Posted on 01/12/2014 5:53:46 AM PST by knarf
You don't need a priest, or sacraments, or a "church", or a denomination, or charismatic 'gifts' or baptism or hierarchal permission, sanction nor absolution ...
Incorrect: my premise is connected to my conclusion, which is that the means for determining Truth did not suddenly change with the institution of the church, but if it was according to the Roman model which you affirmed, then an infallible magisterium would have been necessary to establish both men and writings as being of God, with those it rejects being rejected.
And under which model 1st c. souls should have rejected Christ and the church - as you must today with those whom Rome rejects - as it began in dissent from the magisterium.
Your omission is that the Jewish religion and the Christian, though connected, are two distinct religions with two completely different sets of beliefs. There is no logical connection, under those full set of facts that would allow your conclusion.
That is simply not the case. As said, the means for determining Truth did not change, and it never required an infallible magisterium which sets Rome apart from Truth being established upon the weight of Scriptural substantiation.
As far as the OT Jewish (not in today's form) and the Christian religion being two completely different sets of beliefs, that is frankly absurd.
In contrast to Islam ( which Rome has worshiping the same God as Catholics), in Christianity it is the same God that every saved Israelite believed in, though supremely revealed in Christ as God manifest in the flesh,
and which men all faced the same need for redemption because of breaking the same thing, that being the law of God, though under Moses this included the ceremonial and civil laws,
and which redemption was by the same means, that of the blood atonement, of which Christ was the perfect and final one,
with the forgiveness received the same way, that being by faith in the mercy of God and His atonement, out of a broken heart and a contrite spirit, (Ps. 34:18) although in Christ the Spirit is poured out upon all flesh that believe, not simply a few.
And which initially is declared the same way, that being by an outward mark.
And which results in the same thing, that being obedience to the word of God, with writings which were est. as Scripture being the transcendent material standard for obedience and testing truth claims.
And thus both looked forward to the coming of the Messiah and the new covenant, but which Christians realize has come in but will come again. Both upheld that which is in "the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms" (Lk. 24:44) as the word of God and and as telling of Christ, with true Jews believing that Jesus was the Christ, and out of which faith further additions to Scripture flowed, but in conflation and complementarity to that which was prior est., and which additions the Jewish faith provided precedent for.
And while Christians are no longer under the ceremonial law, disobedience to the moral law is still sin, and by the Spirit they are to fulfill the righteousness of the law. (Rm. 8:4)
Briefly, a Jew who comes to Christ has seen the Father whom he worshiped, in finds in Christ the perfect atonement which the bull blood of bulls and goats pointed to. He finds in the church the Temple of God, "an habitation of God through the Spirit " (Eph. 2:21,22) which the Old Testament Temple pointed to.
And he partakes in a communal meal, in communion with His God and each other. Any he prays to the same triune God, though veiled in the Old Testament, "having boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus." (Heb. 10:19)
It is true however, that the New Testament church no longer has a separate class for clergy titled "priests" and uniquely offering sacrifices for sins, yet all believers are priests.
There are other things of both contrast, yet seen by way of fulfillment, as well as sameness, and which altogether is in contrast to a converted Jew changing from a religion with a completely different sets of beliefs to another.
And the principle under which truth was est. remains.
“Incorrect: my premise is connected to my conclusion”
Only in an invalid way. There is no valid connection between a new religious faith, having to honor any authority of the old religious faith. Invalid assertion.
You can repeat the invalid assertion as long as you wish. It stands invalid.
In 2 Thessalonians 2:15, Paul instructs and commands the Christians to hold on to what Christ gave to him and what he, Paul, gave to them. It is specified whether it is written or spoken. So, we have examples of both written and oral authority. However, there is no Scripture that says we only use written Scripture as authority, thus the Bible doesn’t even carry the Sola Scriptura error.
Second Timothy 3:15 teaches to the inspiration of Scripture, but it doesn’t mean that ONLY Scripture is inspired. Matthew 15 condemns traditions which are merely human and contradict the Word of God. The Corinthians are likewise commended for “holding fast to the traditions that he had handed on to them”, in 1 Corinthians 11:2.
Sola Scriptura is false theology and thus false faith, unless we settle for partial Truth and partial faith. The fullness of what Christ gave us is better and can only be found in the Catholic Church.
