To: Cronos; ProtectOurFreedom; boatbums; metmom; Mark17; ealgeone; fidelis; Texas_Guy; MurphsLaw; ...
Yeah...because as Elsie notes...those churches in Revelation were all on board with no errors.
Your credibility: ZERO.
17 posted on
09/05/2025 1:43:53 PM PDT by
ealgeone
To: ealgeone
He who has no sin, unlike those sinners in Revs 7 churches,
located in modern day Turkey...
He who is without sin, throw down the first Elsie card.
22 posted on
09/05/2025 6:32:25 PM PDT by
MurphsLaw
(“Be Doers of the Word… not Hearers Only, deceiving yourself.”)
To: ealgeone
It don’t note.
Rome thought it wise to include it in a Book she assembled.
(There are many OTHER things Rome now believes that did NOT get written into that very same Book.)
31 posted on
09/06/2025 2:47:52 AM PDT by
Elsie
( Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
To: ealgeone; boatbums; Mark17; Ken Regis
Your appeal to the seven churches in Revelation 2–3 as evidence against the problems of sola scriptura misses the mark entirely. This is just like your other philosophies.
Those churches, while facing errors and divisions, were united under apostolic authority and Christ's direct correction through John—not left to private Bible interpretation. Revelation emphasizes hierarchical oversight and unity in the Church (Rev 1:1–3; 22:18–19), refuting sola scriptura's chaos.
Issues like lukewarmness (Rev 3:15–16, Laodicea) or false teaching (Rev 2:14–15, Pergamum) were addressed by apostolic intervention, not individual interpretation.
This mirrors Acts 15, where the Jerusalem Council resolved disputes through Church authority, not Scripture alone.
Your point backfires—it shows early errors were corrected by the Magisterium (1 Tim 3:15: the Church as "pillar and bulwark of truth"), not private judgment.
Sola scriptura is unbiblical: Scripture never claims to be the sole rule of faith. Paul commands holding traditions "by word of mouth or by our letter" (2 Thess 2:15), and the Bible doesn't define its own canon—no verse lists the books. The Church discerned the canon (Council of Rome, 382 AD), guided by the Spirit (Jn 16:13). Sola scriptura leads to division, as Luther lamented Anabaptists and Zwinglians splintering over baptism and the Eucharist. Pre-Reformation Christianity had no sola scriptura; the Fathers appealed to tradition and councils (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.4.1).
Your implication doesn't fit: Revelation's churches show a visible, hierarchical body (bishops addressed as "angels," Rev 2–3) needing correction from above, not sola scriptura anarchy.
The seven churches addressed in Revelation 1–3 (Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea) were historical Christian communities in Asia Minor, founded in the apostolic era. Far from being independent or disconnected, these churches were part of the one, universal Church established by Christ. The Catholic Church does not "claim" them arbitrarily—they were Catholic in the sense of belonging to the universal ekklesia (assembly) united in faith, sacraments, and apostolic teaching.
From scripture, they are part of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic church Revelation itself shows these churches under Christ’s authority, receiving messages through John, an apostle, indicating a shared faith and accountability to divine truth (Revelation 1:1–2). The letters address specific issues (e.g., false teachers in Pergamum, Revelation 2:14–15, or lukewarmness in Laodicea, Revelation 3:15–16) but assume a common doctrine and mission. This aligns with Acts 9:31 (which you cited), describing "the church throughout all Judea, Galilee, and Samaria" as a singular entity with shared faith across regions
The term "Catholic" (from Greek katholikos, "universal") was used by early Christians to describe the Church’s unity across geographic and cultural boundaries. St. Ignatius of Antioch, writing around 107 AD to the Smyrnaeans (one of the seven churches!), says: "Wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church" (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 8:2). This early use shows that even the churches in Asia were understood as part of the universal Church, united by bishops in apostolic succession.
The Catholic Church doesn’t exclude these churches or their members from its identity. They were part of the visible, universal Church, sharing "one Lord, one faith, one baptism" (Ephesians 4:5, as you noted). Their challenges (e.g., heresy or moral failings) reflect the reality of sin within the Church (CCC 827),
“Catholic” (from Greek katholikos, “universal”) describes the Church’s unity, holiness, catholicity, and apostolicity (Nicene Creed). The Catholic Church is universal, embracing all who accept its teachings, but schism (e.g., Protestant Reformation) separates brethren (CCC 817–819). We pray for unity (John 17:21) and recognize baptismal bonds with Protestants as “imperfect communion” (CCC 838). Exclusion is not arrogant but faithful to Christ’s prayer for oneness in truth. The Church is both visible (a “city set on a mountain,” Matthew 5:14) and invisible (mystical Body), not heaven-only.
- Ephesians 4:4–6: “One body and one Spirit... one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all.” Unity is in one visible faith and baptism, not doctrinal diversity.
- Acts 9:31: “The church throughout all Judea, Galilee, and Samaria was at peace.” The early Church was visible, organized across regions with shared doctrine.
- 1 Timothy 3:15: “The church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.” The Church upholds truth visibly, not as an invisible abstraction.
33 posted on
09/06/2025 3:29:44 AM PDT by
Cronos
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson