Posted on 08/11/2008 4:58:31 PM PDT by annalex
They did not: the Eucharist was not available to them. The reception of the Eucharist is necessary when it is available, and for virtually everyone today in the free world it is available.
You wrote:
“I never said that I relied on myself.”
You don’t have to say it. Protestants - by the doctrines they espouse - place themselves in a situation in which they must rely on themselves. Martin Luther, himself, the founder of Protestantism, knew this to be true and admitted it.
“Do you read all the words in posts, or do you skim over and post prematurely?”
I read them all. Notice, I, unlike you, respond to almost every single sentence one by one. You have yet to respond to the verses I posted. You still have never toughed Mark 16:16, or Acts 22:16 or Romans 6:3, etc.
“I don’t rely on organized religion to feed me spiritual food.”
You rely on yourself. That’s exactly what I am saying.
“I rely on the Bible.”
You rely on YOUR INTERPRETATION of the Bible. And let’s face it, who knows what the next Protestant, or you, will come up with?
“That’s hardly relying on myself.”
Again, IT IS relying on oneself. That is the ONLY logical explanation as to why their are tens of thousands of Protestant sects who all disagree on this or that but all espouse sola scriptura and use essentially the same Bible.
“You know, God’s Word, the Bible, which we are supposed read in obedience to Him.”
Supposed to read in obedience to Him? You mean illiterate people are in disobedience to God?
“How else are we to know how to conduct ourselves or find comfort?”
Simple. The Church. Christ sent the Church to teach.
“Apparently, after “debating” with you, I think God is trying to humble me, and I need to be more receptive to Him, and less reactive with you.”
Maybe. Maybe He wants you to be more open to His Church.
“YOu don’t think anything you said was offensive because you claim it’s the truth. The truth according to who? You? The catholic church? I am not subject to your churches teachings or rules.”
The truth is the truth no matter who teaches it. No sectarian is subject to the Church for they are outside the Body of Christ.
“If I were to get into a discussion with say, a Methodist. We may disagree with something petty that pertains to church doctrine, but we won’t argue salvation.”
You might. I recently learned that very conservative Lutherans think Methodists are wrong on their teachings about salvation. They’re both Protestant groups, but they disagree and disagree seriously.
“Yet, you did, you insinuated anyone who isn’t catholic is not a true believer. In the long haul we have a common denominator....a belief in Christ as our Savior. Why don’t we just rejoice in the fact that what matters most we agree on, and that’s salvation in Christ. Don’t sweat the other stuff, God can sort it out.”
Indifferentism. That’s what your preaching now. Sorry, I see no reason to sell out the gospel and Church after Christ died to give it to us just to pretend that there aren’t real differences between the truth and Protestantism.
“You weren’t as way off base as I? I will repeat myself, my faith is very important to me, and for you to call it into question was equally offensive to me. And don’t tell me you did’nt, you did.”
I didn’t. Again, for at least the FOURTH OR FIFTH time, I will explain this to you. Look in the dictionary. The two definitions in question are: 1) The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God’s will. And that is the faith you possess and I never once doubted it and I never once questioned it. And 2) The body of dogma of a religion or a set of principles or beliefs. That you do not possess in that you do NOT possess THE universal FAITH of Christianity for that is a fullness of faith that is positively and negatively absent in Protestantism. PERIOD. I have explained this repeatedly. Yet you have repeatedly said I said the EXACT opposite.
“I wasn’t looking for an apology from you. You started again listing all the things I said to you, after I apologized. When someone tells you they are sorry, and you accept it, you don’t keep bringing it up again, because then it appears you haven’t forgiven them.”
No. An apology from someone who keeps doing the same thing over and over again (even after the apology) is worth what exactly? Look above. See “faith” vs “FAITH” brought up yet again? Why apologize and then go back to doing the same thing over and over again?
“And if I go by your posting you didn’t. I can assume, just like you.”
I don’t assume. I read your posts. The fact that I just had to explain faith vs FAITH again shows what I have been saying is true.
“You told the truth, I told the truth.”
No. Again, faith vs. FAITH shows otherwise.
“I had’nt looked at your full post until now. I’ll I can say is....wow. I definitely don’t have enought time in my day to pursue this right now, but you can be sure I will work on it.”
Nothing will change.
“I will admit, I do get a little passionate about what I believe, but the true message of salvation should be most important, and it is for me.”
I have been talking about the true message of salvation. It ISN’T PROTESTANTISM.
“Have you noticed that most of the strife in the world is religiously motivated?”
No, because it isn’t. Most is personal and petty. Religious strife is not personal and not petty by nature. There are far more murders in this world committed for non-religious reasons than religious ones.
“Let me clarify, organized religion, which is manmade.”
No. Christ gathered 12 Apostles. He gathered 70 Apostles. He trained them. He taught them. He commissioned them. That’s organized religion. Christ is God and not just a man. Christianity is not man made. The Church is not man made. Even the name tells you that. “Church” is from the Greek word kryiakos and means “of the Lord” or “belongs to the Lord”. The Church is not man made.
“Maybe, we all, as christians, need to get back to the basics.”
We never left the basics. Christ established the Catholic Church. He gave Catholics the scriptures.
You wrote:
“Congratulations, you have managed to make an Ad hominem attack and mind reading in one short paragraph.”
In any case I won’t lose sleep tonight.
“You are totally wrong and off base.”
Apparently not.
“No need to reply. Future posts from you will be ignored.”
Fine. I’ll still post.
No. Jesus said they MUST eat his flesh and drink his blood. Try again.
1) You meant to say, “Not all the believers were in the Catholic Church.”
NO! NOW WAY. Not all believers were Vatican sheeple--PARTICULARLY before the Vatican's existence about 300-400 AD. Through the centuries, God has always kept a remnant here and there who worshiped HIM IN SPIRIT AND IN TRUTH.
The Vatican power-mongering committee driven pile of heresies beginning 300-400 AD enjoyed military backing . . . but NOT God's anointing nor backing. The same is essentially true only worse today. Thankfully, Some Vatican reps in some Charismatic communities have returned to a Biblical focus . . . largely in spite of the Vatican vs because of it.
2) That is objectively wrong since there was only one Church and believers at the beginning could only be part of ONE Church.
UNMITIGATED HOGWASH!
There were clusters of believers in house churches all over the known world without a shred of authoritarian anything from any political power-mongering oversight commttee AT ALL. Even Paul and crew going down to Jerusalem to deal with the circumcision etc. nonsense did not end up in any kind of routine lines of ecclesiastical authority. INSTITUTIONAL lies to the contrary do NOT turn authentic history into rubber history for the thoughtful and well read.
3) You are admitting that the Catholic Church was there in the beginning. Where was your sect?
BALDERDASH. UNMITIGATED HOGWASH.
A) The Vaticons were NOT there in the beginning. Their political power-mongering military supported pile of stinking bureaucracy didn't arise until 300-400 years later.
B) This compulsion to glorify brazenly fantasized pedigrees is akin to the Jewish Magicsterical's obcessions 2000 years ago with blood descendancy. Christ spoke rather starkly about their priorities then and has not changed HIS TUNE on such in 2000 years.
Prott's spiritual heritage roots are the same place all believers in all Christian groups has always been--rooted and secure in maintaining the overwhelming focus on CHRIST, HIM CRUCIFIED, HIS BLOOD, HIS RESURRECTION LIFE, FOLLOWING HIS SPIRIT into all truth as HE INSTRUCTED.
He didn't think much of the corrupt middle-men in the Jewish Magicsterical 2000 years ago and has routinely removed the anointing from every group's bureaucratic magicsterical ever since. INSTITUTIONS ARE NOTORIOUSLY DEADLY toward authentic RELATIONSHIPS with God.
Father's not all that thrilled with bureaucrats trying to usurp Holy Spirit's roles, either.
“Good grief, there were many different churches in early Bible history, during and after Christ’s death and resurrection.”
No, there were not. There was ONE Church and then there were breakaway sects too.
MORE UNMITIGATED, UNHISTORICAL, INACCURATE BALDERDASH.
There were a plethera of house churches all over the known world from Paul's day to this. Some eras they were few and far between and some eras they were plentiful. God always had at least a remnant who worshiped HIM IN SPIRIT AND IN TRUTH--REGARDLESS. And usually, those closest to HIM walking most IN HIS SPIRIT were the FURTHEST AWAY from CHRISTIAN INSTITUTIONS--particularly !!!!TRADITION!!!! BOUND, BUREAUCRATIC POLITICAL POWER-MONGERING HERETICAL INSTITUTIONS such as that which worsened by the century by the Tiber.
“To say they are all Catholic is a falsehood from the Church.”
You sure got that right, Mary.
No, it is simply the truth and reality. Logically, there was only one Church established by Christ.
MORE UNMITIGATED HOGWASH.
ALL THE BELIEVERS in the myriad of house churches worshiping God in Spirit and in Truth were part of the Church Universal--and often--exclusively so as various "CHRISTIAN" institutions LEFT GOD IN THE DUST in favor of their gods of bureaucracy; power-mongering; !!!!TRADITION!!!!; vain-glory; self-righteousness; magicsterical power plays; . . .
Thankfully, God has always had a people, even when INSTITUTIONS which bore His Name have behaved the opposite of His priorities.
The original term catholic was for all believers of The Gospel. The term was twisted later.
How they must have hated the printing press. Now, no matter how many times these fairy tales of a hierarchy having a say in our salvation are told all we have to do is search the Scriptures for the Truth.
AMEN! AMEN! AMEN!
The twisters of truth have always construed themselves to be patron protectors.
God has a different perspective.
Thank you, Quix. Good answers.
Thanks for your kind words.
Here’s a link to some interesting Japanese waterfall art:
ATS THREAD:
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread381142/pg1
youtube video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0HeUixe_Lpg
Vlad, there will only be Christians in Heaven and they won’t be called ‘Catholics’ there. Cheez.
He gave every believer the scriptures. Not just catholics.
You wrote:
“Vlad, there will only be Christians in Heaven and they won’t be called ‘Catholics’ there. Cheez.”
I believe there may be some non-Christians in heaven such as Jews from before Jesus’ earthly existence. Also, I wouldn’t be surprised to discover babies who died in heaven too. And what about those who did the best they could but never knew Christ? I don’t think we can assume they’re automatically condemned to hell.
And yes, everyone in heaven is Catholic so to speak and there’s no reason to think they won’t be called such.
You wrote:
“He gave every believer the scriptures. Not just catholics.”
The believers were Catholics.
They weren’t then and they aren’t now. Deal with it.
I have always believed babies went to heaven. No surprise there. If they didn’t know Christ, they probably will not be in heaven. But that’s up to God. He knows their hearts. My point is that Christians will not be called Catholics in heaven.
In these countries are congregations which form two basic types with regard to the circumstances surrounding their founding:
1. There are those that form as a result of an evangelist/missionary/apostle - type of preacher out of another indigenous congregation who goes to a place where the Gospel has never been preached. Or sometimes the Gospel had been preached there in the past but not accepted by a sufficient number of people to bring forth a stable congregation.
2. There are also those that formed when individual believers, who learned the Gospel of the sufficiency of Christ's Redemption work directly from the Scriptures, began to meet, and pray, and study the Scriptures, and worship and serve, and evangelize. From within that group, the Lord would either call and raise up an undersheperd, or the Lord would send a pastor to them as a result of their prayers.
Churches have been established by both of these methods and led by the Holy Spirit through the Scriptures without any kind of “world-wide” religious organization ever being within a thousand miles.
When, from-time-to-time, many of these churches come across each other's existence, it is amazing how that they are able to fellowship with each other around the Person of Jesus Christ their Saviour. It is amazing how that they come to doctrinal agreement and position from the Scriptures, and even their practices.