Yes, He did. And the Church still stands after 2,000 years, the original Universal Church of Christ.
I see that you are appealing to me on the evangelical basis of determining truth in order to persuade me to simply trust in Rome for assurance of truth. However, your assertion here is simply begging the question, as this does not establish that there were apostolic successors after Judas, or that those in the Roman Catholic Church are indeed the successors to the 12 apostles, for which only one was supplied to maintain division number. The contrasting lack of power, among other things, of Rome's supposed apostolic successors, etc. testifies to the contrary, as does even their manner of elections.
The error of Sola Scriptura is well known and is not to be found in even the Bible.
That is incorrect. As said, and in contrast to an infallible magisterium or nebulous oral tradition, that Scripture is the assured Word of God and transcendent standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims, is abundantly evidenced .
In addition, the material sufficiency of Scripture provides for recognizing writings as being of God and therefore additions to additions to in Scripture and thus for a Canon. As regards formal sufficiency, God has always provided and made it apparent the means of salvation, pointing to Christ, and basically what is required of man to walk in fellowship with him.
Saint John tells us in his gospel that Jesus said and did far more things than were actually written down in the Bible …John 21:25.
It seems that we have come to the point when more things things I have written are ignored, for as said two days ago, "Nor does holding Scripture supreme and sufficient mean that all that can be known is written, as Scripture states otherwise, (Jn. 21:25; 2Cor. 12:4; Rv. 10:4) but all that is needed is either formally or materially provided."
This is the interpretation, and yours does not even enjoy unanimous consent of the fathers, and even an alternative, “On the rock of this faith confessed by St Peter, Christ build his Church,” (CCC 424) is also affirmed by Rome.
Nowhere in the rest of Scripture is Peter said to be the rock upon which the church is built. In stark contrast, 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)
Neither those this does not establish the claims of Rome, despite the fondness of RCs for it, as it is spoken to all the disciples in simply establishes the basis for judgment in the church as regards personal disputes (“brother shall trespass against thee”). This is seen in principle in the government and jurisprudence of the Old Testament, (Dt. 1:13-17; 19:15) which the writers so often hearken back to, and in application, the apostle Paul writes, “If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church.” (1 Corinthians 6:4) A larger application of binding and loosing however, is seen in dealing with doctrinal disputes, such as Acts 15. And wherein after the testimony of Paul and Barnabas and Peter and his appeal, James provides the definitive sentence in this disciplinary matter, to which the whole church concurs, the confirmation of God granting the Gentiles repentance (Is. 11:10; Amos 9:11,12; Joel. 2:28; Gen. 22:18; Is. 41:22; cf. Acts 11:18) as well is the obedience enjoined upon them having clear scriptural substantiation. (Gen. 34:2,27; 35:2; Ex. 20:3-5; Gen. 9:4; Lev. 3:17; Rm. 15:8-12,19; Num. 23:19 Amos 9:11-12) This was the basis for our assurance, not the premise of assured infallibility. And this magisterial oversight is applicable and sees its application in any true church, while I have already on the ideal of a universal centralized magisterium and the lack that what prevents it.
This is another text taken out of context. Besides more than the apostles being present when these words are spoken, (cf. Lk. 24:13ff) what Catholicism has done with in turning this and similar texts into its sacrament of confession is to take the aspect of binding and loosing out of its Biblical context. In the Old Testament the judges would adjudicate hard cases, and the decision was to be accepted, and thus they were bound in their guilt or loosed from it. (Dt. 17) Men such as the apostles had more veracity and power than they, as we see in acts chapter 5 with two dead people.
What the normative power of binding and loosing is manifest to be in the New Testament is that of exercising discipline such as in 1 Corinthians 5, and special cases of intercession such as James chapter 5:14,15, and which it is likely that the man was being chastised for some unknown unrepentant sin, for which merciful intercession may be made. And which evangelical pastors engage in. And frankly, the Catholic sacrament of last rites which James 5 is invoked, stands in contrast to it, as the former is usually a precursor death, not of healing.
