The Rev. Robert Schuller Reportedly Ousted from Crystal Cathedral Ministries

I like Robert Schuller...in any case..there is sommething wrong with all this...can’t quite put my finger on it?? but it’ll all come out..least I hope so

See this thread for more information:

Schuller ousted from Crystal Cathedral board

Bottom line, Mark, this is a classical example of how Sola Scriptura fails and why our Lord chose to entrust His church to St. Peter and his successors. Christ stated that the Church, not Scripture should be the final authority: "And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the Church: but if he neglect to hear the Church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican." (Matthew 18:17 ) According to Scripture, Christ wanted us to be one (John 17:22-23). We are all as a Church to be of one mind and to think the same (Philippians 2:2; Romans 15:5). There is only to be one "faith" (Ephesians 4:3-6), not many.

To have the Bible as the only and sole authority of Christianity is to invite chaos into His Church. There are at least 5 Protestant denominations created every year based on a different interpretation of the Bible. Theoretically, anyone who owns a Bible can create their own denomination based on their own interpretation of Scripture. Taken to its logical conclusion, chaos is what happens when the doctrine of "Sola Scriptura" is applied. And Christ stated "A tree is recognized by its fruit" (Matthew 12:33) and the doctrine of Sola Scriptura produces "bad fruit" (disunity, confusion and separation).

I thank God that my mother-in-law did not live to see all this with Schuller and the Crystal Cathedral. It really would have broken her heart.

Then she would have gotten over it, she was very resilient, but I’m glad she missed it. Esp. this latest!

this is a classical example of how Sola Scriptura fails

The doctrine of sola scriptura has nothing to do with the failure of the Crystal Cathedral. This denomination failed to preach the gospel, but rather replaced the gospel with the positive mental gospel that is prevelant today.

our Lord chose to entrust His church to St. Peter and his successors

So many nagging details to work out on this one ...

To have the Bible as the only and sole authority of Christianity is to invite chaos into His Church.

Rather, to claim you have the Bible as the only and sole authority ... AND NOT DO IT ... is to invite chaos ...

Taken to its logical conclusion, chaos is what happens when the doctrine of "Sola Scriptura" is applied.

Apostasy is what happens when sola scriptura is not applied.

The doctrine of sola scriptura has nothing to do with the failure of the Crystal Cathedral. This denomination failed to preach the gospel,

It has everything to do with it .. and the 30,000 other denominations that call themselves 'christian'. Is the Bible the "pillar of truth" in the Christian religion? No. According to the Bible Itself, the Church is the "pillar of truth" (1 Timothy 3:15), not the Bible. Can there be more than one interpretation of the Bible? No. The word "truth" is used several times in the New Testament. However, the plural version of the word "truth" never appears in Scripture. Therefore, there can only be one Truth. So how can there be over 30,000 non-Catholic Christian denominations all claiming to have the "Truth". Does the Bible state It is the sole or final authority of Christianity? No. Neither this statement nor anything even close to it appears anywhere in the New Testament. In fact, Christ said that the Church is to resolve disputes among Christians, not Scripture (Matthew 18:17). Is there to be only one Church or many? According to Scripture, Christ wanted us to be one (John 17:22-23). We are all as a Church to be of one mind and to think the same (Philippians 2:2; Romans 15:5). There is only to be one "faith" (Ephesians 4:3-6), not many.

The proliferation of christian denominations is like a cancer that is eating away at the Truth. I'm sure you are familiar with the expression: United we stand; divided, we fall. It is the oldest weapon - divide and conquer. With so many mixed messages from a glut of "christian" churches, the result is confusion. We need to speak the universal truth, with one voice, in order to be heard and heeded. Otherwise, society will continue to slip into the morass of moral decay.

It has everything to do with it .. and the 30,000 other denominations that call themselves 'christian'.

I see ... and what has caused the 242 Catholic denominations?

This idea that sola scriptura has created the 30,000 denominations has, itself, become part of Roman Catholic sacred tradition; both in the number and the causality. It only exists to keep the sheeple from reading the Bible for themselves.

