Christian Message Boards: Different Denominations

This version of the message boards has closed.
Please click below to go to the new Christian BBS website.

New Message Boards - Click Here

You can still search for the old message here.

| | search | faq | forum home

»	Christian Message Boards » Bible Studies » Questions & Answers » Different Denominations (Page 1)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2

Author

Topic: Different Denominations

RioLion
unregistered

posted

Denominations under the systems of governments we have in our day as well as the differences in people are truly necessary. [Wink]

Whereas the earliest Christians met in homes, what was needed was a more organized entity to provide for missionary work and to provide for its various members. That primative system simply could not survive if the Christian faith was to spread throughout the rest of the world. [Razz]

Denominations are also necessary to accommodate the differents in people. [spiny]

For instance, different people desire different styles of worship. Some like the rigid formality found within such churces as the Anglican churches, others like the freedom of more expression found within the Pentecostal churches. Others prefer churhces that emphasize Bible studies, and thus you have the largely independent Bible Churches. Some prefer the old traditional churches that emphasize rituals such as the Roman Catholic Churches - and there are quite a variety of them; some prefering the Old Latin Mass, others the more updated Vatican II styles. Some denominations prefer different styles of music. Kids nowadays like the rap or modern styles of music in which many of us elders would find distasteful; others the more traditional and with a more solemn Biblical message. Some denominations emphasize different facets of the gospel message. For instance, there are those churches that heavily emphasize missions such as the Christian Alliance churches, others are more into social work such as the Presbyterian and Methodist. Other denominations will emphasize spiritual gifts such as speaking in tongues - the type of church groups that many of us would simply not feel comfortable in. [roll on floor]

Then you have the nationalist churches where Koreans or Hispanics for instance, prefer to worship with their own cultural types.

And then there are those denomiations that are comprosed mostly of African Americans who would feel out of place in the white dominant churches, particularly with their free styles of worship.

In short, like a shoe, not all sizes fit everyone; but God seems to be accompanying in our worship styles as long as it is more an expression of our hearts and that worship is directed towards His glory.

One may ask how is God to be worshiped? I think that it is more an individual thing than anything else - Interested in your comments on that but would like that to be of a separate post. As long as the basis for such worship is Biblical oriented, I probably would not find too much fault with it.

In conclusion, I think God has ordained denominations and really does not desire us to have organic unity as proclaimed by the Roman Church, Eastern Orthodox, and certain liberal Protestants groups desireable of creating a body having the lowest comman denominators.

Just a few personal thoughts on this issue. Do feel free to disagree.
[thumbsup2]

IP: Logged |

becauseHElives
Advanced Member
Member # 87

posted

All denomination are of men!

Yahweh knows nothing of denominations, and never has.

The Church of Ephesus
The Church of Corinth
The Church of Galatians
The Church of Philippi
The Church of Colossae
The Church of Thessalonica
The Church of Rome

Or any other Church is not an organization of men, women and children,

but are Church names (the people were meeting from house to house in each city) Yahweh never intended for structures to be built for people to meet in. Buildings do away with the individual responsibility and closeness to each other as the family of Yahweh.

(The Church is a living organism made up of collectively of men, women and children in any city, town or village. The called out by Yahweh to represent His Name, and Character as reveled by the Holy Spirit through His Word)

And then you have the Church Universal, composed of all those that have been called out. The Catholic Church not to be confused with the “Roman Catholic Church” which is just another division of the Body caused by vile men that seized the structure of the Church by power in their day.

Paul told us in the Scriptures, do not say “I am of Paul; and I of Apollos;”

The Lutheran Church is those saying I am of Luther and those
that call themselves Methodist are saying I am of Wesley
And the list is endless

Are people in the Lutheran, Methodist and other Churches Saved, that Yahweh’s concern, our concern is ……..

1COR 1:10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and [that] there be no divisions among you; but [that] ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.

I will use Linda and myself as an example

There are issues we disagree on very strongly, but we neither one want to separate ourselves from the other, because we both recognize the Spirit of Christ in the words that proceed from the heart. We have a mutual desire in our hearts for unity and struggle to understand the other. This is the Spirit of every true believer. The Holy Spirit is always seeking to bring unity and understanding through the Scripture, never to divide.

Luther, Wesley or any other true servant of Yahweh had any desire that people would make a denomination (division) out of their teachings.

--------------------
Strive to enter in at the strait gate:for many, I say unto you will seek to enter in, and shall not be able. ( Luke 13:24 )

Posts: 4578 | From: Southeast Texas | Registered: Jun 2002 | IP: Logged |

RioLion
unregistered

posted

becauseHElives - There were many attempts to reform the church as not all the popes were bad guys. According to Eamon Duffy's book "Saints & Sinners - A history of the Popes", many of these reforms had only a limited success. It was only after the church headquartered in Rome was beyond reform that God caused the Reformation to take place using Martin Luther as one of his tools.

I know that most Roman Catholics dislike Martin Luther but realistically they have to give him and the Reformation credit for saving their church as secular authority would have eventually destroyed it as it was becoming so corrupt that any society would not have existed for very long.

What the Roman Catholic fails to realize is that God did not give any church body a blank check of authority over others or for that matter, authority over Scriptures. All authority is of God, but He has removed kings in Old Testament times, and He certainly can remove clerical rulers when they abuse their authority or go beyond it. Some of the popes, I believe, God did remove using the instrument of secular authority.

Thomas Jefferson once stated that splits in the Church should be encouraged so as to further protect democracy. He claimed to have respect for all religions, howbeit, less for some than for others.

Denominationalism is clearly an expression of democracy in which the Church has gained checks and balances so that 'the gates of hell will not prevail over the church'.

Interestingly, the popes traditionally condemned democracy and its ideals, but now give themselves credit for some of the freedoms we have enjoy.

IP: Logged |

RioLion
unregistered

posted

But whom say ye that I am? Peter answered, 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.' One for many gave the answer, unity in many. Then said the Lord to him, 'Blessed art thou, Simon Barjonas; for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.' Then He added, 'and I say unto thee,' As if He had said, 'Because thous has said unto Me, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God;" I also say unto thee, "Thou art Peter." 'For before he was called Simon. Now this name of Peter was given him by the Lord, and in a figure, that he should signify the Church. For seeing that Christ is the rock (Petra), Peter is the Christian people. For the rock (Petra) is the original name. Therefore Peter is so called from the rock; not the rock from Peter; as Christ is not called Christ from the Christian, but the Christian from Christ. Therefore, 'he saith, 'Thou art Peter; and upon this Rock' which Thou hast confessed upon this rock which Thou hast acknowledged saying, 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God, will I build my Church; that is upon Myself; the Son of the living God, 'will I build my Church.' I will build these upon Myself; not Myself upon Thee.

For men who wished to be build upon men, said, "I am of Paul; and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas,' who is Peter. But others who did not wish to build upon Peter, but upon the Rock, said, "But I am of Christ.' And when the apostle Paul ascertained that he was choosen and Christ despised, he said. "Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? or were you baptized into the name of Paul?' And as not in the name of Paul, so neither in the name of Peter; but in the name of Christ; that Petet might be build upon the Rock, not the Rock upon Peter. The same Peter therefore who had been the Rock pronounced 'blessed' bearing the figure of the Chruch." St. Augustine Sermons XXVI, 1-4

It appears that even back then we had denominations of sorts.

IP: Logged |

becauseHElives
Advanced Member
Member # 87

posted

2COR 11:4 For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or [if] ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with [him].

GAL 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

PAPACY
“That Wicked the Lawless One”
God warns in 2 Thessalonians 2:8 of the development of an ecclesiastical power which would assert its supremacy above all law, while also claiming to be the Church of Christ. This prediction has been amply fulfilled by the papacy, as history attests.
· “Innocent III laid down as a maxim that out of the plenitude of his power he might lawfully dispense with the law” (“The Middle Ages”, Henry Hallam, Vol. II, Page 209) Beginning of 13th Century, A.D.
· Paul II: “Thou bring us before the Judges? Wouldst thou know, that all laws are placed in the repository of our breast?... I am Pontiff: and upon the pleasure of my mind it depends both to rescind, and approve the acts of others.” (“Eureka, an exposition of the Apocalypse”, J. Thomas, Volume II, Page 618) 1463 A.D.

Papal Claims of Divinity
“The Lord our God no longer reigns: He has resigned all power to the Pope.”
TETZEL, Vendor of Indulgences to obtain money for the repair of St. Peters Basilica: Cited in “THE HISTORY OF PROTESTANTISM”, Vol. I pages 255-260

“The Pope is not only the representative of Jesus Christ, but he is Jesus Christ himself hidden under the veil of the flesh. Does the Pope speak? It is Jesus Christ who speaks...”
Pope Pius X, when Archbishop of Venice; Quoted by “Catholique Nationale”, July 13, 1895

“It is certain that the Pontiff was called a God by the Pious Prince Constantine.”
Canon Law, published by Gratianus, 12th Century

“The Most Holy and Most Blessed One, who hath Divine Judgment, who is Lord on Earth, successor of Peter, the Lord’s Christ, Lord of the Universe, Father of Kings, Light of the World, the Chief Pontiff Pope Martin.”
Annunciation of Pope Martin at the Court of the Greek Emperor. 13th Century.
Man of Sin
The distinctive marks of the man of sin, identified in 2 Thessalonians 2:
The Apostasy abandonment of truth. 2:3
The Man Of Sin an individual apostate. 2:3
The Man Of Sin a religious organisation continuing from Paul’s time to Christ’s return. 2:3 to 2:8
Exalts Self Above All That Is Called God claim to be vicar and vice-regent of both God and Christ. 2:4
Coming After The Working of Satan disguising Apostacy under forms of Christian religion. 2:9
With All Power, Signs and Lying wonders claiming power of priesthood, mediatorship, secular and spiritual government, and miraculous signs and healings. 2:9
Have Pleasure In Unrighteousness - profligate, licentious and immoral. 2:12

The Meaning of Antichrist
· Antichrist is the Greek word “antichristos” transferred directly, and untranslated, into English.
· Antichrist has a meaning, translatable into English, which is “One instead of Christ”
· Antichrist is therefore someone who claims to be in Christ’s place.
· Antichrist is identical in meaning to the Latin term: “Vicarius Christi” - “Vicar of Christ”

· Vicar of Christ is one of many evidences which identify the papacy and Roman Catholicism with Antichrist.
· At the close of the council of Rome in AD 495, the assembled bishops thrice shouted in honour of the pope Gelasius: “Vicarium Christi te Vedemus”! - “We see thou art the Vicar of Christ”!

This is the Real Antichrist
· In assuming the title Vicar of Christ the papacy has identified itself as the Antichrist. · The pope was frequently addressed as Christ, and received the title as distinctively and only his due.
· “Consider that thou art the Vicar of Christ, the Christ of the Lord.” C12, S. Bernard to Pope Eugenius.
· “...Christ’s vicar, the successor of Peter, has the power of transferring the empire from the Germans to any others soever, if he will” A.D. 1303, Pope Boniface to the Emperor.
· “Thee, as the true vicar of Christ and God, the ruler of the whole Christian republic, we recognise, confess, profess obedience to and adore, in thy name adoring Christ, whose representative thou art.” A.D. 1514, Ambassador of the King of Portugal to Pope Leo X.
· “Every title which is in Scripture given to Christ, appertains also to the Pope.” A.D. 1580, Cardinal Bellarmine to Pope Gregory XIII (Bellarmine was first proponent of a future Antichrist!).

Authority – Roman Catholic Barriers
VATICAN COUNCIL, 4th Session, Ch. 4, held 18th July, 1870 “Itaque nos traditions a fidei Christianae...”

“We, the Sacred Council approving, teach and define that it is a dogma divinely revealed: that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra - that is, when discharging the office of Pastor and Teacher of all Christians, by reason of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the whole Church - he, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, possesses that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that His Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding Faith or Morals: and that therefore such definitions of the said Roman Pontiff are of themselves unalterable, and not from the consent of the Church.”

