belonged to was "Sinner", and that should always be remembered when dealing with others. It seems one of the most common metaphors for the Church in the New Testament is that of "Christ's Body" - members of the church are part of Christ's body- of which he is the head. A Body is a the mechanism by which you manipulate things here in the real world - you are Christ's mouth, ears, eyes and hands. Your connection to him, to the head, is spiritual, and nothing at all to do with a Brick and Mortar building. The Sacrament of Communion - the communal sharing of Christ's body, is probably the best definition of a "Church", as symbolic ( or actual- I am not going to quibble) of becoming part of the body of Christ. The fellowship and relationships formed during such times are certainly valuable, but such fellowship and goodwill are not reserved for the membership of the "church" If one never shows up or partakes in communion, I suppose one could claim that they are denied membership in the Church. However, I am not able to find anything suggesting that the ritual of Communion cannot be practiced alone, or that it requires ordained clergy.. again, I am no scholar, so please enlighten me..
-
No sir. You are describing what it is to be a member of the Catholic Church. And you are averring Catholic doctrine as Christian truth, and expecting non-Catholics to accept it because you aver it. This is why I hesitate to move forward with threads like this. They inevitably boil down to Christians telling each other that their sect is wrong.
Perhaps, but I don't think its gotten nasty - at least not so far. I often find it useful to be challenged by differently lines of thought, and trying to answer the questions asserted... even if all parties walk away even more convinced that they are "right"
The current proposition is considering what, exactly constitutes a "Church" , and I think its an interesting discussion. Maybe I don't mind so much just because I don't have a dog in this hunt - being a non-Christian by almost every sect's definition of one. However, all I have seen so far is respectful statement of personal beliefs, and until I see the "You better change your ways or you are burning in eternal hell fire!!!" sentiment, I think we are doing okay.
-
No sir. You are describing what it is to be a member of the Catholic Church. And you are averring Catholic doctrine as Christian truth, and expecting non-Catholics to accept it because you aver it. This is why I hesitate to move forward with threads like this. They inevitably boil down to Christians telling each other that their sect is wrong.
Perhaps, but I don't think its gotten nasty - at least not so far. I often find it useful to be challenged by differently lines of thought, and trying to answer the questions asserted... even if all parties walk away even more convinced that they are "right"
The current proposition is considering what, exactly constitutes a "Church" , and I think its an interesting discussion. Maybe I don't mind so much just because I don't have a dog in this hunt - being a non-Christian by almost every sect's definition of one. However, all I have seen so far is respectful statement of personal beliefs, and until I see the "You better change your ways or you are burning in eternal hell fire!!!" sentiment, I think we are doing okay.
Good points, and I should say that I haven't seen anyone cross the line either - which is why this thread is still open.
I reiterate that any point of view is welcome regarding ones own faith. I am suggesting we find ways to do it without telling other Christians that their faith is false. Here's why.
Christian unity is required now more than ever if humanity is to survive the evil onslaught now faced by good and decent Christians. Intellectual debates over the falsehood of someone else's Christian faith serve the cause of dividing Christians - doing the devil's work.
Joshua 24:15 "...as for me and my household, we will serve the LORD.”
-
Okay. We have some serious misconceptions here of what the Church is.
In the Old Testament, the Hebrews were called the People of God, which is more acurately translated as the Family of God. My means of "covenant" (covenants being how outsiders were brought into families by the Hebrews) the Hebrews were brought into God's famly, thus making him their "Father".
In the Bible there are six covenants: Adamic, Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic, and the New Covenant in Christ. And we see that each covenant casts its net wider: Two people, a family, a tribe, the 12 tribes, a Kingdom, and finally the whole world. This is God's plan of salvation, and this is why it is so critical to understand that to be a Christian is not about "are you saved" or "a personal relationship", but rather it is about being part of the Family of God and an adopted son/daughter of the Father.
This is the Church, under ther new and final covenant. We are the Family of God. Thats why we call each other brother and sister, and why we call God "Father". Thats why the Church has feasts and special days, as any family would
Being a Christian is not just some personal relationship with Jesus, a phrase coined by evangelicals only in recent history. Its about being part of a Family. Its about showing up to the family meal (Sunday Mass communion), and celibrating on the familiy's special days. I have heard people say, "The church is inside of me." Frankly, that's hogwash, and a non-sequitur. The Church is far far more than that.
No sir. You are describing what it is to be a member of the Catholic Church..........
No I am not. I am describing what it means to enter into a "covenant" with God. It is Jesus who established the new and everlasting covenant. It is Jesus who taught us to pray "our father". These are not Catholic inventions, these are Biblical, theological and historical facts.
In fact, I challenge you to print that post out in its entirety, take it to your pastor, and have him find fault with anything I said.
-
"Christian unity is required now more than ever if humanity is to survive the evil onslaught now faced by good and decent Christians. Intellectual debates over the falsehood of someone else's Christian faith serve the cause of dividing Christians - doing the devil's work."
Needed to be emphasized.
-
If you have a Brother, cousin, sister etc who never show up for family meals, are they considered no longer part of your family?.........
That depends. Have they disavowed the family, cut ties and changed their name? Or did they just have a flat tire on the way home?
Actually, I addressed this in reply #15.
ChrstnHsbndFthr said, "....There is no division in the church that Christ built.....".
I replied, "Not true. There is division. You see, just because I believe the Pope and Bishops of the Catholic Church are the true successors of the Peter and the Apostles does not mean that I don't think my protestant brethren are part of the Church as well: I do. They are my brethren, but they are my seperated brethren. I would liken the situation to a brother who runs away from home and disavows our parents. Technically he is still my brother, but yet he has chosen to forsake all the family traditions and special days we get together and everything else. Protestants are Christians and accepted as brothers, something that the Catechism of the Catholic Church is actually quite clear about (something that you may not have known). Yet, they are seperated from us."
-
I reiterate that any point of view is welcome regarding ones own faith. I am suggesting we find ways to do it without telling other Christians that their faith is false.
I think doing so is endemic to this type of conversation. If I believe that following all of the precepts of the Catholic church is required to be "saved", a "Christian", "Part of the Church of Christ" or <insert your favorite label here> , and state as much openly , then by inference I am stating that everyone who believes differently is not covered under that label.
Just understand that we are talking about different things, and treat them as such. "Christian1" as proposed by IDP is different fom "Christian2" proposed by CC and so forth. If we agree to not argue over the labels - or confuse them with our own, then we should be fine. Just let folks argue for why their definition for their label such and such is correct, and understand it has nothing at all to do with your such and such, even though the same term is being used to describe it. I doubt anyone will convince anyone, because the different sects (and the reformation itself) happened for a reason, but understanding each other better I think will always be productive.
-
Technically he is still my brother, but yet he has chosen to forsake all the family traditions and special days we get together and everything else. Protestants are Christians and accepted as brothers, something that the Catechism of the Catholic Church is actually quite clear about (something that you may not have known). Yet, they are seperated from us
So basically a prodigal son situation, correct? You may be lost, but still a brother in Christ? And since each of us sins, and turns from God for seconds or for years, does that not describe all of us- even those who attend the brick and mortar Catholic church, and take regular communion and enjoy the fellowship of like-minded believers? If so, what then, is the separation? That they don't celebrate All-Saints Day? That they don't confess to a Priest? They don't fast at Lent? They are practicing different forms in their worship, to be sure, but I am wondering what the material difference(s) is (are) that deny them membership in the church (body of Christ)?
If I am stranded on a island, and I serve myself communion, do I form a church of One? - or am I lost to the church and the body of Christ till I am rescued and return to a brick and mortar building? If I celebrate certain days, and not others, am I not a brother or part of the body of Christ on those days I fail to participate? What if I participate, but my "heart is not in it" and I would rather be home watching reruns of Jersey Shore? Even within the Catholic Church there are members who are lost, are there not? Where is the line that is crossed between being a sinner and part of the Church, and being "Christian, but separate?"
Communion and Baptism seem to be the only rituals Christ commanded, and while both imply fellowship, its not clear to me that fellowship is required. God is always there to witness your actions and your heart.
-
Technically he is still my brother, but yet he has chosen to forsake all the family traditions and special days we get together and everything else. Protestants are Christians and accepted as brothers, something that the Catechism of the Catholic Church is actually quite clear about (something that you may not have known). Yet, they are seperated from us
So basically a prodigal son situation, correct? You may be lost, but still a brother in Christ? And since each of us sins, and turns from God for seconds or for years, does that not describe all of us- even those who attend the brick and mortar Catholic church, and take regular communion and enjoy the fellowship of like-minded believers? If so, what then, is the separation? That they don't celebrate All-Saints Day? That they don't confess to a Priest? They don't fast at Lent? They are practicing different forms in their worship, to be sure, but I am wondering what the material difference(s) is (are) that deny them membership in the church (body of Christ)?
If I am stranded on a island, and I serve myself communion, do I form a church of One? - or am I lost to the church and the body of Christ till I am rescued and return to a brick and mortar building? If I celebrate certain days, and not others, am I not a brother or part of the body of Christ on those days I fail to participate? What if I participate, but my "heart is not in it" and I would rather be home watching reruns of Jersey Shore? Even within the Catholic Church there are members who are lost, are there not? Where is the line that is crossed between being a sinner and part of the Church, and being "Christian, but separate?"
Communion and Baptism seem to be the only rituals Christ commanded, and while both imply fellowship, its not clear to me that fellowship is required. God is always there to witness your actions and your heart.
You make good points, nice to have shared fellowship, but it is not required. I am not aware of any instance where Jesus ever said it is mandatory for salvation, only that people go to Him. The "Cafeteria Catholics" I know who are in the mold of Ted Kennedy and Nancy Pelosi are by visible act "good" Catholics, but they really aren't. We can argue over whose fault that is, but the point being "showing up" doesn't in itself count for much. Paul warned people of accepting apostate members and going to apostate churches...when Catholics like Pelosi stick to the rituals and attendance but fail to adhere to church doctrine, is that the fault of the person or the fault of the church, or both? I'd argue both, but the church side of the equation is not brave enough to enforce their own doctrine, no doubt for the fear of bad press and lower collection plate receipts.
-
So basically a prodigal son situation, correct? You may be lost, but still a brother in Christ?........
Well, not quite, but sort of I guess.
......If I am stranded on a island, and I serve myself communion, do I form a church of One? - or am I lost to the church and the body of Christ till I am rescued and return to a brick and mortar building?......
Not neccessarily. If I, as a Catholic, am stranded on an island thats not really my fault, and if I still believe what I believe then I am still part of the church. Thats not the same as someone making a conscious choice to reject the church.
.......Communion and Baptism seem to be the only rituals Christ commanded......
Actually they are what we call "Sacraments", not rituals, although there are rituals attached to the Sacraments. The Seven Sacraments (with links) are:
Baptism (http://www.catholic.com/library/Baptismal_Grace.asp)
Confirmation (or Chrismation) (http://www.catholic.com/library/Confirmation.asp)
Eucharist (http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2006/0603uan.asp)
Reconciliation (or Penance) (http://www.catholic.com/library/Forgiveness_of_Sins.asp)
Anointing of the Sick (http://www.catholic.com/library/Anointing_of_the_Sick.asp)
Holy Orders (http://www.catholic.com/library/Bishop_Priest_and_Deacon.asp)
Matrimony (http://www.catholic.com/library/Permanence_of_Matrimony.asp)
.......Communion and Baptism seem to be the only rituals Christ commanded, and while both imply fellowship, its not clear to me that fellowship is required........
"And let us consider one another in order to stir up love and good works, not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as is the manner of some, but exhorting one another, and so much the more as you see the Day approaching" (Hebrews 10:24-25).
-
Okay, it is time to consider another mark of the church, an identifier that allows us to know if the church we have joined ourselves to, is really the church Christ built, or a man-made organization.
Who adds souls to the church according to scripture? Acts 2:47
Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.
Not men. Not a vote of other Christians. Not a priest. Not a preacher. Not a council. The Lord.
-
Okay, it is time to consider another mark of the church, an identifier that allows us to know if the church we have joined ourselves to, is really the church Christ built, or a man-made organization.
Who adds souls to the church according to scripture? Acts 2:47
Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.
Not men. Not a vote of other Christians. Not a priest. Not a preacher. Not a council. The Lord.
Yes, but the Lord works through people quite often to achieve that goal.
In fact, God has almost always worked through men: The prophets, Moses, David, the writers of the scriptures.... ...he even became a man himself.
-
Okay, it is time to consider another mark of the church, an identifier that allows us to know if the church we have joined ourselves to, is really the church Christ built, or a man-made organization.
Who adds souls to the church according to scripture? Acts 2:47
Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.
Not men. Not a vote of other Christians. Not a priest. Not a preacher. Not a council. The Lord.
Yes, but the Lord works through people quite often to achieve that goal.
In fact, God has almost always worked through men: The prophets, Moses, David, the writers of the scriptures.... ...he even became a man himself.
It strikes me to say that the people that God works through are not even close to exclusively Catholic. He can use whoever He chooses to accomplish His will, and the same goes for churches. He works how He will, where He will, when He will, and through whomever He will. God has no preference for Catholicism or Catholics in how He chooses to influence people in choosing to seek Jesus Christ.
Unless you're going to posit that people like Billy Graham, the late Charles Colson or NFL player Tim Tebow are leading people astray - away from Christ - because they are not Catholic.
This whole thing is just ludicrous to me. The idea that all Christian truth resides in Catholicism - with all its gothic and pagan traditions intermingled with Christianity - and that other sects that rest on the truth of John 3:16 just don't quite measure up to the "truth" meter... just ludicrous. Ridiculous. False.
Equally false to me is the notion that the Catholic Church resides outside of truth and completely outside of God's will.
Institutions are man-made. Period. Men built Catholicism as a way to spread the Gospel, accumulate wealth, and control populations. Pagan men infused pagan traditions with it. Protestantism sprang from it. Men built non-denomimational Christian sects.
Jesus Christ built His church when He died and rose again, and invited the entire human race to accept His Lordship and sacrifice. Catholicism may well be a part of that invitation. But they aren't the only ones invited.
-
IDP, the fact is, according to scripture, the membership of the church that Christ built, is decided by Christ. Not me. Not Catholic Crusader. Not the Pope. Not some council in Tennessee, nor one in Utah, or England. That knowledge and judgment belongs to Christ.
My advocacy is that we TRY to follow the scripture as best we can. We should return to the religion that Jesus taught. It is my belief that we can trust Christ to keep his word if we obey him. I know more today than I did yesterday. It is almost assured that I know less today than I will tomorrow. Does that mean I am not a Christian today? Does it mean that someone who only understands what I did yesterday is not a Christian today? These standards do not belong to us, imo. They belong to Christ. He told us some things on this subject:
Phillipians 1
15 Some indeed preach Christ even of envy and strife; and some also of good will:
16 The one preach Christ of contention, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my bonds:
17 But the other of love, knowing that I am set for the defence of the gospel.
18 What then? notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice.
Mark 9:38 And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us.
39 But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me.
40 For he that is not against us is on our part.
41 For whosoever shall give you a cup of water to drink in my name, because ye belong to Christ, verily I say unto you, he shall not lose his reward.
And the words of Jesus make clear our obligation:
John 14:15
If ye love me, keep my commandments.
-
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-h3aE72ANA2w/UBtagnoGm9I/AAAAAAAAA-M/q9iWh0a6K7A/s1600/follow-me325.jpg)
Hat tip Stupid is a Five letter word (http://stupidisafiveletterword.blogspot.com)
-
Heh.
-
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-h3aE72ANA2w/UBtagnoGm9I/AAAAAAAAA-M/q9iWh0a6K7A/s1600/follow-me325.jpg)
LOL.
-
According to scripture, the word comes to us no longer through the prophets or the angels or through men. The word comes through the Son.
Hebrews 1:1-3
King James Version (KJV)
1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high:
It also points our where the leadership of the church is......on the throne of Heaven, certainly not in any earthly city.
-
According to scripture, the word comes to us no longer through the prophets or the angels or through men. The word comes through the Son..........
Yes, I understand that. Jesus was the final "word" that God had to say to the world.
What I am talking about is who has the authority to teach what Jesus taught.
Look: Some Christians say you are supposed to baptise babies, some say you can't. Some say you must observe the Sabbath on Sauturday, most others don't. Some say you must speak in toungues to prove you have the Holy Spirit, others do not. Yet they all claim the Bible as the source of their doctrine. Who has the final authority on earth to decide what is correct doctrine? Protestant Christianity is awash in a sea of contradictory and conflicting doctrines. And why is that? Becuase they are doing the same thing that was condemned long ago, "every man did that which was right in his own eyes” (Judges 21:25).
The Bible is plain and clear on this point: Jesus chose men to teach: He gave them the authority to bind and loose. How did they first excersize this authority? In Acts 15, it was a Council that decided on the matter of Circumcision. They made this decision based on their authority. They did not consult any scriptures in their decision, but were rather guided by the Holy Spirit: "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements" (Acts 15:28).
This is how doctrine is decided: Not by popular vote, not by each individual reading a Bible and deciding for themselves what is right or wrong, but by a Council of those appointed by Christ. It was a Council that decided many things you hold to be true. It was a Council that decided which of the 27 books belong in the New Testament. Jesus never said to make a New Testament; he never said to write anything at all. Yet in the 4th century, during the Pontificate of Pope Damasus I, he ratified the canon of the New Testament. It was Council that decided that Jesus is fully God and fully man against the arch-heretic Arius.
