I am down to point #12. The author still has not stated that he **knows** the Catholic Church is true because he has the witness of the Holy Ghost telling him it is so.
So far....everything is in his own head.
#1 “Social ethic”
#12 universal equality
Anyway, i do not intend to go thru all 150 now, but as usual, examination the 27 that i did exposes the specious nature of his assertions. And which is followed by 22 reasons why you should not be a RC. Sorry for the length, but you started it. .
False Reasons for being a Catholic.
Doubtful, as the fact is that Armstrong's assurance that Rome is the One True Church® cannot on the basis that the Biblical data is the supreme standard for determining Truth, as for him the church of Rome is. In contrast, the evangelical basis for Truth is that which the church began upon, Scriptural substantiation in word and in power. Under which, to the degree that we have men like the NT apostles — which all fall short of, especially Rome, we have Scriptural doctrinal and organizational unity. But which is not based on implicit assent to a church presuming assured veracity. And as judged upon Scripture, the Roman Catholic Church critically fails conform to all of the biblical data for what the NT church is, and instead provides a coherent view of the history of deformation of Christianity (based on false apostolic Tradition), which in essence became cultic (with herself as the supreme infallible authority). And which provides a most profound and sublime example of aberrational Christian morality, spirituality, social ethic, and philosophy, in addition to still affirming basic gospel truths by which some could be saved.
Again, if this were the basis for his assurance he would be an evangelical. Rather, I am a not a Catholic because I sincerely believe, by virtue of much cumulative evidence, as a former Roman Catholic, raised by devout parents, and as a weekly Mass goer, and who served as a CCD teacher and lector during the 6 years that i stayed after becoming truly born again and realizing the profound changes that this effects (including a greater awareness of sins), that Catholicism is not true in critical areas. But is a visible example of a Church contrary to that which is divinely-established by our Lord Jesus, and which has become as the gates of hell (Mt 16:18) for most of her multitudes. Nor can she prevail against churches which are part of the body of Christ which reprove her, and does not possess the supreme authority to which she presumes to be, and requires every Christian to submit to.
Yet if so, then as a result of Armstrong becoming a Catholic purportedly by examining the evidence, he now is in Romanism which discourages her subjects from objectively examining evidence in order to ascertain the veracity of Roman Catholic doctrine. “He is as sure of a truth when declared by the Catholic Church as he would be if he saw Jesus Christ standing before him and heard Him declaring it with His Own Divine lips.” “Absolute, immediate, and unfaltering submission to the teaching of God's Church on matters of faith and morals-----this is what all must give..” “The Vicar of Christ is the Vicar of God; to us the voice of the Pope is the voice of God. This, too, is why Catholics would never dream of calling in question the utterance of a priest in expounding Christian doctrine according to the teaching of the Church;” “Henry G. Graham, "What Faith Really Means", (Nihil Obstat:C. SCHUT, S. T.D., Censor Deputatus, Imprimatur: EDM. CANONICUS SURMONT, D.D.,Vicarius Generalis. WESTMONASTERII, Die 30 Septembris, 1914 ; http://www.catholictradition.org/Tradition/faith2-10.htm)] “The intolerance of the Church toward error, the natural position of one who is the custodian of truth, her only reasonable attitude makes her forbid her children to read or to listen to heretical controversy, or to endeavor to discover religious truths by examining both sides of the question. - John H. Stapleton, Explanation of Catholic Morals. (More: — (John H. Stapleton, Explanation of Catholic Morals, Chapters XIX, XXIII. the consistent believer (1904); Nihil Obstat. Remy Lafort, Censor Librorum. Imprimatur, John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York; http://www.gutenberg.org/files/18438/18438-h/18438-h.htm ) More. For Armstrong was relying on his fallible reasoning, by which he cannot have assurance as an Roman Catholic, to fallibly decide to render implicit submission to an institution that has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares. Now that's assurance. Now that's cultic. In reality, Catholicism is seriously deficient in its interpretation of the Bible (e.g., assured infallibility, infant regeneration by sprinkling of water in recognition of proxy faith, justification via interior holiness, salvation by grace through merit,, a separate class of called called priests, gaining spiritual life by eating human flesh, praying to the departed, purgatory, the Immaculate Conception, the demigodess Mary of Rome, including her being a perpetually sinless virgin, Queen of Heaven, etc.) — if it even claims such traditions are based upon Scriptural warrant, which they are not.