“Catholic Belief” J. F. Di Bruno, 5th edition, 1884
Burns, Oates & Washbourne, Ltd., London, U.K. Imprimatur, H.E. Cardinal Manning.
Creed of Pius 4 incorporating Acts of Council of TRENT - 1545-1563
1. Holy, Roman Catholic Church, Mother of all Churches.
2. God, a Trinity of Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
3. Submission to authority of Church, in faith and morals.
4. Interpret Holy Scriptures as authorised by Church.
5. Seven Sacraments, necessary for Salvation (1. Baptism, 2. Confirmation, 3. Eucharist, 4. Penance, 5. Extreme Unction, 6. Orders, 7. Matrimony)
6. Original Sin and Justification from it.
7. A true propitiatory sacrifice offered in the mass.
8. Transubstantiation of Eucharistic bread and wine into real body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ.
9. Purgatory, for help of souls to heaven by prayers, et cetera, of faithful.
10. Saints now reigning in heaven with Christ intercede for devotees by prayers to God, and to be invocated.
11. Relics of Saints to be held in veneration.
12. Images of Christ, Mary and other Saints to be kept and due honour and veneration to be given them.
13. Mary, Mother of God, ever virgin.
14. Power of granting indulgences left by Christ in the Church; use of them most wholesome for Christians.
15. Embrace apostolical and ecclesiastical traditions and all other observances of the Church.
16. Promise true obedience to Bishop of Rome, successor of St. Peter, Prince of Apostles, Vicar of Jesus Christ.
17. Undoubtingly receive all delivered, defined and declared about supremacy and infallible teaching of the Roman Pontiff.

THE GENERAL COUNCIL OF TRENT WAS CONVENED IN 1545 - TO MEET THE ERRORS OF THE FIRST PROTESTANTS, WHICH WERE THEN SPREADING.

2JN 1:10 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into [your] house, neither bid him God speed:
2JN 1:11 For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.

--------------------
Strive to enter in at the strait gate:for many, I say unto you will seek to enter in, and shall not be able. ( Luke 13:24 )

Posts: 4578 | From: Southeast Texas | Registered: Jun 2002 | IP: Logged |

INRI
unregistered

posted

In Ignatius' statement regarding the Catholic Church – there is really no reference there to the Church at Rome.

QUOTES FROM ST. IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH ABOUT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH JUST AFTER THE DEATH OF ST. JOHN THE EVANGELIST

Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is[administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude[of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. [The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyraeans, 107 A.D.]

-- Do nothing without the bishop, and celebrate a proper Eucharist under his authority. This is the first time in writing that the Church JESUS CHRIST established was referred to as the Catholic Church [107 A.D.]. If you look at the context of the passage where it is stated, you are aware that he did not just coin the phrase and that it had been used for some time, maybe back to the Apostles themselves.

Now the more any one sees the bishop keeping silence, the more ought he to revere him. For we ought to receive every one whom the Master of the house sends to be over His household, as we would do Him that sent him. It is manifest, therefore, that we should look upon the bishop even as we would upon the Lord Himself. [The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians, 110 A.D.]

-- These are pretty strong words, from one of the disciples and auditors of St. John the Evangelist [St. Polycarp was another one] and successor of St. Peter as Bishop of Antioch, in regards to looking upon the bishop as CHRIST Himself.

"Ignatius ... to the church also which holds the precedency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the Father ... You [the church in Rome] have envied no one, but others you have taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force." [The Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans, 110 A.D.]

-- His statement of teaching churches, and being worthy of sanctification appears to speak to the primacy in action that Rome held at this early date. He is acknowledging not just the Church in Rome but her authority as well.

Lightfoot probably had it correct when he spelled it with a small ‘c’, as clearly the word means universal.

Naturally Lightfoot is correct because you like his version but keep in mind C.H. Hoole, Roberts-Donaldson, the Catholic Encyclopedia, etc. do not agree with him in that used the exact wording "the Catholic Church". It is my understanding that very few would argue your position, even amongst Protestants. Just a quick internet search would show you that most use that same wording "the Catholic Church".

There was no evidence to indicate that Ignatius was referring to the Roman Church as being the Catholic Church. Ignatius wrote letters to several churches including the Church at Rome, rebuking, exhorting, and giving instructions. Howbeit, it has not been established that he had any jurisdiction over these churches.

Did you read my quotations from St. Ignatius ... no evidence that the Roman Church was the Catholic Church??? If not the Catholic Church in Rome, who else, pagan Rome, I think not! Well he certainly had jurisdiction over Antioch for he [St. Ignatius] was Bishop of Antioch having learned from St. Peter and taken his place there after he [St. Peter] left to serve as Bishop of Rome.

Furthermore, nothing in his letter indicates that he held the Roman Church to be that church that has authority over any other church as alluded to in today interpretation.

This is easily understood after reading his writings. His words cannot be mistaken in his Epistle to the Romans in regards to authority of the Church in Rome.

Bear in mind that of the 8 letters ascribed to Ignatius, only two are really considered genuine and there is some dispute as to whether those contained interpolations. Regardless of Roman Catholic tradition, there is clearly no evidence that the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Coptic Church, Nestorian, or other identifiable churches ever belong to the Roman Catholic Church or even recognized the Church of Rome as having some kind of special mandate given by Christ. I believe that you will find most of the historical documents will support that.

Not true, the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches [all of those you mentioned minus the Nestorians] were the one Church JESUS established here on earth. These Churches informally broke from the Catholic Church during the Great Schism of 1054. Unity between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches came and went for centuries until the 15th century where under pressure and threat of war from the Muslims, the Orthodox broke from the Catholic Church for good. These ancient Churches [Catholic and Orthodox] founded by JESUS although separated for 1000 years share 99.5% of the same doctrines, even though they were separated long before the Council of Trent. Does your church teach what the ancient Church taught? Do you believe that the Eucharist truly becomes the Body and Blood of our Lord and Savior JESUS CHRIST as does the ancient Church? The split had a lot to do with the universal jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome ... the Orthodox considered the successor of St. Peter [the Pope] to hold the precedency, to be the first in honor, the first among equals, the big brother of the Eastern Patriarches but they would not concede formally that he has universal jurisdiction even though in application the East often appealed to Rome for the final decision when they were mired in heresy.

The belief that the apostle Peter was given some kind of special mandate to be the head of the Christian church is simply not tenable for the following reasons.

1) We would expect to see Peter playing a dominant role in the building of the church, and we would expect to see a clear and unanimous
testimony of the early Church – in its teachings and in its practice, and in the writings of the Fathers, to that effect.

Not necessary. The early Church was under HEAVY persecution by pagan Rome [until the 4th century] so I would not expect clear and unanimous testimony from all of the Church fathers. I am sure much of their efforts were devoted to staying alive and growing the Church. Scripture refers to Rome as Babylon so it is clear they are wanting to hide the fact that they are in Rome so as not to expose their leadership there. Also, each writer wrote for different purposes, not just to proclaim that St. Peter was the Pope ... the early Church undoubtedly knew that. Many early writings were destroyed by pagan Rome so some of these claims you may have desired are no longer in existence.

2) We would also expect that in the epistles of Paul, John, James, Jude, etc. that there would be some kind of recognition given to Peter if he in fact was the central authority figure of the church.

Petrine primacy [over any other apostle] is easily seen in scripture. You operate under a premise that the Church has never held even to this day, that it has to be in the Bible [Christians did not have the Bible for the first 400 years of Church Age], so the burdon of proof is on you [or anyone else who takes your position] that Peter could not have been the head of the Church here on earth.

More likely, they would have stated their authority as having the blessings of Peter, if Peter were the head of the church. Peter himself, does not even given any hint at all that he was the head of the church, in fact, he simply refers to himself as a ‘fellow elder and witness f the suffering of Christ, and a partaker also of the glory that is to be revealed…” 1 Peter 5:1-2.

His humility shows that he was a true disciple of JESUS. JESUS told the apostles that the first amongst them would be the last and I believe Peter took His words to heart. A true disciple of JESUS would not boast of his status to puff himself up.

Mark 9:34-35 (KJV) [also Mt 19:30; 20:8; 20:16, Mk 10:31, Lk 13:30]
34 But they held their peace: for by the way they had disputed among themselves, who should be the greatest.
35 And he sat down, and called the twelve, and saith unto them, If any man desire to be first, the same shall be last of all, and servant of all.

3) The Jerusalem Council was presided over by James, the half-brother of Jesus; not by the apostle Peter as one would expect if Peter had been given special authority over the church. It was James that concluded the Council making the final decision statement.

In what way do you mean that James the Less was the half-brother of JESUS? James was the Bishop of Jerusalem and therefore had local jurisdiction so it is not surprising that he ended the council. There is very little biblical support for the primacy of James, much more support for Peter, in fact, more support for Peter than all other apostles combined.

I will continue my reply RioLion when I have more time. Peace to you. [type]

IP: Logged |

RioLion
unregistered

posted

The Reformation, for the first time, placed Christians outside the unity of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.

This may be true if you do not recognize those of the Eastern Orthodox churches as being Christians. You know they were never part of the Roman Church; nor did they recognzied that leadership.

The belief that the Roman Church at the time of the Reformation was "holy" is a distortion of the word. The Roman Church hierarchy, was in fact, probably the most corrupt institution the world had ever seen. They needed the money to build St. Peters in Rome, etc. and what better way of raising money than to make people pay money to have their sins forgiven, or money to get their ancestral out of purgatory.

If one thinks about it, the Reformation actually saved the Roman Church, as if there was no Reformation, secular authority would have eventually destroyed it. Even today, secular authority is the greatest enemy of the Roman Church, or for that matter, any church that scorns civil authority.

To state that the Roman Church was THE church that church created is also a false assumption. If one would do a comparision with the 'faith once delivered to the saints' (Jude 3) with what the Roman Church believes today, you would find that Biblical Christianity is closer to what the early 1st century church believed as far as doctrine is concerned.

Of course, the Roman Church has little use for that little book of Jude as they would content that 'the faith once delivered to the saints', was really not the case, instead that the faith had to see some kind of evolution. Poor, poor early christians, all they has was Christ dwelling within them. No Virgin Mary worship, no belief that only salvation came only through the Roman Church, no pope or priests, no prayers to the dead, etc. etc. etc. etc.

It was the aspiriation of the Reformers to get back to that 'faith once and for all delivered to the saints' as clearly the church of the Middle Ages had lost its guidelines in Scripture. [biglaugha]

IP: Logged |

RioLion
unregistered

posted

In Ignatius' statement regarding the Catholic Church – there is really no reference there to the Church at Rome. Lightfoot probably had it correct when he spelled it with a small ‘c’, as clearly the word means universal. There was no evidence to indicate that Ignatius was referring to the Roman Church as being the Catholic Church.
Ignatius wrote letters to several churches including the Church at Rome, rebuking, exhorting, and giving instructions. Howbeit, it has not been established that he had any jurisdiction over these churches. Furthermore, nothing in his letter indicates that he held the Roman Church to be that church that has authority over any other church as alluded to in today interpretation.Bear in mind that of the 8 letters ascribed to Ignatius, only two are really considered genuine and there is some dispute as to whether those contained interpolations.
Regardless of Roman Catholic tradition, there is clearly no evidence that the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Coptic Church, Nestorian, or other identifiable churches ever belong to the Roman Catholic Church or even recognized the Church of Rome as having some kind of special mandate given by Christ. I believe that you will find most of the historical documents will support that.

The belief that the apostle Peter was given some kind of special mandate to be the head of the Christian church is simply not tenable for the following reasons.

