Posted on 07/26/2015 7:30:39 PM PDT by NKP_Vet
Wrong again. Why do you insist in making question-begging assertions which are shown to be false. The letters to the 7 churches are critiques of them, both positive and negative, and yet in absolutely zero of them is any exhortation of the pope or Rome, or clergy distinctively titled "priests," or the Eucharist, or praying to Mary, or other "saints" or angels, or any distinctive Cath teachings.
Despite their problems or qualities, none of the things considered to be primary teachings or practices are exhorted as a solution (as Rome surely would in such a case) or commended as a quality.
Instead, the Lord commands His word to be written, and examining and judging men as false apostles is commended, and which Rome's purported successors surely are, lacking both the requirements and credentials of Biblical apostolic successors. (Acts 1:21,22; 1Cor. 9:1; Gal. 1:11,12; 2Cor. 6:1-0; 12:12)
Nor is their any intimation of a postmortem process that would provide the holiness that is exhorted, as instead the only growth in grace is set forth as in this life, and one is either walking in true faith or not, with being with the Lord being the next stop for those who are of true faith, which is manifest by works, as reformers preached .
Biblical repentance in response to what is written is what is required, while there simply is no evidence that these were RC churches, even though submission to the pope and partaking of the Eucharist and pray to saints etc. is what Rome exhorts in such cases, when she is not treating Teddy K Caths as members in life and in death.
He both commended and criticized them, warning them repeatedly to do the works. I don't see him writing letters to tares, but rather to those in danger of losing their salvation. He threatened to remove those churches' candlesticks if they did not repent and do the works.
The candlesticks are the churches, (Rv. 1:20) which testifies to churches ceasing to be such, which will not happen to the body of Christ. The Lord via His angel to John does warn churches and souls to repent, or else the Lord will remove the church (though a form of it could remain) or fight against souls in a church that held to false doctrine such as that of the Nicolaitans.
There are no letters to the Reformation, Chuck Smith, Aimee Semple McPherson, or any other Protestant denomination, sect, branch, or faith community.
You have popes and at least one nun who outdid Aimee, but these letter easily could be written to evangelical churches and be perfectly applicable, while such is not the manner of written of Rome in exhorting repentance and growth in grace.,
I see a 1500 year gap with disparate streams of denominations,
You can see what you want, which shows blindness as regards the evidence against Rome, as well as the basis for being both a true Jew and true church.
Again, is your argument is that if one cannot show formal descent from the historical magisterium but dissents from it, then such necessarily cannot have validity? And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that such is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus any who knowingly dissent from the latter must be in rebellion to God?
Your choice of words ("except") admits that the Church of Rome has historically existed since the First Century and admits it was apostolic.
What? It does exactly the opposite! Having an unscriptural organizational org with a unity of belief that is largely on paper, and in reality is an unholy amalgam of disparate beliefs, including unscriptural ones, hardly constitutes saying the Church of Rome has historically existed since the First Century and admits it was apostolic! Must RCs read their own beliefs even into Prot responses!
Do you believe its candlestick was removed ? If so, which year or century do you believe that occurred and when do you believe Christianity was restored and re established ?
Christianity was never re established as it always existed because true believers did, even as believers in the household of Herod could, but not without much difficulty in the visible church in which such expressed essentiual saving faith, along with tares. In addition, the candlestick of Rv. 2+3 never refers to a universal church, but to individual churches ceasing to be valid churches in God's eyes, though like apostate believers, a form of such can remain.
To be a valid church, one at least needs to preach the gospel which convicts souls of sin, righteousnesses and judgment, bring then to realize their damned and destitute condition as souls desperately in need of salvation, being unable to save themselves, and thus cast all their faith in the mercy of God in Christ, in the risen Lord Jesus, the Divine Son of God, to save them on His account, by His sinless shed blood.
For it is by believing this gospel that one is baptized by the Spirit into the one body of Christ. (1Cor. 12:13) This requires moral cognizance, as the requirement of baptism itself attests, (Acts 2:38; 8:36,37) and is contrary to teaching that baptism itself effects regeneration, and that one is formally justified one by his own actual holiness, which he must usually attain to again thru postmortem torments (and atone for sin).
One can however, be in error on some things and yet be saved. Before Trent Catholic beliefs were far less uniform, and souls less indoctrinated, and thus it was far more likely that true believers existed within the visible churches, and that some preachers effectually conveyed the gospel of grace.
As Pelikan found ,
"Recent research on the Reformation entitles us to sharpen it and say that the Reformation began because the reformers were too catholic in the midst of a church that had forgotten its catholicity.. ."
“The reformers were catholic because they were spokesmen for an evangelical tradition in medieval catholicism, what Luther called "the succession of the faithful." ...”