Deception, as you have EOs, the sedevacantists, and sects as the SSPX, as well as the multitudes of Catholics interpreting Rome differently, including on what cannot be interpreted differently, not to mention Scripture. "The Orthodox Church opposes the Roman doctrines of universal papal jurisdiction, papal infallibility, purgatory, and the Immaculate Conception precisely because they are untraditional." — Clark Carlton, THE WAY: What Every Protestant Should Know About the Orthodox Church, 1997, p 135. The unity that Jn. 17:20-23 refers to is most essentially that which is of the body of Christ through regeneration” Christ in them and they in Christ, which few RCs know of and thus have no fellowship of the Spirit which evangelicals realize across denominational lines, centered on a common conversion to Christ and Scripture based relationship with Him, Instead, Roman Catholics incessantly promote their church, as that is where their treasure and and security is. And Rome makes a mockery of Rom 16:17, as having lost her unholy secular sword, she abounds with doctrinal deviants to her own doctrine, while her own basis for determining truth leaves her cultic.. As for 1 Cor 1:10-13, the ONLY way Catholics are “”perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment” is on paper in a very limited amount of things, which themselves can be subject to some interpretation.
Incredible insolence. Rather, “For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written.” (Romans 2:24) The legacy of Rome is that of becoming like the government it was founded under, and ended up using its means. History testifies to such things as her Caesariopapacy, assured (additional) infallibility, papal sanctioned institutional torture and murder of theological dissidents, hindrance of personal Bible reading, cultic devotion or perfunctory professions, and spiritual deadness and overall liberalism after she lost the power of the sword of men, by which she owes much of her predominance. Thus most of the multitudes who leave Rome for evangelical churches did so due to her spiritual deadness. Rather than making Christianity and Jesus more believable to the world, her deadness, arrogance and and aberrations makes a supreme mockery of the Christian faith. Not that i come short of what i should be, and evangelical churches do also, but we do not claim to be the One True Church or little popes.
The man is reading too much of Roman PR. Instead, what Rome overall fosters is liberalism and secular socialization. And as what we really believe is known by what we do and convey, this is what Rome believes, as she treats even notorious impenitent proabortion, prosodomy public sinners as members in life and in death. Like Teddy K.
This is becoming like talking to a used car salesmen. The idea that Catholicism has no schism in the body; but that the members have the same care one for another is absurd. Catholics actually disagrees with their church more than most, and are far less unified in core truths than evangelicals. And the typical mass shows little real community outside of prescribed observance the ritual.
Another lie. Read the notes in the Roman Catholic NAB for decades. And of Muslims adoring the same God as Christians. Etc. And dogmatic certainty means, among other examples, damning all who are not in the bosom of the church in many previous centuries, then redefining that to mean such are separated brethren in another. Meanwhile the centrality of the papacy is itself an unScriptural error.
More imagination or deceptive advertising, as in reality it is in Roman Catholicism that lack of discipline is supremely evident. Known pro-homosexual, pro-liberal Catholics, as well as the divorced etc. can go from one parish to another parish, but rarely need to. And ones who needed to go to another parish included pedophile priests whom Rome shuffled around for decades, until exposed by external agencies. Yet this apologists boasts about her discipline. Meanwhile Catholicism ignores evangelical ecclesiological unity based upon shared personal regeneration to the Lord Jesus, which transcends external divisions, and instead Rome substitutes institutionalized religion and overall mere religious unity in spiritual deadness.
Besides repeating himself, what he should have said was “in theory.” See #8. In addition, Armstrong and repeatedly engages in a false comparison, that of comparing one church (since Rome is in schism with the EOs) with multitudes of churches, many which are no more Protestant in the classical sense than Santería is Catholic, while also including many who operate under the sola ecclesia model like as Rome does. In contrast, those who are most committed to Scripture being the supreme authority as the infallibly basically literal assured Word of God have far more unity than Catholics overall in core truths. The modern fundamental evangelical movement arose due to a shared contention for core truths in opposition cults and liberal revisionism, which much of Roman scholarship is infected with.