1) We would expect to see Peter playing a dominant role in the building of the church, and we would expect to see a clear and unanimous testimony of the early Church – in its teachings and in its practice, and in the writings of the Fathers, to that effect. [thumbsup2]

2) We would also expect that in the epistles of Paul, John, James, Jude, etc. that there would be some kind of recognition given to Peter if he in fact was the central authority figure of the church. More likely, they would have stated their authority as having the blessings of Peter, if Peter were the head of the church. Peter himself, does not even given any hint at all that he was the head of the church, in fact, he simply refers to himself as a ‘fellow elder and witness f the suffering of Christ, and a partaker also of the glory that is to be revealed…” 1 Peter 5:1-2. 3) The Jerusalem Council was presided over by James, the half-brother of Jesus; not by the apostle Peter as one would expect if Peter had been given special authority over the church. It was James that concluded the Council making the final decision statement. When Paul & Barnabas sought an answer to the charge that Gentile converts had to keep the Mosaic laws, they did not go to Jerusalem to see the head of the church but that they “should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question”. Acts 15:2. When Paul and his entourage came back to “Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly. On the following day Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were present”. Notice that he reported to James; not to Peter if in fact, Peter was the head of the church. (Acts 21:17-18) [Razz]

4) We would expect to find an acknowledgement of the bishop of Rome as the successor of Peter and supreme ruler of the entire Church with ultimate authority in all matters related to faith, morals and discipline, and a submission to him in that rule. But we again, do not see that. Peter only wrote 3 small epistles; if he was in command of the entire church, we would have expected that he would have written dozens of letter to the various churches given directions and advocating dogmas. [Razz]

5) In Paul’s letter to the Galatians, we see Peter being rebuked for behavior that was clearly compromising to the truth of the gospel (Gal. 2:11-14). I am aware of the Romanist argument that the lapse of faith was one, not of doctrine but of practice; but it is not at all convincing. That argument is much like the kid who with cookie crumbs over all him, denied stealing the cookies. [biglaugha]

6) Interestingly, the Catalogus Libernianus (c. 354 A.D)- an early history of the Roman Church - reports that Peter went to Rome and spent some 25 years there in the city as a bishop until his martyrdom. Howbeit, Peter was an apostle and apostles did not function as bishops over local churches. They ordained presbyters who became overseers, and it was these men who were in turn, responsible to the apostles. To speak of anyone being a bishop over the church as early as the first century is anachronistic, for the episcopate was a much later development according to historians.
7) No Fathers of the first two centuries can be cited as supporters of the Roman Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16 in the Christian church was built upon Peter; clearly from Ephesians 2:20, the church was built upon the apostles and the prophets with Christ as the cornerstone. In fact, Augustine himself offered an alternative interpretation to the current Roman Church interpretation. [Big Grin]

8) others ... there are lots of books on this subject, largely from a secular or non-catholic position that rejects the popular but anachronistic viewpoint of the Roman Church. I would recommend William Webster "The Church of Rome at the Bar of History". While it is true that some Romanist apologists have claimed to disprove his work, in my opinion, all they found was an occasional comma out of place.
[wave3]

IP: Logged |

INRI
unregistered

posted

Originally posted by RioLion:
In Matthew 16, Christ did not establish the "Roman Catholic Church"; He estalish the church - spelled with a small 'c'. The early church was mostly a collection of house churches ruled over by elders either elected among themselves or appointed by those that founded the different churches. It was 'catholic' only in the sense of it being a 'universal' entity.

Wrong! I provided the exact quotes many time before, St. Ignatius referred to the Church as the "Catholic Church". Out of all the online sources I could find, ALL use the wording "Catholic Church" capitalized except for J.B. Lightfoot who uses a lowercase "universal" and an uppercase "Church". So the preponderance of translators would NOT agree with you ... what is your source?

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/ignatius-smyrnaeans-hoole.html
English Translation by C.H. Hoole - capital Catholic Church

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/ignatius-smyrnaeans-lightfoot.html
English Translation by J.B. Lightfoot - univeral Church

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/ignatius-smyrnaeans-roberts.html
Roberts-Donaldson English Translation - capital Catholic Church

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-21.htm#P2233_373220
Roberts-Donaldson English Translation (Shorter and Longer Recensions) - capital Catholic Church

gopher://ccat.sas.upenn.edu:3333/00/Religious/ChurchWriters/ApostolicFathers/Ignatius_Smyrneans%09%09+
University of Pennsylvania - translated by J.B. Lightfoot - universal Church

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0109.htm
Catholic Encyclopedia - capital Catholic Church

Historian Eamon Duffy (Roman Catholic historian) states the following -

Like I have stated before, just because someone claims to be Catholic does not mean they represent the orthodox Catholic viewpoint. There are many dissident Catholics who seek to distort the historical facts about Catholicism. If you truly want to understand the Catholic perspective on the early Church fathers and history in general you should turn to these authors, just to name a few.

William A. Jurgens - The Faith of the Early Church Fathers, Vol I-III
Harry Crocker, and either Alan Schreck or Peter Kreeft

"Of a church, notice, not of the Church, for Chrisian organisations in Rome reflected that of the Jewish community out of which it had grown. The Roman Synagogues, unlike their counterparts in Antioch, had no central organisation. Each one conducted its own worship, appointed its own leaders and cared for its own members. In the same way, the ordering of the early Christian community in Rome seems to have reflected the organisation of the synagogues which had originally sheltered it, and to have consisted of a constellation of independent churches, meeting in the houses of the wealthy members of the community. Each of these house churches has its own leaders, the elders or
'prebyters'. "Saints & Sinners, A history of the Popes", page 6.

So if in fact your quote is historically correct, how does it square with what St. Ignatius of Antioch wrote around 107 A.D?

St. Ignatius learned the faith from the beloved Apostle, St. John the Evangelist. He was also groomed for the position of Bishop of Antioch by St. Peter himself before left from there to Rome to serve as Bishop there. St. Ignatius tells us in his many writings that the Eucharist is truly the Body and Blood of JESUS CHRIST and that the Eucharist is only valid under the Bishop [successor to the Apostles] and we should look upon the Bishops even as we would JESUS CHRIST Himself, and wherever JESUS CHRIST is, there is the Catholic Church.

Catholicism is the fullfillment of Judiasm. If Judiasm operated as individual synagogues, and Catholicism operated under the central authority of St. Peter [and his successors] in Rome, how long would be exceptable to you for this change to take place?

Now what you have been taught is that Christ established specifically the Roman Catholic church in Matthew 16 with the Apostle Peter as its head. But support for that view is simply unsubstantiated. There is simply no evidence at all that the early church was "Roman Catholic"; but simply regarded itself as 'catholic' in nature.

Scripture and Tradition resoundingly tells us otherwise, certainly not "unsubstantiated". We have gone through the scripture, tell me where the early Church fathers indicate this?

"There was a time when every Christian was pleased to identify with the catholic church - catholic with a small "c", that is.

Big "C" [Catholic Church] that is, per St. Ignatius of Antioch.

Following Pentecost, the gospel spread rapidly. Despite seasons of intense and violent persecution, pockets of believers emerged throughout the Roman Empire. These early Christian held to a common faith and enjoyed a God given affinity whatever they met. Paul's teaching of the church as one body made up of all true believers provided a theological understanding of this new relationship (1 Cor. 12:12-31). Early Christians used the term catholic , a Greek word meaning concerning the whole, to describe this worldwide nature of the church. When early Christians referred to the catholic faith , they were speaking of the faith of the whole or universal church. The oldest document
containing the term is a letter by Ignatius from the early second century. He wrote; "Whenever Jesus Christ is, there is the catholic church." In the first 3 centuries, 'the catholic church' referred to all believers holding the same faith throughout the world.

I provided the proof that most translators of St. Ignatius WOULD NOT agree with you, please refer to the links listed above.

You are not stating anything that refutes the fact that the Catholic Church is the universal Church [teaching one set of doctrine] that CHRIST established for everyone. You may not like it but the root meaning behind the name "Protestant" is to protest. The reformers where protesting and subsequently left the true Church, the reformers knew what they were doing. Before the Reformation, there was one Church [minus the Orthodox Churches in schism from Rome] teaching one set of doctrine. The Reformation, for the first time, placed Christians outside the unity of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.

With such a noble hertiage, it is not surprising that today not only the Roman Catholic Church but most Christian denomination claim to hold to the catholic faith - that is , the faith of the whole church in apostolic times. The distinguishing mark of those identified as Roman Catholic is submission to the Pope, the Bishop of Rome, as Christ's representative on earth. Nevertheless, the Church rarely refers to itself as the Roman Catholic Chruch. It prefers to call itself the Catholic Church so as not to limit in any way its claim to universal jurisdiction as the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church." The Gospel According to Rome", James G. McCarthy, page 272-273

Like I have mentioned before, it was the Church of England in the 18th century that coined the phrase "Roman Catholic" to differentiate it and at the same time claim no allegiance to the Bishop of Rome, calling themselves "English Catholics" or Anglo-Catholics. Indeed all Catholics submit to the Bishop of Rome, but the Western / Roman / Latin rite is merely one of many rites within the Church, some others being the Maronite, Byzantine, etc. The Catholic Church has always referred to herself as the Catholic Church.

So, logically the Roman Church is simply another denomination having its doctrine defined at the Council of Trent.

As I have shown before, there is no historical proof to substantiate this claim. History will not bare this out.

The belief that Christ gave the leading Apostle Peter some kind of mandate to be handed down to successors is simply not attenable for a various of reasons - the basic one being that it lacks any conclusive historical support or expectations if Christ had given Peter an authority to be handed downward to successors. I can elaborate on this if you desire.

Please do, after you address some of my earlier questions. Thanks and GOD Bless!

IP: Logged |

RioLion
unregistered

posted

In Matthew 16, Christ did not establish the "Roman Catholic Church"; He estalish the church - spelled with a small 'c'. The early church was mostly a collection of house churches ruled over by elders either elected among themselves or appointed by those that founded the different churches. It was 'catholic' only in the sense of it being a 'universal' entity.

Historian Eamon Duffy (Roman Catholic historian) states the following -

"Of a church, notice, not of the Church, for Chrisian organisations in Rome reflected that of the Jewish community out of which it had grown. The Roman Synagogues, unlike their counterparts in Antioch, had no central organisation. Each one conducted its own worship, appointed its own leaders and cared for its own members. In the same way, the ordering of the early Christian community in Rome seems to have reflected the organisation of the synagogues which had originally sheltered it, and to have consisted of a constellation of independent churches, meeting in the houses of the wealthy members of the community. Each of these house churches has its own leaders, the elders or 'prebyters'. "Saints & Sinners, A history of the Popes", page 6.

Now what you have been taught is that Christ established specifically the Roman Catholic church in Matthew 16 with the Apostle Peter as its head. But support for that view is simply unsubstantiated. There is simply no evidence at all that the early church was "Roman Catholic"; but simply regarded itself as 'catholic' in nature.

"There was a time when every Christian was pleased to identify with the catholic church - catholic with a small "c", that is. Following Pentecost, the gospel spread rapidly. Despite seasons of intense and violent persecution, pockets of believers emerged throughout the Roman Empire. These early Christian held to a common faith and enjoyed a God given affinity whatever they met. Paul's teaching of the church as one body made up of all true believers provided a theological understanding of this new relationship (1 Cor. 12:12-31). Early Christians used the term catholic , a Greek word meaning concerning the whole , to describe this worldwide nature of the church. When early Christians referred to the catholic faith , they were speaking of the faith of the whole or universal church. The oldest document containing the term is a letter by Ignatius from the early second century. He wrote; "Whenever Jesus Christ is, there is the catholic church." In the first 3 centuries, 'the catholic church' referred to all believers holding the same faith throughout the world.

With such a noble hertiage, it is not surprising that today not only the Roman Catholic Church but most Christian denomination claim to hold to the catholic faith - that is , the faith of the whole church in apostolic times. The distinguishing mark of those identified as Roman Catholic is submission to the Pope, the Bishop of Rome, as Christ's representative on earth. Nevertheless, the Church rarely refers to itself as the Roman Catholic Chruch. It prefers to call itself the Catholic Church so as not to limit in any way its claim to universal jurisdiction as the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church." The Gospel According to Rome", James G. McCarthy, page 272-273

So, logically the Roman Church is simply another denomination having its doctrine defined at the Council of Trent.

The belief that Christ gave the leading Apostle Peter some kind of mandate to be handed down to successors is simply not attenable for a various of reasons - the basic one being that it lacks any conclusive historical support or expectations if Christ had given Peter an authority to be handed downward to successors. I can elaborate on this if you desire.

IP: Logged |

INRI
unregistered

posted

[QUOTE]Originally posted by RioLion:
The Catholic Church is not a denomination but rather the Church JESUS established. Where do you get this nonsense about the Council of Trent being the start of the Catholic Church???

I believe that you would find that most reputable church historians would recognize that the Roman Church is simply another denomination with its birth at the Council of Trent.