Now to be honest and fair, with the global proliferation of the Internet, there are new congregations forming that are simply copy-cats of something that they might see on the Internet (or now on TV). But this wasn't the case before the mid 1990s, where the smaller towns and more remote areas of these countries yet didn't have ready access to the Internet.
It didn't take long during the days of the Apostles for the Gospel of the Grace of God to spread by the agency of simple Christian people who moved around the Roman Empire. And the Scriptures were spreading by copy after copy after copy pretty quickly, too. To think that, for example, the Book of 1 Thessalonians (Paul's earliest book) didn't begin to be copied locally in Thessalonica and distributed widely, would be ridiculous.
The Scriptures were not sitting unused, uncopied, and undistributed before some councils somewhere, 150 years later, thought that they were smart enough to decide what was the Word of God. Someone might want to argue that it was some council that “determined” the canonicity of the books of the New Testament. Guess what! every Book of Scripture was ALREADY being read, copied, carried far and wide, and being believed, L O N G before any council ever got so big for their britches that they thought they could decide the issue.
Let's take the Corinthian Epistles for example. At some point, some council (we don't care WHAT council it was!) came up with the conclusion that Paul's letters to the Corinthian church were genuine and canonical. So what?! What if they hadn't? It would not make them any less the Word of God! And by the time that council decided for their canonicity, there had already been hand-written copies of the Epistles by the hundreds, and perhaps thousands. First and Second Corinthians were being proliferated far beyond the reach of any council L O N G before that council ever thought there need be an examination of them.
Just as indigenous congregations of believers form (as described above) in communist countries, so congregations formed all over the Roman Empire and beyond. And it was happening without a hieraechy, without a council, without a missionary society, without a denomination, without a so-called “successor of Peter,” or anything else liturgical or regurgical.
It was only later that bishops in certain areas got together under Constantine (who had armies and police and assassins, etc., etc.) and appointed themselves the judges over the churches, and decided that they would pretty much rule a big church like the Emperor ruled Rome, which was a violation of the instructions to the Apostles in Matthew chapter 20 altogether.
Thanks, Quix, for your remarks.
“You don’t have to say it. Protestants - by the doctrines they espouse - place themselves in a situation in which they must rely on themselves. Martin Luther, himself, the founder of Protestantism, knew this to be true and admitted it.”
The operative word here is doctrine. Doctrines are dictates from man. How is it the Disciples ever managed before the organized religion of the catholics? Christ’s True Church started in Jerusalem. Martin Luther had an epiphany. He wanted the church to get back to the Scriptures.
“I read them all. Notice, I, unlike you, respond to almost every single sentence one by one. You have yet to respond to the verses I posted. You still have never toughed Mark 16:16, or Acts 22:16 or Romans 6:3, etc.”
You were as selective as I in what you answered. I have no issue with being baptized. I was baptized when I was a teenager, am I saved now? Even though I’m not catholic? There is no Scripture that says if you believe in Jesus Christ, but don’t get baptized, you are condemned to hell. If you believe that, then YOU are assuming something that isn’t there.
“You rely on yourself. That’s exactly what I am saying.”
Because I don’t take my orders from the catholic church I’m relying on myself? I never said I relied on myself. I put my faith in Christ, so I’m relying on Him. I can do that, can’t I? Or should I be clearing my faith in Him through the catholic church first? So I need their (church) permission to be able to believe that Christ died for my sins? So I should go to the nearest catholic church and ask them if it’s okay that I believe that Christ died for my sins? Yeah, right. God is my authority which is contrary to your misguided perception of the catholic church being the final authority.
“You rely on YOUR INTERPRETATION of the Bible. And let’s face it, who knows what the next Protestant, or you, will come up with?”
John 14:16 “And I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Counselor to be with you forever—The Spirit of Truth.”
II Cor 1:21-22 “Now it is God who makes both us and you stand firm in Christ. He anointed us, set His seal of ownership on us, and put His Spirit in our heart as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come.”
John 16:13 “But when he, the Spirit of Truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth.”
Pray tell, where do you get your interpretation? From the Pope?