More insolence. What he means is that Catholicism has not rejected the state church as long as she dominates it. Any rejection of the state church is quite recent, and is a result of Rome losing her unholy secular power of the sword of men. And considering how she has redefined herself in the past, she could sanction such use by her in the future. In contrast, fundamental evangelical type churches depend upon conversion for their membership, not paedobaptism or the marriage of state and church.
Absolutely incredible. He must think his readers know nothing about history. It was Rome which majored in nationalistic theocracies, while being unable to be so herself, recently you have papal promotion of a one world government (“there is urgent need of a true world political authority, as my predecessor Blessed John XXIII indicated some years ago...vested with the effective power to ensure security for all, regard for justice” — CARITAS IN VERITATE) And Catholics are less likely to favor such groups as the Tea party than evangelicals.
Oh yes, we all long for the good old days of the positions. What he doesn't say is this required marriage of church and state church. And cults have the most degree of unity, as the dissent therein is alsostrongly suppressed. Neither of which is New Testament Christianity. Meanwhile, the religious wars were much a result of the holdover of theocracies which Rome fostered, and also were due to her elitism and recalcitrance in the face of reproof. But division is often necessary because of truth, and such is far greater than unity at the expense of it. But as he seems to fondly look back to the days of the inquisitions, Armstrong's solution would be for Rome to reign as a universal monarchy, in which all dissent would be suppressed.
More spin. Meaning that, Rome's understanding of mystery and the supernatural means that she opposes the most committed evangelical Christians who hold Scripture as the supreme infallible authority, and longs for the day when she could have the power to limit their influence under a unified Catholic Christendom with the state enforcing her ecclesiastical decrees.
More insolence. Ask a liberal if he thinks evangelicals have left the “public square barren of Christian influence.” Instead, the fruit of Rome is primarily responsible for the decreased esteem of the opinion of the church, and Catholics are among the least committed to conservative values, versus evangelical, which liberals count as the greatest threat to their preeminence, which for RCs is the primary issue.
More insolence. For once again, it is Catholics who are overall more liberal and less less committed politically to conservative values then there evangelical counterparts.
More fallacy. A “vision” of the church emphasizing holiness, or another emphasizing evangelism, or another emphasizing doctrinal purity and service, or another emphasizing the use of spiritual gifts, are not traditions of men, but emphasis upon aspects of the church, as a whole they work to complement each other. And as we see in the Scriptures, churches were not clones or unified by looking to supreme head in Rome. Meanwhile many examples could be given of popes contradicting each other,and of unScriptural teachings. The fact that people stay in Rome despite her aberrations is not a positive sign but a negative one. There certainly is division within Protestantism, but due to the diversity usually ascribed to it, a valid comparison between churches is on the basis for determining truth, with Scripture being supreme as the infallible inspired and basically literal word of God, or that of the church being the supreme authority on truth. And under both models you have varying degrees of unity and of division. Therefore, we must examine a which basis the church itself began. Which is not under the premise of a perpetual assuredly infallible magisterium, but upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power. Therefore the church was founded in dissent from those who were the stewards of Scripture, and instead followed an itinerant preacher who reproved them by Scripture, (Mk. 7:2-16) and established claims upon the scriptural means stated. The stronger the scriptural substantiation, the greater unity one warrants.
Moore insolence. If anyone has been historically guilty of making their leaders into infallible demigods it has been Rome. The closest I see within Protestantism is amongst certain so-called “faith teachers” with their version of papal palaces. But as yet I have yet to see any of them having their feet kissed as a matter of protocol, and with royal crowns, Sum Young Moon being the only one I can think of, but that is hardly Protestant. And none of them, except those in cults, claims assured veracity whenever they speak of faith and morals to the whole church. But n Rome an individual is declared to be assuredly infallible, and infallibly declares itself to be so, and fosters I high level of faith dependence on herself. Thus Catholics become extremely reactionary when their source of security is impugned in the least. And the reason pastors are very important in evangelical congregations is because gifted preachers are expounding the word of God in lengthy sermons, rather than watching a ritual every week in which they give prescribed responses, and try to listen to a (typically boring) 10 min. sermonette. Yet, rather than being lost without their church, evangelicals overall rather easily adapt to new congregations, in which they find the unity that transcends divisions.