“...To prepare books like the Magdeburg Centuries they combed the libraries and came up with a remarkable catalogue of protesting catholics and evangelical catholics, all to lend support to the insistence that the Protestant position was, in the best sense, a catholic position.
Additional support for this insistence comes from the attitude of the reformers toward the creeds and dogmas of the ancient catholic church. The reformers retained and cherished the doctrine of the Trinity and the doctrine of the two natures in Christ which had developed in the first five centuries of the church….”
“If we keep in mind how variegated medieval catholicism was, the legitimacy of the reformers' claim to catholicity becomes clear. — Jaroslav Pelikan [Lutheran, later Orthodox] , The Riddle of Roman Catholicism (New York: Abingdon Press, 1959, p. 46),the Reformers looks to history is that Jaroslav Pelikan, The Riddle of Roman Catholicism (New York: Abingdon Press, 1959, pp. 46,47)
Yet in centuries leading up to the Reformation then the corruptions of Rome increased, as did her recalcitrance in response to reproof, and thus the Reformation was a judgment upon it, and for the salvation of souls. If you insist there must be a one manifest visible universal church as the candlestick, rather than like scattered Israel, then you must tell me where that was manifest when,
"Some years before the rise of the Lutheran and Calvinistic heresy [according to the heretic Rome], according to the testimony of those who were then alive, there was almost an entire abandonment of equity in ecclesiastical judgments; in morals, no discipline; in sacred literature, no erudition; in divine things, no reverence; religion was almost extinct. (Concio XXVIII. Opp. Vi. 296- Colon 1617, in “A History of the Articles of Religion,” by Charles Hardwick, Cp. 1, p. 10,)
Ratzinger: "For nearly half a century, the Church was split into two or three obediences that excommunicated one another, so that every Catholic lived under excommunication by one pope or another, and, in the last analysis, no one could say with certainty which of the contenders had right on his side. The Church no longer offered certainty of salvation; she had become questionable in her whole objective form--the true Church, the true pledge of salvation, had to be sought outside the institution.
"It is against this background of a profoundly shaken ecclesial consciousness that we are to understand that Luther, in the conflict between his search for salvation and the tradition of the Church, ultimately came to experience the Church, not as the guarantor, but as the adversary of salvation. (Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, head of the Sacred Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith for the Church of Rome, “Principles of Catholic Theology,” (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1989) p.196); http://www.whitehorseinn.org/blog/2012/06/13/whos-in-charge-here-the-illusion s-of-church-infallibility/).
Catholic historian Paul Johnson additionally described the existing social situation among the clergy at the time of the Reformation:
“Probably as many as half the men in orders had ‘wives’ and families. Behind all the New Learning and the theological debates, clerical celibacy was, in its own way, the biggest single issue at the Reformation. It was a great social problem and, other factors being equal, it tended to tip the balance in favour of reform. As a rule, the only hope for a child of a priest was to go into the Church himself, thus unwillingly or with no great enthusiasm, taking vows which he might subsequently regret: the evil tended to perpetuate itself.” (History of Christianity, pgs 269-270)
One of your comments indicated this has not yet occurred and that church is still reforming and emerging.
That was in regard to the church becoming what Paul set forth as a goal in the 1st century.
Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: (Ephesians 4:13)
Thus the only way that the church is perfect now is the same way a believer is, that being by imputed righteousness.
Too tired for more tonight.
Your choice of words ("except") admits that the Church of Rome has historically existed since the First Century and admits it was apostolic.
What? It does exactly the opposite! Having an unscriptural organizational org with a unity of belief that is largely on paper, and in reality is an unholy amalgam of disparate beliefs, including unscriptural ones, hardly constitutes saying the Church of Rome has historically existed since the First Century and admits it was apostolic! Must RCs read their own beliefs even into Prot responses!
The use of the word "except," admits the case where the Church of Rome has historically existed since the First Century. It is an admission that the Church of Rome existed "in an organizational sense and with a paper unity.". It is also a historical fact. As to the scriptures, the Church of Rome was undoubtably apostolic, as the Book of Romans testifies. Scripturally speaking, the Church of Rome had a candlestick. I asked, assuming you believe the Church of Rome is no longer apostolic, which year or century that candlestick was removed.
Bold emphasis for your sake Unto the angel of the church of Ephesus write; These things saith he that holdeth the seven stars in his right hand, who walketh in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks; I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars: And hast borne, and hast patience, and for my name's sake hast laboured, and hast not fainted. Nevertheless I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first love. 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. But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate. He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.