Is the Bible the "pillar of truth" in the Christian religion?

Well ... yeah ... that is why we call it Biblical Christianity.

Can there be more than one interpretation of the Bible? No.

Agreed. Show me 100 interpretations of a passage and I'll show you at least 99 that are wrong, and quite possibly 100. The task worth devotion is in determining the correct one. I would maintain that using the literal, historical, grammatical approach for Biblical interpretation with your own intellect and reasoning skills will, in most cases, yield the correct interpretation. Are there hard passages to interpret, well yeah ... Peter wrote that Paul says some hard stuff. That requires more hard work ...

Does the Bible state It is the sole or final authority of Christianity?

If you are able to read the Bible in context, with the historical background in mind, paying attention to the grammatical aspects of the text and nuances of the original language, and applying the normal rules of literal interpretation for the genre being studied, and are then able to believe the simple truth that was read ... then, yeah. Sadly, most people are just plain too lazy to put forth effort in Biblical interpretation, they would just prefer to read a commentary and be told what to think.

In fact, Christ said that the Church is to resolve disputes among Christians, not Scripture

The church is suppose to handle church discipline, therefore the Bible is not sufficient for faith and practice ... hard to argue with that logic.

Is there to be only one Church or many?

There IS only one church, not many ... the church is the assembly of the "called out ones" ... it is what the word ekklesia means. It has nothing to do with Catholicism or Protestantism, neither of which as a whole looks to be any different that the world.

Are you sure that you are a member of this one church?

According to Scripture, Christ wanted us to be one (John 17:22-23). We are all as a Church to be of one mind and to think the same (Philippians 2:2; Romans 15:5). There is only to be one "faith" (Ephesians 4:3-6), not many.

And this is where Roman Catholicism gets "cultic" ... it believes that it alone is the embodiment of that one faith.

The proliferation of christian denominations is like a cancer that is eating away at the Truth.

No, it is and always has been the proliferation of false doctrine ... that is responsible for this. The apostles warned of false doctrine and teachers in their day, and that has continued throughout church history.

The word "truth" is used several times in the New Testament. However, the plural version of the word "truth" never appears in Scripture. Therefore, there can only be one Truth. So how can there be over 30,000 non-Catholic Christian denominations all claiming to have the "Truth". Does the Bible state It is the sole or final authority of Christianity? No. Neither this statement nor anything even close to it appears anywhere in the New Testament

Joh 17:17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

Fortunately we do not have to be stuck with the false teaching of your Catholic religion because we have the word of truth, the scriptures...

Joh 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

And because we have the scriptures, we can see when your religion lies to us...

Scripture says the Holy Spirit will lead us into ALL (the) truth...

Jesus died on a Cross...He was buried in a tomb...He rose on the 3rd day...

That's 3 separate truths...

The Holy Spirit will not speak of himself but WHATSOEVER truth he shall hear...And there were many truths that the Holy Spirit heard and passed along...To the Original Disciples...

Your argument is not based on scripture...It is based on nothing...

Idolitry fail.

And because we have the scriptures, we can see when your religion lies to us...

You despise the very Mother who gave you the Scriptures. The Bible is indeed the Word of God, but you only know that because the Catholic Church told you so. How do you know what books should be in the Bible when the Bible doesn't tell you? You only know it because the Catholic Church definitively declared the Bible canon at the end of the fourth century.

If the Bible canon is necessary for our salvation, but Christ did not reveal it to His apostles, then Christ must have established an authority that would guarantee the early Christians' determination of the Bible canon after He ascended into heaven. This authority is the Holy Catholic Church.

There was no Bible as you know it for 400 years after Christ's death, and it wasn't even distributed for 1500 years after His death. If the Bible is the only way to get us to heaven, then what happened to those millions of poor souls who never had a Bible during the 1500 year period? Eric, you need to get familiar with basic history. Jesus Christ established a Church to proclaim the good news. He never intended on having the Bible be the sole infallible guide for the Christian faith. This is why the Catholic Church is one, and your Protestant denominations are 30,000.

