Posted on 03/08/2014 10:06:40 PM PST by NKP_Vet
The following outline shows that Jesus intended to create a holy, visible Church; complete with a prime minister, a hierarchy, binding authority, and perpetuity—the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.
It is important for Protestants to understand some basic facts. Contrary to the modern belief that the Bible is a “blueprint” or “textbook” which explains how a church should be structured, it is a product of the Catholic Church—a compilation of writings that reflect a structure that was already present. As such, the “Bible alone” has no reason to provide fine details of proper ecclesiology; however, proper ecclesiology is detectable. Shortly after Jesus’ resurrection, the Catholic Church wrote lots of letters. The Catholic Church discerned which of those letters were inspired. By the end of the fourth century (Councils of Hippo A.D. 393 and Carthage A.D. 397) the Catholic Church finalized the “table of contents” of the Scriptures and called the entire body of writing “the Bible”. In other words, the Bible would not even exist if the popes and the hierarchy did not exist.
(Excerpt) Read more at thechurchofchristiscatholic.com ...
They way he can be expected to answer is by posting the polemics of others rather than his own, if anything. Expect another lengthy article RC imagine does that for them.
“Because I believe Jesus is the promised Messiah so I can’t be Jewish. “
Plenty of Jews believe Jesus is Messiah.
Prayer and fasting with large doses of biblical truth are the most effective tools to rescue Catholics.
We have had a Catholic visitor come every week to worship for the past two months ... two weeks ago during the presentation of the gospel (we take 10-15 mins every week to present the gospel), she got up out of her seat, stood and publicly proclaimed, "I repent ... Jesus Christ is Lord." ...
She was baptized in a hot tube after worship yesterday in front of the church ... members of her Catholic family witnessed it. She gave her testimony before her dunking ... she mentioned that when confronted with the truth of scripture her eyes were opened.
Salvation,
I suggest you post evidence, not links to other sites.
Let it process through your personal mind first and internalize truth. If someone simply aspires to be concrete drainage pipe, where the water never affect the person, what a shallow existence.
We are having a discussion here. Together. You are very welcome to join. Bring what you have to the party.
RCs have posted the same Staples article on the issue 3 or 4 times already, and which was refuted more than once, but per usual, the papist propaganda continues to be published.
Except another.
Since the Gospel is read in Catholic services, there is the hope that some may turn as it is the power of God. Despite the rest of the teaching, not because of it.
NKP,
Posting someone else’s opinion is different than proof, evidence, or logic. It is a logical fallacy of “appeal to authority.”
As an example here of false evidence that is ultimately just opinion and easy to disprove:
“The doctrine can nowhere be found in the Bible, therefore based on its own premise, it disproves itself.”
The Bible states that “ALL Scripture is profitable for...”, and Scripture lists the functions of the Church, salvation, maturity of believers. So, despite the “Knights” opinion, it is there. Scripture teaches it alone is the inspired record of God’s message to us.
“Furthermore, plenty of Biblical texts can be referenced that call upon Christians to believe in oral Tradition as well as written Scripture (1st Corinthians 11:2; 2nd Thessalonians 2:25; 2nd Thessalonians 3:6; John 21:25).”
Moot point. You do not have a separate list of what those traditions were that Paul referenced. Provide such a list and we can discuss things like how you know that is the list.
“The Scriptures plainly condemn personal and private interpretation of the Bible apart from the established Tradition of the Church (2nd Peter 1:20; 2nd Peter 3:15-16). “
Scripture does the opposite. It never condemns personal study or interpretation. It simply says that the Scriptures themselves (particularly prophecy) did not result from someone’s personal views, but from God Himself.
These are all good examples that demonstrate you posted someone’s opinion and not evidence. As such, it does nothing to substantiate your personal claim that sola scriptura is a heresy.
So far, you’ve made a big claim, posted a link to someone else’s opinion that echoed your own and posted no actual evidence that supports your truth claim.
What else do you have. Anything you can bring personally that requires thought and analysis by yourself?
I’d like to see it.
After that, you can post the additional purported heresies, the examples of “catholic haters”, etc.
Actually, your link goes to an article written by someone else.
What facts, evidence or logic can YOU bring and post here? If someone does more than parrot what others have written, it will have traveled through their own thought process. I’d like you to bring what YOU can. Given that most of the articles I’ve seen you post are poor examples of handling God’s Word, they are just opinions. What do YOU have to bring?
“They way he can be expected to answer is by posting the polemics of others rather than his own, if anything. Expect another lengthy article RC imagine does that for them.”
I always hear on this forum that Catholics produce intellectuals. Frankly, I’d be happy if that were true - particularly if they could know and handle God’s Word.
I spoke with a relative who teaches at a Catholic Seminary. He described himself as a Catholic intellectual, and added, “which is rare.”
I’ve yet to see a single Catholic here who can handle God’s Word and do more than quote a verse out of context - not even knowing what the surrounding argument of the passage is...