The Bible is the written word of God. But like any book it must be interpreted. Now, YOU show ME in the Bible where it says that every individual is to decide what is right for themselves.
-
The scriptures teach that Jesus is the High Priest and everyone else are priests directly before Him, who rules to this day. It is our responsibility to read the word and study it ourselves. If we allow men to stand between us and God, more the fools are we.
Hebrews 3:1
Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus;.
Hebrews 4:14
Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession.
Hebrews 6:20
Whither the forerunner is for us entered, even Jesus, made an high priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.
Hebrews 7:23 Now there have been many of those priests, since death prevented them from continuing in office; 24 but because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood. 25 Therefore he is able to save completely[c] those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them.
Hebrews 4:2016 Let us then approach God’s throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need.
(WE approach the throne, not some priest who stands between us and our High Priest and King, but WE approach, and why not? We have the right, granted by God as his special possession!)
1 Peter 2:9
But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s special possession, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.
-
"Christian unity is required now more than ever if humanity is to survive the evil onslaught now faced by good and decent Christians. Intellectual debates over the falsehood of someone else's Christian faith serve the cause of dividing Christians - doing the devil's work."
Needed to be emphasized.
!
-
Look: Some Christians say you are supposed to baptise babies, some say you can't. Some say you must observe the Sabbath on Sauturday, most others don't. Some say you must speak in toungues to prove you have the Holy Spirit, others do not. Yet they all claim the Bible as the source of their doctrine. Who has the final authority on earth to decide what is correct doctrine? Protestant Christianity is awash in a sea of contradictory and conflicting doctrines. And why is that? Becuase they are doing the same thing that was condemned long ago, "every man did that which was right in his own eyes” (Judges 21:25).
.....
It was a Council that decided which of the 27 books belong in the New Testament. Jesus never said to make a New Testament; he never said to write anything at all. Yet in the 4th century, during the Pontificate of Pope Damasus I, he ratified the canon of the New Testament. It was Council that decided that Jesus is fully God and fully man against the arch-heretic Arius.
And those councils were anointed directly by Jesus? No, it was a council of men deciding FOR OTHERS what will be right, each member exercising their own judgement - what was right in their own eyes - which may, or may not, have been influenced by the Spirit. A similar council voted to change "Virgin" to "Young Woman" to update the bible. Was that council lead by the holy spirit? How about the Council that approved "Virgin" in the the first place? Them too? Holy Spirit changes his mind with the times too?
It takes a huge leap of faith to assert that all church councils were always made up of virtuous men filled with and guided by the Holy Spirit. Especially when some of those councils thought it was okay to issue pardons for sins (sometimes in advance!) in God's name in return for donations to their coffers. I will grant having a central authority and a group of well intentioned men is more likely to produce a better and more uniform outcome, and that may be as Christ intended, but given some of the very wrong things those councils did ( Spanish or Medieval Inquisitions anyone?) I find it hard to fathom that they can be relied upon to always arrive at the right decisions - Men are Men and Men are Fallible - even the ones who claim to be holy - and especially men who have risen into the ranks of authority. Do you really believe that the Catholic Clergy are somehow special and not prone to human failings? Why then have they allowed so many of their ranks to be infested with Gay men and preacher of Social Justice? Why do they have issues with Priests molesting young boys? I don't think that is the Church's fault mind, I am merely pointing out that the church suffers from corruption and the vile nature of man just as much as any other human maintained institution, and that vesting Church Councils (of any church!) with some form of guidance not available to all men is fallacious, as all of human history will demonstrate.
-
....It takes a huge leap of faith to assert that all church councils were always made up of virtuous men filled with and guided by the Holy Spirit....
A huge leap of faith in men. Only a fool puts his faith in the integrity of men. Or institutions.
-
To be clear, I do NOT assert that men have authority over other men, except on the congregational level, and then only as regards orderly worship. There is not such thing as church doctrine, only the doctrine of Christ and each man is free to study, and not only that, REQUIRED to study. How else can a man serve God and keep his commandments, lest he study his Word? I do not serve some appointed Apostle, Pope, Council, or whatever the denomination might call it. I serve God, through his Son, Jesus, by his Word. If I am not to allow even my own mother or father to come between me and God's Word, how can I allow a mere man to intervene? Certainly, to the degree a man may show me SCRIPTURE, he may influence my thinking THROUGH that scripture, but otherwise, I serve NO MAN, but only God!
-
The scriptures teach that Jesus is the High Priest and everyone else are priests directly before Him, who rules to this day. It is our responsibility to read the word and study it ourselves. If we allow men to stand between us and God, more the fools are we.........
So you are saying Jesus was a fool for giving the apostles the authority to teach and to bind & loose?
I never said not to study the Bible. You aren't even listening to what I am saying. I never said not to study the Bible., in fact I study the Bible too. What I said is, who has the AUTHORITY to decide what is correct doctrine and what is not.
-
And those councils were anointed directly by Jesus?..........
In a sense, yes. Jesus gave the authority to the apostles. The apostles later, through the laying on of hands, passed that authority on to others. This is known as Apostolic Succession.
The first Christians had no doubts about how to determine which was the true Church and which doctrines the true teachings of Christ. The test was simple: Just trace the apostolic succession of the claimants.
Apostolic succession is the line of bishops stretching back to the apostles. All over the world, all Catholic bishops (and Eastern Orthodox bishops too) are part of a lineage that goes back to the time of the apostles, something that is impossible in Protestant denominations (most of which do not even claim to have bishops).
The role of apostolic succession in preserving true doctrine is illustrated in the Bible. To make sure that the apostles’ teachings would be passed down after the deaths of the apostles, Paul told Timothy, "[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2). In this passage he refers to the first three generations of apostolic succession—his own generation, Timothy’s generation, and the generation Timothy will teach.
The Church Fathers, who were links in that chain of succession, regularly appealed to apostolic succession as a test for whether Catholics or heretics had correct doctrine. This was necessary because heretics simply put their own interpretations, even bizarre ones, on Scripture. Clearly, something other than Scripture had to be used as an ultimate test of doctrine in these cases.
Thus the early Church historian J. N. D. Kelly, a Protestant, writes, "[W]here in practice was [the] apostolic testimony or tradition to be found? . . . The most obvious answer was that the apostles had committed it orally to the Church, where it had been handed down from generation to generation. . . . Unlike the alleged secret tradition of the Gnostics, it was entirely public and open, having been entrusted by the apostles to their successors, and by these in turn to those who followed them, and was visible in the Church for all who cared to look for it" (Early Christian Doctrines, 37).
For the early Fathers, "the identity of the oral tradition with the original revelation is guaranteed by the unbroken succession of bishops in the great sees going back lineally to the apostles. . . . [A]n additional safeguard is supplied by the Holy Spirit, for the message committed was to the Church, and the Church is the home of the Spirit. Indeed, the Church’s bishops are . . . Spirit-endowed men who have been vouchsafed ‘an infallible charism of truth’" (ibid.).
Thus on the basis of experience the Fathers could be "profoundly convinced of the futility of arguing with heretics merely on the basis of Scripture. The skill and success with which they twisted its plain meaning made it impossible to reach any decisive conclusion in that field" (ibid., 41).
-
The scriptures teach that Jesus is the High Priest and everyone else are priests directly before Him, who rules to this day. It is our responsibility to read the word and study it ourselves. If we allow men to stand between us and God, more the fools are we.........
So you are saying Jesus was a fool for giving the apostles the authority to teach and to bind & loose?
I never said not to study the Bible. You aren't even listening to what I am saying. I never said not to study the Bible., in fact I study the Bible too. What I said is, who has the AUTHORITY to decide what is correct doctrine and what is not.
To the contrary. How dare you call Jesus a fool!?! What got into you? This was a reasonable discussion of scripture and the authority we have from it, and I have to assume you know what you have done. I suppose that is between you and God though, so I leave you to his mercies.
The Priests appointed by God of COURSE have that authority. Not those appointed by the church. There is very LITTLE authority given to the church. The authority belongs to Christ, the Apostles (all of whom died in the first century) and to us directly as His priests. There ARE scriptures which authorize the CHURCH as a WHOLE, not as represented by priests, or Popes(an office which does not exist in scripture) to restore order. Other than that, the authority rests in God and each of his Christians, as priests themselves, under Jesus the High Priest. I have presented scripture to support EVERY point I have made. Show me the Pope in scripture. I am interested. Have I been in error serving Christ, rather than men? I do not think so, but I am willing to hear the scriptures if you can show me. Do we have other than the bible as the word of God? Is ANYONE fit today to add to it or take from it? I deny the right of any council to tell me what God means by his Word. I think I know how to read. I choose to read his Word and OBEY it. Is that not sufficient? I understand my obligation to other believers. I understand that I am not to forsake the assembly. I understand that I partake of the Lord's Supper in remembrance of Him, and I do it EVERY Sunday. Explain why I need to send my money to Rome, when my brother who lives beside me is in need? Explain why the Pope and who is not mentioned in scripture has authority to modify the Word of God in any way? I am interested, but admittedly doubtful. Explain to me why, though the scriptures say: 1 Timothy 4:2-4
King James Version (KJV)
"2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving".
Which to me LOOKS like a direct description of the Catholic Church(Capital C denoting the denomination rather than the dimension) I see no SCRIPTURE forbidding to marry. I see no scripture denying the right of men to eat meat on Friday or any other day. Frankly, CC, the certain marks of the TRUE church are our willingness to obey God over the traditions of man. Given the choice of the scripture or the Pope, I choose to obey Christ in his scriptures every time.
The scriptures list no higher office held by mere men, since the death of the last Apostle, than that of Bishop=Elder=Pastor=Shepard(they are all the same), which is clearly one of a plurality of qualified Men, husbands of one wife, able to teach, etc...., over one congregation, not many congregations.
-
Uh-uh.
Uh-huh.
Uh-uh.
Uh-huh.
Uh-uh.
Uh-huh.
Nope.
Yup.
Extra-biblicalist.
Heretic.
-
Uh-uh.
Uh-huh.
Uh-uh.
Uh-huh.
Uh-uh.
Uh-huh.
Nope.
Yup.
Extra-biblicalist.
Heretic.
I'm Sorry, I can't understand which things you object to, and require more proof of, from what I quoted. Perhaps you would clarify for me?
-
<Quick Search Results: pope
Showing results from:
Keyword search results
0 Results
Sorry, we didn’t find any results for your search. Please try the following:
Double-check spelling, especially people and place names.
Make sure there are spaces between words. Bible Gateway treats “nameoftheFather” >
Scripture search returns zero results for Pope.
-
.The first Christians had no doubts about how to determine which was the true Church and which doctrines the true teachings of Christ. The test was simple: Just trace the apostolic succession of the claimants.
Yes, a simple task. Wait, what?
The evidence is there,clear as day, that there were Church councils that didn't follow the words of Christ, "apostolic laying of hands" or not. Are you claiming the current Pope has eradicated all evil from the current church? There isn't one bad clergymen anywhere now? What about before? Unless there is some section of the new testament I am unfamiliar with that advocated torture (or death via secular authority) for unbelievers, for heretics, the Catholic Church and its anointed members were certainly responsible for such deeds? Are you really claiming that all who were tortured or killed during the various inquisitions were all tried fairly and tortured with justice?
The fact that Jesus and/or God left us free to choose, of our own free will, what sect we would belong to, if any, is proof enough that God accepted the ramifications of the Apple. God could have, with the wave of his hand, put us back- decided that we cannot suffer under the affliction of such knowledge. He did not. He accepted the choice of his children. Their first assertion, however naive, stupid, or vain, that they wished to be like him, he let stand. Again, reflect upon that. He did not reverse time. He did not change us back.
Each person is free to choose. Free to exercise his own will. To chose Catholicism or not. To chose Lutheranism or not. To chose protestant, or not. To choose Hindu, Islam, Buddhism, Taoism, or any of a dozen, hundreds, thousands of faiths, nor not. BY DESIGN. BY GOD'S CHOICE If God didn't want us to have a choice, he would not have given us one. I hear him, but only faintly. Jesus is not the road I am to follow, or at least not yet. He has given me a another road to trace, through underbrush and wild lands.. Maybe that road will eventually lead to cultivated paths, maybe even someday to Jesus, and then to the "true church". Maybe there is something inferior in my makeup or mind or spirit that requires remedial lessons before I can even dare to tread the path others walk. I hear the call. I follow the best I can. Point is, maybe Catholicism is the right answer. Maybe I am not ready to hear it? Maybe God and Jesus know more about tending their garden of souls than any man?
-
Catholics Come Home Epic Video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xu5pev9QrBk#)
-
The evidence is there,clear as day, that there were Church councils that didn't follow the words of Christ.........
Name one, and be specific.
And when you do, make sure you know the difference between what we call an Eccumenical Council, and just some local "council".
-
There is the Bourgias, Girolamo Savonarola may have something to say about Alexander VI and Apostolic authority. Humans are by their nature flawed, rising above those flaws is key, adhering to ritual does not always guarantee legitimacy or devine authority. The Almighty bestows legitimacy regardless of human contrivances or claims of exclusivity, let the Holy Spirit work its will and true legitimacy will bear the best fruit.
-
The evidence is there,clear as day, that there were Church councils that didn't follow the words of Christ.........
Name one, and be specific.
And when you do, make sure you know the difference between what we call an Eccumenical Council, and just some local "council".
The Ecumenical Councils largely defined what was and was not heresy, and the heretics were often persecuted or executed - if not directly by the Church, then by the state at the request of the church. I don't recall Christ telling anyone to kill or persecute unbelievers. Yet whole new classifications of Heretics were usually created by each Ecumenical Council - and often such councils were called for the specific purpose of repudiating some doctrine that was gaining power and threatening the old guard, explicitly so power could be brought to bear and exterminate the rival sect- either via local state action, crusades or inquisitions. If such councils had merely re-affirmed the doctrine of the church that would be one thing - the fact that those defined as heretical were invariably punished for their beliefs either directly or indirectly because of these councils deliberations seems very much in contradiction with the teachings of our Lord.
Further, there is the sale of indulgences, in which Men assumed they could barter and negotiate penalties and penances on behalf of a person with Jesus and God.
1415 Council of Constance affirmed the practice of indulgences.
1549 Council of trent states it "condemns with anathema those who say that indulgences are useless or that the Church does not have the power to grant them.” - -- thus the idea of indulgences was added to the "infallible" doctrine. I do recall Christ granting the power to sell indulgences in his name, and in fact asserting quite the opposite.
-
The evidence is there,clear as day, that there were Church councils that didn't follow the words of Christ.........
Name one, and be specific.
And when you do, make sure you know the difference between what we call an Eccumenical Council, and just some local "council".
The Ecumenical Councils largely defined what was and was not heresy, and the heretics were often persecuted or executed - if not directly by the Church, then by the state at the request of the church. I don't recall Christ telling anyone to kill or persecute unbelievers. Yet whole new classifications of Heretics were usually created by each Ecumenical Council - and often such councils were called for the specific purpose of repudiating some doctrine that was gaining power and threatening the old guard, explicitly so power could be brought to bear and exterminate the rival sect- either via local state action, crusades or inquisitions. If such councils had merely re-affirmed the doctrine of the church that would be one thing - the fact that those defined as heretical were invariably punished for their beliefs either directly or indirectly because of these councils deliberations seems very much in contradiction with the teachings of our Lord.
Further, there is the sale of indulgences, in which Men assumed they could barter and negotiate penalties and penances on behalf of a person with Jesus and God.
1415 Council of Constance affirmed the practice of indulgences.
1549 Council of trent states it "condemns with anathema those who say that indulgences are useless or that the Church does not have the power to grant them.” - -- thus the idea of indulgences was added to the "infallible" doctrine. I do NOT recall Christ granting the power to sell indulgences in his name, and in fact asserting quite the opposite.
Think you missed a word there Weisshaupt.
Your truth of your statement is so obvious on its face, it boggles my mind that someone would twist themselves in a logic-pretzel to refute it.
-
IIRC indulgences were one (the central one) of the 95 thesis Martin Luther nailed on the door in 1517. And translating the bible so that the Word was made known to more people also helped to bring about a revival of faith in Jesus Christ that brought millions to his grace.
-
CC, what is official Catholic teaching on a practicing Catholic regularly attending services at a church of a different Christian denomination, like Baptist?
-
There is the Bourgias, Girolamo Savonarola may have something to say about Alexander VI and Apostolic authority. Humans are by their nature flawed, rising above those flaws is key, adhering to ritual does not always guarantee legitimacy or devine authority. The Almighty bestows legitimacy regardless of human contrivances or claims of exclusivity, let the Holy Spirit work its will and true legitimacy will bear the best fruit.
Yes, the Almighty DOES bestow legitimacy regardless of human contrivances or claims of exclusivity. And in the Catholic Church we have seen the humble rise up and challenge Popes. Saint Catherine of Siena comes to mind. But your error is in assuming that the Papacy and/or the Church is some sort of human contrivance.