The Catholic Church wrote, translated, copied, and preserved God's written word throughout the ages. That is the only reason you even have a Bible. Quit trying to interpret the Scriptures without the Church, because it is the Bible in the Church, the Church before the Bible, the Bible and the Church (both or neither).

I do not believe that true religion is only for the literate or the story-tellers. Did God only unveil Himself when written language became reality?

I doubt it.

As one old philosopher wrote (paraphrased) He abhored those who claimed to have a special connection with the Almighty and would grant absolution for a consideration.

How many “churches” would exist today if they marketed themselves as houses of philosophy that could NOT grant forgiveness for your sins? NO money there...move along!

ping to #31

The Bible is indeed the Word of God, but you only know that because the Catholic Church told you so. How do you know what books should be in the Bible when the Bible doesn't tell you? You only know it because the Catholic Church definitively declared the Bible canon at the end of the fourth century.

Catholic history certainly taints actual history with a unique perspective.

If you look at the history of the NT transmission, you will find many early Christians list books that were routinely accepted by the church. You can find many lists ... as early as Justin Martyr and as "late" as the contents of the Codex Sinaiticus, which dates a half century before your 390 council. The eastern church has the same list as your council some 20-something years prior. The RCC was late to the game to declare what was already accepted as sacred scripture by the church. The church approved much of its contents by the end of the second century.

This is why the Catholic Church is one, and your Protestant denominations are 30,000.

As I said yesterday ... the Catholic Church is 242, not 1, according to the same source that you quote your 30,000 number from.

The Catholic Church wrote, translated, copied, and preserved God's written word throughout the ages.

The RCC wasn't in existence until Constantine's day, that would be History 101. You seem to be confusing the Roman Catholic Church with the catholic church instituted by Christ at Pentecost. You have been told and believe they are the same ... history begs to differ.

Quit trying to interpret the Scriptures without the Church

How do you know the RCC has the correct interpretation? Because its the Church's interpretation? The RCC derives its authority by providing a certain interpretation of scripture. Such passages as "Peter is the rock" et. al. provide the basis for the claim of authority. When anyone challenges the grammatical, lexical, or historical foundation for that interpretation, the Catholic just appeals to the divinely inspired interpretation of the passage based on the church's authority. Peter was the first pope because the church defines the interpretation of this passage to mean he was the first pope.

I pray that your eyes will be opened by the truth.

The Catholic Church wrote, translated, copied, and preserved God's written word throughout the ages.

Your religion that claims it wrote the bible is condemned by the same bible in numerous places...Now scratch your head on that one for awhile...

And then you must figure that Moses and Jeremiah were Catholics, eh???

And while John writes about God's destruction of your religious empire, you claim John was a Catholic...

You despise the very Mother who gave you the Scriptures.

While someone's mother may have given you and your religion some scriptures, no one's mother gave me the scriptures...

Your Church is a female...My church is the body of Jesus Christ with Jesus at the head...My church is male...In fact, if the Christian church has a gender, it would be the father, not mother...

Your female church is spoken of in the book of Jeremiah...

The Bible is indeed the Word of God, but you only know that because the Catholic Church told you so.

And you know that Mary is the mother of God because the Catholic church told you so...And you believe you will go to purgatory because the Catholic church told you so...And you believe the Eucharist is the real presence of Jesus Christ because the Catholic church told you so...

You believe that your religions inventions became Traditions because the Catholic church tells you to do so...You believe you are a Christian because your Catholic church tells you so...

BUT WHAT DOES GOD SAY ABOUT IT??? Or, what did your religion write (according to your religion) and tell us what God says about it???

Rom 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

Rom 8:16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:

So you claim your religion wrote the scriptures but none of you are indwelt with the Holy Spirit, who, by the way, confirms in us that we are Christians...

If I was you, I'd drop that religion like a hot potato and search the scriptures to see if you really are on the path to salvation...