The fact is that nowhere do we see disciples coming to NT pastors to have sins forgiven. And when a New Testament pastor did tell his a pastor he was guilty, he was told himself to pray to God that perhaps the thought of his heart would be forgiven him. Upon which the man asked for intercessory prayer, (Acts 8:22-24) which is scriptural, but there is nothing about Peter regularly hearing confessions and in order to grant absolution.
None of the other so-called proof texts Roman Catholics invoke constitutes Catholic confession in which the people regularly have to come to pastors to find forgiveness of sins. Confession itself is good and right, but the only confession commanded in Scripture is that which is exhorted in James 5, which is a general expectation to confess sins one to another, not simply to pastors, and pray for healing. “Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.” (James 5:16) Being a righteous man is not restricted to pastors, though they should be the primacy examples of such. Meanwhile, believers are promised, “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (1 John 1:9) with no mention of a priest.
in addition, Christ is the ONLY pastor the Holy Spirit titles "priest" (hiereus) in the NT church, while all believers constitute the only priesthood of the NT church, as Peter writes, (1Pt. 2:5,9; Rv. 1:6; 20:5) as all engage in offering spiritual sacrifices, (Rm. 12:2; Heb. 13:15) The attempt to render presbuteros as hiereus is etymological extrapolation based on imposed functional equivalence, assigning to pastors a unique sacrificial function which they nowhere are given, and thus taking presbuteros which means senior/elder, to have the same as meaning as hiereus, which is never used by the Holy Spirit for NT pastors, but which are part of the general priesthood of all believers.. See more here.
The apostles would lay hands upon those whom they chose to succeed them in apostolic authority.
Once again, besides apparently missing when I have written before, you are engaging in unwanted extrapolation. For as said, there is only one apostolic successor mentioned in Scripture, which was to maintain the number of the original twelve, thus,only one was chosen, (Acts 1:15-26; Rv. 21:14) and none for the martyred apostle James, (Acts 12:2) nor did the apostle Paul in his way to expected martyrdom, make any mention of another apostle taking his place, nor did Peter. Instead, pastors, such as Timothy, were commissioned to carry on the work.
In addition, it was not simply the apostles, who laid hands up on men, but Ananias, who was simply called “a certain disciple” “a devout man,” was the one who laid hands of Paul and conveying the Holy Spirit and then baptize him. (Acts 9:10-18) And prophets and teachers also were the ones who laid their hands on Barnabas and Paul in sending them forth to preach under the direction of the Holy Spirit. (Acts 13:1-3) Nor is authentically ordaining and commissioning men to ministry in the body of Christ unique to Catholicism, nor does historical descent constitute perpetual spiritual authenticity in the body of Christ.
Most of the writings on the Apostles were lost or not found. The fact that something is not mentioned in Scripture, does not make that “something” an untruth.
Please. Mormons love that line of reasoning, but this is not a matter of what may be true, but of doctrine, and you do not build doctrines on silence. It is simply untenable to hold that Almighty God would fail to record a successor to James, which is only in the 12th chapter of Acts, or any manifest mention of one by any of the other apostles expecting martyrdom, with apostolic succession being such a cardinal doctrine. But again, RCs much rely upon arguments from silence in trying to support traditions of men, which really have oral tradition as there basis, from Scripture, such as in the perpetual virginity of Mary, even though it is a characteristic of the Holy Spirit to make mention of notable aspects of persons of interest.
You could also argue that since we apparently will have a small amount of what the so-called church fathers wrote (and most of what we do have on the Internet is the work of Anglicans), then they believed in the bodily Assumption of Mary from the earliest centuries, contrary to the evidence we do have. But, which would simply be a speculative weak argument, nor do their writings carry the weight of Scripture authored by the Holy Spirit, who provides manifest scriptural evidence for primary doctrines.
The first non-biblical Christian authors, such as St. Clement, St. Irenaeus and Tertullian, write specifically of succession, so we know it was completed.
Which neither validates them as being successors the apostles, nor translates into Rome being infallible and the church of the New Testament today. It is simply a critically different and presumptuous church. God can raise from the stones, men with the faith of Peter to continue to build his church as the body of Christ, manifest wherever faith worketh by love in accordance with the Scriptures.
Klaus Schatz may be a theologian, but his work here is purely historical development……There are many within the Church who seek to do what they will to prop up their particular belief in what they perceive as unsound doctrine.