Increasingly it is evident that Armstrong entertains a mystical vision of his own church, while opposing an objective view of those without. Even if he is looking to some official documentation of his church as determining what it really believes and teaches, as sedevacantists while argue, these can be somewhat radically interpreted. And yet Scripturally, (Ja. 2:18) what one does is what it really believes, and what Rome really actually teaches and fosters is much accommodation to the spirit of the age. Including in Bible scholarship.
More mythology. Scripturally, you cannot find any example of an apostolic successor after that for Judas, who was selected by a method Rome never used (which could eliminate the politics usually involved), and which was to maintain original number of the twelve, thus, only one was elected, which Rome also deviates from. And her idea of unbroken succession is an embarrassment, nor is historical dissent the basis for authenticity. For God can raise up from stones (Mt. 3:9) men who had the faith of Peter, to continue to build his church, the body of Christ, which is manifest by faith working by love.
Actually, they should know Christian history, which exposes the deformation the Christian church realize as it became more Romanized. It is thus understandable that knowing the history of Rome would lead to anti-Catholicism, as it testifies to her "reinventing the wheel," or in this case the NT church.
More sophistry and lying. The church itself was anti-Pharisee from its inception, and yet it was from the Jews, from which the bulk of our Scriptures came, that they inherited the bulk of their theology. Therefore, according to Catholic logic, the church was invalid since it began in dissent from the people who actually sat in the seat of Moses, having historical descent. However Protestantism is not based upon the premise that the church ceased to exist before the Reformation, but although deformed, basic Gospel truths were held to, sufficient for souls to be saved by looking through the institutionalized trappings and errors coexisting with it and Catholicism, especially its elitist Roman variety. As for the Catholic Church not being anti-Protestant, that is absurd, for despite whatever deceptive sophistry justifies a statement, the fact is that one cannot be for Rome being the one true church, and not be anti-Protestant, nor can one uphold (among other things) Scriptures as being the supreme authority on truth and not be anti-Catholic.
And yet Rome disagrees with Eastern Orthodox in substantial matters, while Ecumenical Councils were not assuredly infallible even if Rome infallibly declares that she is when speaking according to her infallibly declared formula. Reformers also upheld and contend for much of what Ecumenical Councils held as truth, just as the church upheld things the Pharisees held as truth, yet which did not make them infallible while Scripture is the supreme judge of both.
Here, the apologists is writing like a novice, unless he really believes such a spin, for there were not two offices of bishop (episkopos=overseer) and elder (presbuteros), they both refer to the same pastoral office. (Titus 1:5-7) And New Testament pastors are never titled “priests” by the Holy Spirit which in Greek is a distinctive word only used for Jewish or pagan priests. But which Catholics entomologically extrapolate from “presbuteros,” by imposed functional equivalence, based upon the erroneous premise that they engaged in a unique sacrificial function, that of turning bread into body of Christ. Yet all believers constitute the only priesthood in the New Testament church, (1Pt. 2:5,9) and all engage in sacrifice, (Rm. 12:1) and in no place is a New Testament pastor shown presiding over the Lord's supper and dispensing bread, let alone being described as changing it into the so-called “real presence” (a word apparently having its beginnings with Anglicans).
And even without a universal centralized magisterium, which actually should be a goal if we can find people like the apostles, those who are the most committed to Scripture as the supreme authority testify of far greater unity than Catholics overall. Thus we must ask, which is most effective? Sola ecclesia is easiest way to attain unity, but only in so far as it enforces doctrinal conformity, which for Rome is too much rely upon the ultimate threat of physical coercion as often seen in the inquisitions. However, neither sola ecclesia nor the use of the sort of man to deal with doctrinal nonconformity is scriptural. Unity in the New Testament church was based upon scriptural substantiation, establishing the authority of the apostles, the degree of which we do not see today, especially in Rome. Yet, while strong expository preaching of the Scriptures as the authoritative assured word of God, does more to foster scriptural unity on the practical level then sola ecclesia, which unity is of far greater quality than that which is based upon implicit assent to a presumed infallible magisterium. In addition, the the best an individual Protestant can do is not a head count, as denominations usually have a teaching office that upholds basic doctrinal truths, and provides a statement of faith, The reality is that it is far easier to find priests with very diverse views on core doctrines than among fundamental evangelical pastors, which Rome counts as her greatest ecclesiastical enemies.