I have heard much the opposite, I would like your sources if you have them. Here is an excerpt from the following world religion site that covers anything that might be construed as religious so it covers anything, good and bad.

http://www.meta-religion.com/World_Religions/Christianity/Denominations/catholicism.htm

Name: Roman Catholicism

The Founding: The apostles of Jesus Christ formed the beginnings of the Christian Church. They helped spread the Gospel and provided structure for the early Church. It is hard to differentiate the beginnings of the Roman Catholic church from that of the early Christian church. The apostle, Peter, also known as Simon, was of central importance. The Church was organized and presided over by Peter. According to the Scriptures, Matthew 16:13- 19, Christ said to Peter: "And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church." In 313, the Roman Catholic Church was legally recognized by the Roman Emperor Constantine, and, in 380 it
became the official religion of the Roman Empire.

"The Council of Trent fixed the doctrine of the Roman Church. Called the 19th ecumenical council, it really made the Roman Church a denomination. No further Council was destined to meet between 1563 and 1869, a period of 300 years." "The Church From Pentecost to the Present", Carl S. Meyer, page 185

This is merely his opinion in which many would disagree. I would not base your argument on one person's opinion of one person, especially considering the language he used "it really made" is the same as saying "it pretty much made" and this in no way is anything definitive. Trent reaffirmed what was always taught. Fixed [not sure about that either] ... well doctrines may not change but in the future they MAY be further defined as we learn more. The mere fact that it is the 19th ecumenical council [and not the 1st] should tell you something very obvious right there, that the Church did not just start.

I am rather surprised that you have a problem with this as a church denominations is simply "a religious organization uniting local congregations in a single body" - Webster's Dictionary. [Wink]

If you were to fill out a simple questionaire card about what denomination you belong to, you would simply list yours as Roman Catholic.

Yes I would know what the questionaire asked and I would put down Catholic but only because of the current state of society were truth is no longer absolute, but rather subjective and relative to the point where all Christian churches are the same, even to the point where all religions are equal. That is definitely not the case, so with that in mind I will put down Catholic because I would not expect them to understand the distinction. The Reformers knew the truth and knew where they came from but nowadays 500 years removed that is not the case and that is to be expected.

I will reply to more when I have the time. Peace.

IP: Logged |

RioLion
unregistered

posted

The Catholic Church is not a denomination but rather the Church JESUS established. Where do you get this nonsense about the Council of Trent being the start of the Catholic Church???

I believe that you would find that most reputable church historians would recognize that the Roman Church is simply another denomination with its birth at the Council of Trent.

"The Council of Trent fixed the doctrine of the Roman Church. Called the 19th ecumenical council, it really made the Roman Church a denomination. No further Council was destined to meet between 1563 and 1869, a period of 300 years." "The Church From Pentecost to the Present", Carl S. Meyer, page 185

I believe that if you were to look at other Church historians and even secular historians you will find that the Roman Church is simply another denomination. I am rather surprised that you have a problem with this as a church denominations is simply "a religious organization uniting local congregations in a single body" - Webster's Dictionary. [Wink]

If you were to fill out a simple questionaire card about what denomination you belong to, you would simply list yours as Roman Catholic.

The belief that it was the Roman Catholic Church that Christ founded is simply a lot of hooey - a claim unsubstantiated by both Scripture and history records. The church Christ commissioned was the one that was build upon "the foundation of the apostles and prophets", not upon any single individual with authority handed downward to the bishops of Rome.

Consider, if you will -

Ephesians 2:19-22 Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God,having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone,
in whom the whole building, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord,
in whom you also are being built together for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit. [thumbsup2]

There has been a lot of propaganda put out by the Roman Church over the centuries in order to identify their church as the one true church, but this effort has been something that simply serves their own secular purpose to obtain power and influence. This should be obvious even by reading secular history. Have you ever heard of the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals and the Donation of Constantine which were identified as forgeries created by the Roman church because they lacked any historical backing for their secular claims? [Razz]

I recall that when I was a child, I had a neighbor, Tom W.- that was being groomed to become a Roman Catholic priest. In picking up one of his textbooks he was using at the local Catholic school, I read the following -

Question - "Why did Martin Luther leave the Church?" Answer: "He wanted to marry a nun."

Of course, Tom at this time was just an elementary school kid and was trained to believe that everything the church told him was true. Once he got into a Catholic seminary, his history teacher gave him a much different picture of church history that had been pounded into his head over the years. He is now, not a priest, but a school teacher in Rockville, Il. and I might add, happily married. He dropped out of the seminary after becoming very disillusioned with what the Roman Church had been teaching him.

It is much the same kind of thing with this hooey about Christ establishing the Roman Catholic church with some kind of mandate to rule over other churches with authority being handed down by successors. Any decent historian will tell you that this subject has been debated for centuries, particularly by those in the Eastern Orthodox Churches who make similar claims for themselves.

Even Roman Catholic church historians have had problems with the Roman Church hierarchy as many of the contentions of the Roman Church simply are in conflict with historian records. [Razz]

Sorry but you really need to put aside your prejudices and examine these arguments from both sides of the aisle if you wish to know what the truth really is in these matters. [Big Grin]

IP: Logged |

INRI
unregistered

posted

Originally posted by RioLion:
The Lord God is lord of history. He determines what will be. The ways of man are in His hands. He is the god of the past, present, & future.

The Reformation took place because He willed it in light of the fact that the Church at that time had lost its anchor in Scripture. His people were without shepherds that would follow the Good Shepherd. It was simply too corrupt to be reformed without a revolution within the church itself.

Denominationalism is the phrase the church is in now. And it will continue to be that way as these splits are permanent. Of course, there will be unity under the Anti-Christ and His false prophet and in the view of some, Rome will be paramount.

Not true, society in general was so much more Christian back then, the heathen pagan secularists slowly but surely taken over society until its current state of utter decay, and I believe it has to do with truth no longer being absolute but rather subjective as was necessary with the advent of denominationalism, which I also believe is not of GOD. We are to be of one fold and not in schism from one another, even Luther regretted the result of the Protestant Reformation.

John 10:16 (KJV)
16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

1 Corinthians 12:25 (KJV)
25 That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another.

"I never approved of a schism, nor will I approve of it for all eternity . . . That the Roman Church is more honored by God than all others is not to be doubted . . . It is not by separating from the Church that we can make her better." [Martin Luther - Letter to Pope Leo X, January 6, 1519]

There will never be any unity except in Christ among Christians. And Roman Catholicism is but one denomination with its birth at the Council of Trent.

The Catholic Church is not a denomination but rather the Church JESUS established. Where do you get this nonsense about the Council of Trent being the start of the Catholic Church??? If that were true then Protestantism would have preceded Catholicism and no one, not even a Protestant, would claim that. The name itself "Protestant" means that they were protesting against the Church.

What most Roman Catholics do not realized is that of the 5 popes that presided over the Council of Trent, 4 were fornicators,

I cannot verify as to the accuracy of your statement about the Popes residing over the Council of Trent, but even if you are correct, what does this prove? That we are all sinners? We know that. To make any claim otherwise would violate the normative meaning of this passage of scripture. The Bishops [successors of the Apostles] and the Pope / The Bishop of Rome [successor of St. Peter] are not and have never claimed to be without sin [impeccable]. Do not confuse impeccable with infallible. They in fact are successors of individuals [Apostles] who themselves we known not to be sinless "impeccable" so why would it surprise you that their successors were not???

the other a blood thristy Inquisitor.

The Inquistion has been blown way out of proportion some claiming 95 million deaths, this would have exceeded the entire population of those areas of where they operated so that shows the bias against the Church there. This kind of misinformation is meant not to be accurate but rather to attempt to undermine the Church. I believe the numbers have been more responsibly reported at several thousand over centuries.

And they were the ones that defined the doctrine for the Roman Church. [crying]

The Council of Trent did not create new doctrine but rather reaffirmed what had been known and taught in the Church for 1500+ years. This Council was in response to the attacks levied by the Protestant Reformers. The Catholic Church often does not formally define or reaffirm doctrines until they are under heavy attack as a result of heresy. If you claim that the "Roman Catholic Church" started then, it was not referred as such until some 200 years later when the Church of England wished to be associated with the historic Church by calling themselves "English Catholics" [Anglo-Catholics] and thus differentiating themselves from Rome by calling the Church the "Roman Catholic Church".

If you examine Church history, it will become abundantly clear that what was taught at Trent had always been taught by the Church Fathers and Councils.

IP: Logged |

RioLion
unregistered

posted

The Lord God is lord of history. He determines what will be. The ways of man are in His hands. He is the god of the past, present, & future.

The Reformation took place because He willed it in light of the fact that the Church at that time had lost its anchor in Scripture. His people were without shepherds that would follow the Good Shepherd. It was simply too corrupt to be reformed without a revolution within the church itself.

Denominationalism is the phrase the church is in now. And it will continue to be that way as these splits are permanent. Of course, there will be unity under the Anti-Christ and His false prophet and in the view of some, Rome will be paramount.

There will never be any unity except in Christ among Christians. And Roman Catholicism is but one denomination with its birth at the Council of Trent.

What most Roman Catholics do not realized is that of the 5 popes that presided over the Council of Trent, 4 were fornicators, the other a blood thristy Inquisitor. And they were the ones that defined the doctrine for the Roman Church. [crying]

IP: Logged |

RisamyRisa
Advanced Member
Member # 1854

posted

Goodness, this feels like a heated discussion. However, from one of the earlier posts, I read that the UMC is actually considering homosexual marriages? I'm Methodist, and I know that my church goes against a lot of what the higher-ups in the UMC say and do. The pastor just stood up and spoke out against homosexuality a few days ago. I also know a few people that go to different UMCs and their pastors do just about the same. I think that a lot of churches get sorely misrepresented by the people they put into power.

I don't understand the divisions in the church historically, but I do think that there are a lot of people in the world who forget that church is about God, not about their personal wants and needs. It's not what you get out of it, it's what you put into it. And it pains me to see tempers flare the way they do and the subject get so far away from the original point. I don't mean any disrespect to anyone, but the original question sounded more like a history question and not a question of who's right or wrong. I believe division is wrong, but that doesn't make it any easier for me, as a Methodist, to go and sit in a Catholic or Baptist church. Humans are imperfect, selfish creatures, and I know I am one of them! But I also know that other Christians know that and accept it, because they are imperfect humans too! We're all God's family, you're all siblings to me, and I love all of you! [Kiss]

--------------------
Being a Christian is like being a pumpkin.. God picks you from the patch and washes the dirt off. He cuts out the top and removes the yucky stuff, and then He carves you a new smiling face and puts His light in you to shine for all the world to see!

Posts: 108 | Registered: Jul 2003 | IP: Logged |

INRI
unregistered

posted

[QUOTE]Originally posted by RioLion:
Whether you realize it or not you are acknowledging here that you rely on the infallibility of the Catholic Church ...

Not really, my views of the church are simply that it is the community of all true believers in Christ in whom His Spirit indwells regardless of denominational affliation.

That of course is the view that must be taken once outside the authority of Rome, the only problem is that you have no guarantee that your personal interpretation is correct.

It is a living organism in which the different parts have different functions.

I find it amusing that you find this okay where you are "carried about with every wind of doctrine" [Eph 4:14] because the Body of CHRIST is a living organism, but yet the beliefs differ and contradict.

And yet you have a problem with the Magisterium, the living organism with protection from the Holy Spirit [Jn 14:26] that updates [never a departure but an enhancement] doctrines over centuries as the human mind further grasps them. There is nothing wrong with that for many Christian truths [often attacked by quasi-Christian and non-Christian sects] now so evident would not be so if it were not for the Catholic Church, for example JESUS as true GOD, JESUS' two natures in one person, the Trinity just to name a few. This agreeement cannot be found outside the Catholic Church where schism is found.

1 Cor. 12:12 For as the body is one and has many members, but all the members of that one body, being many, are one body, so also is Christ.

Yes of course, JESUS established one Church, but us as Christians are still members of the Body of CHRIST although in an imperfect fashion. There was never meant to be divide and schism as St. Paul goes on to state in the same paragraph from which you quote.

1 Corinthians 12:25 (KJV)
25 That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another.

Matthew 18:20 "For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them."

And that is the church.

Amen to that brother! But if you look a couple of verses earlier you will see that JESUS is instructing us what to do when we have a dispute, to take it to the Church for the final decision. There can only be one Church if there is to be a final decision, otherwise the churches themselves would fight.