That is the normal out, despite the work of many other modern researchers i linked to. They cannot be right at the disturb the image of the New Testament church looking to a papacy in Rome reigning supreme over the church as its infallible head, as the rock Matthew 16:18. Yet is Schatz is not trying to refute apostolic succession, but is seeking to find a way to support it while being honest in the light of what history shows. Schatz concludes, “Therefore we must set aside from the outset any question such as 'was there a primacy in our sense of the word at that time”,” and he goes on to seek support for that as a development.]
However, I will point out that he is a Jesuit lol.
However it's your church, which you promote, that elected one. And Schatz is far from alone, while Scripture is sufficient to manifest Romans is not what she claims to be.
I think it is a good idea that you are reading Catholic Church history.
And the more I do in a letter Scripture the more I realize how much the church made erroneous traditions of men into doctrine, despite pious man, and needed critical reformation, which was never fully realized, and some of what was we are going back on. And I am much a work in progress, and in need of such, as well.
Its all in the saying, and hearing.
“Faith cometh by HEARING, and hearing by the word of YHVH”
Congregations hear the word, and each other, and by hearing we become one in the faith.
Not by Nicolaitans writing catechisms and creeds.
Was I unclear?
>> “Can you?” <<
.
Yes, you can! - With his help, by staying in contact with YHVH in prayer as we go about our lives.
(Note that I am writing this using speech to text software in case you occasionally see some weird grammar)
You're missing the point. Under your model they could be no new religious faith, or new realization of it that was different from the old by way fulfillment which in the New Testament is the case.
You must hold that an infallible magisterium is necessary for recognizing both men and writings of God as being such, with those it rejects being rejected.
If we want validate the church as a new faith or fulfillment of that, it must be done on the basis us the weight of scriptural substantiation, since that is how the church began.
You can repeat the invalid assertion as long as you wish. It stands invalid.
Now, you are speaking to yourself
In 2 Thessalonians 2:15,..
Once again, this is been covered, for as said , "Moreover, iti s affirmed that what is written as Scripture first existed in oral form, but the kind of oral traditions affirmed in the NT were known truths, not some ancient folklore, and which could be written, and there is nothing that establishes they were not subsequently written, as is the norm for anything called the "word of God/the Lord."
You simply cannot get the Assumption of Mary, etc. out of 2 Thessalonians 2:15 or such like.
That some of Scripture first existed is in oral form is not in dispute, nor that obedience can be enjoined to scripturally based preaching, and evangelical preachers today do so. Even the whole church went preaching the word. (Acts 8:4) And the apostles and New Testament writers were provided direct divine revelation, which we know from Scripture. But which is different then men in an office claiming perpetual infallibility , making traditions, from papal infallibility of Rome and her purgatory, Immaculate Conception (which again even the EOs reject on the basis of tradition) to prayers to departed saints ( and believers being separated into two categories) which are not in Scripture into doctrines.
Second Timothy 3:15 teaches to the inspiration of Scripture, but it doesn’t mean that ONLY Scripture is inspired.
Fact: Scripture is the only class of distinct divine revelation that is affirmed to be wholly inspired of God, and thus judges all other claims to be the word of God. Oral tradition is an amorphous, nebulous class with no known beginning or end, a virtual bottomless pit, and supremely subject to corruption. what Rome channels out of this maybe said to not contradict Scripture, but that is under the premise of Rome herself being the supreme authority, which she derives from tradition and Scripture.
However, the latter is the judge of her autocratic presumption as it was of those of like presumption before her.
Matthew 15 condemns traditions which are merely human and contradict the Word of God.
But, which were condemned under the promise of Scripture being the supreme judge. Like as autocratic Rome, the scribes and Pharisees could easily have claim that according to their supreme interpretation, they were being scriptural, and they basically did.
The Corinthians are likewise commended for “holding fast to the traditions that he had handed on to them”, in 1 Corinthians 11:2.
To which my comments on 2 Thessalonians 2:15 apply. And Rome can hardly claim to be as the apostles. Well, on second thought, she can claim what will and RCs must accept it.
Sola Scriptura is false theology and thus false faith,..