Revelation, Catholic chapter two, Protestant verses one to seven,
as authorized, but not authored, by King James
Do you agree then that these individual churches lose their salvation when their candlestick is removed ?
To be a valid church, one at least needs to preach the gospel which convicts souls of sin, righteousnesses and judgment, bring then to realize their damned and destitute condition as souls desperately in need of salvation, being unable to save themselves, and thus cast all their faith in the mercy of God in Christ, in the risen Lord Jesus, the Divine Son of God, to save them on His account, by His sinless shed blood.
Can you point to a scripture that precisely defines and authorizes your definition of a "valid church" ? All of the seven churches in Revelation were valid churches, so I submit that they must have been founded by the apostles, or their appointed successors, and conform to: And unto the angel of the church in Thyatira write; These things saith the Son of God, who hath his eyes like unto a flame of fire, and his feet are like fine brass; I know thy works, and charity, and service, and faith, and thy patience, and thy works; and the last to be more than the first. Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols. And I gave her space to repent of her fornication; and she repented not. Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds. And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works.
Revelation, Catholic chapter two, Protestant verses eighteen to twenty three,
as authorized, but not authored, by King James
Wrong again.
The Messiah himself wrote to these churches. Of a certainty they were bona fide churches of the one holy catholic apostolic church, albeit in danger of losing their candlesticks unless they repented and did the works.
Look again, BOLDED FOR TRUTH'S SAKE:
The candlestick of Jesus' church made up of all believers of and born again followers of Jesus cannot be removed just by proclaiming that Christians outside the Catholic belief system can't be saved without become part of the Catholic church and be subject to the pope.Amazing that one belief system started in the third century wants to make decisions countered by the Word of God, Jesus. The ONLY mediator between man a God.
New Testament churches are now all ex post facto’d into Catholic churches.
History incorrectly re written to fit an agenda.
The Christianity that Jesus created trumps it all.
The use of the word "except," admits the case where the Church of Rome has historically existed since the First Century. It is an admission that the Church of Rome existed "in an organizational sense and with a paper unity.".
Further evidence of RC misapprehension, miscontruance or blindness! The word "except" in my statement clearly refers to the church of Rome being one: The church of Rome is neither one, except in an organizational sense and with a paper unity, and it certainly has not existed in that sense since the first century, as both Scripture and historical research attest.
Thus there are two statements, one that denies the oneness claim of Rome and another which denies its existence, as the church of Rome, since the first century. Stop miscontruing what i said and putting words in my mouth to conform to RC propaganda!
It is also a historical fact.
It is not, and repeating your bare assertions will not make it so. See, by God's grace if you will, • Historical testimony to the progressive deformation of the church
As to the scriptures, the Church of Rome was undoubtably apostolic, as the Book of Romans testifies.
More mere propaganda! The Church of Rome in Scripture is not the Roman Catholic church of history, as the former teaches none of the distinctive doctrines of the latter, but instead teaches that the unGodly are justified by faith being counted for righteousness, with the heart believing unto righteousness, and baptism as signifying death.
Not the act of baptism making them actually good enough to be with God, and the all-important Eucharist giving them needed grace, and the cardinal importance of submission to the pope. And the entire epistle never even mentions Peter (the sppsd founder of it), not among the 34 believers listed in cp. 16.
Scripturally speaking, the Church of Rome had a candlestick. I asked, assuming you believe the Church of Rome is no longer apostolic, which year or century that candlestick was removed.
As your premise is wrong, so is your question. Scripturally speaking, the Church t Rome to whom Paul wrote, is not your church, which Rome cannot hold a candle to.
As your premise is wrong, so is your question. Scripturally speaking, it is not taught that visible candlestick churches are necessarily all saved, as they usually contain tares as well as believers. The church of the Laodiceans was evidently one. And while such may cease to be a candlestick in the sight of God, that does not necessarily mean it cannot retain a form of a church, and as with certain cultic churches they may retain enough truth that some souls may find Christ therein, despite the errors and distractions. Such is the case with Rome.
Can you point to a scripture that precisely defines and authorizes your definition of a "valid church" ?
In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, (Ephesians 1:13)
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. (Galatians 1:8)
Since one is added to the body of Christ by faith in the gospel (1Co. 12:13) of grace that Paul explained, it is essential that a visible expression of that preach said gospel, versus being accused for preaching a false gospel.