I wish more for my Roman ‘brothers’.
Posting someone else’s opinion is not evidence.
Posting a verse out of context because it uses a certain word is not proof.
This article’s beginning gets it off on the wrong foot.
To claim that the church is now in charge because the early Church helped identify the legitimate writings of the Apostles is simply illogical.
It’s the same as saying that soldiers who identify a message from their Commander are now in charge. Hardly, they’re to follow the instructions of the Commander as presented in the message.
Since the Church is built on the foundations of the Apostles and Prophets, once the instructions written by those are identified, then the Church is SUBJECT TO those instructions.
It’s at this point that we look biblically for the existence of a hierarchy in the first Church. It is there. I think it is undeniable biblically that Paul looked for guidance to Jerusalem, that Jerusalem established guidelines that were then communicated to the far-flung churches, and that the sent Paul, who commissioned over-leaders, who commissioned local leaders, who were expected to be obeyed by the Christians in local churches. That is a minimum of 4 levels of leadership.
Why is it legitimate to claim this? Because THE APOSTLES produced inspired literature!
Now, the Apostles also passed on great authority reserved by Jesus to the Church, and we are biblically based on that, too. “Whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven; whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven.”
Anyone who thinks the Church lacks authority is not looking clearly at scripture, in my opinion.
The opening of this article makes it UNHEARABLE by so many. A great disservice has been done to a valid point...the authority of the Church.
Indeed. You would think such critical traditions would be spelled out clearly as in this:
1 Corinthians 15:
Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.
7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.
8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.
9 For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.
10 But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me.
11 Therefore whether it were I or they, so we preach, and so ye believed.
Ok thanks. I would only like to clarify that the line of reasoning I described before (which you analyzed in great detail) is certainly not the foundation of my faith today. Ironically for reasons you describe. One can’t base one’s faith on a claim of authority I agree.
I was describing though how one might approach the “problem” (for lack of a better word) of faith. What is the next most reasonable step, given a faith in God. Then, after that step, there would be another step and another. This is only, ultimately a human way to approach the issue. I’m only human after all so that’s the only way I can approach and tackle any challenge.
Part of this is to recognize how I live and work in other areas. How am I successful, how do I find something to be reasonable. How do I know something is true.
If I have a problem assembling a bike, after reading the directions I call a help line (if it’s available).
If I have problems doing math or science problems at home (homework), I’d ask my teacher for help.
If I have problems in my marriage, (which I don’t, I’m just saying), we would seek help. Maybe even help from a priest.
All of these things are a reasonable first step for their respective problems. No one could say otherwise. No one could reasonably say, “Just go it alone, read the manual again read the math book again, just pray for your marriage don’t seek help. It will all work out if you just have enough ‘faith’”. No one would say that in those situations, not to themselves, not to others.
So for this reason, it seemed to me then, and still seems to me now, to be a good, first step. After all, by that time and certainly now I believed that God was/is Incarnate. So, I reasoned, if God himself took human form, came down to earth to save humanity, then he must want to work IN the world, and not above it as all the other gods of all the other religions. No, he must, for whatever reason value humanity, and want to work in it to save it, even though we screw up all the time.
Since then it’s become clear to me that Christianity is an EVENT, happening now and not merely a lesson in history or a list of things to do (or not do) to “get to heaven” and “avoid hell”. So I still maintain it’s the reasonable thing to do, to at least start with the stewards and instruments of Scripture in a search for an encounter with Christ here and now. Because that’s what I wanted then, and still want now (even though I’ve encountered him some times since then I still want to encounter him again).
Otherwise, it’s not reasonable, it’s not really human to be a Christian. If He is not present and helping us NOW in a tangible way, the only way we can really respond to him as a human, Christianity is just a nice idea. A moralism meant to soothe an impending fear of death, or something checked off a checklist, as any other worldly label, that ultimately means nothing.
This is the level I want, really need, to live my faith. And I submit it’s the level everyone needs to live it, if they are honest with themselves.
The “caucus” article and posts must not compare beliefs or speak in behalf of a belief outside the caucus.
What can be posted? Anything but the beliefs of those who are not members of the caucus
What will be pulled? Reply posts mentioning the beliefs of those who are not members of the caucus. If the article is inappropriate for a caucus, the tag will be changed to open.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2510556/posts
Chaplain excellent analogy. The one I like to use is of the curator of the Louvre. The curator did not make the works of art, but being well versed in art knows art when he sees it and thus sets up the displays.
That, too, is a good analogy.
And for instruction on doing art, you wouldn’t go to the curator; you’d go to the artist.
X
Amen.
Um, does that apply to the trinity too? That exact expression is found nowhere in the Biblical text. Is that “proof” of heresy? Or does it simply serve as a shorthand tag for a body of truth we both know is taught in the Scriptures?
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.