You're going back to mere assertions again, while I have already showed you that was not false theology, but that that Scripture is the assured Word of God and transcendent standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims, is abundantly evidenced. And but materially provides for recognition of writings as Scripture and thus for a canon. As well as for the church and its teaching office While formally providing the truth needed for salvation and basic obedience and growth in grace.
But perhaps its getting time to move on.
The latter is not, as in fact a infallible magisterium which you affirm is necessary for recognition of both men and writings as being of God, and for assurance of Truth, did not exist yet both both men and writings as being of God, and a strong unity of faith was realized, as their is today which transcends outward divisions.
If you want the same degree as the early church, then you need apostles like the early church, as without their power, etc, it would not have existed, organizationally or otherwise.
And Rome's claims go beyond what the apostles claimed, that of a formulaic assured infallibility, even though they were apostles who spoke the formal word of God. But the power, etc, of Rome is clearly not in proportion to her claims.
Interestingly, we devolve into an interpretation battle of Scripture. Not a great surprise. I will stand on the Church that Jesus Christ gave us. You will stand on your own interpretation of Scripture, and or of those corruptible men who led many astray from the Reformation.
You will say, “oh, no Jesus didn’t mean what he said”, that is taken out of context”. I will say Jesus Christ meant what he said when he promised us he would not leave us and give us the Holy Spirit who would lead His Church into “all Truth”.
1 Timothy 3:15
King James Version (KJV)
15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
Which means you rely on a means of determining truth that is contrary to how it began. There were certainly many who submitted to those who sat in the seat of Moses or had their own opinions and rejected the church, but which did not mean the basis for determining truth was in error.
Meanwhile, the unity of the church was correspondent to the degree of Scriptural substantiation, which far greater in power etc. than today, and was not because of a premise of assured perpetual infallibility, whereby implicit assent was required, and in which things is RC unity.
And while you paint a picture of no common assent, and RCs often invoke divisions in a Protestantism which includes anyone not Catholic, as a former RC, raised devout, who after i became manifestly born again (a profound repentance and faith and heart changes) i spent 6 years as active weekly Catholic (during which i served as a for some times as a lector and CCD teacher, and went to RC charismatic meetings looking for fellowship), i can say i found more real fellowship among evangelicals than among RCs.
Meanwhile the greatest aberrations are found in groups that operate according to the sola ecclesia model Rome belongs to.
You will say, “oh, no Jesus didn’t mean what he said”, that is taken out of context”
Resorting to putting words in my mouth will not work, while being utterly unable to show from Jesus mouth a perpetual infallible magisterium, papal infallibility, prayers to the departed, etc., except by reading words into Scripture that simply are not there. Nor does Rome even require actual support for them to be there!
. I will say Jesus Christ meant what he said when he promised us he would not leave us and give us the Holy Spirit who would lead His Church into “all Truth”.
I affirm the same, as he is never left his church, and when he got to the point where became severely deformed, then,as in the past, He raised of men who corrected it, despite the imperfections some had.
However, as for Rome being The one true and infallible Church®, this again begs the question. Your assurance is based upon the premise that Church, and when unable to establish that by erroneous extrapolation of Scripture, your recourse is to assert that Scripture must mean Rome is that church anyway.
1 Timothy 3:15 King James Version (KJV) 15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
Case in point. All this text says, which RCs carelessly love to invoke, is that the church is the support of the truth, with pillar and ground both essentially meaning the same in reinforcement of each other, but which does not translate into Rome being the one true and infallible church. And in modern times historical evangelical faith has done more to contend against cults who deny the core truths that we both concur with, as well as against liberalism, which is why it mainly arose out of a shared affirmation of core truths.
And even today in the general declension of the church that is foretold of the latter days, those who hold Scripture as wholly inspired of God supreme authority outclass their Roman Catholic counterparts and commitment to Scripture and conservative values, as the overall fruit of Rome is liberalism or cultic devotion.
And the more RCs engage in such in promoting their elitist church. the more it needs to be exposed for the sake of the gospel.
But is gotten to the point here where little more really needs to be said
Fellowship is nice. Being closer to God is nicer. I come from the other direction, having been a Protestant, initially.
Searching for the “perfect” church and minister. Watching split upon split and great longstanding relationships ended because of personal interpretation of The Word of God on the most benign aspects and sub-aspects of doctrine or practice. I can’t see any combination of Scripture, logic or common sense that would have Christ leave us to have a situation like that.
