Posted on 08/17/2007 11:11:00 AM PDT by Alex Murphy
It will be unusual indeed to expect progress here.
And, as Scripture has proven, that church is the Catholic Church. Thank you for the post!
I faithfully disagree, and will copy you in on any postings. Apologies for not copying you on the most recent one.
I was brought up in the Presbyterian church. I have attended services in the church that Alexander Campbell built. I would suggest that this lady tell her grandson and future granddaughter-in-law to go see the nearest Presbyterian minister and ask him to marry them in his church. The ONLY difference the future granddaughter-in-law will notice in the service is the presence of the pipe organ. They even sing the same hymns.
I do not say that I do not hope for progress. I know these folks and I do say that I do not hope for much.
My boss is bringing in young engineers that belong to a growing non denominational church with multiple locations (including Romania, of all places) and they are completely naive and have no idea at all of the early Church and why things are as they are. They have had passing reference to Luther and that he did good by pushing the Catholic Church aside, but he failed and only with this particular church, have they fully realized the NT ideal of a church. I have the privilege of being the manager of two of them.
Heads full of mush, eager and utterly stupid theologically. They know less about Church history than my CoC friends and that’s saying a lot.
If we make progress, it is with the hand of God. It will take no less.
**So many errors. So many mistkes.**
Actually, I found it to be dead on.
The Roman Catholic Church nor the 22 Catholic Churchs, bear any resemblance to what we read about in the scriptures.
I will not sit here and try to deconstruct every action of the Catholic church. I read the scriptures and see how the church conducted itself. That is what I try to follow.
I just shake my head when I see Catholics bow down and kiss the Pope’s ring.
Yeah, I’ve worshipped in dozens of churches of Christ all over the country. California, Neveda, Virginia, North Carolina, Texas, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Nebraska, Utah, New Mexico, Florida, Georgia, and all over the state of Alabama.
And I found them remarkably conistent in practice and belief.
Scripture has not proven to me that the Catholic Church is the one established at Pentecost. I do think it is one of the Churches, but certainly not the only one. Carry on!
Members tend to read the Bible literally and to allow in church only those things that the New Testament specifically authorizes.
plus this
They do, however, celebrate Holy Communion every week, using grape juice instead of wine.
makes no sense at all.
Perhaps you are not understanding the scriptural passages that you are reading. It would help if you could cite some scripture where you find this supposed discrepancy. Is it the hierarchical structure that you find confusing?
Many people would be astonished to learn just how much we know about the first 300 years of christian history. We have, for example, much inspiring history about the founding of the Church's many congregations throughout the ancient world. We actually know the names of some of her earliest pastors, and in a few cases, we have their writings to read. We still have harrowing accounts of her persecution by the Pharisees and by the pagan Romans. We know what sorts of heresies attacked the early Church and the names of the heretics who stood against her. We have hymns and prayers and poetry preserved from this period. We have epitaphs from Christian tombs. We have doctrinal statements, Bible commentary, and sermons dating from these days. We have responsive readings used in Church; in fact, we have a good deal of information about how the Sunday services were conducted.
Luther and Calvin, who taught Sola Scriptura in the first place, knew and respected these venerable saints whom ancient custom has given the title Fathers of the Church. They quite often used the writings of early giants like Ambrose and Augustine. In fact, John Calvin not only affirmed the testimony of these Church Fathers but unequivocally declared that for the first 600 years of her existence on earth, the Church remained "pure and undefiled".
I just shake my head when I see Catholics bow down and kiss the Pope’s ring.
Kissing the pope's ring is a sign of respect for the successor of St. Peter whom Jesus Christ chose to head His Church.
Again, I will ask you to please cite scriptural passages to support your statement.
In Matt. 16:18 - Jesus said in Aramaic, you are "Kepha" and on this "Kepha" I will build my Church - not "Churches".
In Matt. 16:21 - it is also important to note that it was only after Jesus established Peter as leader of the Church that He began to speak of His death and departure. This is because Jesus had now appointed His representative on earth.
Acts 1:20 - we see in the early Church that successors are immediately chosen for the apostles' offices. Just as the Church replaced Judas, it also replaced Peter with a successor after Peter's death.
John 21:15-17; Luke 22:31-32 - Jesus' creation of Peter's office as chief shepherd with the keys passed to Linus, Cletus, Clement I, all the way to our current Holy Father.
As for its infallible teachings, in Matt. 16:18, Jesus promises the gates of Hades would never prevail against the Church. This requires that the Church teach infallibly. If the Church did not have the gift of infallibility, the gates of Hades and error would prevail. Since the Catholic Church was the only Church that existed up until the Reformation, those who follow the Protestant reformers call Christ a liar by saying that Hades did prevail.
Even had Peter been selected to a post of authority over the apostles, which I believe not to have been the case, where is the scriptural authority for choosing a selection of a successor to Peter?
And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped [him].But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man.- Acts 10-24-25
Not only was such displays to Peter not authorized by the scriptures, here it is explicitly forbidden.