All of the seven churches in Revelation were valid churches, so I submit that they must have been founded by the apostles, or their appointed successors, and conform to:
Though Paul (who was preaching long before he even met Peter, and is later sent forth by certain prophets teachers as Barnabas, Niger, Lucius and Manaen at Antioch: (Acts 13:1-3) likely began these, (Acts 19) it not necessary to be founded by an apostle. While the apostles remained in Jerusalem, (Acts 8:14) some of those of the whole church that went forth preaching the word due to the persecution that arose about Stephen seem to have begun the church at Antioch where the disciples were first called Christian. To whom Barnabas was then sent by the apostles to strengthen them, and who later brought Paul, both of which met with the church there for a year. (Acts 8:4; 11:19-26)
In any case, being founded by an apostle does not mean that such will forever by a true church, any more than being a physical decedent of Abraham means one is a true Jews. The church that the Lord promised would endure is the body of Christ, which alone consists only of those which profess the essential faith in Christ as the Divine Son of God, trusting Him to save them on His account, purifying their hearts by faith.
"Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?" (1 John 5:5)
I write unto you, fathers, because ye have known him that is from the beginning. I write unto you, young men, because ye have overcome the wicked one. I write unto you, little children, because ye have known the Father. (1 John 2:13)
Nowhere does Scripture say one has eternal life or overcomes anything because they believe Peter is the rock, versus Christ. That the latter is the case is the only interpretation that is confirmed, as it must be, in the rest of the New Testament. For in contrast to Peter, that the LORD Jesus is the Rock (“petra”) or "stone" (“lithos,” and which denotes a large rock in Mk. 16:4) upon which the church is built is one of the most abundantly confirmed doctrines in the Bible (petra: Rm. 9:33; 1Cor. 10:4; 1Pet. 2:8; cf. Lk. 6:48; 1Cor. 3:11; lithos: Mat. 21:42; Mk.12:10-11; Lk. 20:17-18; Act. 4:11; Rm. 9:33; Eph. 2:20; cf. Dt. 32:4, Is. 28:16) including by Peter himself. (1Pt. 2:4-8)
The seven churches of Asia were bona fide churches of the one holy catholic apostolic church. The Messiah himself wrote to these churches. Of a certainty they were bona fide churches of the one holy catholic apostolic church, albeit in danger of losing their candlesticks unless they repented and did the works.
"Wrong again" refers to the claim that these 7 churches were what you defined it as being, "of the church of Rome," which is manifestly false , since neither these churches nor the church at Rome to whom Paul wrote were those of your church, which stands in critical and extensive contrast to the NT church as revealed in Scripture, as explained.
You posted "Wrong again" in exactly this context in post 221 [normal font is my words, italics yours].
"The seven churches of Asia were bona fide churches of the one holy catholic apostolic church."
Wrong again.
The Messiah personally addressed those seven churches in Asia, each as a genuine "church." Similarly, the Apostle Paul personally addressed the church at Corinth. These were bona fide, genuine churches that were part of the whole, the one holy catholic apostolic church, and the scripture testifies to that view, as well as that a genuine church may have its candlestick removed, and spiritual death may come to those Christians who refuse to do the works of the Messiah. Paul testified to the church at Corinth that they are the body of the Messiah. Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular. And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.
First Corinthians, Catholic chapter twelve, Protestant verses twenty eight to twenty nine,
as authorized, but not authored, by King James
The post not only contains the word "except" that provides the path of admission, but also the word "neither" which refers to both of the cases. "Neither" is plural, as you know.
The church of Rome is neither one, except in an organizational sense and with a paper unity, and it certainly has not existed in that sense since the first century, as both Scripture and historical research attest. Or do I need to post documentation?
But you had before defined "one holy catholic apostolic church" as being "The church of Rome:" "There is one holy catholic apostolic church. The church of Rome has existed since the first Century. "
Thus "wrong again" refers to the premise that one holy catholic apostolic church is the church of Rome, and which the 7 churches of Asia were part of. Understand?
The Messiah personally addressed those seven churches in Asia, each as a genuine "church." Similarly, the Apostle Paul personally addressed the church at Corinth. These were bona fide, genuine churches
That was never denied, but that this does not equate to all those in these organic candlestick communities being true believers. Sorry if that was not clear enough for you.
the one holy catholic apostolic church,
Not as translating to the church of Rome that you belong to. That is the issue.
that a genuine church may have its candlestick removed
That was not denied but was affirmed.
Indeed it is plural, as your church is neither "one" (which should have been in quotes) as in the "one holy catholic apostolic church" nor has it existed since the first Century.
This has become unnecessarily tedious; I am moving on,
Wrong again, I included the Church of Rome in the one holy catholic apostolic church. I asked you if you believed its candlestick had been removed, and if so, in which year or century.
I understand that the seven churches of Asia and the church of Rome are genuine apostolic and historical churches in the one holy catholic apostolic church, except the Messiah removes the candlestick of a particular church.
This is like Hillary Clinton telling us there's nothing on her email server. And many Democrats believe her.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.