Similarly, with no real defense of the Protestant model for 1300-1400 years from the time of Christ, I find it less than powerful, that He left us unguided or in apostasy for so many years and the presto...whammo, “Here is My Church”, of Luther and Calvin. And if I temporarily entertained this belief, while having Jesus Christ in my heart and searching for Truth in His church....those temporary possibilities were torn apart by the actual turmoil inside those churches.
Nonetheless, Jesus Christ speaks to men’s hearts in those churches. And in all manner to all people, where His Grace is given and where men yearn for the All Mighty.
So, I’ll end on the Holy Bible, 1 Corinthians 13. “If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal...and if I have all faith so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing... love is not jealous or boastful, it is not arrogant or rude....So faith, hope and love, abide these three; but the greatest of these is love.”
Being Protestant does not mean you had been manifestly born again and realized the profound changes that effects. Without which you were worse off than i was after becoming regenerated while still a Catholic, or a Catholic with a evangelical conversion (Christian radio helped).
Searching for the “perfect” church and minister.
And I searched for fellowship in Christ among Catholics after my conversion, but very few could identify the reality that resulted from my regeneration. I could not I get enough teaching the Scriptures, and even nature seen new to me. This is all after being properly baptized, confirmed, believing in God, the Eucharist, etc. But never having a real, personal, conversion and regeneration. I looked for fellowship in the Catholic charismatic community, which is about the only place I found some. Meanwhile, the Lord was leading me to witness other people, even in some very dangerous places. And when I finally sincerely prayed to God that if it was his will for me to go to different church then He would show me, and which he did very forthrightly, and which at that time was a small but vibrant evangelical church. Yet I can realize the unique fellowship in Christ with believers in many denominations whose hearts have been touched by the Lord.
Watching split upon split and great longstanding relationships ended because of personal interpretation of The Word of God....
Certainly that happens, but when you are born again its essentially you and the Lord, while which conversion and relationship Christ is something that spontaneously bonds such believers to each other as they in the Spirit, and with what church they attend being a peripheral issue. No doubt we can find things we differ on in seconds if we want (and so can RCs if it was much of an issue), but the core truths and common "traditions" are such that visiting other life churches it not much of an issue.
Of course, even among evangelicals you have many who have a superficial conversion and or relationship, and increasingly that is the case. And even while as a group they overall are the most committed Christians to core moral truths, cults outdo all in this. Thus the fellowship i speak of is among a relative remnant, but this has always been the case though it was a greater percentage in the NT church .
And a close examination of the New Testament church will reveal that it's unity was not based upon looking to an infallible supreme head in Rome, or that the churches and there church services were not that of a uniform Catholic Mass. And Catholics for their part have their unity in identification with their church, while much differing much with each other, or being more unified in the things they dissent from Rome on.
Similarly, with no real defense of the Protestant model for 1300-1400 years from the time of Christ,
The problem is looking to an aberrant church as a norm to begin with. Church fathers were not the apostles. Even a cursory examination the New Testament shows a marked contrast between that the church of Rome. And with all its faults within Protestantism is found faith is closest to the New Testament church. And lacking men like apostles is the greatest reason for disunity.
on the most benign aspects and sub-aspects of doctrine or practice.
That is actually result of being doctrine intensive, which is rarely seen in Rome, while it is among those that are that you see that most manifest splits. Balance in the Christian life is a key but often difficult thing
He left us unguided or in apostasy for so many years and the presto...whammo, “Here is My Church”, of Luther and Calvin.
I see that as basically a straw man, as apostasy is too strong a word, although Rome increasingly became aberrant, yet enough gospel truth was held to that enabled souls of a broken heart of the contrite spirit to sill lay hold upon Christ and realize salvation, even while the church crew increasingly institutionalized. and in need of reformation, as imperfect as it was.
those temporary possibilities were torn apart by the actual turmoil inside those churches.
Woe to them who cause carnal divisions that place a stumbling block before others, yet Paul was abandoned by all believers at one point, "no man stood by me," but, the Lord did, and true security is ultimately you and the Lord.
So, I’ll end on the Holy Bible, 1 Corinthians 13. “If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal...and if I have all faith so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing... love is not jealous or boastful, it is not arrogant or rude....So faith, hope and love, abide these three; but the greatest of these is love.”