Matthew 18:15-18 (KJV)
15 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.
16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.
18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

But it is clear to me that there has been no guarantee or immunity from error given by Christ.
It is just too easy to see the bad doctrines that have crept into the church over the centuries that not have their basis in His word.

You have been stating this about various doctrines but yet I have been providing scriptural evidence to suggest otherwise. What makes your personal opinion [you being one person] more authoritative than the Church [tens of billions of people with many being amazing scholars] that CHRIST established 2000 years ago and protected with the Holy Spirit [Jn 14:26]?

The church was warned that wolves would invade the church after the death of the apostles bring with them destructive doctrines.

Acts 20:29 "For I know this, that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock.

1 Timothy 4:1 Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons,...

Yes yes I know ... this speaks to heresies that have arisen in the Church and they were subsequently extinguished.

It is rather obvious from church history that some of these wolves were of the institutional church. We should not make the Spirit out to be a liar.

The Church is protected in matters of faith and morals, not disciplines or actions. Afterall, no one is impeccable, we are all sinners, falling often, but we have to pick ourselves up and strive to follow CHRIST daily the best we can. Peace to you.

IP: Logged |

RioLion
unregistered

posted

Isaiah 4:1 And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, "We will eat our own food and wear our own apparel; Only let us be called by your name, To take away our reproach."

Apparently a time when there were not enough men to go around. Probably the men died in battle.

IP: Logged |

db1boat
Community Member
Member # 2140

posted

Isaiah 4:1 any one [dance]

Posts: 12 | From: Mo | Registered: Sep 2003 | IP: Logged |

RioLion
unregistered

posted

I can only agree with you that the Roman Catholic Church did not create the Bible nor define what its contents. It is a Christian book; it does not belong to any one denomination. [angel3]

One of the arguments given against the Bible by the Roman Church is that it creates too much division because of individuals interpreting it incorrectly. Howbeit, they fail to realize that there really was no consensus on interpretation of Scripture even by the early church. So why should there be now? [Big Grin]

Under the freedoms that individual have, anything can be interpreted differently. But the church should look toward those present and past to whom the Lord has called into the teaching ministry as well as seek the guidance of the Spirit Himself in reading Scripture. [Roll Eyes]

Often interpretations of Scripture have been in the interest of certain individuals or denominations. For instance, the Roman Church has it own set of interpretations that serve their own vested interest. Take for instance, Matthew 16 where they allege the Apostle Peter was given some kind of ecclesiastical authority which was to be passed downward to successors. Even old Augustine offered an alternate interpretation -

"In a passage in this book, I said about the Apostle Peter: ‘On him as on a rock the Church was built’...But I know that very frequently at a later time, I so explained what the Lord said: ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,’ that it be understood as built upon Him whom Peter confessed saying: ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ and so Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has received ‘the keys of the kingdom of heaven.’ For, ‘Thou art Peter’ and not ‘Thou art the rock’ was said to him. But ‘the rock was Christ,’ in confessing whom, as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter. But let the reader decide which of these two opinions is the more probable (The Fathers of the Church (Washington D.C., Catholic University, 1968), Saint Augustine, The Retractations Chapter 20.1). [clap2]

A good elaboration on this is William Webster - www.christiantruth.com or his book "The Church of Rome at the Bar of History". Also he wrote a book entitled "The Matthew 16 Controversy" that literally beats the subject to death.

This last Sunday I noticed another thing during the sermon.

Acts 21:18 On the following day Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were present.

I would ask why Paul did not hurry and go see St. Peter if in fact, Peter was in charge of the Church?

It is fairly clear that James was really in charge of the early church; not Peter as one would expect if the claims of Rome are anywhere close to being correct. [Big Grin]

IP: Logged |

helpforhomeschoolers
Advanced Member
Member # 15

posted

Catholics contend that the whole world is indebted to the Roman Catholic church for the existence of the Bible. This is another of their attempts to exalt the church as an authority in addition to the Bible.

Please notice the following from Catholic sources:
"If she had not scrutinized carefully the writings of her children, rejecting some and approving others as worthy of inclusion in the canon of the New Testament, there would be no New Testament today.
"If she had not declared the books composing the New Testament to be inspired word of God, we would not know it.
"The only authority which non-Catholics have for the inspiration of the Scriptures is the authority of the Catholic Church." (The Faith of Millions, p. 145)
"It is only by the divine authority of the Catholic Church that Christians know that the scripture is the word of God, and what books certainly belong to the Bible." (The Question Box, p. 46)
"It was the Catholic Church and no other which selected and listed the inspired books of both the Old Testament and the New Testament...If you can accept the Bible or any part of it as inspired Word of God, you can do so only because the Catholic Church says it is." (The Bible is a Catholic Book, p. 4).
The Catholic writers quoted above state that one can accept the Bible as being inspired and as having authority only on the basis of the Catholic Church.

In reality, the Bible is inspired and has authority, not because a church declared it so, but because God made it so. God delivered it by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and declared that it would abide forever. "All scripture is inspired of God..." (2 Tim. 3:16). "...Holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit." (2 Pet. 1:21). "Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away." (Matt. 24:35). "The grass withered, and the flower has fallen--but the word of the Lord endures forever." (1 Pet. 1:24-25).

The Catholics are wrong, therefore, in their assumption that the Bible is authoritative only because of the Catholic Church. The Bible does not owe its existence to the Catholic Church, but to the authority, power and providence of God.

It would seem unnecessary for the Catholic Church to make the boastful claim of giving the Bible to the world when both it and so-called Protestantism accept the Bible as a revelation from God. However, it is an attempt to weaken the Bible as the sole authority and to replace it with their man-made church. If it is true that we can accept the Bible only on the basis of the Catholic Church, doesn't that make the Catholic Church superior to the Bible? This is exactly what Catholic officials want men to believe. Their only problem is that their doctrine comes from their own human reasoning rather than from God. Their logic is a classic example of their "circle reasoning." They try to prove the Bible by the church (can accept the Bible only on the basis of the Catholic Church) and prove the church by the Bible ("has ever grounded her doctrines upon it"). Such is absurd reasoning which proves nothing. Either the New Testament is the sole authority or it is not. If it is the New Testament, it cannot be the church, and if it is the church, it cannot be the New Testament.

Notice, again, the following from Catholic sources:
"Because it never was a Bible, till the infallible Church pronounced it to be so. The separate treatises, each of them inspired, were lying, as it were dispersedly; easy to confound with others, that were uninspired. The Church gathered them up, selected them, pronounced judgment on them; rejecting some, which she defined and declared not to be canonical, because not inspired; adopting others as being inspired, and therefore canonical." (What Is the Bible? p. 6).
"And since the books of the Bible constituting both the Old and the New Testament were determined solely by the authority of the Catholic Church, without the Church there would have been no Bible, and hence no Protestantism." (The Faith of Millions, p. 10).

In addition to the above, Catholics often boast that the Bible was written by Catholics, e.g., "All the books of the New Testament were written by Catholics." (The Bible is a Catholic Book, p. 14).

When we consider the word "catholic" as meaning "universal," we readily admit that the writers were "catholic" in that sense; they were members of the church universal--the church of Christ which is described in the New Testament Scriptures (Col. 1:18; Rom. 16:16).

However, we firmly deny that the writers of the New Testament were members of the Roman Catholic Church as we know it today. The Roman Catholic Church was not fully developed until several hundred years after the New Testament was written. It is not the same institution as disclosed in the New Testament. The New Testament books were written by members of the Lord's church, but they are not its author. God Himself is the author of the New Testament.

The Catholic officials above claim that without the Catholic Church there would be no Bible; they argue that mankind can accept the Scriptures only on the basis of the Catholic Church which gathered the books and determined which were inspired. Surely the Catholic Church cannot claim that it gave us the Old Testament Scriptures.

The Old Testament came through the Jews (God's chosen people of old) who had the holy oracles entrusted to them. Paul said, "What advantage then remains to the Jew, or what is the use of circumcision? Much in every respect. First, indeed, because the oracles of God were entrusted to them." (Rom. 3:1-2; see also Rom. 9:4-5; Acts 7:38).

The Old Testament books were gathered into one volume and were translated from Hebrew into Greek long before Christ came to earth. The Septuagint Version was translated by seventy scholars at Alexandria, Egypt around the year 227 B.C., and this was the version Christ and His apostles used.

Christ did not tell the people, as Catholics do today, that they could accept the Scriptures only on the basis of the authority of those who gathered them and declared them to be inspired. He urged the people of His day to follow the Old Testament Scriptures as the infallible guide, not because man or any group of men has sanctioned them as such, but because they came from God.

Furthermore, He understood that God-fearing men and women would be able to discern by evidence (external and internal) which books were of God and which were not; thus, He never raised questions and doubts concerning the gathering of the inspired books.

If the Bible is a Catholic book, why does it nowhere mention the Catholic Church? Why is there no mention of a pope, a cardinal, an archbishop, a parish priest, a nun, or a member of any other Catholic order? If the Bible is a Catholic book, why is auricular confession, indulgences, prayers to the saints, adoration of Mary, veneration of relics and images, and many other rites and ceremonies of the Catholic Church, left out of it?

If the Bible is a Catholic book, how can Catholics account for the passage, "A bishop then, must be blameless, married but once, reserved, prudent, of good conduct, hospitable, a teacher...He should rule well his own household, keeping his children under control and perfectly respectful.

For if a man cannot rule his own household, how is he to take care of the church of God?" (1 Tim. 3:2, 4-5). The Catholic Church does not allow a bishop to marry, while the Bible says "he must be married." Furthermore, if the Bible is a Catholic book, why did they write the Bible as it is, and feel the necessity of putting footnotes at the bottom of the page in effort to keep their subject from believing what is in the text?

The following list give a summation of what we have been trying to emphasize. If the Bible is a Catholic book,

1. Why does it condemn clerical dress? (Matt. 23:5-6).
2. Why does it teach against the adoration of Mary? (Luke 11:27-28).
3. Why does it show that all Christians are priests? (1 Pet. 2:5,9).
4. Why does it condemn the observance of special days? (Gal. 4:9-11).
5. Why does it teach that all Christians are saints? (1 Cor. 1:2).
6. Why does it condemn the making and adoration of images? (Ex. 20:4-5).
7. Why does it teach that baptism is immersion instead of pouring? (Col. 2:12).
8. Why does it forbid us to address religious leaders as "father"? (Matt. 23:9).
9. Why does it teach that Christ is the only foundation and not the apostle Peter? (1 Cor. 3:11).
10. Why does it teach that there is one mediator instead of many? (1 Tim. 2:5).
11. Why does it teach that a bishop must be a married man? (1 Tim. 3:2, 4-5).
12. Why is it opposed to the primacy of Peter? (Luke 22:24-27).
13. Why does it oppose the idea of purgatory? (Luke 16:26).
14. Why is it completely silent about infant baptism, instrumental music in worship, indulgences, confession to priests, the rosary, the mass, and many other things in the Catholic Church?

Please notice further quotes from Catholic sources:

"During those early times parts of the Bible were scattered among the various churches, no one of which had the complete Bible as we have it now. Then in A.D. 390, at the Council of Hippo, the Catholic Church gathered together the various books which claimed to be scripture, passed on the merits and claims of each and this council decided which were inspired and which were not.

The Catholic Church put all the inspired books and epistles together in one volume and THAT is the Bible as we have it today.

The Catholic Church therefore gave to the people and the World, the Bible as we have it today." (From a magazine advertisement published by the Knights of Columbus bearing the title, "Who Gave the Bible to the People?"

"It was not until the Council of Hippo in 390 that the Church gathered these gospels and epistles, scattered about in different churches, and placed them within the covers of a single book, giving the Bible to the world." (The Faith of Millions, p. 152).

"Indeed, when you accept the Bible as the Word of God, you are obliged to receive it on the authority of the Catholic Church, who was the sole Guardian of the Scriptures for fifteen hundred years." (The Faith of Our Fathers, p. 68).
"When were all these writings put together? The Catholic Church put all of them in one book between the years 350 and 405." (A Catechism for Adults, p. 10).

Thus, Catholics argue that since the Council of Hippo in 390 A.D. proclaimed which books were actually inspired and placed them in one volume, all are indebted to the Catholic Church for the New Testament and can accept it only on the authority of the Catholic Church.