Consider the High Priest of the Old Testament. This was established by God. Centuries later, some High Priests were corrupt, but that does not alter the fact that the "office" was established by God. In fact Jesus even made a point of telling the people to obey the High Priest despite his personal corruption.
If the day ever comes when God comes down himself and wipes away the Papacy, as Jesus did with the God-created High Priesthood, then I'll have to say "Adios" to the Pope. But no MAN has the authority to do away with what Jesus established.
-
The evidence is there,clear as day, that there were Church councils that didn't follow the words of Christ.........
Name one, and be specific.
And when you do, make sure you know the difference between what we call an Eccumenical Council, and just some local "council".
The Ecumenical Councils largely defined what was and was not heresy, and the heretics were often persecuted or executed - if not directly by the Church, then by the state at the request of the church. I don't recall Christ telling anyone to kill or persecute unbelievers. Yet whole new classifications of Heretics were usually created by each Ecumenical Council - and often such councils were called for the specific purpose of repudiating some doctrine that was gaining power and threatening the old guard, explicitly so power could be brought to bear and exterminate the rival sect- either via local state action, crusades or inquisitions. If such councils had merely re-affirmed the doctrine of the church that would be one thing - the fact that those defined as heretical were invariably punished for their beliefs either directly or indirectly because of these councils deliberations seems very much in contradiction with the teachings of our Lord.
Further, there is the sale of indulgences, in which Men assumed they could barter and negotiate penalties and penances on behalf of a person with Jesus and God.
1415 Council of Constance affirmed the practice of indulgences.
1549 Council of trent states it "condemns with anathema those who say that indulgences are useless or that the Church does not have the power to grant them.” - -- thus the idea of indulgences was added to the "infallible" doctrine. I do recall Christ granting the power to sell indulgences in his name, and in fact asserting quite the opposite.
The "sale" of indulgences was never approved by the Church. The "doctrine" of indulgences IS approved by the Church, and still is to this day.
In fact, the sale of indulgences was condemned by the Church before Martin Luther ever hit the scene.
-
CC, what is official Catholic teaching on a practicing Catholic regularly attending services at a church of a different Christian denomination, like Baptist?
My understanding is that attending a service is okay, and participating in certain things (like the Lord'sd Prayer for example) is okay. But we cannot participate in any rite that contradicts Catholic beliefs, such as going up and receiving what Batists consider to be "communon" for example. If a Catholic were to go up and receive communion at a Baptist church, that would in essence be a sort of public statement that Baptist belief on that issue is acceptable, when in fact the Baptist belief on that issue is in direct contradition to Catholic belief.
-
There is the Bourgias, Girolamo Savonarola may have something to say about Alexander VI and Apostolic authority. Humans are by their nature flawed, rising above those flaws is key, adhering to ritual does not always guarantee legitimacy or devine authority. The Almighty bestows legitimacy regardless of human contrivances or claims of exclusivity, let the Holy Spirit work its will and true legitimacy will bear the best fruit.
Yes, the Almighty DOES bestow legitimacy regardless of human contrivances or claims of exclusivity. And in the Catholic Church we have seen the humble rise up and challenge Popes. Saint Catherine of Siena comes to mind. But your error is in assuming that the Papacy and/or the Church is some sort of human contrivance.
Consider the High Priest of the Old Testament. This was established by God. Centuries later, some High Priests were corrupt, but that does not alter the fact that the "office" was established by God. In fact Jesus even made a point of telling the people to obey the High Priest despite his personal corruption.
If the day ever comes when God comes down himself and wipes away the Papacy, as Jesus did with the God-created High Priesthood, then I'll have to say "Adios" to the Pope. But no MAN has the authority to do away with what Jesus established.
The church was established by God himself, as we have already demonstrated from scripture. The error is thinking the Pope was established by God. No scripture did that. We have already demonstrated that neither the word Pope, nor the word Papacy appear in scripture. Only men and only then in error added the office. The bible gives no office above Elder(or Bishop, Pastor, Shepard, which are all interchangeable terms for the same position), after the last Apostle died. Each congregation stands alone, part of the church that Christ built, but not divided from it, if they hold Christ as their head and not men. No human has authority to change the word of God. We are all called to serve him. all men are appointed priests before him, and the concept of separating Christians into tiers and divisions is error. The question of how much error is acceptable to the Lord belongs to the Lord. Our goal in claiming Christ as our head, should be to serve him as best we can, constantly searching the scriptures to improve our obedience to Him, in order to show our love for Him, and the amazing sacrifice he made for us.
-
This was established by God. Centuries later, some High Priests were corrupt, but that does not alter the fact that the "office" was established by God. In fact Jesus even made a point of telling the people to obey the High Priest despite his personal corruption.
Reference?
If the day ever comes when God comes down himself and wipes away the Papacy, as Jesus did with the God-created High Priesthood,
That is the same priest hood that Jesus commanded us to Obey? I am very confused..
-
There is the Bourgias, Girolamo Savonarola may have something to say about Alexander VI and Apostolic authority. Humans are by their nature flawed, rising above those flaws is key, adhering to ritual does not always guarantee legitimacy or devine authority. The Almighty bestows legitimacy regardless of human contrivances or claims of exclusivity, let the Holy Spirit work its will and true legitimacy will bear the best fruit.
Yes, the Almighty DOES bestow legitimacy regardless of human contrivances or claims of exclusivity. And in the Catholic Church we have seen the humble rise up and challenge Popes. Saint Catherine of Siena comes to mind. But your error is in assuming that the Papacy and/or the Church is some sort of human contrivance.
Consider the High Priest of the Old Testament. This was established by God. Centuries later, some High Priests were corrupt, but that does not alter the fact that the "office" was established by God. In fact Jesus even made a point of telling the people to obey the High Priest despite his personal corruption.
If the day ever comes when God comes down himself and wipes away the Papacy, as Jesus did with the God-created High Priesthood, then I'll have to say "Adios" to the Pope. But no MAN has the authority to do away with what Jesus established.
Elements are in fact man-made, the Catholic Church & Papacy as a whole, no of course not, but elements. There is no direct evidence Jesus ever instructed people to create the rituals, lavish gilded structures and offices that exist today. Somewhere along the line a man made a decision to do this or that. Sure, they may think they have a rock solid interpretation justifying the reason something is done, but going back to my KISS principle the message can be given and salvation earned on the fundamentals, period. Not looking to get into a itemized list of what I think is man-made or not, it is a moot argument IMO, I am not looking to convert your belief or thinking but there is more than one venue to salvation as long as the basics are maintained. Apostate churches of any denomination will have to answer for their apostasy and leading people astray just as much as the unprepentant sinner.
-
This was established by God. Centuries later, some High Priests were corrupt, but that does not alter the fact that the "office" was established by God. In fact Jesus even made a point of telling the people to obey the High Priest despite his personal corruption.
Reference?
Matt 23:1-12: “Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples, saying: "The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. "Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do. "
Here Jesus is at once condemning their corruption yet upholding their authority. Luckily modern Popes are not corrupt like the old Pharisees were.
If you want a reference to God establishing the Papacy, I invite you to read an OP I made in another forum: http://www.true2ourselves.com/forum/theology/2162-pope.html (http://www.true2ourselves.com/forum/theology/2162-pope.html)
If the day ever comes when God comes down himself and wipes away the Papacy, as Jesus did with the God-created High Priesthood, then I'll have to say "Adios" to the Pope. But no MAN has the authority to do away with what Jesus established.
That is the same priest hood that Jesus commanded us to Obey? I am very confused..
Yep, the same one. Christ recognized their authority right up to the moment when the old law was nailed to the cross. After the old law was nailed to the cross, their authority was no more.
-
Apostate churches of any denomination will have to answer for their apostasy and leading people astray just as much as the unprepentant sinner.
More so I think. The sinner bears responsibility for himself. Those who lead others into falsehood risk themselves AND others.
James 3
American Standard Version (ASV)
3 Be not many of you teachers, my brethren, knowing that we shall receive heavier judgment.
2 For in many things we all stumble. If any stumbleth not in word, the same is a perfect man, able to bridle the whole body also.
-
.......The error is thinking the Pope was established by God.........
The error is yours, not mine
-
Elements are in fact man-made, the Catholic Church & Papacy as a whole, no of course not, but elements..........
...and there is nothing wrong with that at all, as long as those elements do not cause people to disobey God. Jesus' beef with some of the Pharisses traditions was not simply the fact that they were tradtions, but that that they were tradtions that caused people to disobey God and thus nullified the word of God.
-
The "sale" of indulgences was never approved by the Church. The "doctrine" of indulgences IS approved by the Church, and still is to this day.
In fact, the sale of indulgences was condemned by the Church before Martin Luther ever hit the scene.
If these councils protect his word, then where are Jesus's words that back the practice? And even if indulgences were part of the Word, why did early councils not clarify that the granting of indulgences cannot be done for money, thus tacitly approving of and allowing the practice to continue, while later ones condemned the practice? The Holy Spirit guiding the Apostolic Succession just forgot to mention it earlier? The men those early councils were certainly aware of the practice, and I am pretty sure they were unable to hide it fro the all-knowing Father. If these councils really are the protector of the Word of God, then I would not expect the Holy Spirit would allow them to omit pertinent bits of information, especially where such omissions would put souls at risk. Or are you suggesting that God gave his tacit approval of their sale for a while and then changed his mind?
You don't even address the sacrifice of the "Heretics" at these council's hands. Councils called to "clarify" one doctrinal point or another with the intent and full knowledge that such clarification would result in the persecution, torture and deaths of others does not seem to be, in any way, to be following the teachings of Jesus. Did these councils ever declare that the heretic should be left alone and not harmed? Did the Holy Spirit guiding the Apostolic Succession want men to kill and destroy these heretics ( not unbelievers - just those with different interpretations) because His Word was threatened? And if so, why didn't Jesus mention it in his teachings? Or is there a "Thou must destroy all people who, while they believe, differ from me in some esoteric point" clause I am unaware of in the New Testament? Are you suggesting that God tacitly gave approval to these acts?
-
Elements are in fact man-made, the Catholic Church & Papacy as a whole, no of course not, but elements..........
...and there is nothing wrong with that at all, as long as those elements do not cause people to disobey God. Jesus' beef with some of the Pharisses traditions was not simply the fact that they were tradtions, but that that they were tradtions that caused people to disobey God and thus nullified the word of God.
There are some people who put more faith into relics and saints than in Jesus. Jesus is the (only) way, prayers to things and other people have ZERO biblical or apostolic root.
-
The "sale" of indulgences was never approved by the Church. The "doctrine" of indulgences IS approved by the Church, and still is to this day.
In fact, the sale of indulgences was condemned by the Church before Martin Luther ever hit the scene.
If these councils protect his word, then where are Jesus's words that back the practice? And even if indulgences were part of the Word, why did early councils not clarify that the granting of indulgences cannot be done for money, thus tacitly approving of and allowing the practice to continue, while later ones condemned the practice? The Holy Spirit guiding the Apostolic Succession just forgot to mention it earlier? The men those early councils were certainly aware of the practice, and I am pretty sure they were unable to hide it fro the all-knowing Father. If these councils really are the protector of the Word of God, then I would not expect the Holy Spirit would allow them to omit pertinent bits of information, especially where such omissions would put souls at risk. Or are you suggesting that God gave his tacit approval of their sale for a while and then changed his mind?
You don't even address the sacrifice of the "Heretics" at these council's hands. Councils called to "clarify" one doctrinal point or another with the intent and full knowledge that such clarification would result in the persecution, torture and deaths of others does not seem to be, in any way, to be following the teachings of Jesus. Did these councils ever declare that the heretic should be left alone and not harmed? Did the Holy Spirit guiding the Apostolic Succession want men to kill and destroy these heretics ( not unbelievers - just those with different interpretations) because His Word was threatened? And if so, why didn't Jesus mention it in his teachings? Or is there a "Thou must destroy all people who, while they believe, differ from me in some esoteric point" clause I am unaware of in the New Testament? Are you suggesting that God tacitly gave approval to these acts?
You are throwing a whole bag of apples and oranges at me man.
Look: The Church is a living organism, not a static concept. Like any living thing it grows and learns. You ask, "even if indulgences were part of the Word, why did early councils not clarify that the granting of indulgences cannot be done for money?" Councils do not work this way. A council cannot anticipate every possible sin and error of people centuries in the future. Thats insane. Even the Bible itself does not meet your standard! If it did it would be laid out in a methodical, cross-referenced, foot-noted manner that would leave no doubt in any meaning to any reader. Well, the Bible does not work that way, and neither do councils.
-
There are some people who put more faith into relics and saints than in Jesus.............
I have never met such a person. If I ever do, I will gently tell them that they are not following the teachings of the Church.
The Church teaches. The Church does not guarantee that all its member will correctly follow those teachings.
...........Jesus is the (only) way, prayers to things and other people have ZERO biblical or apostolic root.
Again, I do not know people who "pray to things."
However, the authentic Church teachings on Relics IS Biblical.
QUOTE:
"..........Keep in mind what the Church says about relics. It doesn’t say there is some magical power in them. There is nothing in the relic itself, whether a bone of the apostle Peter or water from Lourdes, that has any curative ability. The Church just says that relics may be the occasion of God’s miracles, and in this the Church follows Scripture.
The use of the bones of Elisha brought a dead man to life: "So Elisha died, and they buried him. Now bands of Moabites used to invade the land in the spring of the year. And as a man was being buried, lo, a marauding band was seen and the man was cast into the grave of Elisha; and as soon as the man touched the bones of Elisha, he revived, and stood on his feet" (2 Kgs. 13:20-21). This is an unequivocal biblical example of a miracle being performed by God through contact with the relics of a saint!
Similar are the cases of the woman cured of a hemorrhage by touching the hem of Christ’s cloak (Matt. 9:20-22) and the sick who were healed when Peter’s shadow passed over them (Acts 5:14-16). "And God did extraordinary miracles by the hands of Paul, so that handkerchiefs or aprons were carried away from his body to the sick, and diseases left them and the evil spirits came out of them" (Acts 19:11-12).
If these aren’t examples of the use of relics, what are? In the case of Elisha, a Lazarus-like return from the dead was brought about through the prophet’s bones. In the New Testament cases, physical things (the cloak, the shadow, handkerchiefs and aprons) were used to effect cures. There is a perfect congruity between present-day Catholic practice and ancient practice. If you reject all Catholic relics today as frauds, you should also reject these biblical accounts as frauds.
LINK: http://www.catholic.com/tracts/relics (http://www.catholic.com/tracts/relics)
-
Matt 23:1-12: “Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples, saying: "The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. "Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do. "
Interesting Choice. That is Matt 23: 1-3. Lets look at all of what you referenced:
23 Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 2 “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. 4 They tie up heavy, cumbersome loads and put them on other people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.
5 “Everything they do is done for people to see: They make their phylacteries[a] wide and the tassels on their garments long; 6 they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues; 7 they love to be greeted with respect in the marketplaces and to be called ‘Rabbi’ by others.
8 “But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers. 9 And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. 10 Nor are you to be called instructors, for you have one Instructor, the Messiah. 11 The greatest among you will be your servant. 12 For those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.
Hey, how do you address Catholic Priests?
How do Catholic Priests dress?
Is St. Peter's Cathedral in anyway a "humble" structure?
Jesus is telling us to concentrate on the Word of God as HE TAUGHT IT, and not the trappings men have placed around it to enrich themselves and grant themselves a station and power. Just as you should obey the teachings of the Pharisees as the word of God, even if they, themselves, do not obey it. Jesus is asserting God's authority here, the authority of His Word and His Law, not the authority of the Priests, for they have Authority only so much as they preach that word.
He is telling us directly that no Man is their Spiritual Father and no Man can intercede or interject himself into the direct relationship between god and each individual. That no one may teach but Jesus. That no one may intercede for you but Jesus. It is as direct a refutation of indulgences, apostolic succession and the entire history of the Catholic Church as you are likely to find in the New Testament. We can certainly find plenty of examples of "do as I say, not as I do" in Catholic history (or in the history of ANY human run and maintained institution) - and for that reason Jesus is making it abundantly clear that Men in the offices that God Creates are not infallible, that they are subject to petty human wants and desires, and serve and represent Him only in as much as they serve to preach His Word and His Law.
-
There are some people who put more faith into relics and saints than in Jesus.............
I have never met such a person. If I ever do, I will gently tell them that they are not following the teachings of the Church.
The Church teaches. The Church does not guarantee that all its member will correctly follow those teachings.
The perils all churches face and the responsibility they bear.
...........Jesus is the (only) way, prayers to things and other people have ZERO biblical or apostolic root.
Again, I do not know people who "pray to things."
Really, then why the icons? Why the statues of the Virgin Mary? Real faith needs no image, no prod, just Jesus. I have heard Catholics pray to Saints all the time, not to Jesus, to Saints. Christianity is Christ-based, only one prayer is required and that is to Jesus, all other avenues are dead ends, those are the words of Christ himself - nobody gets to the Father but through Him!
However, the authentic Church teachings on Relics IS Biblical.
QUOTE:
"..........Keep in mind what the Church says about relics. It doesn’t say there is some magical power in them. There is nothing in the relic itself, whether a bone of the apostle Peter or water from Lourdes, that has any curative ability. The Church just says that relics may be the occasion of God’s miracles, and in this the Church follows Scripture.