That indeed is the greatest, and love rejoices not in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth. (13.5)
“Being Protestant does not mean you had been manifestly born again and realized the profound changes that effects.”
Actually my conversion was prior to being involved in organized religion. Prior to joining any Protestant denominations.
“but when you are born again its essentially you and the Lord “
Initially. As we mature in our conversion we desire to delve deeper into what He has given us.
“And a close examination of the New Testament church will reveal that it’s unity was not based upon … church services were not that of a uniform Catholic Mass”
Actually, the Mass and Body of Christ were the focal points of the Early Church, as He told us to “eat”, using the word “to gnaw”. This is seen from the very pleadings of Jesus Christ and the practice is seen and discussed by the Apostolic Fathers of the Church. Delve further into Early Church History.
“And Catholics for their part have their unity in identification with their church, “
As Jesus Christ is the Church, as He promised.
“Church fathers were not the apostles. “
They were the people who actually were the closest to the 12 and some had actual formation and training with Apostles. They give us great insight into Early Church practices.
“And with all its faults within Protestantism is found faith is closest to the New Testament church. “
As described and recreated by Luther, Calvin and the unbiblical Sola Scriptura, but nothing like the Early Apostolic Church.
‘That is actually result of being doctrine intensive” (The reason for thousands of Prot. Splits)
It would be objectively more accurate to say that splits are due to those alleging the Holy Spirit guided them. But the Holy Spirit doesn’t sow that level of discord.
“That indeed is the greatest, and love rejoices not in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth. (13.5) “
To this we emphatically, agree!
Which does not mean you were, while the Bible warns against going from liberty into bondage. (Gal. 5:1-4)
Initially. As we mature in our conversion we desire to delve deeper into what He has given us.
And it has been very obvious by your answers that you had a very superficial understanding of the lack of Scriptural basis for the claims to Rome, and submitted to a religion that engages in the cultic doctrine that calls for faith in the assured that they claim and discourages searching the Scriptures to ascertain the veracity of what is taught .
Actually, the Mass and Body of Christ were the focal points of the Early Church, as He told us to “eat”, using the word “to gnaw”. This is seen from the very pleadings of Jesus Christ...
Which is absurd in the light of all Scripture. Christ was not pleading with souls to literally consume Him, nor was He in the stomachs of the kosher apostles supposedly eating blood while yet stood before them. That betrays an ignorance of the abundant use of figurative language regarding eating and how it relates to the Lord's supper.
David even called water "the blood of the men that went in jeopardy of their lives" and thus "poured it out unto the Lord," (2Sam. 23:15-17) as this is strictly forbidden to consume blood. Which Catholics would interpret literally if they were consistent.
And in Jn. 6 once again RCs are simply engaging in the erroneous extrapolation of the text to support RC doctrine, even though I highly doubt that there is an infallible interpretation of John 6 that makes it refer to the Lord's supper. If you know of any let me know, not that this would make it any more true, but I'm constantly seeing RCs engaging in private interpretation to support Catholic doctrine by wresting texts that have not even been indisputably defined as supporting them.
The word you refer to for gnaw, "trōgō " is used as the plural for phagō, to "eat, " with the former occurring as eateth, 5 Joh_6:54, Joh_6:56-58 (3), Joh_13:18 eating, 1 Mat_24:38, that is the act of eating.
In addition, to be consistent with your literalism in John 6:47ff, then you must hold that no one could have life in them, or eternal life, unless they believe and partake of the real presence. (Jn. 6:53,54) But which would make you inconsistent with Catholic teaching.
Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. (John 6:53-54)
Interpretation must be done light of all Scripture, and nowhere in Scripture is spiritual life gained by physically eating anything, which is actually a pagan practice, and which is entirely inconsistent with John, who heavily engages in figurative language.