Joh 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

2Ti 2:11 It is a faithful saying: For if we be dead with him, we shall also live with him:

2Ti 2:14 Of these things put them in remembrance, charging them before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers.
2Ti 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

If the Bible canon is necessary for our salvation, but Christ did not reveal it to His apostles, then Christ must have established an authority that would guarantee the early Christians' determination of the Bible canon after He ascended into heaven.

This is nonsense...Tripe put out by your religion...The Apostle John knew he had written the last book of the bible...The bible starts with Creation and ends with God's people worshiping Him in Heaven...And John's last words and prayer were, even so, come Lord Jesus...

That was the end of the canon, known in the first century...

There was no Bible as you know it for 400 years after Christ's death, and it wasn't even distributed for 1500 years after His death. If the Bible is the only way to get us to heaven, then what happened to those millions of poor souls who never had a Bible during the 1500 year period?

There are still thousands of manuscripts written up thru 1000 AD available that are remnants of bibles all thru out the early church history...They had bibles...They preached the scriptures in homes, barns, pastures, in the mountains and anywhere people could gather...They had the scriptures all right...

It was the Catholic bible that wasn't distributed to Catholics for those hundreds of years...

It is not the bible that will get us to heaven...It is the words within the bible that will lead us to heaven...Psa 119:105 Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.

If you look at the history of the NT transmission, you will find many early Christians list books that were routinely accepted by the church. You can find many lists ... as early as Justin Martyr and as "late" as the contents of the Codex Sinaiticus, which dates a half century before your 390 council. The eastern church has the same list as your council some 20-something years prior. The RCC was late to the game to declare what was already accepted as sacred scripture by the church. The church approved much of its contents by the end of the second century.

The hard nut for Protestants to crack is the fact that the Catholic Church determined the canon of Scripture at regional councils in A.D. 382, 393 and 397. Even your own Protestant apologists recognize the same. Why don't you?

The Catholic Church translated the original copies during the first centuries of the Church and throughout the Middle Ages. She also made the Scriptures available in the vernacular so all could read them. There was no other church around. Even the Early Church Fathers all claimed membership in the Catholic Church.

The Church came first, then the Bible. The Bible wasn't even compiled until 382, and printing presses weren't invented until 1440. If you really think that the Bible is the only way for salvation, then what about those poor souls for 1500 years who didn't have a Bible? Christ established an authority on earth to preserve His revelation and decide the Bible canon. This authority is the Holy Catholic Church.

If you disagree, then tell me what authority determined the Bible canon.

the Catholic Church is 242,

What does 242 represent?

The RCC wasn't in existence until Constantine's day, that would be History 101. You seem to be confusing the Roman Catholic Church with the catholic church instituted by Christ at Pentecost. You have been told and believe they are the same ... history begs to differ.

The Catholic Church

Although it is not widely known in our Western world, the Catholic Church is actually a communion of Churches. According to the Constitution on the Church of the Second Vatican Council, Lumen Gentium, the Catholic Church is understood to be "a corporate body of Churches," united with the Pope of Rome, who serves as the guardian of unity (LG, no. 23). At present there are 22 Churches that comprise the Catholic Church. The new Code of Canon Law, promulgated by Pope John Paul II, uses the phrase "autonomous ritual Churches" to describe these various Churches (canon 112). Each Church has its own hierarchy, spirituality, and theological perspective. Because of the particularities of history, there is only one Western Catholic Church, while there are 21 Eastern Catholic Churches. The Western Church, known officially as the Latin (Roman) Church, is the largest of the Catholic Churches. It is immediately subject to the Roman Pontiff as Patriarch of the West. The Eastern Catholic Churches are each led by a Patriarch, Major Archbishop, or Metropolitan, who governs their Church together with a synod of bishops. Through the Congregation for Oriental Churches, the Roman Pontiff works to assure the health and well-being of the Eastern Catholic Churches.