The use of the bones of Elisha brought a dead man to life: "So Elisha died, and they buried him. Now bands of Moabites used to invade the land in the spring of the year. And as a man was being buried, lo, a marauding band was seen and the man was cast into the grave of Elisha; and as soon as the man touched the bones of Elisha, he revived, and stood on his feet" (2 Kgs. 13:20-21). This is an unequivocal biblical example of a miracle being performed by God through contact with the relics of a saint!
Similar are the cases of the woman cured of a hemorrhage by touching the hem of Christ’s cloak (Matt. 9:20-22) and the sick who were healed when Peter’s shadow passed over them (Acts 5:14-16). "And God did extraordinary miracles by the hands of Paul, so that handkerchiefs or aprons were carried away from his body to the sick, and diseases left them and the evil spirits came out of them" (Acts 19:11-12).
If these aren’t examples of the use of relics, what are? In the case of Elisha, a Lazarus-like return from the dead was brought about through the prophet’s bones. In the New Testament cases, physical things (the cloak, the shadow, handkerchiefs and aprons) were used to effect cures. There is a perfect congruity between present-day Catholic practice and ancient practice. If you reject all Catholic relics today as frauds, you should also reject these biblical accounts as frauds.
There is a fine line in determining what is faith-driven (devine) and desire-driven (human), people today being more acustomed to the "quick fix"...I would err on the conservative side and teach only historical artifacts are interesting in their context but should not be venerated with vaults and cathedrals...it gives the appearance that the relic has power, not who the relic obtained power from. To deny the weaknesses of man and just wash your hands and say "if they interpret the teaching wrong and devolve into iodol worship, oh well, that's their problem, I'm clean" is an action I would not want to be part of. Not saying priests are doing this, I just think it is better to adopt a low profile on this and stick with the basics...Jesus, Jesus and more Jesus!
LINK: http://www.catholic.com/tracts/relics (http://www.catholic.com/tracts/relics)
-
8 “But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers. 9 And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. 10 Nor are you to be called instructors, for you have one Instructor, the Messiah. 11 The greatest among you will be your servant. 12 For those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.
Jives with my understanding of the "basics"! ::thumbsup::
-
Look: The Church is a living organism, not a static concept. Like any living thing it grows and learns. You ask, "even if indulgences were part of the Word, why did early councils not clarify that the granting of indulgences cannot be done for money?" Councils do not work this way. A council cannot anticipate every possible sin and error of people centuries in the future. Thats insane. Even the Bible itself does not meet your standard! If it did it would be laid out in a methodical, cross-referenced, foot-noted manner that would leave no doubt in any meaning to any reader. Well, the Bible does not work that way, and neither do councils.
The Word does NOT change. It is a Static Concept and the (True) Church is built on that Word. That is the Catholic assertion and their justification for being the one true church.
You are of course correct, a council of men cannot anticipate every possible sin, but the (Catholic) assertion is that these are NOT councils of men , but Councils based on the Principle of Apostolic succession - made infallible my the presence of the Holy Spirit passed on to each by the laying of hands directly down from Peter himself. These councils therefore should be expected to have such foreknowledge of Sin, and do what they need to do to protect and "clarify" the Word. The Constitution of the United States means exactly what it meant to the people it signed it. Even more so does that principle apply to his Word, being divine in origin. Its not going to "change with the times" - New sins may be created within that framework as times change , but Indulgences were not introduced and then the sale of them occurred. These councils affirmed an established practice of indulgences with FULL KNOWLEDGE they were being sold. Either the council was NOT lead via the Holy Spirit, and was, as most protestants assert, a council of men, or the Word of God, and therefore the definition of sin, changes over time, contrary to the teaching of Jesus.
As a Practical matter, I agree the Church is a living organism, made living by men and therefore subject to every failing of man, but that is contrary to the Church's teaching as I currently comprehend it. The fact that God did not make his intentions known explicitly in 50 foot high letters of fire is proof that he requires Faith above all - and suggests that the path is not so narrow as some would have us believe. Those who preach that there is but one path, are usually the ones claiming to have the the only key to the Gates of Heaven in one hand and an offering plate in the other.
-
.......The error is thinking the Pope was established by God.........
The error is yours, not mine
Certainly, you are permitted to think that and say that, and I respect your beliefs which you hold on to, even if I disagree. However, the scriptures are clear and easily searched and neither word appears in scripture. There is no instruction to establish the papacy in scripture, and establishing that office was not done for centuries. Establishing a history of Popes connecting back to Peter, goes outside of both scripture and history to do so.
-
Matt 23:1-12: “Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples, saying: "The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. "Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do. "
Interesting Choice. That is Matt 23: 1-3. Lets look at all of what you referenced:
23 Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 2 “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. 4 They tie up heavy, cumbersome loads and put them on other people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.
5 “Everything they do is done for people to see: They make their phylacteries[a] wide and the tassels on their garments long; 6 they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues; 7 they love to be greeted with respect in the marketplaces and to be called ‘Rabbi’ by others.
8 “But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers. 9 And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. 10 Nor are you to be called instructors, for you have one Instructor, the Messiah. 11 The greatest among you will be your servant. 12 For those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.
Hey, how do you address Catholic Priests?
How do Catholic Priests dress?
Is St. Peter's Cathedral in anyway a "humble" structure?
Jesus is telling us to concentrate on the Word of God as HE TAUGHT IT, and not the trappings men have placed around it to enrich themselves and grant themselves a station and power. Just as you should obey the teachings of the Pharisees as the word of God, even if they, themselves, do not obey it. Jesus is asserting God's authority here, the authority of His Word and His Law, not the authority of the Priests, for they have Authority only so much as they preach that word.
He is telling us directly that no Man is their Spiritual Father and no Man can intercede or interject himself into the direct relationship between god and each individual. That no one may teach but Jesus. That no one may intercede for you but Jesus. It is as direct a refutation of indulgences, apostolic succession and the entire history of the Catholic Church as you are likely to find in the New Testament. We can certainly find plenty of examples of "do as I say, not as I do" in Catholic history (or in the history of ANY human run and maintained institution) - and for that reason Jesus is making it abundantly clear that Men in the offices that God Creates are not infallible, that they are subject to petty human wants and desires, and serve and represent Him only in as much as they serve to preach His Word and His Law.
If someone wants an answer to a question I have no problem giving an answer, which is pretty much why I started this thread. But your questions seem to invite argument, not answers. Every time I give you an answer you move to something else, the equivalent of some guy in an old west movie yelling "dance!" as he shoots at my feet.
I told you that Jesus told the people to obey the Pharisees. You asked for a reference; I gave you a reference, and now you're on about what priests wear and what we call priests. And when I address what priests wear and what we call priests, what will you throw at me next?
1) I assume when you ask about what we call priests you are referring to the often misinterpreted scripture "call no man father." My response will take up a whole page, so instead I will link you to probably the best response I have ever heard, this OP: http://www.true2ourselves.com/forum/bible-chat/6095-call-no-man-father-scripture-doesn-t-say.html (http://www.true2ourselves.com/forum/bible-chat/6095-call-no-man-father-scripture-doesn-t-say.html)
2) What priests wear: Again, you have drifted off of the topic of "doctrine" and into the realm of "customs". What priests wear and don't wear is neither here nor there. Such things are not doctrines decided by councils, they are merely customs that change with the time. And as it relates to the quoted scriptutres, the truth is that Catholic priests do NOT walk around in their vestments to gain fear or vainglory or power from venders or passersby the way the Pharisees use to. Catholic priests only wear their vestments at Mass. Otherwise they walk around in public dressed pretty humbly. So that comparison of yours was lightyears off the mark.
3) As for this statement of yours: "We can certainly find plenty of examples of "do as I say, not as I do" in Catholic history", I say, yah, so what! I have never said otherwise. You should re-read what I said in the OP:
The Church Is Holy (Eph. 5:25–27, Rev. 19:7–8 )
By his grace Jesus makes the Church holy, just as he is holy. This doesn’t mean that each member is always holy. Jesus said there would be both good and bad members in the Church (John 6:70), and not all the members would go to heaven (Matt. 7:21–23).......................
All you are doing is stating the obvious for the sake of argument. If you have a legit question that you want a legit answer to, go ahead and ask. If you merely seek argument, I am not your guy.
Look: The Church is a living organism, not a static concept. Like any living thing it grows and learns. You ask, "even if indulgences were part of the Word, why did early councils not clarify that the granting of indulgences cannot be done for money?" Councils do not work this way. A council cannot anticipate every possible sin and error of people centuries in the future. Thats insane. Even the Bible itself does not meet your standard! If it did it would be laid out in a methodical, cross-referenced, foot-noted manner that would leave no doubt in any meaning to any reader. Well, the Bible does not work that way, and neither do councils.
The Word does NOT change. It is a Static Concept.........
Jesus is the Word. Jesus lives. Jesus is not a static concept, and the Word is not a letter on a page.
NO Christian theologian would accept that statement of yours, be they protestant, orthodox, OR Catholic.
-
.......The error is thinking the Pope was established by God.........
The error is yours, not mine
Certainly, you are permitted to think that and say that...................
......and prove it too.
I'm sure we all know THIS scripture, which most Christians argue over, by heart by now:
"...Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." And Jesus said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven."
I'll try to make clear what the Pope actually is. Many people have mistaken ideas about what the Pope is, which is why they don't see the office in scripture.
Simply, the Pope is the fulfillment of the office of Prime Minister that existed in the Kindoms of David and his successors, just as many things in the New Testament are fulfillments of their Old Testament "types".
"And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will call My servant Eliakim the son of Helcias, and I will clothe him with thy Robe, and I will strengthen him with thy Sash, and will give thy Power (authority) into his hand; and he shall be as a FATHER (the word 'Pope' means 'Father') to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah. And I will lay the Key of the House of David (the symbol of primacy) upon his shoulder; and he shall open and none shall shut; and he shall shut and none shall open. And I will fasten him as a peg in a Sure Place(the Papal Office), and he shall be for a Throne of glory to the house of his Father. And they shall hang upon him all the glory of his Fathers house, diverse kinds of vessels, every little vessel, from the vessels of cups even to every instrument of music." (Isaiah 22:20-24)
In the Davidic Kingdoms, there was the office of Prime Minister (who actually wore a key on his robe as a symbol of office). This position is what is referred to in the above text and in other historical documents. There were many "ministers" to the king, but only one Prime Minister, sometimes known as the "Vizier" of the House of David.
So now let's fast-forward to the New Testament: JESUS is the King, the "son of David", in the line of David. So, the apostles, steeped in their Jewish culture, knew EXACTLY what it meant when Jesus gave Peter the "Keys". Peter was to be the Prime Minister of Christ's Kingdom, the "Keeper of the Keys".
So this is what the Pope is: Prime Minister of the King's Kingdom: The Kings's representative, or "vicar" if you will. But the Pope also has a pastoral role, which is established in John 21: 15-17, when Christ told Peter: "feed my lambs.. ..feed my sheep.. ..tend my sheep."
This is the Pope: Prime Minister of Christs Kingdom, and Pastor of the flock. With that in mind, the Papacy is ALL THROUGH the scriptures. Now, throw into that mix the fact there is ample evidence in the New Testament that Peter was first in authority among the apostles. Whenever they were named, Peter headed the list (Matt. 10:1-4, Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:14-16, Acts 1:13) ; sometimes the apostles were referred to as "Peter and those who were with him" (Luke 9:32). Peter was the one who generally spoke for the apostles (Matt. 18:21, Mark 8:29, Luke 12:41, John 6), and he figured in many of the most dramatic scenes (Matt. 14:28-32, Matt. 17:24-27, Mark 10:23-28 ) . On Pentecost it was Peter who first preached to the crowds (Acts 2:14-40), and he worked the first healing in the Church age (Acts 3:6-7). It is Peter’s faith that will strengthen his brethren (Luke 22:32) and, as I said, Peter is given Christ’s flock to shepherd (John 21:17). An angel was sent to announce the resurrection to Peter (Mark 16:7), and the risen Christ first appeared to Peter (Luke 24:34). He headed the meeting that elected Matthias to replace Judas (Acts 1:13-26), and he received the first converts (Acts 2:41). He inflicted the first punishment (Acts 5:1-11), and excommunicated the first heretic (Acts 8:18-23). He led the first council in Jerusalem (Acts 15), and announced the first dogmatic decision (Acts 15:7-11). It was to Peter that the revelation came that Gentiles were to be baptized and accepted as Christians (Acts 10:46-48 ) .
So, as Cyprian of Carthage said in 251 A.D. (almost a hundred years before Constatine):
"The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever things you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed also in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]). ... On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were also what Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" - The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).
Much more info can be found here if you are interested:
Catholic Answers: Library: Church & Papacy (http://www.catholic.com/library/church_papacy.asp)
-
If someone wants an answer to a question I have no problem giving an answer, which is pretty much why I started this thread. But your questions seem to invite argument, not answers
I am sorry if that is your perception, as I am really just pointing out what appear to me to be inconsistencies in your views that do not make sense to me. I really don't have a dog in this hunt. The reason this jumps around a bit is because new responses appear to me to contradict prior responses. (though you are right, the dress and style of Catholic traditions are off-topic and were a cheap shot ) So let me return to the case in point:
I assume when you ask about what we call priests you are referring to the often misinterpreted scripture "call no man father." My response will take up a whole page, so instead I will link you to probably the best response I have ever heard, this OP: http://www.true2ourselves.com/forum/bible-chat/6095-call-no-man-father-scripture-doesn-t-say.html (http://www.true2ourselves.com/forum/bible-chat/6095-call-no-man-father-scripture-doesn-t-say.html)
And that link states "this whole dispute is the result of a misunderstanding of the word most often translated “call” in this passage of Matthew 23.9:", which, if we hark back to my earlier and first response about translation (http://itsaboutliberty.com/index.php/topic,6695.msg76579.html#msg76579) its exactly the sort of nuance I claimed was being lost. However, if the translation is being guided by the Holy Spirit, Why, then, does the approved Catholic version of the bible use the word "Call" which is clearly inaccurate? Apostolic succession protects the doctrine, which, in your FIRST POST, you claimed was unchanging and static (since the time of the Apostles),
His Church also teaches just one set of doctrines, which must be the same as those taught by the apostles (Jude 3)
but seem to dispute that by saying:
Jesus is the Word. Jesus lives. Jesus is not a static concept, and the Word is not a letter on a page.
Jesus Lives, yes. That does not imply that he is often changing his mind, or deciding to teach different things that contradict prior teachings. Those claiming to be teaching the original version of his doctrine are not so liberated to interject new things. Since Jesus has not returned to update the doctrine himself, one must assume that the original is still our guide, and that any church's legitimacy is based on the faithful teaching of the original. Correct?
Thus if the doctrines must be the same as those taught by the apostles, and those doctrines are based upon the Word, and the Holy Spirit has been guiding these councils of appointed teachers, we really shouldn't be going back to the original Greek (which relies upon the oral tradition to be correct -since Jesus most likely originally used Aramaic) for an accurate translation, right? If the doctrine is the same as was taught by the apostles, then indulgences couldn't have been added if they weren't there from the beginning correct? If they were there and were abused by being sold from the beginning, then their sale could not then later be repudiated, correct? If these infallible councils were protecting the word of God, why was the punishment for not believing them persecution, torture and death, when Jesus never commanded such?
For the early Fathers, "the identity of the oral tradition with the original revelation is guaranteed by the unbroken succession of bishops in the great sees going back lineally to the apostles. . . . [A]n additional safeguard is supplied by the Holy Spirit, for the message committed was to the Church, and the Church is the home of the Spirit. Indeed, the Church’s bishops are . . . Spirit-endowed men who have been vouchsafed ‘an infallible charism of truth’" (ibid.). Thus on the basis of experience the Fathers could be "profoundly convinced of the futility of arguing with heretics merely on the basis of Scripture. The skill and success with which they twisted its plain meaning made it impossible to reach any decisive conclusion in that field" (ibid., 41).
So these councils, charged with protecting the word and clarifying the scripture had to claim for themselves a special ability, given to no other men, via a line of laying on hands, to authoritatively define the doctrines taught by the apostles, bolstered by, but not dependent upon, the scripture. These councils had to be "Summoned" by others to determine the meaning of the doctrine, correct? Using the meaning from the original greek, your source states
Christians are not to summon anyone as the heathens do shamans--as if anyone had power of themselves or power apart from God--for all power of grace comes from God, and it is God who works in those who are chosen, they have not power of themselves, nor are they able to teach or lead unless they are taught and led by the common God and Lord of us all. We may invoke God in prayer and ask others to invoke God in prayer for us, but there are no shamans among us that are “gods in the flesh” who are to be summoned to grant petitions, but all must ask God to grant graces for themselves and for others. Leaders interceded before all and God works in them and through them, but it is God’s grace and power, not theirs, and no one has any power or authority apart from God
Were indulgences nothing other than the granting of petitions, paid for or not? Did not these councils affirm the right of the church to grant such petitions? Are they not obeying the plain word of this scripture in regard to indulgences then? Does their very existence deny it, as they are claiming to be "gods in the flesh" during their meeting , able to clarify the doctrine? Does this scripture then not imply that I do not need to confess to a member of the priesthood, but may petition for forgiveness of my sins directly?