As does the rest of Scripture concerning eating. And instead of gaining spiritual life by physically eating, what John and the rest of the New Testament teaches, is that it is by believing the gospel, thus entering in by the "door," and drinking the living water which is the Lamb of God is. (Jn. 1:29; 4:13; 11:25,26) And with a faith that effects obedience, following Jesus. (Jn. 10:27,28)
Thus the moment. Cornelius and his household believed their hearts were purified by faith, with God giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did the apostles. (Acts 10:43ff; 11:5-7)
And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. (Acts 15:8-9)
Moreover, as redeemed believers also continually "live by" Jesus by obeying his word, John writes over four chapters describing the Christian faith that has Christ, that has eternal life, and also that men might have it, but says absolutely nothing about partaking of the Eucharist, about literally consuming Christ to do so.
"He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God. (1 John 5:12-13)
And therefore in John 6 Christ said, "As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me." (John 6:57) Yet the Son did not live by consuming the Father's flesh, but by living by every word of God, quoting the Scriptures as being this. (Mt. 4:4) And therefore he said His "meat" is to do the Father's will. (Jn. 4:34)
In summation, what John and the rest of the New Testament teachers is those who have the Son in them have eternal life, whom they gained by believing the gospel and henceforth they live by Him by keeping His word.
Thus it is impossible that John 6 is teaching that one must literally consume the Lord's body and blood in order to obtain life in them, to have Christ in them. Those who do have Christ in them because they believed the gospel message, to go on to communally partake of the Lord's supper, as in its only manifests description (1 Corinthians 11 ), but not as literally consuming human flesh to gain spiritual life.
and the practice is seen and discussed by the Apostolic Fathers of the Church. Delve further into Early Church History.
Which exposes both their fidelity to core truths as well as the aberrations. This issue being one of them. And rather than the Mass and so-called real presence being the focal points of the Early Church, then as said, the Lord's supper is only once manifestly described in the rest of the entire New Testament, and in which it is not recognizing the nature of the elements as the body of Christ but that of he corporate body of Christ, as before described and is evidence .
Instead, in addition to the Lord's supper, the "feast to charity," (Jude 1:12) what we described when the New Testament came together was out of service of long preaching, and and one of a largely unstructured meeting with individual participation by all as the Spirit gave. "...that all may learn, and all may be comforted." (1 Corinthians 14:31)
As Jesus Christ is the Church, as He promised.
Who is larger than one particular body, and certainly does not make. Rome the one true one, or even most of his members as belonging to the body of Christ which is the one true church.
They were the people who actually were the closest to the 12 and some had actual formation and training with Apostles.
And which are judged by Scripture, just as Rome judges them more than they judge her, by her own admission, in the light of Scripture both are found in deviation, the latter more than the former, and increasingly critically. As regards the former, would you like me to expose the perverse exegesis even of Jerome in trying to support his unbalanced view of virginity vs. marriage, which was shared by Augustine and others?
As described and recreated by Luther, Calvin and the unbiblical Sola Scriptura, but nothing like the Early Apostolic Church
Luther was more Catholic than many of Rome today, while your assertions that Sola Scriptura is unbiblical have been exposed as just that.
It would be objectively more accurate to say that splits are due to those alleging the Holy Spirit guided them.
Partly for sure, and which Rome is most supremely guilty of as the largest in autocratic perpetrator of traditions of men being taught doctrines of God.
But the Holy Spirit doesn’t sow that level of discord.
Which exists in Rome also, and comparing one church roof multitudes is not a valid comparison, vs. comparison between two types of determining truth. Meanwhile, it is through regeneration by the Holy Spirit that has realized the spiritual and doctrinal unity among those who truly do hold Scripture as the infallible word of God and supreme authority, which has made them the largest threat to both liberals and Rome.
“That indeed is the greatest, and love rejoices not in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth. (13.5) “
To this we emphatically, agree!
And perhaps it's time to move on.
Your first response above is absurd. I suppose you know my heart. LOL....So, I’ll skip your other responses.
Ping
Let's try it out:
Hey metmom, are you saved by grace or your own works?
Saved by grace.
Next question?
Pretty lame, even for the usual suspects. If that's your only criterion, then you're all Catholics.
Welcome home.
No, we’re not Catholics.
I gave up religion when I was born again.
And I don’t believe that works contribute on iota to my salvation, not to earn it, attain it, or keep it.
I’m saved entirely and solely on the merit of Jesus’ work on the cross and God’s grace and mercy.
Not baptism, not communion, not confession, not penance, not attending church every Sunday, not whatever else any Catholic or church declares I must do to enter heaven.
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.