Posted on 01/02/2010 9:47:55 AM PST by Gamecock
And how do you know you are listening to the Holy Spirit and not Satan?
The Church of the apostles was definitely one: "There is one body and one spirit," Paul wrote, "just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of us all" (Eph. 4:4-5). Paul linked this unity to the Church's common Eucharistic bread: "Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of one bread" (1 Cor. 10:17). Jesus had promised at the outset that "there would be one flock, one shepherd" (John 10:16).
So which one church is the Church that Christ promised “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.” Mat 6:18
If there isn't one church, Christ is a liar.
A few questions:
1. Where did Jesus give instructions that the Christian faith should be based exclusively on a book?
2. Other than the specific command to John to write the Revelation, where did Jesus tell His apostles to write anything down and compile it into an authoritative book?
3. Where in the New Testament do the apostles tell future generations that the Christian faith will be based solely on a book?
4. Where did the table of contents of the Bible come from?
I was quoting Scripture.
The Church is to be one, not many. “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.” Mat 6:18
Here Christ says his Church will not be destroyed.
So which Church is it? And how do you know?
Suspecting and proving with documentation are two different things, You have neither documented nor pr oven.
"Personal studies" gave us Lutheranism which initially had 5 sacraments now whittled down to 3. At the same time it gave us Calvinism which had 2 sacraments, and Anglicanism which has 7. Which one is right? The SBC and TBC were/are at odds about Homosexuality.
Lutherans and ELCA are at odds about the ordination of women and Homosexuals, which one is right? There is a huge division in the Anglican Episcopalian church about the Ordination of Homosexuals and women and elevation of openly gay men to the position of Bishops. Until 1929 The Church of England stood against Artificial contraception now they allow it.
These positions make God out to be Schizophrenic
There is one church. The question is what comprises that "one" church. Protestants are very clear as to what is comprised in that one church. Catholics are not.
Catholics are the only ones that are clear. see my comments above about the various beliefs by various denominations.
Didn't I mention Paul's instruction to Timothy that all scripture is instructional for doctrine, for reproof, for correction and for training in righteousness?
Even if you did mention it, it is incorrect. The only Scripture available to Paul and Timothy at the time was the Septuagint. Which was the Old Testament. The Gospels were not written until approx 50-54 AD. The New Testament canon was not decided upon until 393 and 396 at the Councils of Hippo and Carthage respectively. At the time The Catholic had to wade through approximately 10 "Gospels" and any number of Epistles to decide on those that were divinely inspired.
What more is left that isn't in scripture? Well to start with Please show me Where the Bible says specifically that God is three persons with one nature? Or that Jesus is one Person with two natures that are coequal? I asked about the Nestorian heresy that held that the human nature and divine nature were not together in the Logos, that God did not weep at the death of Lazarus, or die on the cross and therefore we were not redeemed. "Personal Study" brought Nestorius to this heresy.
But that aside, tell me how do you know what is coming out of man is "divine"?
It was inspired men that wrote the Bible, and 360 years late decided which books went into it. It was inspired men that settled the questions of God's nature and Personhood. The question is better asked of you. We know that the Holy Spirit guides the Catholic Church which is the Pillar and foundation of truth. Not because the Bible records it, but because Jesus said it.
You forget Luke who took it upon himself to write an orderly account of events, the number of times God commanded people to write down His words so they won't forget, and so forth. Deuteronomy and Revelation are the only times that God the Father and Jesus respectively tells anyone to write certain things down. In the Gospels Jesus tells the Apostles to "Go forth and make disciples of all nations, Baptizing them et...." Nothing is said about writing, Preaching yes, Writing, only in those two cases.
I thought we've established Paul telling Timothy that "All scripture is inspired..." You may have thought that but I corrected your error.
The table of contents (as well as those tiny little numbers) were added to help referencing scripture. You will find that even the numbering are not inspired as from time to time they break at very poor locations.
My brother in Christ was asking where specifically we are told exactly which books should be in the Canon. If the Bible is to be the sole rule of faith two things are required:
1) It must say it is to be the ole rule of faith, which it does not, as I have established.