The original Greek word translated "worship" here, proskuneo, is defined by Strong as:
"...(meaning to kiss, like a dog licking his master’s hand); to fawn or crouch to, that is, (literally or figuratively) prostrate oneself in homage (do reverence to, adore): - worship."
***And I found them remarkably conistent in practice and belief.***
Were they the ones that believe in Sunday school or no sunday school. Kitchen in church or no kitchen in the church. Paid preacher or no paid preacher. One cup communion or individual cup communion.
I could find some other differences but this will be enough.
The only problem is each group thinks they are the ONLY ones saved.
***Actually, as the author pointed out, our heritage goes back to 33AD. The rejection of denominationalism began in the late 1700s.***
Almost every different denomination can claim to trace their beginnings back to Penticost. The claim is nothing new.
I was raised in an English/Irish version of the restorationists which started not later than 1898 yet they claim to be the ONLY true church started by Christ.
The Baptist churches even claim they go back beyond Penticost to when John the Baptist started their church.
***many denominations believe that simply by confessing Jesus as the Son of God you are saved.***
So who will you follow? Paul the Apostle to the Gentiles who taught “By Grace are ye saved through faith, and that and not of yourselves, It is the gift of God!”
Rom 4:4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
Rom 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
Or James, the Apostle to the Circumcision who taught Christian Legalism to the Jews?
Does ONE verse in James automaticly negate many verses in Paul’s writings?
Even had Peter been selected to a post of authority over the apostles, which I believe not to have been the case
Where is your disagreement with what I posted earlier?
In Matt. 16:18 - Jesus said in Aramaic, you are "Kepha" and on this "Kepha" I will build my Church.
In that passage, we see that Jesus builds the Church only on Peter, the rock, with the other apostles as the foundation and Jesus as the Head. In the very next passage - Matt. 16:19 - only Peter receives the keys, which represent authority over the Church and facilitate dynastic succession to his authority.
As for your question,
where is the scriptural authority for choosing a selection of a successor to Peter?
Jesus gave Peter, and the apostles and elders in union with him, the power to bind and loose in heaven what they bound and loosed on earth. (Matt. 16:19; 18:18). This teaching authority did not die with Peter and the apostles, but was transferred to future bishops through the laying on of hands (e.g., Acts 1:20; 6:6; 13:3; 8:18; 9:17; 1 Tim. 4:14; 5:22; 2 Tim. 1:6).
Let us not forget the passage where Jesus instructs Peter specifically: feed my sheep, tend my sheep, feed my sheep.
The repeated instruction, combined with the fact that Peter spoke first or only almost all the time, and Jesus spoke to Peter first and foremost most of the time, shows that Peter was special, he was chosen, and his post as leader is clearly established.
I’ve found that no matter how accurate a denomination or institution might be in their expression of beliefs by creedal statements, it is always possible for that institution to not be holy if it bases its thinking upon rationalism and legalism, rather than first through faith in Christ.
First came the LOGOS (the Word), a communication to our thinking of His Word. Through faith in Christ, when we think the Word, He is free to further sanctify our thinking with more faith. We are further developed as long as we remain in fellowship with Him, and that development in faith always comes by the work of God, the Holy Spirit.
All faith is from God, not man.
God the Holy Spirit gives gifts to all believers and we are not all the same. when we gather together through faith in Christ we are His bride again through faith in Him.
The pastor has gifts from the Holy Spirit which are spiritual gifts in teaching the Word of God, a form of spiritual communication gift, just as the spiritual gift of evangelism is a spiritual gift of communication to communicate to unbelievers, which is also only given by God, the Holy Spirit.
If one is acting through faith in Christ, one might reject written doctrines of men if they have been taught from a soulish perspective, rather than expressing the faith given by God through faith in Christ.
Likewise, one can just as easily become legalistic in that approach, failing to remain in fellowship with God through faith in Christ, by always being legalistic and rationally demanding avoidance of other denominations.
It isn’t what goes into a man that defiles him, it is what comes out of him that defiles him. Likewise, regardless the environment, if we remain in fellowship with Him through faith in Christ, all things may be used for righteousness.
There may be believers in all denominations, just as every religious institution may also be used as a counterfeit substitute for a relationship with God through faith in Christ.
A good example is reading this post. If one is out of fellowship, or is influenced by past scarring of their thinking, one can read this post and critically attack the reasoning, accusatorially and insist for evidence prior to acceptance. On the other hand, one can remain in fellowship wih God through faith in Christ and commune with other believers, again through faith in Christ, still being able to build upon the faith of one another, precept upon precept, highlighting and growing, again only by the work of God the Holy Spirit, further amplifying or simplifying as the Spirit leads them.
I have no doubt there are many faithful believers in the RCC, and all other denominations, just as there may be devout believers in freemasonry or even who might be unwittingly exposed to the most heinous forms of satanism. (Albeit not likely they would grow much in those arenas and likely be influenced by evil to distract them from remaining in fellowship, but through faith in Christ, nothing can interfere with our relationship with Him to the point of separating us from Him when we exercise our volition to remain faithful through faith in Him.)
In short, I concur with your analysis.
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.