There are several things wrong with this. First, it cannot be proven that the church which held the Council of Hippo in 390 A.D. was the same church which is now known as the Roman Catholic Church. For example, the church of 390 had no crucifixes and images because, "The first mention of Crucifixes are in the sixth century" and "The whole tradition of veneration holy images gradually and naturally developed" (Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. VII, p. 667).

The church of 390 took communion under both kinds because that was the prevailing practice until it was formally abolished in 1416 A.D. (See Lives and Times of the Roman Pontiffs, Vol. I, p. 111). The church of 390 was a church altogether different from the Roman Catholic Church today.

Furthermore, in the proceedings of the Council of Hippo, the bishops did not mention nor give the slightest hint that they were for the first time "officially" cataloging the books of he Bible for the world.

It was not until the fourth session of the Council of Trent (1545-1563) that the bishops and high ranking officials of the Catholic Church "officially" cataloged the books they thought should be included in the Bible and bound them upon the consciences of all Catholics. (See Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, pp. 17-18).

Secondly, God did not give councils the authority to select His sacred books, nor does He expect men to receive His sacred books only because of councils or on the basis of councils. It takes no vote or sanction of a council to make the books of the Bible authoritative. Men were able to rightly discern which books were inspired before the existence of ecclesiastical councils and men can do so today.

A council of men in 390 with no divine authority whatever, supposedly took upon itself the right to state which books were inspired, and Catholics argue, "We can accept the Bible only on the authority of the Catholic Church." Can we follow such reasoning?

Thirdly, it cannot be proven that the Catholic Church is solely responsible for the gathering and selection of the New Testament books. In fact, it can be shown that the New Testament books were gathered into one volume and were in circulation long before the Catholic Church claims to have taken its action in 390 at the council of Hippo. In the following we list some of the catalogues of the books of the Bible which are given by early Christian writers.

326. Athanasius, bishop at Alexandria, mentions all of the New Testament books.
315-386. Cyril, bishop at Jerusalem, gives a list of all New Testament books except Revelation.
270. Eusebius, bishop at Caesarea, called the Father of ecclesiastical history, gives an account of the persecution of Emperor Diocletian whose edict required that all churches be destroyed and the Scriptures burned. He lists all the books of the New Testament. He was commissioned by Constantine to have transcribed fifty copies of the Bible for use of the churches of Constantinople.
185-254. Origen, born at Alexandria, names all the books of both the Old and New Testaments.
165-220. Clement, of Alexandria, names all the books of the New Testament except Philemon, James, 2 Peter and 3 John. In addition we are told by Eusebius, who had the works of Clement, that he gave explanations and quotations from all the canonical books.
160-240. Turtullian, contemporary of Origen and Clement, mentions all the New Testament books except 2 Peter, James and 2 John.
135-200. Irenaeus, quoted from all New Testament books except Philemon, Jude, James and 3 John.
100-147. Justin Martyr, mentions the Gospels as being four in number and quotes from them and some of the epistles of Paul and Revelation.
Besides the above, the early church fathers have handed down in their writings quotations from all the New Testament books so much so that it is said that the entire New Testament can be reproduced from their writings alone.
Thus, the New Testament books were in existence in their present form at the close of the apostolic age. As a matter of fact, the apostles themselves put their writings into circulation. "And when this letter has been read among you, see that it be read in the church of the Laodiceans also; and that you yourselves read the letter from Laodicea." (Col. 4:16). "I charge you by the Lord that this epistle be read to all the holy brethren." (1 Thess. 5:27). The holy Scriptures were written for all (1 Cor. 1:2; Eph. 1:1) and all will be judged by them in the last day (Rev. 20:12; John 12:48). Jesus said that His Word will abide forever (Matt. 24:35; 1 Pet. 1:23-25).

Fourthly, the Catholic claim of giving the Bible to the world cannot be true because they have not been the sole possessor of the Bible at any time. Some of the most valuable Greek Bibles and Versions have been handed down to us from non-Roman Catholic sources. A notable example of this is the Codex Sinaiticus which was found in the monastery of St. Catherine (of the Greek Orthodox Church) at Mount Sinai in 1844 and is now in the British Museum. It contains all of the books of the New Testament and all but small portions of the Old Testament. Scholars are certain that this manuscript was made early in the fourth century, not later than 350 A.D. This manuscript found by a German scholar named, Tishendorf, who was a Protestant, and this manuscript which is the most complete of all has never been in the hands of the Roman Catholic Church.

Another valuable manuscript that has never been possessed by the Roman Catholic Church is the Codex Alexandrianus. It, too, is now on exhibit in the manuscript room of the British Museum in London. It was a gift from the Patriarch of Constantinople (of the Greek Orthodox Church) to Charles I in 1628. It had been in possession of the Patriarchs for centuries and originally came from Alexandria, Egypt from which it gets its name. Scholars are certain that this manuscript was also made in the fourth century and, along with the Codex Sinaiticus, is thought to be one of the fifty Greek Bibles commissioned to be copied by Constantine.

In the light of the foregoing, the boastful claim of the Roman Catholic Church that it has been the sole guardian and preserver of the sacred Scriptures down to the present, is nothing but pure falsehood. The Bible is not a Catholic book. Catholics did not write it, nor does their doctrines and church meet the description of the doctrine and church of which it speaks. The New Testament was completed before the end of the first century, A.D. The things in it do not correspond to the Catholic Church which hundreds of years after the death of the apostles slowly evolved into what it now is. The Catholic Church is not the original and true church, but a "church" born of many departures and corruptions from the New Testament church. Even if the Catholic Church could prove that it alone is the sole deliverer of the Scriptures to man today, it still remains that the Catholic Church is not following the Bible and is contrary to the Bible. Furthermore, even if the Catholic Church could show conclusively that it alone is responsible for gathering the books, it does not prove that the Catholic Church is infallible, nor does it prove that it is the author of the Bible. God has at times used evil agencies to accomplish His purpose (Jer. 27:6-8; 43:10; Hab. 1:5-11; John 11:49-52).

We have studied, therefore, that the Catholic Church argues that since one of its councils in 390 selected the sacred books, one can accept them only on the basis of its authority. We have answered by showing: (1) The Bible is inspired and has authority, not because a church declared it so but because God made it so. (2) Jesus did not teach the people in His day that they could accept the Old Testament Scriptures only on the basis of those who placed the books into one volume. (3) It is a mere assumption that the Council of Hippo in 390 was a Council of the church which is now the Roman Catholic Church. (4) God did not give councils the authority to select His sacred books, nor does He expect men to receive His books only on the basis of councils. (5) The Catholic Church is not solely responsible for the gathering and selection of the New Testament books. (6) The Catholic Church has not been the sole possessor of the Bible at any time. (7) Even if it could be proven that the Catholic Church gathered the books into one volume, it still remains that it is not following the Bible today.

Posts: 4684 | From: Southern Black Hills of South Dakota | Registered: Jun 2002 | IP: Logged |

RioLion
unregistered

posted

As for the Catholic Church making the decision as to what books should constitute the Bible, I take a similar but different view.

First the New Testament and much of my statements are from Systematic Theology by Grudem.

"Because the apostles, by virtue of their apostolic office, had authority to write words of Scripture, the authentic written teachings of the apostles were accepted by the early church as part of the canon of Scripture. If we accept the arguments for the traditional views of authorship of the NT writings, then we have most of the NT in the canon because of direct authorship by the apostles."

The other 5 books not written by the apostles - Mark, Luke, Acts, Hebrews and Jude came to be counted as part of Scripture by the early church ... very early because of their close association of Mark with the apostle Peter, and Luke with the apostle Paul, ... similarly Jude apparently was accepted by virtue of the author's connection with James (see Jude 1) and the fact that he was the (half) brother of Jesus."

Grudem goes on to state that "For a book to belong in the canon, it is absolutely necessary that the book have divine authorship. If the words of the book are
God's words (thru human authors) and it the early church, under the direction of the apostles, preserved the book as part of Scripture, then the book belongs in the canon. The question of authorship by an apostle is important because it was primarily the apostles to whom Christ gave the ability to write words with absolute divine authority. If writing can be shown to be by an apostle then its absolute divine authority is automatically established. Thus, the early church automatically accepted as part of the canon the written teachings of the apostles which the apostles wanted preserved as Scripture.”

There is an interesting footnote –

“Of course, this does not mean that everything an apostle wrote, including even grocery lists and receipts for business transactions, would be considered Scripture. We are speaking here of writings done when acting in the role of an apostle and giving apostolic instructions to churches and to individual Christians such as Timothy and Philemon. It is also very likely that the living apostles themselves gave some guidance to the churches which works they intended to be preserved and used a Scripture in the churches (see Col. 4:16, 2 Thess. 3:14; 2 Peter 3;16). These were apparently some writings that had absolute divine authority but that the apostles did not decide to preserve as “Scripture” for the churches (such as Paul’s ‘previous letter’ to the Corinthians: see 1 Cor. 5:9). Moreover, the apostles did much more oral teaching, which had divine authority (see 2 Thess. 2:15), but was not written down and preserved as Scripture. Thus, in addition to apostolic authorship, preservation by the church under the direction of the apostles was necessary for a work to be included in the canon.”

But nowhere in history or Scripture do we see the Roman Church making the decision as
to what is in the canon. They may have made some pronouncement at some church council but they could only bless what was already thought of as Scripture. Grudem states that the earliest listing of the 27 books of the NT was by Athanasius (a non Romanist) in his 39th Paschal Letter.

IP: Logged |

RioLion
unregistered

posted

Whether you realize it or not you are acknowledging here that you rely on the infallibility of the Catholic Church ...

Not really, my views of the church are simply that it is the community of all true believers in Christ in whom His Spirit indwells regardless of denominational affliation.

It is a living organism in which the different parts have different functions.

1 Cor. 12:12 For as the body is one and has many members, but all the members of that one body, being many, are one body, so also is Christ.

Matthew 18:20 "For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them."

And that is the church.

But it is clear to me that there has been no guarantee or immunity from error given by Christ.
It is just too easy to see the bad doctrines that have crept into the church over the centuries that not have their basis in His word.

The church was warned that wolves would invade the church after the death of the apostles bring with them destructive doctrines.

Acts 20:29 "For I know this, that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock.

1 Timothy 4:1 Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons,...

It is rather obvious from church history that some of these wolves were of the institutional church. We should not make the Spirit out to be a liar.

IP: Logged |

INRI
unregistered

posted

[QUOTE]Originally posted by RioLion:
No, I really believe that if we base our doctrinal beliefs on what we know to be the very words of God, the Bible, then we really cannot go too far wrong. While there is sometimes a problem with interpretation, I believe, much like you may, that we can look at the traditional interpretation and guide on that if that sounds reasonable. The Lord has given His church teachers through whom His Spirit operates.

Whether you realize it or not you are acknowledging here that you rely on the infallibility of the Catholic Church [its divine authority protected from error by the power of the Holy Spirit] to have canonized the right Books [those that were indeed "inspired"] into the Bible.

You realize the Church had the divine authority to give us the Bible, but yet it does not have the same authority to interpret it for us??? If not the Church, who else can interpret the scriptures with certainty? Individuals? Not according to scripture ... [Mt 16:19; 18:17-18; 28:20, Jn 14:26, Acts 8:30-31, Eph 4:14, 1 Tim 3:15, 2 Tim 4:3-4, 2 Pet 1:20; 3:16]. This authority has been given to the Church that JESUS established, not individuals as scripture states.

One of the major differences between the Roman Church and Biblical Christianity, is that the former claims to speak for God, whereas the latter believes that God speaks through His Word to those that would take the time and prayerful read it. The Roman priest tells people to follow
the church, whereas the minister of a Biblical oriented church will tell people to follow Christ. But of course, that would involve a personal relationship with Him.

