Posted on 03/08/2013 11:54:31 AM PST by NYer
“With nearly 60, 000 denominations in the world and counting, all of them claiming that they have the monopoly on truth, who do you believe (the first letter I received, or the letter from the guy after that?) I mean, we could debate all day about whether this biblical text or that text means this or that.”
That’s a big straw man right there. Even if we ignore the conflation of every denomination that calls itself “Christian” with mainstream protestantism, it’s not even an accurate statement. Protestants don’t claim that they have the monopoly on truth, only Catholics and the cultish “churches” do that. The rest of us believe that God has the monopoly on truth, and we are just humans doing the best we can to understand what truths he has seen fit to grace us with. Many protestant churches have little official dogma at all that can’t be summed up by the most basic of Christian creeds.
Many Protestants consider themselves Catholic as well, applying the term Catholic as it is found in the Athanasian Creed.
See the comment on post #16.
“Because if it ain’t necessarily so, then what role does the Church play other than advisor? Spiritually, before God, none.”
This is a great point. When it’s time for us to answer to God, we have only one advocate that we can turn to for our defense, and that is not the church, it’s Jesus Christ. So, if you plan to say “but... the church told me to do this”, I think you may be on shaky ground.
I don’t understand that.
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.
There are as many protestant churches lacking in zeal and the life of faith as Catholic churches. But the goal is important. We must not stop reaching for it.
I hope that they are still here with us.
If individuals could correctly interpret Scripture, then all interpretations would be exactly the same as there can only be one Spiritual Truth for the plural of the word "truth" never appears in Scripture.
The author asks: "Did Christ really build a Church this random, this chaotic, this contradictory?" ... Is the Church to be a loose conglomerate of believers or is it to be organized and structured? Scripture clearly established "offices" and a "hierarchy" among Christians. The offices of "bishop, priest (presbyter) and deacon" are mentioned in Scripture (1 Timothy 3:1,8; Titus 1:7 ). What else is this but "organization?" Or should we believe that any believer can "claim" to be a bishop, priest, deacon or even "apostle?" The word "office" is specifically used in Scripture (1 Timothy 3:1) to describe these positions. Webster defines "office" as "A special duty, trust, charge, or position, conferred by authority or God and for a public purpose; a position of trust or authority."
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. For the Church is Christ's Body and Christ only had one Body, not many. Also, since the Church is Christ's Bride (Ephesians 5:29), can Christ be married to more than one wife (essentially a spiritual form of the the sin of polygamy)? No, Christ can only have one wife (i.e., one Church, not many).
*************************
Yes. Exactly right.
Simple enough. The Athanasian Creed, along with the Nicene and Apostles Creeds, are are confessions of orthodox Lutheran congregations.
This is really rich...If you would actually read the parable, you'd understand where your 'Church' really is in the scheme of things, although I doubt you'd ever admit it...
Mat 13:38 The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one;
This parable is NOT about the church, the body of Christ...There are no tares in the body of Christ...
This parable is about the corrupt, pagan world we live in...And your religion equates that corrupt , pagan world to its own religion...As does God...
Your religion has some wheat and a whole bunch of weeds, as do all denominations...The wheat in those denominations is the body of Christ, the church...It is completely impossible that you religion is the body of Christ, or the Bride, or the church...
By your religion's own admission, it is the 'world' of the parable...And the 'world' IS NOT the Bride of Christ...
Several years ago, I might have agreed with you. Back then, there were only 20,000 different denominations. The problem is private interpretation. Is private interpretation of the Bible condoned in the Bible Itself? No, it is not (2 Peter 1:20). Was individual interpretation of Scripture practiced by the early Christians or the Jews? Again, "NO" (Acts 8:29-35). The assertion that individuals can correctly interpret Scripture is false. Even the "founder" of Sola Scriptura (Martin Luther), near the end of his life, was afraid that "any milkmaid who could read" would found a new Christian denomination based on his or her "interpretation" of 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.
That does not make them Catholic.
You have a right to your opinion.
In just a few years, denominations grew to 60,000...I certainly can't call you a liar so I'll just wait patiently for your list of even 20,000 different denominations...
The problem is private interpretation. Is private interpretation of the Bible condoned in the Bible Itself? No, it is not (2 Peter 1:20). Was individual interpretation of Scripture practiced by the early Christians or the Jews? Again, "NO" (Acts 8:29-35).
So that would include the earliest and latter of your 'church fathers', wouldn't it...
The quote used for 2 Tim 3:17 is “so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work.” Actually the Greek words used are “artios” which means “complete” and “exērtismenos” which means “fully equipped”. Changing the words to “competent” and leaving out the “fully equipped” changes the meaning of the verse. We find that all too often in the RCC version of scripture.
Those in the Catholic Church need to beware.
I understand, of course, that there are positions of authority listed in the New Testament that acted as leaders in the local churches. What I said was,
“I see no support in the New Testament for a priesthood as practiced by the Catholic church.”
Whether a leader was called an Elder, a Pastor, a “Priest”, or “Bishop” is not what I’m saying. I realize that these terms were sometimes used, sometimes used interchangably. What I said was I saw no support in the New Testament for a priesthood as “practiced by the Catholic Church”.
By that I mean, I see no support there for the idea that believers had to go to a priest to “confess” one’s sins. I see no support for the idea that a priest was an “intermediary” between the believer and God. I see no support that church elders, pastors, etc. were to be celibate (never marry). I really also do not see that baptism or communion had to be performed by a pastor, or an elder, or a “priest”.
Paul mentions that he rarely baptisized anyone. Phillip, a deacon, baptized the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts). Now Phillip may have been authorized by the Jerusalem church to perform baptisizm, I don’t know - it’s not clear. As to communion, I really don’t see any evidence for that to require a “priest” either. Now you give some of the Chruch Fathers’s writings as evidence, I’ll need to check into that, but as far as the New Testament goes - I say again - I see no support for a priesthood as practiced by the Catholic Church. I mean no disrespect toward priests in general. I have met some very kind, sweet Christian men of God who happened to be Catholic Priests. I respect their ministry and their service to Christ, but I would disagree theologically on the cellibacy and the intermediary role that they serve.
If I am misunderstanding what the Catholic position is on the role and function of the priesthood is, I apologize and stand corrected.
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.