2) It must have an inspired list or which books to include. As I am sure you are aware Herr Doktor Luther wanted to remove The Letter of James, (Calling it an Epistle of straw), the Revelation to John, and Hebrews. Please explain and Cite using Chapter and verse where we might find this "inspired" list.
Homosexuality is sin-even in the Catholic Church where they allow the ordination of homosexual priests. You can't commit lust in your heart day after day and be walking in a right relationship with God. It's rather hypocritical to complain about the Lutherans all the while ignoring the Catholics for allowing it.
2Pe 3:15-16 And think of the long-suffering of our Lord as salvation (as our beloved brother Paul also has written to you according to the wisdom given to him as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable pervert, as also they do the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction).
1) Out of context.
2) Undocumented, or incorrectly documented.
3) a Non sequitor.
Since you really don't seem capable of legitimate debate there is no sence in argueing with you further.
Why not.
How Clintonesque! You can say it, but "one" = "many" in not supported by Scripture or logic.
How would you make sense of the following?
"If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.' If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector. "I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. Mat 81:15-18
Where do you take your concerns? Which Church? Makes no sense whatsoever without the visible Church Christ established with teaching authority, and the power to loose and bind. Christians can’t even agree on what the meaning of the word “is” is. And now you add that “one” means “many.”
Think about it. Would Christ establish his Church – to teach the way, the truth – and allow thousands of interpretation as to what is the truth? If the Church doesn’t teach the Truth, Christ is a liar. If He wanted many different churches with different versions of the Truth, he’d be an idiot. I don’t believe He is either.
Here Christ says, and Paul reaffirms, that the Church will always teach the TRUTH.
It is not a man made enterprise. When did it begin ? It looks like it began in Deuteronomy 4:10. The Ekklesia in the Greek.
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
Deu 4:10 "{Remember} the day you stood before YHvH your God at Horeb, when YHvH said to me, 'Assemble the people to Me, that I may let them hear My words so they may learn to fear Me all the days they live on the earth, and that they may teach their children.'
Happy New Year! Mom.shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiachThere are many who have ears but they do not listen to the Word of G-d.
Then you must follow Vatican I that states only the Catholic Church is the one true Church and everyone outside the Catholic Church are doomed to hell. Of course, that does puts you at odds with Vatican II that says, for the most part, that Vatican I was a big oppies and Protestants are OK even if they tend to be a bit goofy.
Catholic doctrines doesn't have to be "Clintonesque". It is such a jumbo mess of this and that, that it's not difficult to find contradictions all over the place. Heck, you read through some of the decrees and you start tripping all over the place. It's like my wife's laundry room. It wouldn't be bad if Catholics were honest like the Orthodox and simply said that they've changed their minds. How can you argue with that argument? The problem for Catholics is that they constantly are insistent that "everything is handed down from Father Rex or Father Bert in perfect harmony" when in fact some of these people have just simply made it up as they went along.
Think about it. Would Christ establish his Church – to teach the way, the truth – and allow thousands of interpretation as to what is the truth?
Absolutely. Christ promised there would be wheat and tares among us (e.g. "Lord, Lord, did we not prophesied in Your name? Do many miracles in Your name...etc). If you wish to restrict believers to ONLY the Catholic Church, then who are the wheat and who are the tares? How do you know that your Popes have not been tares? How do you know that miracles performed by some of the recognized saints were not done by tares?
It is not the responsibility for Christians to judge other Christians. However, it is a mistake for Christians to willingly follows others into error just simply because they tell us this is what is written in scripture. WE, Chirstians, are commanded to study to show ourselves approved. How does the Catholic Church encourage Catholics to follow this command when Catholics must be told what to believe in?
I am reminded of Jehoboam who, after the kingdom split between Judah and Israel, maliciously built two golden calves and told the remaining Israelites these are the gods that led you out of Egypt. The Israelites foolishly followed his blasphemy. Had they spent a bit more time in the scriptures, it would not have been difficult to recognize Jehoboam's blasphemy.
You thought wrong. Here’s the Scripture:
"But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus." 2 Tim 3:14-15
Now lets look at context and reality:
1. This was written to Timothy
2. Timothy was born in 17 AD
Therefore, the Scripture Paul is referring to is The Old Testament. The New Testament wasn't written at the time Paul wrote those words.