Based upon this premise. The church itself must be ruled invalid. For it began approximately 30 A.D., and historically is a Johnny-come-lately, having begun by following a pious man in the desert who ate insects and an itinerant preacher of great power and holiness, both of whom were rejected by those who sat in the seat of Moses, and who had historical descent, and were the stewards is Scripture and inheritors of divine promises of God's presence and preservation. But if indeed the church began upon the premise of scriptural substantiation, and of God can raise of stones children to Abraham, and thus men who had the faith of Peter in the divine son of God, then he can raise up men to continue to build the church when it's magisterium continues in his pride and errors. Thus God did so in the past (“prophets, and wise men, and scribes:' Mt. 23:34) and thus the church began and thus it continues.
Indeed it would be if it meant the church is only “invisible” but it does not. But what is Scriptural is that the only One True Church is the body of Christ, the “household of faith,” as only it consists of true believers, and is what the word “church” normally refers to, to which Christ is married. (Eph. 5:25ff) But this body is indeed manifest as organic congregations, having ordained pastors, and exercising discipline, etc. And which Rome is a critically deformed example of. Her boast is that of a universal centralized magisterium, but as she lacks the actual apostolic supernatural power and credentials of the apostles of Scripture — who did not even claim the perpetual assured infallibility of office as per Rome - she cannot exercise universal power overall Christendom. Thus despite her “infallible” pretensions, she is one of many magisteriums, and cultic in her claims. |
|
At this point, since number 27 deals with the nature of the New Testament church, it would be fitting to delineate aspects which Rome is contrary to. Far more could be added, but which should not be necessary. 20 Reasons Why You should NOT be a Roman Catholic. ► 1. The New Testament church was not established upon the premise of an perpetual assuredly infallible magisterium being necessary to determine truth (which Rome infallibly defines she is, when speaking in accordance with her infallibly defined formula), including which men and writings were of God and which were not, so that those it rejects must be rejected. For indeed, both men and writings of God were recognized and established as being so long before there ever was the church of Rome. And the church began in dissent from those who sat in the seat Moses, having historical descent as inheritors of the promises of God's presence and preservation, and the student of holy writ. (Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Num. 23:19,23; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34; Mal. 3:6; Rm. 3:2; 9:4) Instead the church began, and assurance of faith was realized in the light of Scriptural substantiation in text and in power, upon which the Lord and His church established their Truth claims. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39, 14:11; Acts 17:2,11; Rm. 15:19; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.) ► 2. The New Testament church was not established under the premise of sola ecclesia, in which the church is the supreme and indisputable authority on truth, but instead it is abundantly evidenced that Scripture was held has being the assured Word of God and transcendent standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims. And thus contrary to Rome, the NT church did not and would not discourage objective Scriptural examination of his teachings by its members in order to ascertain the veracity of them. ► 3. The New Testament church did not have any apostolic successors except for Judas, who was elected in order to maintain the original number of the twelve, thus only one was elected. (Acts 1:16-26; cf. Rev. 21:14). ► 4. The New Testament church did not preach a gospel of institutionalized religion, in which one even an morally incognizant infant is held to be born again due to the very act of baptism, in recogition of proxy faith, and formally justified by interior holiness. And who then is taught they can eventually become good enough to enter Heaven through the power of the church by cooperating with grace dispensed through rituals which work ex opere operato (by the act itself) but which foster perfunctory professions. And which process typically ends as the salvation system began, by becoming good enough to actually enter heaven, this time through an indeterminate time in the fires of Roman Catholic purgatory (commencing at death), for which indulgences and offerings to departed souls are said to help. ► 5. It is doubtful that the New Testament church engaged in the practice of baptizing infants, as infants cannot fulfill the stated requirements for baptism, (Acts 2:38; 8:36,37) and the NT conspicuously provides manifest zero