By his grace Jesus makes the Church holy, just as he is holy. This doesn’t mean that each member is always holy. Jesus said there would be both good and bad members in the Church (John 6:70), and not all the members would go to heaven (Matt. 7:21–23).......................
A claim for Apostolic Succession is a claim that those men, while in council, were Holy - led to be infallible (on matters of doctrine) by the Lord himself. If I have a point here it is that the Ecumenical Councils, by decision and deed, have shown an inconsistency and unfaithfulness to the word of God ( as much as my paltry understanding of such allows me to determine) that leads me to believe they were not guided by the holy spirit in many cases, and were simply councils of men- as fallible as the next.
-
The Thread to Nowhere.
Somebody call Sarah Palin. We need some common sense.
-
The Thread to Nowhere.
Somebody call Sarah Palin. We need some common sense.
Oh, I don't agree with that. I find it fascinating reading. I'm not expecting a definitive conclusion--it's faith after all.
-
I think we are seeing why I like the KISS principle.
;)
-
I think we are seeing why I like the KISS principle.
;)
Same here. Which is why I'm mostly staying out of it (other than making sure Holy War isn't breaking out). ;D
-
I think we are seeing why I like the KISS principle.
;)
Same here. Which is why I'm mostly staying out of it (other than making sure Holy War isn't breaking out). ;D
Yes, keep the peace...you hear the word "heresy" another schism is in the offing!
-
The Thread to Nowhere.
Somebody call Sarah Palin. We need some common sense.
Oh, I don't agree with that. I find it fascinating reading. I'm not expecting a definitive conclusion--it's faith after all.
Yeah, I am learning stuff. Had no idea that the original Greek there said something more like "summon"
We don't have to reach an agreement to understand each others viewpoints or to learn new things. Nor would I be surprised if CatholicCrusader's own faith and beliefs are strengthened by the discussion.
-
"...Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." And Jesus said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven."
There is a great deal of confusion in your interpretation. Peter is not given the keys to the kingdom. EVERYONE is. We can ALL enter, if we WILL, as can be demonstrated by MANY scriptures, such as John 3:16. But, let's look carefully at the scripture and see if we can prove from it Apostolic authority or whether you can prove Papal authority.
Notice, that Jesus calls him Simon, son of Jonah, his given name and "bar" was the equivalent of "son of" so, Jesus spoke to Simon, son of Jona in responding to his confession of Jesus as the Son of God. (That part was clipped from your quote, but it is integral to the story being told there.) In fact, lets look at the whole scripture:
Matthew 16:13-20
King James Version (KJV)
13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea 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 Barjona: 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.
Jesus makes clear that relationships are important, with his calling his disciple Simon BarJona, but notice later he does not call him Simon, he calls him Peter, which is a SPECIFIC Greek word for Rock. Then further still he says upon THIS rock i will build my church....except it is NOT the same Rock! The word there is PETRA! The equivalent in our language might be to use the word play to say, Simon Smith, I am going to call you Rocky, and upon this STONE I will build my church! It quickly becomes clear to anyone that he does not say on Peter he will build his church, but upon the CONFESSION! There are other scriptures that make the confession of Jesus as the Son of God an integral part of not only our faith, but part of the plan of salvation. And it is a continual confession, not a singular event, but the important thing to notice here is he quite specifically uses a different word for rock. There is no doubt that Peter did not build the church, Christ did. Jesus is the foundation, the cornerstone, not Peter. Absolutely, Peter was an Apostle, a witness of Christ. Absolutely, Peter confessed Jesus as the Christ, the Son of God. And, absolutely, the Apostles were given authority to teach what they had been taught by Jesus and called to remembrance by the Holy Spirit. But, Peter was not made pope here. There is no record of that, here or elsewhere.
See Ephesians 2:20 because you have been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the cornerstone.
(studying about the cornerstone is helpful, but the short version is, that it was the main stone of the foundation from which everything else was built. if it was not right, nothing else could be.)
Rev. 21:14 (NET)
21:14 The wall of the city has twelve foundations, and on them are the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.
Finally, to warn against trying to build on the foundation of Peter (Cephas) rather than Christ, heed the words of Paul:
1st Corinthians 3And each one must be careful how he builds. 3:11 For no one can lay any foundation other than what is being laid, which is Jesus Christ. 3:12 If anyone builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, or straw, 12 3:13 each builder’s 13 work will be plainly seen, for the Day 14 will make it clear, because it will be revealed by fire. And the fire 15 will test what kind of work each has done. 3:14 If what someone has built survives, he will receive a reward. 3:15 If someone’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss. 16 He himself will be saved, but only as through fire.
3:16 Do you not know that you are God’s temple 17 and that God’s Spirit lives in you? 3:17 If someone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy him. For God’s temple is holy, which is what you are.
3:18 Guard against self-deception, each of you. 18 If someone among you thinks he is wise in this age, let him become foolish so that he can become wise. 3:19 For the wisdom of this age is foolishness with God. As it is written, “He catches the wise in their craftiness.” 19 3:20 And again, “The Lord knows that the thoughts of the wise are futile.” 20 3:21 So then, no more boasting about mere mortals! 21 For everything belongs to you, 3:22 whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or the present or the future. Everything belongs to you, 3:23 and you belong to Christ, and Christ belongs to God.
-
Your appeal to Isaiah 22 for papal authority was interesting. I suggest you read all the way to verse 25, before you decide to hang the pope's hat on that peg.
"20 And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah:
21 And I will clothe him with thy robe, and strengthen him with thy girdle, and I will commit thy government into his hand: and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah.
22 And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.
23 And I will fasten him as a nail in a sure place; and he shall be for a glorious throne to his father's house.
24 And they shall hang upon him all the glory of his father's house, the offspring and the issue, all vessels of small quantity, from the vessels of cups, even to all the vessels of flagons.
25 In that day, saith the Lord of hosts, shall the nail that is fastened in the sure place be removed, and be cut down, and fall; and the burden that was upon it shall be cut off: for the Lord hath spoken it."
-
The Thread to Nowhere.
Somebody call Sarah Palin. We need some common sense.
Oh, I don't agree with that. I find it fascinating reading. I'm not expecting a definitive conclusion--it's faith after all.
Yeah, I am learning stuff. Had no idea that the original Greek there said something more like "summon"
We don't have to reach an agreement to understand each others viewpoints or to learn new things. Nor would I be surprised if CatholicCrusader's own faith and beliefs are strengthened by the discussion.
Proverbs 27:17
New International Version (NIV)
17 As iron sharpens iron,
so one person sharpens another.
It is entirely possible that no minds are changed but that all grow from the discussion. We gain greater understanding of one another, find common ground on some issues, sharpen our understanding of even our own position, and increase our faith through knowledge.
-
My comment is my own, and I stand by it. I don't suggest that nothing can be learned. I only suggest that I personally have been witness to discussions like this one over the "true" Christian sect many times before, and they go nowhere.
By all means, carry on. We don't have enough of people beating their heads against the wall around here.
-
My comment is my own, and I stand by it. I don't suggest that nothing can be learned. I only suggest that I personally have been witness to discussions like this one over the "true" Christian sect many times before, and they go nowhere.
By all means, carry on. We don't have enough of people beating their heads against the wall around here.
It occurred to me yesterday, IDP, that I have had the same sort of discussions regarding political topics (economics, rights, etc) with family and friends.
-
I can tell you one thing wrong with a thread like this: It tries to encompass too many different subjects.
This is not a religion forum, its more of a political forum with a religion section. Some of the subjects raised desrve their own thread in a more dedicated religion forum.
-
8 “But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers. 9 And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. 10 Nor are you to be called instructors, for you have one Instructor, the Messiah. 11 The greatest among you will be your servant. 12 For those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.
Jives with my understanding of the "basics"! ::thumbsup::
As I said in another post: My response to this will take up a whole page, so instead I will link you to probably the best response I have ever heard, this OP: http://www.true2ourselves.com/forum/bible-chat/6095-call-no-man-father-scripture-doesn-t-say.html (http://www.true2ourselves.com/forum/bible-chat/6095-call-no-man-father-scripture-doesn-t-say.html)
-
.....Were indulgences nothing other than the granting of petitions, paid for or not?.......
Try these:
1. Primer on Indulgences: http://www.catholic.com/library/Primer_on_Indulgences.asp (http://www.catholic.com/library/Primer_on_Indulgences.asp)
2. Myths About Indulgences: http://www.catholic.com/tracts/myths-about-indulgences (http://www.catholic.com/tracts/myths-about-indulgences)
-
Your appeal to Isaiah 22 for papal authority was interesting. I suggest you read all the way to verse 25, before you decide to hang the pope's hat on that peg.
"20 And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah:
21 And I will clothe him with thy robe, and strengthen him with thy girdle, and I will commit thy government into his hand: and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah.
22 And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.
23 And I will fasten him as a nail in a sure place; and he shall be for a glorious throne to his father's house.
24 And they shall hang upon him all the glory of his father's house, the offspring and the issue, all vessels of small quantity, from the vessels of cups, even to all the vessels of flagons.
25 In that day, saith the Lord of hosts, shall the nail that is fastened in the sure place be removed, and be cut down, and fall; and the burden that was upon it shall be cut off: for the Lord hath spoken it."
I assume you understand what "typology" is? A "type" is an Old Testament forshadowing of something more perfect to come in the New Testament. As St. Augustine said, in the Old Testament the New Testament is concealed; in the New Testament the Old Testament is revealed.
But the thing about OT types is that they are not perfect. For example. Moses is an OT "type" of Jesus.
An evil king/Pharaoh tried to kill him as a baby: Exodus 1:22 - King Herod tried to kill baby Jesus: Matthew 2:16
Moses was sent into Egypt to preserve his life: Exodus 2:3-4 - Jesus was taken into Egypt to preserve His life: Matthew 2:13-15
Moses' mission was to redeem Israel from slavery to Egypt - Jesus' mission is to redeem mankind from slavery to sin
Moses will give God's law on the mountain of Sinai: Exodus 20:1-31:18; 34:1-35 - Jesus will give the new law from the Mt. of Beatitudes: Matthew chapter 5
I can give many more, but you guys get the ideal.
But, was Moses all that Jesus was? Of course not. Likewise, the typology in Isaiah is not perfect either. Its a forshadowing.
Typology - Dr. Scott Hahn (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gejy0FohnE0#)
-
.....Were indulgences nothing other than the granting of petitions, paid for or not?.......
Try these:
1. Primer on Indulgences: http://www.catholic.com/library/Primer_on_Indulgences.asp (http://www.catholic.com/library/Primer_on_Indulgences.asp)
2. Myths About Indulgences: http://www.catholic.com/tracts/myths-about-indulgences (http://www.catholic.com/tracts/myths-about-indulgences)
From the first link:
This is proved by the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which states, "An indulgence is obtained through the Church who, by virtue of the power of binding and loosing granted her by Christ Jesus, intervenes in favor of individual Christians and opens for them the treasury of the merits of Christ and the saints to obtain from the Father of mercies the remission of the temporal punishment due for their sins." The Church does this not just to aid Christians, "but also to spur them to works of devotion, penance, and charity" (CCC 1478).
This directly contradicts Christ's admonishment to "summon" no Man to intercede for you, does it not? If not, why not? If we take the references at face value, Scripture granted the apostles the ability to absolve Sin, but it does not follow that ability was passed on via Apostolic Succession, nor that any church member could grant such. So even if we grant that Apostolic Succession allows certain members of the church to forgive sins, this article makes it clear indulgences are to remove penalties or punishments - and that a sin forgiven may leave these behind. I do not see a verse giving the apostles the power to remove such punishments. Nor do I agree with the position on "Binding and Loosing"
15 “If your brother or sister sins,[c] go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. 16 But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’[d] 17 If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.
18 “Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be[e] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[f] loosed in heaven.
Christ does not say : go give them some community service to do. He says excommunicate them, and I will back you up on that decision.
And then in the second link, there is so much blatant whitewashing of the actual history, whoever wrote it should be ashamed
Myth 7: A person used to be able to buy indulgences.
One never could "buy" indulgences. The financial scandal surrounding indulgences, the scandal that gave Martin Luther an excuse for his heterodoxy, involved alms—indulgences in which the giving of alms to some charitable fund or foundation was used as the occasion to grant the indulgence. There was no outright selling of indulgences. The Catholic Encyclopedia states: "t is easy to see how abuses crept in. Among the good works which might be encouraged by being made the condition of an indulgence, almsgiving would naturally hold a conspicuous place. . . . It is well to observe that in these purposes there is nothing essentially evil. To give money to God or to the poor is a praiseworthy act, and, when it is done from right motives, it will surely not go unrewarded."
I assure you that during the most corrupt periods of the church, one could buy indulgences (or bribe a priest to provide them if you prefer that term) even in advance of the sin committed.
"As soon as the gold in the casket rings; the rescued soul to heaven springs" - John Tetzel. St. Peter's Basilica was paid for in part with the use of such funds. This is historical fact. Calling it a "Myth" in no way changes the fact that these things happened, and happened with the full knowledge and approval of the higher orders of the church, including the Council of Trent in 1562 - 50 Years after Martin Luther pointed out the practice was wrong in 1517 and he had been excommunicated for doing so. . Its was quite obvious that the abuse of indulgences was a sin, and yet it took centuries for anyone in the church hierarchy to notice- even after Martin Luther pointed it out? Pius V decreed commercial sale to be wrong in 1567, which is also after Luther I might add.
If you want to say "this is what the church believes and teaches today" that is all well and good, but pretending it always was so is a complete lie. The church has a long history - and during it it has done good and it has encouraged evil.
-
8 “But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers. 9 And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. 10 Nor are you to be called instructors, for you have one Instructor, the Messiah. 11 The greatest among you will be your servant. 12 For those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.
Jives with my understanding of the "basics"! ::thumbsup::
As I said in another post: My response to this will take up a whole page, so instead I will link you to probably the best response I have ever heard, this OP: http://www.true2ourselves.com/forum/bible-chat/6095-call-no-man-father-scripture-doesn-t-say.html (http://www.true2ourselves.com/forum/bible-chat/6095-call-no-man-father-scripture-doesn-t-say.html)
A) I don't get it. Change the word from "call" to "summon", how does that materially change the meaning? It in fact makes it even more confusing.
B) Going back to original texts, language and meanings opens up an entirely new can of worms because many biblical scholars and various clergy cannot even agree to what should be used and what the meaning should be.
C) Are there other opinions on this? If so, what are they?
-
Clearly, I understand types and figures. But, this scripture, that YOU brought up, is not a type or figure. It is a prophecy. Isaiah prophecies exactly what would happen. And it did. I am also aware that prophecy is often fulfilled on multiple levels. The simple question is whether you think that this was also a prophecy about Peter or not? I suppose one could claim that Peter's peg was pulled out when he was martyred. How does that justify men replacing that peg with another? Even if you make the huge assumption that Peter was appointed to the office of Pope, without ever mentioning that such an office existed, that would have been direct appointment by Christ. Where is the scriptural justification for the different way Catholics appoints popes now?
There may be some confusion on the part of others here. I do NOT advocate for sects. Not mine nor anyone else's. I advocate for serving Christ as instructed from scripture. I do not believe that Jesus intended for his people to be divided into denominations, no matter whether they are called Holy Roman Catholic, or Methodist, or Lutheran, Or Wesleyan, or Baptist, or an almost infinite number of other divisions. We are called to serve Him. We are to have no other Gods before him. A man cannot serve two masters. If one is serving a denomination it reduces his ability, in my opinion, to serve Christ. As we study we find things that differ between ANY denomination and the scripture. I understand that most people who think they are following Christ are doing it in a denomination and I have no doubt they do so in good conscience, thinking they are serving Christ. But, his word teaches us that Christ is not divided. We were not intended to separate ourselves from each other over stuff that matters little or perhaps not at all.
For example, I believe many things abut Baptism. Salvation. Washing. Burial. Joining Christ's death. Resurrection. Etc...... and yet, I would not divide myself from someone who says he was only baptized only because Christ told him to be. he may have incomplete understanding of serious issues, but he is trying to serve Christ. The discussion of how much error is acceptable is an interesting one. But, in truth it belongs to Christ to answer that at judgment. We need to continue to try to return to being the church that Christ built. I do not seek to be Catholic or Protestant, but merely Christian, in the way the first century church was, long before either denomination or sect came into being.
-
...Going back to original texts, language and meanings opens up an entirely new can of worms because many biblical scholars and various clergy cannot even agree to what should be used and what the meaning should be...
Bingo.
The dead end starts and ends right there. Intellectual parsing of doctrine always boils down to faith in the end. And from that point forward, the discussion becomes competing self-affirming logic loops that rely on ones own faith assumptions as ones proof. Whether it is individuals or institutions, relying on ones own unprovable assertions as proof of the correctness of ones own faith and the incorrectness of anothers is just mental masturbation.
Too much mental masturbation leads to people telling you to go screw yourself. Not saying that I am thinking anyone here should do so, but I am highlighting why it is that in my opinion - in the end - conversations like this are never as productive as they are destructive.
People's deep faith cannot be shaken by competing faith - especially when the faiths really ought not compete, because they more accurately dovetail with perfection if one looks at others through the eyes of Christ instead of the judgmental eyes of men. The assumption in conversations like this is that somehow by explaining it "right", you will be convincing, or "win". The assumption is laughable. When it comes down to people claiming that their doctrine and traditions are the only correct way, somehow I know it in my heart that Jesus Christ is saddened.