I suppose that if JESUS established your church you would defend this reality [that the Church has been given divine authority] as well. The only problem with your presupposition is that scripture does not guarantee that you as an individual will be lead to truth by the Holy Spirit, in particular [Jn 14:26] where the guidance of the Holy Spirit is promised to the Apostles and their successors [the Church], not necessarily to individuals. You have no way of knowing if you received the truth from the Holy Spirit or were lead away in error by your personal interpretation [Acts 8:30-31, 2 Pet 1:20; 3:16]. Scripture tells us that the Church is the Body of CHRIST where JESUS is the head [Acts 9:4; 22:7; 26:14, Col 1:18; 1:24; Eph 1:21-23; 5:23]. The Catholic Church of course tells us to follow JESUS CHRIST and to have a personal relationship with Him [your comment implies you believe otherwise] ... JESUS is the source and summit of our Catholic Christian life and faith.

I have read and re-read the Scripture some dozens of time over the years in the difference versions. And I have taken college level course in Bible studies. It continues to speak to me and reveal to me a closer walk with the Lord. I really do not find it lacking.

I am glad to hear that. As a Catholic we are encouraged to read the scriptures as well and I do ... a word of caution, if you do not have a visible, living authority you can turn to, you will never know if you received the truth. Why is your interpretation of scripture [or of your church] THE TRUTH when there are +33,000 Christian denominations [per the Oxford Christian Encyclopedia] professing beliefs that are sometimes slightly different, other times very different and many times contradictory to your own. WHY DO YOU AND YOU ALONE HOLD THE TRUTH?

Martin Luther (and I am glad to see you agree) did now always agree with his contemporaries even in his own camp. He was raised Roman Catholic and I would suppose that if he had lived much longer would have written a Retractations like Augustine did. Perhaps he would have discerned that his belief in the intercession of Mary as well as his belief in her perpetual virginity was simply the inventions of some pious monk

Perhaps not, according to my study of his later writings which indicate remorse for the whole Protestant Reformation.

"I never approved of a schism, nor will I approve of it for all eternity . . . That the Roman Church is more honored by God than all others is not to be doubted . . . It is not by separating from the Church that we can make her better." [Martin Luther - Letter to Pope Leo X, January 6, 1519]

"Who would have wanted to begin preaching, had we known beforehand that so much disaster, riotousness, scandal, sacrilege, ingratitude [i.e., towards himself], and wickedness were to follow. But now . . . we have to pay for it." [Martin Luther - Works, Erlangen, 50,74; in 1538]

"I have well nigh given up all hope for Germany, for . . . wickedness and roguery are reigning everywhere . . . and added to all else contempt of the Word." [Martin Luther - Letter to Anton Lauterbach, November 1541]

If I remember correctly, wasn't Martin Luther buried with a depiction of our Blessed Mother at her Assumption into Heaven? This does not sound like someone who would recant his beliefs about the Blessed Virgin Mary.

who spend too much time battling his natural sexual desires and could not look to the Lord for deliverance. Old Martin would end up spending hours on his knees every time a good looking lass walked bye and wiggled her nice shapely *** at him.

What kind of Christian example do you wish to set [especially with the younger members here] with inappropriate comments like these?

Sexual things have always been a problem with the Roman Church because of their inability to recognize natural desires from those that are truly carnal. I would expect that the Roman Church because of its multi-billion dollar lawsuits will finally get the message and either permit their priests to marry or masturbate.

anyway, later...

Celibacy for priests in the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church is a normative discipline, not a doctrine ... there are married priests [those who converted from other faiths having been married] in the Latin Rite. The Eastern Rites of the Catholic Church however permit married men to become priests. The good of celibacy in the priesthood is very scriptural coming straight from the words of JESUS and St. Paul [Mt 19:12, 1 Cor 7:7-9; 7:32-33, 1 Tim 4:11-12].

Matthew 19:12 (KJV)
12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

1 Corinthians 7:32-33 (KJV)
32 But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord:
33 But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife.

And in regards to masterbation, it is morally and gravely [sin unto death] sinful as scripture tells us.

Genesis 38:8-10 (KJV)
8 And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother's wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother.
9 And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother.
10 And the thing which he did displeased the LORD: wherefore he slew him also.

As always I hope my explanations help you to understand the Catholic perspective. Peace.

IP: Logged |

RioLion
unregistered

posted

No, I really believe that if we base our doctrinal beliefs on what we know to be the very words of God, the Bible, then we really cannot go too far wrong. While there is sometimes a problem with interpretation, I believe, much like you may, that we can look at the traditional interpretation and guide on that if that sounds reasonable. The Lord has given His church teachers through whom His Spirit operates.

One of the major differences between the Roman Church and Biblical Christianity, is that the former claims to speak for God, whereas the latter believes that God speaks through His Word to those that would take the time and prayerful read it. The Roman priest tells people to follow the church, whereas the minister of a Biblical oriented church will tell people to follow Christ. But of course, that would involve a personal relationship with Him.

I have read and re-read the Scripture some dozens of time over the years in the difference versions. And I have taken college level course in Bible studies. It continues to speak to me and reveal to me a closer walk with the Lord. I really do not find it lacking.

Martin Luther (and I am glad to see you agree) did now always agree with his contemporaries even in his own camp. He was raised Roman Catholic and I would suppose that if he had lived much longer would have written a Retractations like Augustine did. Perhaps he would have discerned that his belief in the intercession of Mary as well as his belief in her perpetual virginity was simply the inventions of some pious monk who spend too much time battling his natural sexual desires and could not look to the Lord for deliverance.
Old Martin would end up spending hours on his knees every time a good looking lass walked bye and wiggled her nice shapely *** at him.

Sexual things have always been a problem with the Roman Church because of their inability to recognize natural desires from those that are truly carnal. I would expect that the Roman Church because of its multi-billion dollar lawsuits will finally get the message and either permit their priests to marry or masturbate.

anyway, later... [pound]

IP: Logged |

INRI
unregistered

posted

[QUOTE]Originally posted by RioLion:
Martin Luther believed many things that not only his comtemporaries disagreed with but his successors as well.

Agreed, the further you depart from the source the less like it you become. I do have to say that John Calvin held similar views in regards to the Eucharist in that he indeed believed in the Real Presence of JESUS CHRIST.

He kept a diary on his prayers to Mary; believing her to be an intercessor.

He also believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary

You are correct, he believed much about our Blessed Mother as Catholics do today including her being Mother of GOD, the Immaculate Conception and her Perpetual Virginity.

as well as sola scriptura - the concept that if it is not supported by scripture then we do not have to believe it.

Well if Luther believed in "sola scriptura" then he must have believed that these doctrines were biblical?

I think scripture is pretty clear that Mary has several children by Joseph having consumated their marriage after the birth of Jesus.

This is what Luther had to say about that.

"Christ . . . was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him . . . 'brothers' really means 'cousins' here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers." [Martin Luther - Sermons on John, Chapters 1-4, 1537-39]

"It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of our Lord and still a virgin." [Martin Luther - Works, Volume 11, in 1538]

In fact, the Roman view is that poor old Joseph had the gift of erectile dysfunction and needed viagra. The Roman Church view is simply stupid and unrealistic. [updown]

No no no, why do these conversations always have to deteriorate into name caling? Please, lets not do that. That has never been taught [that he was physically unable], the Catholic view in this area is of the utmost respect to JESUS, Mary and Joseph. On this particular issue we understand Mary to be the new Ark of the Covenant, and with this in mind her Perpetual Virginity makes PERFECT sense.

A good book on Mary is by Dr. Scott Hahn called "Hail, Holy Queen, the Mother of God in the Word of God". Dr. Hahn is that Presbyterian minister who converted to Catholicism about ten years ago, perhaps you have heard of him? If you do not want to buy the book or tape set, you can listen and download it for free using realplayer here:

http://www.ewtn.com/vondemand/audio/file_index.asp?SeriesId=6668&pgnu=3 [Hail Holy Queen tape series]

A good book on Luther is by Roland - a book that I read years ago but still cannot find.

Thanks.

In any case, Biblical Christianity does not follow Luther but advocates that one follow Christ. [Big Grin]

So "Biblical Christianity" [Bible Alone Christianity] has departed from the teachings of its founder?

IP: Logged |

RioLion
unregistered

posted

Martin Luther believed many things that not only his comtemporaries disagreed with but his successors as well.

He kept a diary on his prayers to Mary; believing her to be an intercessor.

He also believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary as well as sola scriptura - the concept that if it is not supported by scripture then we do not have to believe it.

I think scripture is pretty clear that Mary has several children by Joseph having consumated their marriage after the birth of Jesus. In fact, the Roman view is that poor old Joseph had the gift of erectile dysfunction and needed viagra. The Roman Church view is simply stupid and unrealistic. [updown]

A good book on Luther is by Roland - a book that I read years ago but still cannot find.

In any case, Biblical Christianity does not follow Luther but advocates that one follow Christ. [Big Grin]

IP: Logged |

INRI
unregistered

posted

[QUOTE]Originally posted by RioLion:

The Roman Church did not invent the Scripture nor did they define the content of scripture, as this was something that was recognized early by the primitive church which was not Roman Catholic.

To clear the record, I must respond to your comment with a quote from Martin Luther, leader of the the Protestant Reformation.

"We are obliged to yield many things to the Papists (Catholics) that they possess the Word of God which we received from them, otherwise we should have known nothing at all about it." [Martin Luther - His Commentary on St. John, Chapter 16]

Luther, in his own words, disagrees with what you stated.

IP: Logged |

RioLion
unregistered

posted

Arguments amongst Christians do not give glory to GOD. Very true!

I am inclined to agree as the forces arrayed against Christians today are just too great. The wolves in our midst will eventually prevail.

What I see coming is a totally apostate church having form of godliness but denying the power therein of the gospel.

The Roman Catholic claim that the gates of hell will never prevail cannot be substantiated in view of Biblical eschotology.

IP: Logged |

INRI
unregistered

posted

My last post came off less than charitable and for that I am sorry. Arguments amoungst Christians do not give glory to GOD. Thanks be to GOD that even though we have differences, we do share much in common and someday once again we may all be one. Peace.

1 Peter 3:15-16 (RSV)
15 but in your hearts reverence Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to make a defense to any one who calls you to account for the hope
that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence;
16 and keep your conscience clear, so that, when you are abused, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame.

I never approved of a schism, nor will I approve of it for all eternity . . . That the Roman Church is more honored by God than all others is not to be doubted . . . It is not by separating from the Church that we can make her better. [Martin Luther - Letter to Pope Leo X, January 6, 1519]

IP: Logged |

INRI
unregistered

posted

[QUOTE]Originally posted by RioLion:
They could not have been "Bible alone" Christians without Bibles could they have been?

Quite the contrary! The leadership particularly the Early Fathers (who btw were not all Roman Catholic) recognized scripture as the ultimate authority in times after the death of the apostles.

I think you missed the essence of my comment ... you cannot be a "Bible Christian" aka [Bible alone - "sola scriptura"] without the masses having access to a Bible [economically or educationally] let alone owning one for themselves. The Bible was not determined by the Catholic Church until the end of the 4th century and before then there were some individual scriptures floating around, some under heavy debate but there was not this defined collection of books that exist as a collection in the Bible as we know it today. You cannot be "Bible alone" because the Bible itself does not have an inspired table of contents stating that this book, this book, and that book are to be a part of the Bible. This position is untenable ... JESUS left us the Catholic Church, not the Bible. Although the OT Books predate the Christian Church, they were by no means known as infallible collection, there was dispute over what Books were to be considered inspired, this legacy lives on with the rejection of the Martin Luther and the Deuterocanonical Books not to mention some NT Books he wanted to eliminate.

I use the term "Roman Catholic" ... this term merely describes the Latin Rite of the Catholic "Universal" Church. Those early Christians known as the early Church fathers were indeed Catholic, if you reference groups outside of the Church they were regarded as heretics that denied many of the basic tenets of the Christian faith.

Of course scripture was important to the early Christians as it should have been, but oral tradition and the magisterium [the teaching authority of the Church were important as well] and are preserved in the Catholic Church to this day. It was the Apostolic Father St. Ignatius of Antioch that said that we should look upon the Bishop as CHRIST Himself. Pretty strong words.

True that they recognized the traditional teachings of the church having its roots in the apostolic succession.

Yes of course they did understand the need for apostolic succession. The Catholic Church preserves this Christian Tradition. This is a necessity in preserving the faith handed down to us from CHRIST.

Note that in the debates over the centuries; particular the arguments regarding heresy that scripture was the authority that was used; not tradition - something that is undefined as to content and has its origin someplace in the ether.