examples of this supposedly critical practice, and where there is much of any description of household baptisms, what is indicated is that the baptized could hear. "But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. " (Acts 8:12) "And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway. " (Acts 16:32-33 ► 6. The NT church did not teach or treat the Lord's supper was the means by which souls gain life in them, or that spiritual life was gained by physically eating anything, nor that not “discerning the body” referred to the elements of the supper versus members of the church. ► 7. The NT church is not that whose meetings are described as that centering on the worshiping and ingesting a wafer of bread as being Christ, and instead, the only manifest description of the Lord's supper, is that which it was a communal meal, the “feast of charity,” (Jude. 1:12) with the focus not being on the nature of the elements eaten, but on the church as being the body of Christ. See here. ► 8. The New Testament church did not have any apostolic successors elected by voting, versus the OT method of casting lots, and which thus was often the result of included bribery, political intimidation, and centuries of Italian superiority, and immoral men who would be qualified to be or remain a church member, let alone an apostolic successor. "And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen,” “And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles. " (Acts 1:24,26) ► 9. The New Testament church was not one that corporately looked to Peter being the first of the line of popes reigning in Rome to whom all the church looked to as it's supreme infallible head, even Roman Catholic scholarship, among that of others, provides evidence contrary to. Or that was given any exhortation or command to the churches to submit to Peter as its supreme head, or such a title being give him confirming him as the rock upon which the church was built, as Rome contends (without the “unanimous consent of the fathers”). A most conspicuous absence in the light of the type of cardinal importance Rome shows. ► 10. The New Testament church was not all look to Peter as being the rock upon which the church is built, for besides (for what its worth) that interpretation not having "unanimous consent" of the fathers (which is spun by Rome to mean something other than what the term conveys), that the Lord Jesus is the rock of Peter's confession upon which the church is built is one of the most abundantly confirmed teachings in the Bible (petra: Rm. 9:33; 1Cor. 10:4; 1Pet. 2:8; Rev. 4:3) or "stone" (lithos) (Mat. 21:42; Mk.12:10-11; Lk. 20:17-18; Acts. 4:11; Rm. 9:33; Eph. 2:20) as stated by Peter himself. (1Pet. 2:4-8; cf. Dt 32:4, Is. 28:16) ► 11. The NT church did not have a separate sacerdotal class of clergy titled "priests - a word never used distinctly for any NT pastor, in distinction with the Jews. "For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, ...For a bishop must be blameless..." See here on Titus 1:5,7) And the only priesthoods of the New Testament church is that which consist of all believers, (1Pt. 2:5,9; ; Rv. 1:6; 5:10; 20:6) as all engage in sacrifice. (Rm. 12:1; 15:16; Phil. 2:17; 4:18; Heb. 13:15,16; cf. 9:9) ► 12. The NT church did not have a clergy that differentiated between bishops and elders, and with grand titles ("Most Reverend Eminence," “Very Reverend,” “Most Illustrious and Most Reverend Lord,” “His Eminence Cardinal,” “The Most Reverend the Archbishop,” etc.) and also made distinct by their ostentatious pompous garb. (Matthew 23:5-7) And likewise with a pope enthroned like a Caesar, with his subjects bowing down to him and kissing his feet." "And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him. But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man." (Acts 10:25-26) ► 13. The NT church did not have required (with rare exceptions) clerical celibacy, which presumes all such have that gift. "A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, ..One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) " (1 Timothy 3:2,4,5) "For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that. " (1 Corinthians 7:7) ► 14. The NT church did not have a separate class of believers called “saints,” or the mention of the postmortem location of the saints being in purgatory versus with the Lord. (Lk. 24:43; 2Cor. 5:8; Phil. 1:23; 1Thes. 4:17) ► 15. The NT church did not engage in the practice of praying to the departed, as Scripture provides zero examples of anyone except pagans praying to anyone in heaven but the Lord, nor in instructions on who to pray to, such as the Lord himself taught in instructing on how to pray (“our Father who art in heaven”). ► 16. and the hyper exaltation of and devotion to Mary above that which is written. (1Cor. 4:6) ► 17 The NT church did not engage in the practice of baptizing infants. Infants cannot fulfill the stated requirements for baptism, (Acts 2:38; 8:36,37) and the NT