-
...Going back to original texts, language and meanings opens up an entirely new can of worms because many biblical scholars and various clergy cannot even agree to what should be used and what the meaning should be...
Bingo.
The dead end starts and ends right there. Intellectual parsing of doctrine always boils down to faith in the end. And from that point forward, the discussion becomes competing self-affirming logic loops that rely on ones own faith assumptions as ones proof. Whether it is individuals or institutions, relying on ones own unprovable assertions as proof of the correctness of ones own faith and the incorrectness of anothers is just mental masturbation.
Too much mental masturbation leads to people telling you to go screw yourself. Not saying that I am thinking anyone here should do so, but I am highlighting why it is that in my opinion - in the end - conversations like this are never as productive as they are destructive.
People's deep faith cannot be shaken by competing faith - especially when the faiths really ought not compete, because they more accurately dovetail with perfection if one looks at others through the eyes of Christ instead of the judgmental eyes of men. The assumption in conversations like this is that somehow by explaining it "right", you will be convincing, or "win". The assumption is laughable. When it comes down to people claiming that their doctrine and traditions are the only correct way, somehow I know it in my heart that Jesus Christ is saddened.
Agreed, and it is why I focus on the basics, after all it is the only thing that really matters. Jesus saves. Amen.
-
From Luke 23....
39 One of the criminals who hung there hurled insults at him: “Aren’t you the Messiah? Save yourself and us!”
40 But the other criminal rebuked him. “Don’t you fear God,” he said, “since you are under the same sentence? 41 We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong.”
42 Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.”
43 Jesus answered him, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise.”
Was the criminal hanging beside Jesus on the cross who repented at the moment of his death - whose faith Jesus acknowledged earned him a place alongside Christ in heaven - was that man a Catholic? An Evangelical? A Methodist? A Lutheran?
No, he wasn't even a Christian. He repented for his sins, and acknowledged the Lordship and forgiving sacrifice of Jesus Christ.
It was not required of him to pass any sectarian litmus tests. He only needed to offer himself to Jesus with a willing heart. Even after a life of crime, an intimate moment of the heart between man and God in the final moment of a wasted life was all that was required by Jesus.
Since the founding of the Catholic Church until this day, people of ALL Christian sects have been attaching requirements onto the relationship between God and men; between Jesus and His Church. It is the nature of men to do so. We are tribal, clannish beings, ever seeking ways to separate ourselves from those who are not "of" us, and create rules of distinction that justify our behaviors and traditions, and by default, invalidate the behaviors and traditions of those not like us.
ALL such requirements are the requirements of men. God hates that. It rips His church apart. His TRUE Church.
Prove me wrong.
-
The answer is simple enough. The thief, just as Jesus himself, lived and died under the old law. The blood of Christ washed forward AND backward. The thief was saved not by his own works, but by the blood of Christ, not because he was a Christian, but because God was making the sacrifice that would save us ALL all the way back to Adam and all the way forward to judgment day.
This is merely a mental exercise anyway. (speaking of mental masturbation) It has absolutely no impact today, no matter which of the reasoned ways one decides on believing. If Jesus spoke the judgment in his authority as God, the thief was saved. Does this give us authority to ignore his instructions to us, or does it give us reason to obey Him? (Obviously, I think it gives us reason to try to obey as best we can, which begins in belief and continues on through repentance, into obedience.)
If the thief obeyed Christ as best he could from the moment he believed, and his faith saved him, should we not do the same, even if we have greater opportunity for obedience than he did?
If the thief was saved because of the pure grace of God, even when helpless to obey, should we not also seek that grace?
The thief has no impact today, that I can see, except to glorify God in the same way countless other heroes of the bible did through their recorded experiences.
-
The answer is simple enough. The thief, just as Jesus himself, lived and died under the old law. The blood of Christ washed forward AND backward. The thief was saved not by his own works, but by the blood of Christ, not because he was a Christian, but because God was making the sacrifice that would save us ALL all the way back to Adam and all the way forward to judgment day.
This is merely a mental exercise anyway. (speaking of mental masturbation) It has absolutely no impact today, no matter which of the reasoned ways one decides on believing. If Jesus spoke the judgment in his authority as God, the thief was saved. Does this give us authority to ignore his instructions to us, or does it give us reason to obey Him? (Obviously, I think it gives us reason to try to obey as best we can, which begins in belief and continues on through repentance, into obedience.)
If the thief obeyed Christ as best he could from the moment he believed, and his faith saved him, should we not do the same, even if we have greater opportunity for obedience than he did?
If the thief was saved because of the pure grace of God, even when helpless to obey, should we not also seek that grace?
The thief has no impact today, that I can see, except to glorify God in the same way countless other heroes of the bible did through their recorded experiences.
So you say.
I don't discount it because you say it. I just note that it is you - not God - making an assertion based on a series of extrapolations.
-
The Lordship belongs to Christ. Not men. I have mostly appealed to scripture, and there IS a scriptural basis for my thoughts on this, but it is late and difficult to go through point by point, so I will try a more simple approach.
Jesus is Lord. Final judgment belongs to him. Our love for him, beginning with acknowledgement of him, means we try our best to serve him, and then trust him to do the rest. I do not believe I can ever be perfect before him, except by his blood. Yet, my love for him means I should strive for perfection at least in my obedience to him from here forward. The desire to walk with God is innate in me, but the knowledge of everything he desires is not. It requires study. However, there IS a promise that if we SEEK we WILL find. This does not mean I attain perfection for every day I learn more than the previous day. It also prevents me from being judgmental toward others. I think there is only one path, but we may be at different places along it. I see no harm coming from encouraging others, as I am encouraged myself, to STUDY. How can I obey God if I do not look for his will?
Perhaps I meet a fellow who does not know Christ, but does believe there is a God. Do I discourage him, or should we all be encouraging him, from the point where he is on the path? Is that not the first stepping stone? I am far more interested in direction, which is easily achieved and maintained, than I am in perfection, which is unattainable, except by being covered in the blood of Christ. So, my goal is to move forward everyday and to cheer on my fellow travelers in this strange land. Seeking first his kingdom and its righteousness seems like a good starting place, and is one main reason to reject the little divided kingdoms that men have tried to set up within the Lord's church.
-
Very early on in this discussion we determined when the church began. Clearly the thief was a Jew, and the church had not started yet. This clearly answers how he could be saved, even if being crucified as a thief. (Was that the part you dispute?) Or perhaps it is the fact that Jesus's blood washes forward and backward?
Or is it the assertion that we are promised salvation IF we do certain things, that the thief was apparently not required to do? We know God keeps his promises. He has the right of the Supreme Authority to do even better than he promised, but it strikes me as a foolish position to stand before him on judgment day saying I know what you promised, I just want a better deal. No, we have promises that we can trust, which is why I assert that the thief does not matter to us today, except to glorify God. He is not an example whereby we attain salvation since that method is not promised to us.
(I was unclear on your objection, so I answered as best I could. If you can clarify any objection I might have missed, I can try again.)
The answer is simple enough. The thief, just as Jesus himself, lived and died under the old law. The blood of Christ washed forward AND backward. The thief was saved not by his own works, but by the blood of Christ, not because he was a Christian, but because God was making the sacrifice that would save us ALL all the way back to Adam and all the way forward to judgment day.
This is merely a mental exercise anyway. (speaking of mental masturbation) It has absolutely no impact today, no matter which of the reasoned ways one decides on believing. If Jesus spoke the judgment in his authority as God, the thief was saved. Does this give us authority to ignore his instructions to us, or does it give us reason to obey Him? (Obviously, I think it gives us reason to try to obey as best we can, which begins in belief and continues on through repentance, into obedience.)
If the thief obeyed Christ as best he could from the moment he believed, and his faith saved him, should we not do the same, even if we have greater opportunity for obedience than he did?
If the thief was saved because of the pure grace of God, even when helpless to obey, should we not also seek that grace?
The thief has no impact today, that I can see, except to glorify God in the same way countless other heroes of the bible did through their recorded experiences.
So you say.
I don't discount it because you say it. I just note that it is you - not God - making an assertion based on a series of extrapolations.
-
As for the promises:
Hebrews 10:15 And the Holy Spirit also beareth witness to us; for after he hath said,
16 This is the covenant that I will make with them After those days, saith the Lord: I will put my laws on their heart, And upon their mind also will I write them; then saith he,
17 And their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.
18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.
19 Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holy place by the blood of Jesus,
20 by the way which he dedicated for us, a new and living way, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;
21 and having a great priest over the house of God;
22 let us draw near with a true heart in fulness of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience: and having our body washed with pure water,
23 let us hold fast the confession of our hope that it waver not; for he is faithful that promised:
24 and let us consider one another to provoke unto love and good works;
25 not forsaking our own assembling together, as the custom of some is, but exhorting one another; and so much the more, as ye see the day drawing nigh.
26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more a sacrifice for sins,
27 but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and a fierceness of fire which shall devour the adversaries.
28 A man that hath set at nought Moses law dieth without compassion on the word of two or three witnesses:
29 of how much sorer punishment, think ye, shall he be judged worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant wherewith he was sanctified an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
-
My point is broad, and it is that when we are tempted to put God in a box with boundaries of doctrine, His word is rife with reminders that He alone is God, and He is not nor has he ever been boxed in by our sectarian definitions. I do not mention the thief as an object for theological parsing, but as a reminder that just when we think we have all the rules figured out, God is there to remind us that the concept of salvation through Christ is really quite simple by design, and that as God, He can strip our doctrine away in an instant; His hand is mightier than our rules.
I do not dispute anything you say regarding Christian theology, CHF. I believe what you believe - I am a former Catholic, who has been born again.
But I simply refuse to stand in opposition to my Christian Catholic brothers and sisters and tell them that they worship God the wrong way in the wrong church, any more than I will stand aside and listen to Catholics send the entirety of Protestantism to purgatory. I must, in my opinion, highlight the ugliness of such carping.
If Christians grasp John 3:16 and hold its meaning close to their hearts and accept the salvation that flows from Jesus, the traditions and doctrines of their sect is between them and God, and God is interested in the hearts of men, not our institutions. It is men who are determined to call themselves right and others wrong using theological minutia as their proof.
I don't do that. That's all I'm saying. I don't do that, and I'm explaining why I don't. Obviously you guys do. I'm different than you.
-
IDP, There is even more agreement between us than you realize, and to be fair, I believe CC also has said fairly clearly that he believes that those he views as protestants are Christians in the sight of God, he simply believes that they have error that needs to be studied away. (paraphrased understanding of what he said a completely different way and also I do not count myself a protestant, but rather just a Christian, but I assume he would think of me as a protestant) Most of our discussion is really about how to love God more, by searching the scriptures to understand his will and obey him more clearly. I can discuss the concept of "how much error is acceptable" for hours and have many times. I pray that a LOT is acceptable, because I learn more every single day. The confession that I was wrong yesterday and the day before and the day before, leads one to believe there are things yet today that I do not understand and therefore I am not in obedience on those issues. Facing that, I am left with the choice that my salvation is impossible, or that with God all things are possible. The other concept is weighing with equal measures. I cannot say that I hope for mercy for my own error and condemn others for theirs. So, our goal as we move along the path of life together is to study more each day, to apply what we learn, and keep our focus on God. I have no right to condemn anyone and do not, as that belongs to God alone. I admit that there are things that concern me and I encourage people to learn more on those issues. But notice no one in this discussion has condemned anyone to hell. The entire focus has been on better serving God through study, understanding, and obedience. Jesus said those who love him obey him. To obey we must understand and to understand we must study.
-
8 “But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers. 9 And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. 10 Nor are you to be called instructors, for you have one Instructor, the Messiah. 11 The greatest among you will be your servant. 12 For those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.
Jives with my understanding of the "basics"! ::thumbsup::
As I said in another post: My response to this will take up a whole page, so instead I will link you to probably the best response I have ever heard, this OP: http://www.true2ourselves.com/forum/bible-chat/6095-call-no-man-father-scripture-doesn-t-say.html (http://www.true2ourselves.com/forum/bible-chat/6095-call-no-man-father-scripture-doesn-t-say.html)
A) I don't get it. Change the word from "call" to "summon", how does that materially change the meaning? It in fact makes it even more confusing.
B) Going back to original texts, language and meanings opens up an entirely new can of worms because many biblical scholars and various clergy cannot even agree to what should be used and what the meaning should be.
C) Are there other opinions on this? If so, what are they?
C) Try this then: http://www.catholic.com/tracts/call-no-man-father (http://www.catholic.com/tracts/call-no-man-father)
-
The Lordship belongs to Christ. Not men..........
Have I ever suggested otherwise?
And yet, the Bible is crystal clear that Jesus gives authority to men for several purposes.
-
8 “But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers. 9 And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. 10 Nor are you to be called instructors, for you have one Instructor, the Messiah. 11 The greatest among you will be your servant. 12 For those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.
Jives with my understanding of the "basics"! ::thumbsup::
As I said in another post: My response to this will take up a whole page, so instead I will link you to probably the best response I have ever heard, this OP: http://www.true2ourselves.com/forum/bible-chat/6095-call-no-man-father-scripture-doesn-t-say.html (http://www.true2ourselves.com/forum/bible-chat/6095-call-no-man-father-scripture-doesn-t-say.html)
A) I don't get it. Change the word from "call" to "summon", how does that materially change the meaning? It in fact makes it even more confusing.
B) Going back to original texts, language and meanings opens up an entirely new can of worms because many biblical scholars and various clergy cannot even agree to what should be used and what the meaning should be.
C) Are there other opinions on this? If so, what are they?
C) Try this then: http://www.catholic.com/tracts/call-no-man-father (http://www.catholic.com/tracts/call-no-man-father)
There's a lot of nuance there, even for latter day people who are arguably more literate and knowledgeable than our early Christian brethren, so while the original intent of calling leaders "father" and followers "sons and daughters" might have been innocent and its meaning plain...one has to admit that the practice of calling clergy "father" and the Pope "Holy Father" fosters an air of divine authority with it that can often be seen as superceding any familial context in ones relationship with Roman Catholic clergy, yes? Especially so when one bows, kneels and kisses a ring. One persons innocent symbolism is another persons bizarre and unnecessary ritual. Kinda like this link that refers to protestant as a "Fundamentalist anti-Catholic", I don't know the gentlemen in question but for arguments sake let us agree the protestant is anti-Catholic, is it helpful to assign that label? If so it must be equally correct to call Catholics anti-Protestant Papists. How does this help advance Christianity or polite dialogue?
-
Overcoming roadblocks to the Catholic Faith (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-F_EwKbZKY#ws)
-
I was raised in the Catholic Church, from baptism through confirmation. It was a dead faith to me. It was a place for me to learn bible stories and a social club for my parents. The reality of Jesus Christ or the profound reality of his sacrifice, resurrection, and resulting salvation was never impressed upon me in any way to which I could relate or understand.
After confirmation - when my Catholic Catechism was complete, and I was entrusted with my own faith, it was the easiest thing in the world for me to walk away. In my mind, I left absolutely nothing behind but empty rhetoric about a religion based on a God I could not see, feel, touch, or hear.
Then I went to a Young Life Christian camp with a buddy, just for the heck of it, because I thought it would be fun, and there would be chicks. There, I met the living Jesus Christ. I faced my own sinful nature, repented for it, acknowledged the Lordship of Jesus, and asked Him for the forgiveness that I now understood He had already given.
Then, I walked away from Him. For about 24 years, I lived outside of God's will entirely, and put Jesus out of my mind. For that flickering moment at 16 I knew Jesus, but I succumbed to other spiritual forces.
At 40, I had a calling on my heart to come back to Jesus. It was a process, and working through it was a long (short in some ways) discovery. But at some point I was forced to look back at a long period of my life, and have a reckoning. I recommitted my life to Christ, repenting for walking away from the commitment I made when I was 16.
As I came back into relationship with Christ, I realized that from the moment I gave my life to Him at the Young Life camp, He had never, ever abandoned me. He never left me, I left Him, and He stayed nonetheless.
One could point to the foundation I received in the Catholic Church as the basis for what God planted and sewed later. In my heart, I cannot discount this. But I can clearly note a demarcation between two stages in my life, and it is not before I recommitted and after, but rather, before I committed the first time, and after.
The passing of almost a decade since I recommitted my heart to Christ has provided a perspective that lumps everything before 16 into a faithless, Godless existence, and everything after 16 into a life blessed by God, guided by Holy Spirit.
The promises He makes are real. Those promises exist outside of church walls and sectarian doctrine. Based on what I know of His hand in my life, I am as certain of this as a man can be.
I suppose that makes me a heretic. I can deal with that.
-
You're definitely not alone IDP, apart from leaving the Catholic Church after baptism (parents choice) my story isn't so different! ::thumbsup::
-
Sometimes I am amazed at how it is possible that after 16 years of Catholic indoctrination, I failed to grasp the first thing about the concept of salvation - but after a simple prayer offered in heartfelt repentance, Christ came into focus as a living God, and never left my side, even when I was undeserving.