“Supposed to read in obedience to Him? You mean illiterate people are in disobedience to God?”
Get thee behind me, Satan.
“Simple. The Church. Christ sent the Church to teach.”
Are you saying the catholic church is your mediator?
I Tim 2:5-6 “For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself as a ransom for all men—the testimony given in its proper time.”
“Maybe. Maybe He wants you to be more open to His Church.”
I am more open to His Church. My dispute is with the catholic church.
“The truth is the truth no matter who teaches it. No sectarian is subject to the Church for they are outside the Body of Christ.”
Think about what you’re saying. No matter who teaches it? Then why do you have trouble with the Protestants? I am in the Body of Christ, yet you dismiss everything I say.
“You might. I recently learned that very conservative Lutherans think Methodists are wrong on their teachings about salvation. They’re both Protestant groups, but they disagree and disagree seriously.”
How do you explain the Charismatic Catholics?
“Indifferentism. That’s what your preaching now. Sorry, I see no reason to sell out the gospel and Church after Christ died to give it to us just to pretend that there aren’t real differences between the truth and Protestantism.”
Indifferentism? Is that a new word? You seem very bitter toward the Protestants. I am not a sell-out of the gospel of Christ. What’s the difference between the truth and Protestantism? Just use Scripture to back up what you’re saying, not something the Pope said.
“I didn’t. Again, for at least the FOURTH OR FIFTH time, I will explain this to you. Look in the dictionary. The two definitions in question are: 1) The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God’s will. And that is the faith you possess and I never once doubted it and I never once questioned it. And 2) The body of dogma of a religion or a set of principles or beliefs. That you do not possess in that you do NOT possess THE universal FAITH of Christianity for that is a fullness of faith that is positively and negatively absent in Protestantism. PERIOD. I have explained this repeatedly. Yet you have repeatedly said I said the EXACT opposite.”
You have to go to a dictionary to find the definition of faith?
Eph 4:4-7 “There is one body and one spirit—just as you were called to one hope when you were called—One Lord, ONE FAITH, One Baptism; One God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. But to each one of us grace has been given as Christ apportioned it.”
“No. An apology from someone who keeps doing the same thing over and over again (even after the apology) is worth what exactly? Look above. See “faith” vs “FAITH” brought up yet again? Why apologize and then go back to doing the same thing over and over again?”
Matt 18: “Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, “Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother when he sins against me? Up to seven times?” Jesus answered, “I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times.”
“I don’t assume. I read your posts. The fact that I just had to explain faith vs FAITH again shows what I have been saying is true.”
Why stop at two faiths? Why not go the distance and pull some more out of your hat? One is doctrine and the other is faith. Are, these two faiths you have, scriptural?
“No. Again, faith vs. FAITH shows otherwise.”
Again, “One Hope, One Faith, One Baptism.”
“Nothing will change.”
I agree.
“I have been talking about the true message of salvation. It ISN’T PROTESTANTISM.”
Says who? You? The Pope? The Bible says difference. The catholic church hasn’t cornered the market on salvation. Good News is available to all.
Rom 3:23-24 “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by His grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.”
“We never left the basics.”
How can you see the basics through all the bureaucracy and red tape?
“Christ established the Catholic Church. He gave Catholics the scriptures.”
No, dear, Christ established HIS Church. And membership is open to(dare I say it?) ALL who believe, not just catholics.
Goodnight Vlad
or anything else liturgical or regurgical.
It was only later that bishops in certain areas got together under Constantine (who had armies and police and assassins, etc., etc.) and appointed themselves the judges over the churches, and decided that they would pretty much rule a big church like the Emperor ruled Rome, which was a violation of the instructions to the Apostles in Matthew chapter 20 altogether.
= = =
INDEED.
Quite so.
. . . particularly the regurgical part. LOL.
Thanks tons and tons for your comments.
Blessed be the Name of The Lord.
Excellent.
Very well put.
Thanks.
You wrote:
“They weren’t then and they aren’t now. Deal with it.”
They were then and still are now and now Protestants are here too. Deal with it yourself.
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.