The apostles never assumed that the "one" Church established by Christ would later be replaced by a book, and thousands of different churches teaching different versions of the Truth.
Paul warned us about those introducing false teachings, "For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths." (2 Tim. 4:3–4) This is his warning against heresy, including the heresy of the Reformation.
Yeah this is another case of you demonstrating ignorance of
1) Simple Latin
2) Church History
Pay attention so that you can't say you haven't been instructed correctly.
The Doctrine you are referring to is Extra Ecclesia Nola Salus. There are two way of translating this. The ignorant Mistranslate it to "Without the Church etc..." they think that this means that any one who is not Catholic is automatically going to Hell. This is completely totally wrong. This would mean that All those that lived before Christ would be going to Hell, or that Native Americans before the discovery of the New World were sentenced to Hell through no fault of their own. that God a cruel despot.
The correct translation and the one that the Church has taught since the beginning is "Outside the Church there is no salvation."
You are only "Outside" the Church by your own choice. This applies to all that have had the truth of the Catholic Church explained to them but of their own willful volition deny it. This would include many former Catholics and those that are persistent in holding to heresy.
This means that as Vatican II states that it is Possible for anyone to be saved.
If you have actual documentation to the opposite please present it.
Paul was WRITING the New Testament-at least a portion. No, Paul didn't sit down one day and say, "Hey, I think I'll write a portion of the New Testament." Excuse my flippancy but it is a rather silly statement to say that the New Testament wasn't written when Paul was writing them. That's a bit of a circular argument-DUH! And just so there is no mistake, Peter equated Paul's writings to the same level AS the Old Testament well before any "council" decided, "Hey, this is pretty good stuff. Let's decree it inspired.":
2Pe 3:15-16 And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.
Peter seemed to think Paul's writings were scripture, and he was your first Pope.
The apostles never assumed that the "one" Church established by Christ would later be replaced by a book, and thousands of different churches teaching different versions of the Truth.
The facts are very clear that the early churches were different churches scattered around. Have you not heard of the seven church of Revelation? IF they were all under one unified Church structure, why on earth would John write to each one individually? Why not just write to the Pope and say, "Hey, I have this against six of your churches but one is pretty spiffy."? It really wasn't until much later that the church began to organize itself, but much of the time they simply met in people's homes or caves or where ever. You make is sound as if the Vatican was built in 71AD.
Paul warned us..."For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine.
How can I argue with that! Even if he penned it before it became scripture.
You really don’t understand the Catholic position. The doctrine that "Outside the Church there is no salvation" is one that is constantly. Try reading this:
No Salvation Outside the Church
WE, Chirstians, are commanded to study to show ourselves approved.
True spiritual harm can occur when we remain ignorant of our faith, of the Holy Scriptures, of the wisdom preserved for us by the Holy Spirit in the Church. Faith is not simply received by osmosis. It requires active, diligent study and discipleship.
You asked how catholics "study to show ourselves approved?" A few ways:
First, we can attend the daily mass. The Liturgy is a veritable wealth of "Bible Studies" and expositions of the teachings of the Church, to help us grasp our faith with our minds as well as our hearts.
Second, we can become serious students of the Holy Scriptures. Every argument I used with you – and which you refuse to answer in a coherent way – is based on Scripture.
Third, we read the many books that explain just what the Liturgy and Scripture are trying to teach us. We look for the Imprimatur or Nihil Obstat to guard against those introducing false teachings, "For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths." (2 Tim. 4:3–4).
Finally, we can share our faith with others, following Jesus’ command to go and make disciples of all nations. There is nothing that will call us to more diligence in knowing our faith than sharing that faith with our friends, family, neighbors and strangers on the Free Republic.
Now please try to answer the questions I asked earlier - which church is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.” and to which church was Paul referring to in Mat 81:15-18? And try to use Scripture to justify your answer.
You missed my point.
What was the Scripture that Timothy studied from infancy? Paul is clearly refering to the old testament. The New Testament was not written in the infancy of Timothy, who was born in 17AD.