-
We can pray that ALL of us continue to grow, both in our faith and our love for Christ as expressed through our efforts to obey him. I think this has been a great thread. We gain understanding of one another and we grow in knowledge of the scriptures and even understand more about the doctrines of men and why they think the way they do. Understanding is never a bad thing. And we find areas of agreement, threads of hope, between all of us that have posted here. Let God work his will and we will all be happier still.
(http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc6/189395_159157617558468_1021546754_n.jpg)
-
The hardest thing is admitting your weakness in not being able to do (fill in the blank) all by yourself and understanding why (fill in the blank) happens to us despite out best efforts to avoid or prepare for it...a Higher Power is at work and there is a purpose to His will even though we may not understand at the time what it is. For a hardheaded headstrong guy like me some things are inescapable and indescribable in a normal rational sense. We did not fall out of trees or ooze from primordial soup, there is an elegant and power force at work in the affairs of Man, and it is not a mistake or a random act. I am far from perfect and yet He loves me.
::thumbsup::
ETA - And I have to echo CHF here, I have to admit that this discussion has been beneficial for my own understanding and faith, and for that I want to thank everyone for participating in the discussion.
::thumbsup:: ::thumbsup::
-
The hardest thing is admitting your weakness in not being able to do (fill in the blank) all by yourself and understanding why (fill in the blank) happens to us despite out best efforts to avoid or prepare for it...a Higher Power is at work and there is a purpose to His will even though we may not understand at the time what it is. For a hardheaded headstrong guy like me some things are inescapable and indescribable in a normal rational sense. We did not fall out of trees or ooze from primordial soup, there is an elegant and power force at work in the affairs of Man, and it is not a mistake or a random act. I am far from perfect and yet He loves me.
::thumbsup::
ETA - And I have to echo CHF here, I have to admit that this discussion has been beneficial for my own understanding and faith, and for that I want to thank everyone for participating in the discussion.
::thumbsup:: ::thumbsup::
He loves me even when I don't love me, and there's been a lotta that goin' on 'round my house these days.
-
The hardest thing is admitting your weakness in not being able to do (fill in the blank) all by yourself and understanding why (fill in the blank) happens to us despite out best efforts to avoid or prepare for it...a Higher Power is at work and there is a purpose to His will even though we may not understand at the time what it is. For a hardheaded headstrong guy like me some things are inescapable and indescribable in a normal rational sense. We did not fall out of trees or ooze from primordial soup, there is an elegant and power force at work in the affairs of Man, and it is not a mistake or a random act. I am far from perfect and yet He loves me.
::thumbsup::
ETA - And I have to echo CHF here, I have to admit that this discussion has been beneficial for my own understanding and faith, and for that I want to thank everyone for participating in the discussion.
::thumbsup:: ::thumbsup::
He loves me even when I don't love me, and there's been a lotta that goin' on 'round my house these days.
You and me both, sister.
Someday maybe I'll learn not to make things harder than they have to be... ::saywhat:: But that is only slightly more likely than me shutting my big mouth... :P
But as Popeye would say "I y'am what I y'am". It is a good thing God is so forgiving, otherwise...
-
I was raised in the Catholic Church, from baptism through confirmation. It was a dead faith to me..............
With all due respect, thats your fault, not the Church's fault.
There are too many beautiful Catholics and wonderful Catholics spanning the ages that prove that Catholicism, when practiced, is a light unto humanity.
Sometimes I am amazed at how it is possible that after 16 years of Catholic indoctrination, I failed to grasp the first thing about the concept of salvation - but after a simple prayer offered in heartfelt repentance, Christ came into focus as a living God, and never left my side, even when I was undeserving.
Kinda like how Democrats fail to grasp why lowering taxes actually raises revenues, and other simple things, but they can lock on to one word like "Change" and think that such a simplicity answers all questions.
You went to Mass every Sunday I take it. Every Sunday you said the Lord's Prayer; every Sunday you said alloud, "Lord I am not worthy to receive you, but only say the word and I shall be healed.," Every Sunday you sang the Psalms and heard the readings.......... ....the reason the faith was dead to you is because you failed to embrace it. Then you heard some overly simplistic idea and grabbed it. As I said, thats your fault, not the Church's fault.
-
Then you heard some overly simplistic idea and grabbed it. As I said, that is your fault, not the Church's fault.
A a matter of historical fact, the early churches and dogma of the Apostles were simple. So simple, in fact, that no one felt the need to write down or clarify anything for about 200 years. I am not sure the modern complexity of a church and its teachings are a good measure of its closeness to the original teachings of Christ.
-
I was raised in the Catholic Church, from baptism through confirmation. It was a dead faith to me..............
With all due respect, thats your fault, not the Church's fault.
Is it? I attended mass every Sunday, all the appropriate holidays, and Wednesday night catechism for 16 years, received all the sacraments, went through every scrap of indoctrination just like I was told, and it was MY fault - at 16 years old - that this education about the gospel of Jesus Christ was never made to come alive in my heart? It's MY fault that I was never able to draw a line between the sacrifice and resurrection of Jesus Christ and my own salvation?
Look, the fact that it became crystal clear in one moment of heartfelt prayer and repentance outside the Catholic church is all the proof I need, friend. Your church failed me. Jesus saved me.
Your church is good for you, and many others, and I respect that. But it failed me, utterly.
-
...You went to Mass every Sunday I take it. Every Sunday you said the Lord's Prayer; every Sunday you said alloud, "Lord I am not worthy to receive you, but only say the word and I shall be healed.," Every Sunday you sang the Psalms and heard the readings.......... ....the reason the faith was dead to you is because you failed to embrace it.
No sir. The reason the faith was dead to me is because the living Christ - the Christ that is alive, and dwells in the hearts of men - was never introduced to me by those the church employed to teach me.
Kinda like how Democrats fail to grasp why lowering taxes actually raises revenues, and other simple things, but they can lock on to one word like "Change" and think that such a simplicity answers all questions.
You went to Mass every Sunday I take it. Every Sunday you said the Lord's Prayer; every Sunday you said alloud, "Lord I am not worthy to receive you, but only say the word and I shall be healed.," Every Sunday you sang the Psalms and heard the readings.......... ....the reason the faith was dead to you is because you failed to embrace it. Then you heard some overly simplistic idea and grabbed it. As I said, thats your fault, not the Church's fault.
And this, my devout Catholic friend, is why I voiced my opposition to a thread like this in the very first place. It can never, ever, ever come to fruition without insulting anothers deeply held beliefs.
You are comparing my deeply held faith to the mindless meanderings of a liberal Democrat? I'd like to give you the opportunity to rethink and restate that.
-
...Then you heard some overly simplistic idea and grabbed it. As I said, thats your fault, not the Church's fault.
This, coming from a man whose church was built upon the systematic institutional ignorance of its earliest congregants by the forbidding of education, and the obfuscation of teaching in a dead language until the 20th century.
-
Ahhh, the old Infallibility argument.
The Church cannot do any wrong, only people can be wrong, but since people comprise a Church, how can a Church avoid wrong people, and how can those wrong people have their wrongs overlooked unless the Church allows the truth not to be known?
Jesus is the only infallible person I know, no others exist.
-
This is not as complicated as it first appears. Consider some FACTS. Jesus came to save us. He came because we were not perfect. His blood and his blood alone perfects us. We choose to follow him BECAUSE we know we are imperfect and NEED a Savior.
Those of us who need a Savior are imperfect, but WE are the ones who make up the church. Therefore, the church that Jesus died for, is made up of imprefect people. People who suffer the same temptations you do. Who suffer the same failures you do. Who recognize they should have been better, but also realize they were NOT perfect. We are ONLY perfected by the blood of Christ. Obviously, we are trying. I try to do better, I promise I do. And yet, unless I remove every mirror in my home, I see, daily, an imperfect man. But, through Christ who strengthens me, I have hope, that God sees only the blood of Jesus when he looks at me. I am EXCUSED for my weakness through the blood of Christ.
The church is obviously fallible, since it is made up of fallible people. ONLY Jesus was perfect and OUR only hope of perfection is to be covered by His blood.
Please forgive me when you see my error and trust that I know them...mostly. Enough anyway to know who I am. My ONLY hope is in Christ. Let yours be there too, and not in the church. We just lean on each other as we recognize our weakness together.
-
I was raised in the Catholic Church, from baptism through confirmation. It was a dead faith to me..............
With all due respect, thats your fault, not the Church's fault.
Is it? I attended mass every Sunday...........
Yes it is.
Its easy to go to Mass every Sunday. Its hard to pick up some books and study them. Did you ever read any REAL Catholic material when you were a Catholic? I think not,. I have almost 200 Catholic books, mostly theology, some spiritual, personal stories, etc. I know the Catholic faith in a way that I am sure you do not. I took the personal time to study and learn my faith. The faith is not learned by osmosis. Most Catholics spend more time on fixing their lawn then they do learning their faith.
Frankly, you may think that being a Catholic made you an expert in Catholicism, but it obviously did not.
No sir. The reason the faith was dead to me is because the living Christ - the Christ that is alive, and dwells in the hearts of men - was never introduced to me by those the church employed to teach me.
With all due respect, that is a lie. The living Christ is presented to all every Sunday. When we speak of Jesus every Sunday, who do you think we are talking about? The Mexican gardener nextdoor? In fact, the true BODY OF CHRIST in the Eucharist is something thast Catholics have and protestants do not. Every time you received the Eucharist, the priest said "Body of Christ", and you replied "Amen." So now you are telling us all that your "Amen" was a lie; you didn't really believe your own words. Is that correct?
-
...Then you heard some overly simplistic idea and grabbed it. As I said, thats your fault, not the Church's fault.
This, coming from a man whose church was built upon the systematic institutional ignorance of its earliest congregants by the forbidding of education, and the obfuscation of teaching in a dead language until the 20th century.
LOL! Now you have fallen into the realm of sheer stupidity.
The Catholic Church CREATED the college system; some of the best colleges today are Catholic colleges. And as for a dead language, the reason the first Bible was in Latin, in the 4th century, is because Latin was the language of ther empire at that time. And today, most laws, legal decisions, etc., are based in Latin language. You actually use Latin every day without even thinking about it: affidavit, agenda, alma mater, alter ego, bona fide, et cetera, magna cum laude, magnum opus, mea culpa...... .....shall I go on? A dead language? These are all pure Latin words that we use every day.
No offense, but you are a moron, a simpleton who did not practice his faith, grabbed something else, and now wants to lay the blame elseweherer. You'd make a great democrat. Now, do you remember this?......
..............I have no problem being challenged on my beliefs and debating them, as long as the challenge is factual and not one of the many false allegations I have heard lo these many years.
Try to bear that in mind.
-
This is not as complicated as it first appears. Consider some FACTS. Jesus came to save us. He came because we were not perfect. His blood and his blood alone perfects us. We choose to follow him BECAUSE we know we are imperfect and NEED a Savior.
Those of us who need a Savior are imperfect, but WE are the ones who make up the church. Therefore, the church that Jesus died for, is made up of imprefect people. People who suffer the same temptations you do. Who suffer the same failures you do. Who recognize they should have been better, but also realize they were NOT perfect. We are ONLY perfected by the blood of Christ...........
So far I am with you 100%
.......The church is obviously fallible, since it is made up of fallible people........
Now this is an interesting point. I agree with you basically. But consider this: The Bible is the inerrant written word of God, yet it was written by fallible sinners. How is that possible.
Simple: God prevented them from making errors when they were writing. Ergo, Infallibility is not an attribute of a man but rather a work of God.
Therefore, when Catholics speak on Conciliar Infallibility or Papal Infallibility, we do not mean that our guys are just so great that they don't make mistakes; history has proven quite the opposite. What we mean is that at certain rare points in history, God prevented any error in teaching. Now this does not mean that every priest carried out those teachings correctly, it just means that Catholic Dogma is correct because God made sure it was correct.
-
Then you heard some overly simplistic idea and grabbed it. As I said, that is your fault, not the Church's fault.
A a matter of historical fact, the early churches and dogma of the Apostles were simple. So simple, in fact, that no one felt the need to write down or clarify anything for about 200 years. I am not sure the modern complexity of a church and its teachings are a good measure of its closeness to the original teachings of Christ.
As a matter of historical fact, you were about a foot long and drooled on yourself. Do you want to stick with that?
The Church is the Body of Christ, a living thing. Like all people do, the Church grows and learns, and anyone who thinks that the church should be as she was at her infancy is nuts.
-
As a matter of historical fact, you were about a foot long and drooled on yourself. Do you want to stick with that?
Relevance? Or was it just meant to be insulting?
The Church is the Body of Christ, a living thing. Like all people do, the Church grows and learns, and anyone who thinks that the church should be as she was at her infancy is nuts.
If the purpose was to grow the political power and influence of the church, elevate the clergy in the eyes of men, and in general keep non-clergy uneducated, faithful and giving tithes, then yeah, the Church "grows and learns." If the purpose of the church was to faithfully propagate the teachings of Jesus Christ, then NO, the methods of worship and the teachings shouldn't have "evolved", been added to, or have been diminished- as Jesus didn't return to "update" his teachings. Further, we have already demonstrated at least one ecumenical council was NOT doing the work of God (by tacitly accepting the wide-spread sale of indulgences and not explicitly repudiating it) and therefore not infallible as the claim is made, and this brings all other "growth and changes" by such councils suspect, as perhaps, also not being inspired and guided works of God.
-
If the purpose was to grow the political power and influence of the church, elevate the clergy in the eyes of men, and in general keep non-clergy uneducated, faithful and giving tithes, then yeah, the Church "grows and learns." .............
Gimme a break. I have never denied the sins of men. Quit throwing mud.
Your only purpose here is to argue, and I won't indulge you any more. You got a question? Ask it. Otherwise, move on. This thead is about "Why I am Catholic", not about your schoolyard attacks against the Church.
-
There is scriptural evidence to back up the inerrant word of God. I cannot think of any scriptural evidence for the lack of error of the church. All the scriptures that come to mind are about our needs for forgiveness, and mercy, because of our sin. There are encouragements to forgive one another, work out our disagreements, etc........but none that I know of that imply we are perfect on our own. In fact, the letters to the Seven churches should be enough to dispel that immediately.
Rev 2:5(Written to the church at Ephesus) Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent.
There are similar statements to the other churches. The church is NOT perfect, we are only perfected in the sight of Christ and we are specifically commanded to work out our OWN salvation with fear and trembling, which of course precludes leaving that to the church.
Philippians 2:12
Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.
It is nice that you have faith in Catholic dogma, but our faith should be based on something. Our faith in Christ DOES have a basis. We can understand and prove certain things from scripture, upon which to base our faith. But, saying the same thing about the church appears to be error, we as individuals or even as the whole, do not rise to the level of Christ.
I do not wish to be rude at all, and I accept that you are a person of faith, trying to do what you think is right, but as I read and re-read you final comments, it really looks like you are saying: the church is always right, except when it is wrong, as we know it has been on occasion throughout history, but we can have faith that it is right on everything now.
I would come to exactly the opposite conclusion. The fact that we KNOW it has been wrong repeatedly does not give me any faith that it is correct now. I believe in the inerrant word of God and can place my faith in Christ by following his words to us. This seems to be the crux of the issue that we see slightly differently, but these differences may be vast in terms of working out our salvation. Can we do wrong by simply obeying scripture? I am certain we cannot. Can we do wrong by following the teachings of men, particularly when they conflict with scripture? I am certain we can. Given that I still come down on the supremacy of Christ and his word in any conflict.
-
2 Peter 3:17-18
King James Version (KJV)
17 Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.
18 But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen.
The scriptures teach us NOT to follow error, but to grow in knowledge of the word. In fact, we are to grow in the knowledge of the same words whereby we might be saved.
Acts 11:13-15
King James Version (KJV)
13 And he shewed us how he had seen an angel in his house, which stood and said unto him, Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon, whose surname is Peter;
14 Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved.
15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.
-
There is scriptural evidence to back up the inerrant word of God...........
LOL. A a book says its true and therefore that proves a book is true? Thats nonsense.
Yes, the Bible is the inerrant word of God, but how you arrived at that correct conclusion is nonsense.
-
If the purpose was to grow the political power and influence of the church, elevate the clergy in the eyes of men, and in general keep non-clergy uneducated, faithful and giving tithes, then yeah, the Church "grows and learns." .............
Gimme a break. I have never denied the sins of men. Quit throwing mud.
Your only purpose here is to argue, and I won't indulge you any more. You got a question? Ask it. Otherwise, move on. This thead is about "Why I am Catholic", not about your schoolyard attacks against the Church.
Its not mud throwing to point out the truth. It is you who refuse to respond to my points and argument regarding such. If what I say is not the truth, then demonstrate it with your own facts, logic and reasoning. If you think I am behaving like a schoolyard child, then school me in my error (or not as you wish) but please don't pretend that you have done anything to address my points or to demonstrate they are wrong.
-
There is scriptural evidence to back up the inerrant word of God...........
LOL. A a book says its true and therefore that proves a book is true? Thats nonsense.
Yes, the Bible is the inerrant word of God, but how you arrived at that correct conclusion is nonsense.