conspicuously provides zero examples of this supposedly critical practice, and where there is any description of household baptisms, what is supported is that the baptized could hear. "But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. " (Acts 8:12) "And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway." (Acts 16:32-33) ► 18. The New Testament church was not a church that conformed to this world in using papal sanctioned physical oppression, torture, burning and death to deal with theological dissent. Or who, having lost that power, treats notorious manifestly impenitent public sinners as members in life and in death, in contrast to the NT means of disfellowship and spiritual discipline. “I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators ....But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person. " (1 Corinthians 5:13) "Of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme. " (1 Timothy 1:20) ► 19 The NT church did not have or would pass laws that greatly restricted personal reading of Scripture by laity (contrary to Chrysostom), if able and available, sometimes even outlawing it when it was. "And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. " (2 Timothy 3:15) "And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures." (Acts 17:2) ► 21. The NT church was not a church that sanctioned teaching millions such things as that OT miraculous stories are fables or folktales, and that some historical accounts may not be literally accurate (sermon on the mount, etc.) "For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. " (Matthew 12:40) ► 22. The NT church was not a church that taught or would teach or say that the deity Muslims worship (not as unknown) is the same as theirs. "But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils. " (1 Corinthians 10:20) |
Bookmarking
Most of those reasons apply to Eastern Orthodox, the original church, not the Roman spin-off!
It’s painfully obvious that Jesus intended his teaching to be transmitted ONLY by means of writings, not by a “church.” He NEVER said he was going to found a “church.” NEVER. There is not one passage in any of the four gospels where Jesus speaks of a “church.” He also never spoke of sharing any of his authority with mere men. He never said he would give anyone “the keys of the kingdom.” He never commanded the apostles to do what he did at the Last Supper—i.e., share his body and blood, or eat and drink it. Never. He never said he was going to give anyone the authority to forgive sins. Never.
He DID, however, say many times that he wanted his teaching to be transmitted ONLY in writing. ONLY IN WRITING. Many, many, many times. Here are the many passages in the gospels where he says this:
I found this on a Catholic forum. I thought everyone might be interested:
1) The Genealogy of Dispensationalism finds its roots in the counter reformation. Many Church members were seeing the Church in the prophecies of Revelation 13, and said, we ought to reform. Others said, no, the Church cannot err, there must be a different interpretation. Althought trace of beliefs charachteristic to dispensationalism can be found in the Fathers (i.e, detatchment of the 70th week of Daniel 9 by Irenaeus, and Hyppolytus), the first real work which summarized what is today called Dispensationalism was written by Jesuit Theologians such as Jose Louis Ribera, and Robert Cardinal Bellarmine. I would say that these views have had a great effect on the Catholic Church, because, in order to interpret the Prophecies of Revelation channeling them away from application on the Medieval Church, one needs to have an interpretation which can sucessfully accomplish this. I am not making any statements here as to my opinion, but it is no secret that Protestant reformers thought the Roman Catholic Church was the Beast of Revelation 13. I do not believe it was. I believe the Medieval Church was, which limits the prophetic application to a time period, and a set of values and beliefs concerning the nature and charachter of God charachteristic to the Medieval period, which may or may not be accepted by some today.
2) Dispensationalism has great affects on our understanding of the Bible. 1) It changes the doctrine of salvation because it teaches that Jews can be saved without Christ, thus opening the door to saying that others can be saved without Christ. 2) It, in my opinion is a way of forgetting Bible prophecy which passes as a way of taking heed to it, because like Preterism, Dispenstationalism jams all prophetic interpretation into the untangible future, and leaves no room for discussion. 3) It teaches that God has two vaild covenants, the Old and the New, rather than the biblical teaching that the Old was fulfilled in the New, and superceded by it (Hebrews 8:13, “in that He says, a new covenant, He hath made the first old. Now that which decays and waxes old is ready to vanish away”).
-Servus
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=150044
Philip