Nothing circular or otherwise.
I did...several times...here is a sample of this fellow's logic...
Quite frankly this article is rather goofy in its explanation. I often find this with former Protestants turn Catholic; they know neither church history nor doctrine. Trying to support an argument by quoting Catholic Catechisms that do not link to scripture is meaningless.
Every argument I used with you – and which you refuse to answer in a coherent way – is based on Scripture.
Which ones...these....
Of course the church is one body. Protestants don't argue that they are not. But the Catholic Church's definition of what constitutes "one" body is different than Protestants. You keep telling me that the Catholic Church IS that one body, and then you post an article to me that says that "others will I bring into that body", and then you say that it could include those outside the Church. What exactly IS the one body. Protestants would say its all believers.
Paul linked this unity to the Church's common Eucharistic bread: "Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of one bread" (1 Cor. 10:17).
No, Paul did not. This is where I would differ with some of my Protestant brothers. If you read further in the text Paul explains the purpose of the Last Supper. It is NOT to link the church EXCEPT to proclaim the Lord's death until He comes.
1Co 11:23-26 For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, "This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me." In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me." For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.
It does not convey grace. It's a proclamation.
Jesus had promised at the outset that "there would be one flock, one shepherd" (John 10:16).
I see nothing to argue here. Protestants believe that all Christians are part of one flock with one shepherd.
So which one church is the Church that Christ promised “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.” Mat 6:18
You would like to insert the "Catholic" church into this phrase. Yet by your own admission the Catholic church did not exist at this time. This is frequently used as support that control was given to Peter. However, scriptural text does not support this. The first Jerusalem Council held in Acts was driven not by Peter but by James. Major doctrinal ideas did not come from Peter but from Paul who Peter told everyone to listen to. And when Peter, James, and the rest started falling into error with the Judeizers, it was Paul who condemned them to their face.
How would you make sense of the following? "If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.' If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector. "I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. Mat 81:15-18
Please don't tell me Catholics have such a practice. There are plenty of Catholics who believe in abortion and just about anything else. And after the grand send off the Catholic Church gave Ted Kennedy, you can't convince me that people who don't follow the Catholic rules are kicked out.
Now lets look at context and reality: 1. This was written to Timothy 2. Timothy was born in 17 AD
If your first point is that it was written to Timothy, are you saying this is written ONLY to Timothy; it's just a historical novel?
As far as when Timothy was born and the scriptures Paul was talking about were the Old Testament, what your actually saying by your logic is that only the Old Testament is inspired and profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, etc. Yet the early church fathers felt the same way about the New Testament. So my point is still valid. I'm not sure what you are trying to say. Are you saying that the New Testament is not good for these things-only the Old?
“I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought. My brothers, some from Chloe's household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. What I mean is this: One of you says, "I follow Paul"; another, "I follow Apollos"; another, "I follow Cephas"; still another, "I follow Christ."
Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into the name of Paul? I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, so no one can say that you were baptized into my name. (Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don't remember if I baptized anyone else.) For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power. 1Cor 1:10-17
You could easily read the above as “One of you says, "I follow Luther"; another, "I follow Calvin"; another, "I follow Wesley"; still another, "I follow Christ."
Christians cannot be “perfectly united in mind and thought” when they have different beliefs on the necessity of water baptism, while others believe “This is my Body” means “This is a cookie”
God bless in your journey to the truth.
You are actually getting very close to the Truth here - if we were "perfectly united in mind and thought" as Paul begs us to do, there would be ONE Church. "Catholic" which means universal, would again become an adjective and not a name.
I never admitted this. The Church established by Christ remains the Catholic Church.
However, scriptural text does not support this. The first Jerusalem Council held in Acts was driven not by Peter but by James. Major doctrinal ideas did not come from Peter but from Paul who Peter told everyone to listen to. And when Peter, James, and the rest started falling into error with the Judeizers, it was Paul who condemned them to their face.
Again, you are close to the truth but you don’t know it. Guided by the Holy Spirit, the early Church leaders found the Truth, and continued as ONE church. They did not have a ‘reformation’ and start their own churches.
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.