While this diversity within the one Catholic Church can appear confusing at first, it in no way compromises the Church's unity. In a certain sense, it is a reflection of the mystery of the Trinity. Just as God is three Persons, yet one God, so the Church is 22 Churches, yet one Catholic Church.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church summarizes this nicely:

"From the beginning, this one Church has been marked by a great diversity which comes from both the variety of God's gifts and the diversity of those who receive them... Holding a rightful place in the communion of the Church there are also particular Churches that retain their own traditions. The great richness of such diversity is not opposed to the Church's unity" (CCC no. 814).

That is History 101.

How do you know the RCC has the correct interpretation? Because its the Church's interpretation? The RCC derives its authority by providing a certain interpretation of scripture. Such passages as "Peter is the rock" et. al. provide the basis for the claim of authority. When anyone challenges the grammatical, lexical, or historical foundation for that interpretation, the Catholic just appeals to the divinely inspired interpretation of the passage based on the church's authority. Peter was the first pope because the church defines the interpretation of this passage to mean he was the first pope.

Matthew 16:13-20, John 16:13-14, Matthew 18:18

I pray that your eyes will be opened by the truth.

Likewise.

The new Code of Canon Law, promulgated by Pope John Paul II, uses the phrase "autonomous ritual Churches" to describe these various Churches (canon 112). Each Church has its own hierarchy, spirituality, and theological perspective.

This tells us more than you probably want us to know about your religion...Each one has it's own spirituality??? WoW...

We all accept that Constantine's pagan church of Rome has a long history and is far reaching...Your religion has all the marks, pageantry, pomp, rituals and superstition of a great religion...It is however, not the church of the scriptures...

Christ gave Peter and the apostles the authority to “bind and loose in heaven what they bound and loosed on earth” (Matt. 16:19; 18:18). Binding and loosing are visible acts, not symbolic ones. Jesus said a city set on a hill cannot be hidden, and this is the Church on earth.

The hard nut for Protestants to crack is the fact that the Catholic Church determined the canon of Scripture at regional councils in A.D. 382, 393 and 397.

Yawn ... There is a large line of facts that contradict your belief. I call it a belief because when a person chooses to believe that which is demonstrably false, it is proper to refer to it as a belief.

However, it would take too much space to present all the evidence ... one good one will suffice: Athanasius gave a complete listing of the 66 books that belong to the canon in 367 AD (I plugged in the numbers in Excel ... 367 is less than 397 by some 30 years.) And this was his official listing ... he quoted from the books on his list much earlier.

Even the Early Church Fathers all claimed membership in the Catholic Church.

Again, you mistakenly assume the catholic (universal) church of the apostles is the Roman Catholic church started several hundred years later. Every time you see the word church in any scripture or early father, you substitute the RCC. History is against you.

The Church came first, then the Bible.

lol ... perhaps someone should tell all the OT authors that ... what I think you mean is that the NT came as a result of the church. Which is true. What you are seeking to imply is that because the church came first (and you incorrectly define the church to be the RCC) it stands in authority over the Bible.

The Bible wasn't even compiled until 382,

Another clean whiff ... Codex Siniaticus dates before 350 AD, its a complete Bible and it wasnt invented in Rome. What is ironic is that the Bible you probably have on your shelf is based in part on Codex Siniaticus.

those poor souls for 1500 years who didn't have a Bible?

Where did you get that? Perhaps you are confusing me with a KJV Only advocate. I never said the Bible didnt exist for 1500 years. The Bible was in existence long before Romanism. The true church had it long before Rome came along.

If you disagree, then tell me what authority determined the Bible canon.

Since your history has been shown incorrect, namely, that the RCC determined the canon, we would need to determine how Athanasius made his list, how the list within Siniaticus came to be, and all the other lists. If you look at all the data available, you would see that USAGE in the churches determined authenticity. Why, because this list converged to the NT canon over time. Over time the churches recognized certain books as being authentic, either written by an apostle, by an apostolic associate, by one of Jesus' brothers, or, as in the case of Hebrews, a recognition of solid internal witness of divine inspiration. What the RCC decreed by council, the church had already accepted by usage ... and they documented this usage and canon well before Rome's contribution.

What does 242 represent?

From the same source that you say lists 30,000 Protestant denomination ... it lists 242 Catholic denominations.