I acknowledge your opinion on that and your right to hold it. I think the FIRST test is that it CLAIMS it. For example, Martin Luther taught a great deal, but he NEVER claimed to be inerrant, and in fact tried to get people NOT to follow him. He HATED the fact they had taken HIS name, instead of Christ's, which he knew was error. But, I do not have to test his claim to be inerrant because he never made it. There are several claims within scripture that they ARE the word of God. I am sorry if I was unclear, since I thought this so basic and noted you are well educated in your church's doctrine, I assumed you agreed to the basics of faith in the word. It is not the ONLY test but merely the first. If there is no claim of being the word of God there is no need to move on to other levels, such as do the prophecies come true, is it consistent with God's other words, etc.....
-
CC, my perception is that you are becoming defensive and striking out at those you perceive as enemies. I hope this is not the case. We are NOT enemies. I am sure that you desire to serve Christ, and as such I do not wish to hinder you. I do think some of your faith is misplaced. Christ is our hope, not the church. There is much good in the church and in fact it is a gift from God to have each other. We can encourage, help in times of need, teach, and comfort. What we cannot do is change the word of God. And, as we examine the true tests of whether it is the church that Christ built, we need to examine if it is in conflict with his word. If it is, we are better off serving Christ and returning to HIS church.
It is still my belief, based on scripture, that the church that Christ built is not divided. Our goal should still be to be one, just as he and the Father were one. Wasn't that his prayer for us? My opposition to denominationalism, even relatively old divisions of it, is based on scripture. As we have looked at scripture together, it is my hope that anyone reading our conversation would be built up to serve Christ. If we let the conversation anger us and lash out with things that tear down, rather than edify, then we are not achieving something worthwhile. I think we are almost totally on the same page on most issues we have discussed. The real issue between us is where authority resides. Is it the church or is it Christ? As you consider that question, it might be tempting to pretend there is no difference and therefore avoid the question. I would urge you not to play that game. Choose who you serve. As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord. To the degree the church teaches Christ as King, perfect and crucified for our sins, I agree with them and I am part of them. When they LEAVE the teachings of Christ for their own doctrines, I have no use for them. In that moment they decided not to be the church that Christ built. I hope you will consider those things. You may be called to be a great Christian, but do not allow yourself to be hindered by dividing yourself into being just a Catholic.
-
...With all due respect, that is a lie....Every time you received the Eucharist, the priest said "Body of Christ", and you replied "Amen." So now you are telling us all that your "Amen" was a lie; you didn't really believe your own words. Is that correct?
I'm telling you that my "Amen" was offered by rote, without any understanding of what I was saying "Amen" to.
And the lie is that crackers and grape juice are magically transformed into the body and blood of Jesus because some priest with a high probability of homosexual proclivity chants an incantation over it.
I knew intuitively that the Catholic ritual of pretending to make crackers and grape juice into Jesus was wrong, but I went along anyway. I was a kid. I can only hope that my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ will forgive my youthful ignorance in blindly following pagan rituals.
See pal, I can play the insult game too. That's where you wanted this to go all along, isn't it?
...LOL! Now you have fallen into the realm of sheer stupidity.
No offense, but you are a moron, a simpleton who did not practice his faith, grabbed something else, and now wants to lay the blame elseweherer. You'd make a great democrat.
And you, sir, are a pomous, douchebag, brainwashed zealot. Now get the **** off my forum.
-
I guess we need a spinoff thread called "Why I am not a Catholic", eh? ::facepalm::
ETA - If the above happens may I add this as my first entry?
http://www.france24.com/en/20121010-pope-prays-arabic-first-time (http://www.france24.com/en/20121010-pope-prays-arabic-first-time)
Seriously, like anybody in JihadiLand cares...I'd be much more jazzed if another round of Crusades (real Crusades, not excuses to sack your fellow Christians and expand your landholdings bullsh*t, a real "let's slaughter the infidel Muhammadan's" type Crusade!) and send those 7th century savages straight to the depths of Hell once and for all!
Have I mentioned I was born too late? I never get what I want! ::angry:: ::cussing:: ::gaah::
-
I guess we need a spinoff thread called "Why I am not a Catholic", eh? ::facepalm::
What we really needed was someone who wouldn't start a thread called "Why I am Catholic", whose true intention was to berate others as ignorant, stupid, and Democrat-like for following a different path.
I think his intention all along was to agitate things to the point where it got out of hand. He was itching for it. Just like all zealots. They can't deal with reasoned opposition to the conclusions they've drawn personally regarding faith, and it always, always, always boils down to petty insults.
Congrats to all who tried to offer patient and respectful rebuttal. Thank you to all whose measured approach stayed my hand early on.
But in retrospect, if I had gone with my instinct and more strongly voiced my opposition or even locked the thread when my spidey-sense was tingling, this would not have spun out of control, and we may not have lost a member.
As it is, I won't have someone here who wants to call me an idiot, stupid, or moronic. If I want that kind of bullsh*t, I'll register at the Daily Kos.
Either way, he is now free to carry on his crusade wherever else he likes.
-
I guess we need a spinoff thread called "Why I am not a Catholic", eh? ::facepalm::
What we really needed was someone who wouldn't start a thread called "Why I am Catholic", whose true intention was to berate others as ignorant, stupid, and Democrat-like for following a different path.
I think his intention all along was to agitate things to the point where it got out of hand. He was itching for it. Just like all zealots. They can't deal with reasoned opposition to the conclusions they've drawn personally regarding faith, and it always, always, always boils down to petty insults.
Congrats to all who tried to offer patient and respectful rebuttal. Thank you to all whose measured approach stayed my hand early on.
But in retrospect, if I had gone with my instinct and more strongly voiced my opposition or even locked the thread when my spidey-sense was tingling, this would not have spun out of control, and we may not have lost a member.
As it is, I won't have someone here who wants to call me an idiot, stupid, or moronic. If I want that kind of bullsh*t, I'll register at the Daily Kos.
Either way, he is now free to carry on his crusade wherever else he likes.
I hear ya, taking the position that the Roman Catholic Church is the preeminent Christian denomination and that all those outside of its aegis are condemned to Hell is tragic and flies in the face of who and what Jesus is. I know too many Catholics that share that view and who I would describe as very poor Christians, not saying all are like that but they are there and they wear the same preeminence blinders.
-
IDP,
I would urge patience and forgiveness. It is almost a certainty that he did not expect others to have the knowledge to participate in the conversation and truly he did react badly to some of the comments. But, much of this thread has been enlightening and therefore worthwhile, at least to me. I gained understanding of Catholic doctrines that I had never understood, and though I still disagree, I am stronger for the knowledge.
Perhaps you could be merciful here and just allow him to cool off a little rather than sending him to oblivion? You always have the option to kick him to the curb later, if patience does not produce the required results. ::asskicking::
The site is yours and I accept your authority over it. I am merely asking. To some degree, my continued pressing of him probably caused the irritation. And in fact, I will confess that I am a zealot for Christ. The fact is, I feel limited BY Christ, in how I pursue that. (In my youth I was more of a "hold 'em under til they get saved!" kind of guy. I hope I have matured and have more understanding of free will.)
Anyway, administering the internet death penalty is up to you. I am just asking. ::guillotine::
-
IDP,
I would urge patience and forgiveness. It is almost a certainty that he did not expect others to have the knowledge to participate in the conversation and truly he did react badly to some of the comments. But, much of this thread has been enlightening and therefore worthwhile, at least to me. I gained understanding of Catholic doctrines that I had never understood, and though I still disagree, I am stronger for the knowledge.
I was reluctantly brought along by this reasoning, and did not interfere because of it. But when the guy is reduced to calling me an idiot, a moron, and like a Democrat... well. I had enough. It showed me that his intention was never to engage in a discussion, but rather to coax others into a position in which he thought he could be abusive. In other words, he was trolling, right from the start.
I appreciate your forgiving heart. I forgive him too. I just want him to crusade elsewhere.
-
Actually CHF, your appeal did not fall on deaf ears or a stone heart.
I'm lifting the ban. I would suggest that whether or not CC returns will indicate whether he finds this forum to be of value aside from his desire to ridicule others for their non-Catholic beliefs.
Either way, threads like this won't happen again. If one wishes to expound upon why their faith is meaningful to them, and even why they believe it is right, that's fine. But devolving into namecalling for the sake of sectarian divisiveness won't happen.
-
Thank you, IDP! I could ask no more than that.
-
I knew there was a reason why I steered clear of this one :supercool:
-
My pleasure CHF. I appreciate your thoughtfulness.
-
Well I have steadfastly avoided this thread because I suspected from the beginning it would end up taking this direction. But also I prefer to avoid sectarian and denominational squabbles because I think it is the quintessence of not seeing the forest for the trees. I also have fresh in mind my own journey as it were, spending several years in the wilderness of agnosticism, and only through a good dose of humility finding my way back to Christ (who had never left). But I bear this in mind when anyone says theirs is the only prescription.
One thing I do find peculiar though are those who profess a reverence for the Founding of the United States and the ideals it embodied, yet project a hostility to Protestantism. The Founding of the USA was a direct consequence of the Protestant Reformation. There would not be a USA without it.
-
The Founding of the USA was a direct consequence of the Protestant Reformation. There would not be a USA without it.
Huh. Never looked at it that way. I always thought of poor, old Christopher Columbus first.
Then the Magna Carta and English common law as the driving forces for what we have as guiding principles in this country. But I think one could even go back to the beginnings of what is called western thought to Socrates and the great thinkers throughout the centuries until we arrive at a time and place in which men attempted to codify their understanding of being human and the rights therein.
Maybe it's just my nature or having a professional historian in the family but I have a hard time seeing the founding as a direct consequence of the Reformation and concluding the USA wouldn't exist otherwise. Many factors were at work that brought history to the shores of America in the form it took. Take any one of those factors away and perhaps the USA as it was designed wouldn't exist OR maybe it would. And who can say it would be worse. Maybe better. I don't know.
My humble opinion. An interesting thesis nonetheless.
-
Pope Benedict XVI on Wednesday pronounced a blessing in Arabic at his weekly audience in front of 20,000 pilgrims on St Peter's Square -- the first time the language has been used at such an event. (http://www.france24.com/en/20121010-pope-prays-arabic-first-time)
At such an event or any event? Feh.
-
Well I have steadfastly avoided this thread because I suspected from the beginning it would end up taking this direction. But also I prefer to avoid sectarian and denominational squabbles because I think it is the quintessence of not seeing the forest for the trees. I also have fresh in mind my own journey as it were, spending several years in the wilderness of agnosticism, and only through a good dose of humility finding my way back to Christ (who had never left). But I bear this in mind when anyone says theirs is the only prescription.
One thing I do find peculiar though are those who profess a reverence for the Founding of the United States and the ideals it embodied, yet project a hostility to Protestantism. The Founding of the USA was a direct consequence of the Protestant Reformation. There would not be a USA without it.
The Geneva Bible was the first bible translated into English and was instrumental in the Protestant movement, it was carried to America by the Pilgrims on the Mayflower and flourished for quite a while. We were founded as a Protestant nation and many of the key Founders were wary of Papist influences (the Adams-Jefferson Letters bear this out many times) and not that they were hostile toward Catholics or interested in preventing their free practice of their faith in America, they merely believed true independence of the nation meant not being tied to any foreign secular or temporal power, England or Rome.
-
Pope Benedict XVI on Wednesday pronounced a blessing in Arabic at his weekly audience in front of 20,000 pilgrims on St Peter's Square -- the first time the language has been used at such an event. (http://www.france24.com/en/20121010-pope-prays-arabic-first-time)
At such an event or any event? Feh.
Yeah, I commented on this earlier, I would have preferred a full on declaration of a real no-holds-barred Final Crusade declaration issued, in what languange I do not care.
Really, what kind of outreach prospects in the land of 7th century savages does this guy think he'll reap?
Foolish. I could say more but, lets leave it at that.
-
I do not care for the term Protestant. I am NOT a Protestant. Nor am I a Catholic. I am a Christian. Protestant implies protesting against something. I am for something. Yes, I understand that sounds like a quibble in the minds of most. But, it is an important distinction. I am not AGAINST catholics following Christ. I am FOR EVERYONE following Christ. My goal is to return to his teachings, and those of his apostles, who were given authority under him. Where someone comes from to get THERE, i do not care. It is the getting there that is important.
-
I do not care for the term Protestant. I am NOT a Protestant. Nor am I a Catholic. I am a Christian. Protestant implies protesting against something. I am for something. Yes, I understand that sounds like a quibble in the minds of most. But, it is an important distinction. I am not AGAINST catholics following Christ. I am FOR EVERYONE following Christ. My goal is to return to his teachings, and those of his apostles, who were given authority under him. Where someone comes from to get THERE, i do not care. It is the getting there that is important.
That's my view exactly.
-
I do not care for the term Protestant. I am NOT a Protestant. Nor am I a Catholic. I am a Christian. Protestant implies protesting against something. I am for something. Yes, I understand that sounds like a quibble in the minds of most. But, it is an important distinction. I am not AGAINST catholics following Christ. I am FOR EVERYONE following Christ. My goal is to return to his teachings, and those of his apostles, who were given authority under him. Where someone comes from to get THERE, i do not care. It is the getting there that is important.
a lovely comment
-
I do not care for the term Protestant. I am NOT a Protestant. Nor am I a Catholic. I am a Christian. Protestant implies protesting against something. I am for something. Yes, I understand that sounds like a quibble in the minds of most. But, it is an important distinction. I am not AGAINST catholics following Christ. I am FOR EVERYONE following Christ. My goal is to return to his teachings, and those of his apostles, who were given authority under him. Where someone comes from to get THERE, i do not care. It is the getting there that is important.
That's my view exactly.
a lovely comment
Now that I have chilled out, allow me to make an observation about the first comment. If we were talking politics right now, I propose that you guys would reject that thought proccess. For example, we know that yesterday's socialists do not like to be called socialists any more, they like to be called "progressives": It sounds better. And if you call them a socialist they will get all huffy. Same goes for liberals. Many Liberals avoid the word because it has a negative taint, although many still embrace it as well. Yet we all know that regardless of the label-of-the-day, they believe what they believe.
So ChrstnHsbndFthr does not care for the term Protestant. Okay, fine. But whatever name he chooses to use, the beliefs are the same. His beliefs for the most part represent protestantism. Its not an insult, its just a fact. You can say the same for me: I consider myself a Christian, and I suppose if I had my choice I'd prefer that everyone in my church were just called Christians and left it at that. But the fact is that my beliefs are those taught by the Catholic Church, and regardless of what I want to be called, my beliefs are Catholic just as ChrstnHsbndFthr's beliefs are Protestant.
Isn't that a fair statement?
-
I do not care for the term Protestant. I am NOT a Protestant. Nor am I a Catholic. I am a Christian. Protestant implies protesting against something. I am for something. Yes, I understand that sounds like a quibble in the minds of most. But, it is an important distinction. I am not AGAINST catholics following Christ. I am FOR EVERYONE following Christ. My goal is to return to his teachings, and those of his apostles, who were given authority under him. Where someone comes from to get THERE, i do not care. It is the getting there that is important.
That's my view exactly.
a lovely comment
Now that I have chilled out, allow me to make an observation about the first comment. If we were talking politics right now, I propose that you guys would reject that thought proccess. For example, we know that yesterday's socialists do not like to be called socialists any more, they like to be called "progressives": It sounds better. And if you call them a socialist they will get all huffy. Same goes for liberals. Many Liberals avoid the word because it has a negative taint, although many still embrace it as well. Yet we all know that regardless of the label-of-the-day, they believe what they believe.
So ChrstnHsbndFthr does not care for the term Protestant. Okay, fine. But whatever name he chooses to use, the beliefs are the same. His beliefs for the most part represent protestantism. Its not an insult, its just a fact. You can say the same for me: I consider myself a Christian, and I suppose if I had my choice I'd prefer that everyone in my church were just called Christians and left it at that. But the fact is that my beliefs are those taught by the Catholic Church, and regardless of what I want to be called, my beliefs are Catholic just as ChrstnHsbndFthr's beliefs are Protestant.
Isn't that a fair statement?
No.
My beliefs are not protestant. My beliefs do not hinge on Catholicism in any way. I was never a Catholic. I did not leave it in protest over false doctrines. I came straight to Christ. I no more protest Catholicism than I do Buddhism, or Mormonism, or any other religion. I PROMOTE Christ. I FOLLOW Christ. I read HIS word. The one person I follow is Christ. Obviously, in choosing Christ, I reject other religions for myself, but I cannot correctly be called Protestant, any more than I could be called Catholic, Buddhist, or Mormon, despite the fact I surely share certain beliefs of each one. (Certainly you can call anyone names, but the point being they are inadequate and incorrect.) I do admit that I believe in the one, world-wide church. It is my understanding that this is what the word catholic means, but that does not make me a Catholic. Also, simply because I share some beliefs of some protestants, those beliefs do not make me a protestant. My beliefs come strictly and purely from the bible and not from any protestant denomination any more than they come from the Catholic denomination. Did you notice in our conversation my appeal is only to God's word? I derive no authority elsewhere. To the degree that the Pope, or Martin Luther, or John Calvin, or anyone else, can show me something in scripture, then I have been taught and accept the Word. But, it is not because of the teacher, or his authority, but it is because the Word teaches it.
-
No.
Really? Well it IS a fair statement, but I won't get into a shouting match as I did before.
-
...and with that... If the discussion is to continue, it will be on another thread...