While this diversity within the one Catholic Church can appear confusing at first, it in no way compromises the Church's unity.

Its not confusing at all. I see clearly. Denominations within Catholicism good, denominations within Protestantism bad. Its as simple as that.

Matthew 16:13-20, John 16:13-14, Matthew 18:18

Some Protestant exegetes have come to the conclusion that "Peter was the rock" that Jesus was talking about. They arrive at this from a detailed Greek translation of the grammar and syntax of the passage. That may perhaps be so ... but there is not even a hint in the text of these passages that Christ was setting up a permanent apostolic headship for future bishops of Rome; that is something that Rome has claimed on her own.

Again, you mistakenly assume the catholic (universal) church of the apostles is the Roman Catholic church started several hundred years later. Every time you see the word church in any scripture or early father, you substitute the RCC. History is against you.

Mistakenly? How many pictures or diagrams does it take to demonstrate that the Universal Catholic Church is comprised of 22 churches, 1 western (referred to as "Latin" or, as you call it "Roman") and 21 eastern churches. All share the same faith and creed. All acknowledge the pope as the successor to St. Peter.

However, it would take too much space to present all the evidence

Go for it!

perhaps someone should tell all the OT authors that ... what I think you mean is that the NT came as a result of the church.

No ... I included those OT books that are in your bible.

The Bible was in existence long before Romanism. The true church had it long before Rome came along.

Again - the Universal Catholic Church has existed since Christ and traces its papal lineage back to St. Peter.

Over time the churches recognized certain books as being authentic, either written by an apostle, by an apostolic associate, by one of Jesus' brothers, or, as in the case of Hebrews, a recognition of solid internal witness of divine inspiration. What the RCC decreed by council, the church had already accepted by usage ... and they documented this usage and canon well before Rome's contribution.

Again, you confuse the lineage with its foundation.

Every time you see the word church in any scripture or early father, you substitute the RCC. History is against you.

Really? Show me where I did that.

From the same source that you say lists 30,000 Protestant denomination ... it lists 242 Catholic denominations.

Name them! You can't because they don't exist.

Some Protestant exegetes have come to the conclusion that "Peter was the rock" that Jesus was talking about. They arrive at this from a detailed Greek translation of the grammar and syntax of the passage. That may perhaps be so ... but there is not even a hint in the text of these passages that Christ was setting up a permanent apostolic headship for future bishops of Rome; that is something that Rome has claimed on her own.

Christ did not speak to the disciples in Greek. He spoke Aramaic, the common language of Palestine at that time. In that language the word for rock is kepha, which is what Jesus called him in everyday speech (note that in John 1:42 he was told, "You will be called Cephas"). What Jesus said in Matthew 16:18 was: "You are Kepha, and upon this kepha I will build my Church."

When Matthew’s Gospel was translated from the original Aramaic to Greek, there arose a problem which did not confront the evangelist when he first composed his account of Christ’s life. In Aramaic the word kepha has the same ending whether it refers to a rock or is used as a man’s name. In Greek, though, the word for rock, petra, is feminine in gender. The translator could use it for the second appearance of kepha in the sentence, but not for the first because it would be inappropriate to give a man a feminine name. So he put a masculine ending on it, and hence Peter became Petros.

Dear friend in Christ, Archbishop Sheen stated it best when he said: "There are not more than 100 people in the world who truly hate the Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they perceive to be the Catholic Church." Whatever the source of your information, you have been seriously mislead.

Christ gave Peter and the apostles the authority to “bind and loose in heaven what they bound and loosed on earth” (Matt. 16:19; 18:18).

Jesus gave this authority to all of his disciples, not just the Apostles...

I am a disciple of Jesus...Are you???

Binding and loosing are visible acts, not symbolic ones

How do you know???

Jesus said a city set on a hill cannot be hidden, and this is the Church on earth.

But Jesus was not talking about a city...Jesus used the city as a metaphor...Jesus was not talking about the Vatican sitting on a hill...

Jesus was talking about his followers...They are the light of the world...Don't hide the light...Let it shine...