Many places in scripture tells us that they would prefer to meet in person rather than writing it down and that not everything is in the Bible. St. Paul tells us that Christian Tradition is both oral and the written word so we should heed St. Paul's words and not ignore that half of Christianity.

Today one has a choice - either Sola Scriptura - scripture alone, or Sola Ecclesia Romanus - the Church of Rome alone. I will place my trust in the word of God; not in some institution such as a church despite the problems of interpretations.

Sounds like you like James White [his sister Patty "Patrick" Bonds recently converted to the Catholic faith], that is an argument he likes to use but that is going a little far.

If it were not for the Catholic Church we would not have the defined written Word of GOD as we know it today. They determined what was inspired and what was not out of hundreds and maybe thousands of proported inspired books. The Bible is a Catholic book in that respect, for you to deem them that obsolete or unnecessary after they give us the Bible is amazing to me. JESUS CHRIST gave to the Church the final authority as scripture states, not to the Bible, because it needs someone to actively interpret it, namely the Holy Spirit who was promised upon the Church to guide and lead her to all truth. JESUS promised this protection upon the Apostles which constitute the Church, not individuals with any assurance. The Catholic Church is not "sola ecclesia" rather it is scripture, tradition and magisterium - a sturdy three-legged foundation built upon JESUS CHRIST. Placing your trust in the Church that CHRIST established IS putting your trust in GOD for the Church is indeed the Body of Christ, JESUS being the head as scripture tells us. You imply that the Catholic Church is "sola ecclesia" as if it is at emnity with the Bible and that is simply not the case, the Catholic faith has its foundation in scripture. "Sola ecclesia" as you state would have to be the Church standing in the way of scripture, but rather the Church is the infallible interpreter of scripture, as protected by the Holy Spirit.

While there are hundreds of denominations in Christendom today, one has to bear in mind, that the Roman church is but one of these denominations with its origin at the Council of Trent with its own interpretations of scripture and defined dogmas. And we still see denominations created as a result of splits from the Roman Church.

To be honest with you RioLion, I have never heard this claim you make repeatedly, that the Catholic Church started with the Council of Trent, history does not bear this out and you would be hard pressed to find any objective historian to support this. The general myth is that the Catholic Church was started with Emperor Constantine when he legalized Christianity in the Roman Empire some 1200 years prior to your claim, is this date is even incorrect as we know that St. Ignatius already called the Church CHRIST established the "Catholic Church" in the year 107 A.D.

Howbeit, the Roman Church has never really been known for its emphasis on the Bible since its ultimate authority is the pope and its magisterium.

The Roman Church never known for its emphasis on the Bible??? The Catholic Church gave us the Bible, you cannot get a greater emphasis than that. Like I stated before, a three-legged authority of Scripture [which is uniquely GOD-breathed, Tradition and Magisterium].

Even at one time the Bible was on their list of forbidden books because of their fear that scripture would reveal that the Roman Church has departed from the word of God.

Oh come on! Are you serious, leaving out a few details maybe, this had to do with heretical versions of scripture that twisted and thwarted the word [2 Peter 3:16]. Why would the Church that CHRIST founded keep people from the Word? This is an often used myth.

The Roman Church did not invent the Scripture nor did they define the content of scripture, as this was something that was recognized early by the primitive church which was not Roman Catholic.

Okay, this is the same stuff. Who gave us the Bible if it was not the Catholic Church? Are you choosing to ignore historical facts?

You may have hundreds of different denominations but among those that recognize the ultimate authority of scripture, there is more unity in diversity than what one finds within the Roman Church community.

Not possible. The Catholic Church has one set of defined beliefs that makes those adhere to them Catholic. This is not the case for those outside the Church.

To have a unity that the Roman Church desires would entail the destruction of our democracy as we know it with loss of all basic freedoms. Even the old popes condemned the US constitution; particularly the freedom of speech, the press, and religion. One often wonders how 'catholic' one can really be and still be an American. I thank God that most Roman Catholics recognize the importance of our freedoms.

As much as I love democracy, Christianity is not democratic in that we cannot decide how we would like Christianity to be based on our own desires. GOD determined the tenets and truth of Christianity and this truth is ABSOLUTE, not RELATIVE as Christianity outside Catholicism would have us belief. There can only be ONE truth, not many, and certainly not contradicting ones. How can you explain this phenomenom?

IP: Logged |

Goldman01
Advanced Member
Member # 1955

posted

quote:
Originally posted by Jenn:
Why are there so many differnet denominations of the Christian church?

Who do you suppose made this happen? Certainly not God! I would say it is deceitful and arrogant men who think they are more wise and have a better divine plan than God. They add and take away from scripture to suit themselves and what they would find easier to follow and believe.

What ever happened to Ephesians 4:5, "one Lord, one faith, one baptism;" When man intervenes on what God established, the end result is division.

Romans 16:17,18 says it best: "I urge you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them. For such people are not serving our Lord Christ, but their own appetites. By smooth talk and flattery they deceive the minds of naive people."

quote:
I was also wondering what are some of the main differences between the major ones. Any thoughts or help would be appreciated.

I won't fill you in on any of the "major denomination" differences, but will give you a link to the difference between the church of Christ and denominations. The points given are major differences between the church of Christ and denominations. It's good reading coming from a former member of the Southern Baptist church.

Converted to Christ! (Why I Left Denominationalism)

Let's stop focusing on our wants and desires, and start focusing on God's wants and desires. It's all in the Bible. It's clear cut. There's no secret code that needs to be broken for us. It's plain and simple. It just takes a simple mind to understand it. When our minds have been filled with all sorts of "teachings" and we are confused, the easy way to get it straight is to go to the Bible. There's no better way than that!

--------------------
Acts 2:38
Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."

Posts: 24 | From: Southern IL | Registered: Aug 2003 | IP: Logged |

RioLion
unregistered

posted

They could not have been "Bible alone" Christians without Bibles could they have been?

Quite the contrary! The leadership particularly the Early Fathers (who btw were not all Roman Catholic) recognized scripture as the ultimate authority in times after the death of the apostles. True that they recognized the traditional teachings of the church having its roots in the apostolic succession.

Note that in the debates over the centuries; particular the arguments regarding heresy that scripture was the authority that was used; not tradition - something that is undefined as to content and has its origin someplace in the ether.

Today one has a choice - either Sola Scriptura - scripture alone, or Sola Ecclesia Romanus - the Church of Rome alone. I will place my trust in the word of God; not in some institution such as a church despite the problems of interpretations.

While there are hundreds of denominations in Christendom today, one has to bear in mind, that the Roman church is but one of these denominations with its origin at the Council of Trent with its own interpretations of scripture and defined dogmas. And we still see denominations created as a result of splits from the Roman Church.

Howbeit, the Roman Church has never really been known for its emphasis on the Bible since its ultimate authority is the pope and its magisterium. Even at one time the Bible was on their list of forbidden books because of their fear that scripture would reveal that the Roman Church has departed from the word of God.

The Roman Church did not invent the Scripture nor did they define the content of scripture, as this was something that was recognized early by the primitive church which was not Roman Catholic.

You may have hundreds of different denominations but among those that recognize the ultimate authority of scripture, there is more unity in diversity than what one finds within the Roman Church community.

To have a unity that the Roman Church desires would entail the destruction of our democracy as we know it with loss of all basic freedoms. Even the old popes condemned the US constitution; particularly the freedom of speech, the press, and religion. One often wonders how 'catholic' one can really be and still be an American. I thank God that most Roman Catholics recognize the importance of our freedoms.

IP: Logged |

INRI
unregistered

posted

[QUOTE]Originally posted by INRI:
Where in scripture does it tell us that scripture itself is the ultimate authority? Are you saying that scripture is the pillar and foundation of truth? Please clarify to me what you understand to be the "word of man" and the "Word of GOD" so that we can further this conversation.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by RioLion:
Where in scripture does it tell us that scripture itself is the ultimate authority?

Where else would one look for the words of God but in Scripture? If scripture is the word of God, then clearly it would be the ultimate authority, would it not?

Yes scripture is uniquely GOD-breathed, but that does us no good if we do not have anyone to reliably interpret it for us [Acts 8:30-31, 2 Peter 1:20; 3:16]. This is a big problem that one in good conscience cannot ignore. There exist over 33,000 Protestant denominations [according the Oxford Christian Encyclopedia] that have different [admittedly some being minor variations] and many times CONTRADICTING viewpoints. This confusion cannot be sanctioned by the Holy Spirit, for He is the author of truth, NOT confusion!

But getting back to my original question ... where in scripture does it tell us that scripture itself is the ultimate authority? Are you saying that scripture is the pillar and foundation of truth?

My Bible tells me what is the pillar and foundation of the truth, and it is not the Bible.

1 Timothy 3:15 (NAB)
15 But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.

Matthew 16:18-19; 18:17-18; 28:18-20, John 14:26, and Ephesians 1:22-23 just to name a few help to illustrate this reality.

Nowhere in scripture does scripture tells us that it is the sole rule of faith; afterall, it was the Catholic Church who gave us the Bible ... and in those first 400 years what did Christians do when they did not have Bibles??? They could not have been "Bible alone" Christians without Bibles could they have been? NO, they had to be taught Christian truth through word of mouth otherwise known as "oral tradition" just as the Catholic Church preserves to this day. As we know from scripture, Christian Tradition was passed down to us through two forms "word of mouth" and written epistle, and we must also acknowledge that everything about the Christian faith could not have possibly been written down [2 Thessalonians 2:15, John 21:25].

2 Thessalonians 2:15
15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.

I have often wondered why the Roman Catholic feels that scripture itself is inadequate for the Christian faith.

I have explained this up above, scripture is definitely NOT inadequate for it is uniquely GOD-breathed, but it is not the only authority as scripture clearly states. How could it be if it did not exist in an accessible form for the first 400 years of Church history until the Catholic Church gave us the Bible ... JESUS did not leave us a book or collection of books, He left us a Church, one to guide us to all truth.

"From among the things that are plainly laid down in Scripture are to be found ALL MATTERS tha concern faith and the manner of life." St. Augustine.

Exactly, scripture is from where the Catholic Church develops her doctrines of the Christian faith. Peace to you.

IP: Logged |

INRI
unregistered

posted

[QUOTE]Originally posted by RioLion:
Anyone familiar with church history will realize that church offices were often filled with political appointees with the laity not having any voice whatsoever.

Popes have been elected by different methods throughout history, one being through popular opinion of the laity. The way Popes are elected has changed throughout history much like the way U.S. Presidents are elected has changed.

Many of these people were just evil people and such were some of the popes who btw created some of those non-scriptural doctrines prevailing in the Roman Church. A good reference on this is "Vicars of Christ, the Dark side of the Papacy", by Peter de Rosa.

Yes indeed there have been some bad Popes, about 3 out of 264 come to mind, that is a pretty good record, especially considering 1 out of 12 JESUS chose were corrupt [Judas betrayed Him]. Thank GOD that none of these bad Popes actually taught any false doctrine, they were too busy leading corrupt lives.

Interesting to note that of the 5 popes that presided over the Council of Trent, 4 of them were fornicators, having children from their mistresses; one was a ardent inquisitor and murderer with much blood on his hand.

That is interesting, I would like to see your source material on these claims [I have never heard that], this is inmaterial however; since Popes are not said to be "impeccable" [free from sin] but rather "infallible" [free from error when speaking on issues of faith and morals that are binding on the faithful, ex-cathedra].

And you like to say that the Roman Church has not really changed. I can believe that!

I do not ever remember making such a statement ... in fact it is one thing that is guaranteed, the more things change in this world, the more things stay the same in the Catholic Church in regards to faith and morals, she will not succumb to the winds of secularism and progressivism.

I am not sure but isn't fornication a mere venial sin in the Roman Church? Biblical Christianity takes another viewpoint -

1 Corinthians 6:9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, ... will inherit the kingdom of God. [Big Grin]

RioLion,
I can see you are getting a little upset here, please lets keep this conversation at a rational level. I do not appreciate you making assertions that are completely false ... fornication is not a "venial sin" in the eyes of the Church, it definitely falls under the Ten Commandments and therefore is a moral sin [a sin unto death]. The Bible is quite clear on fornication ... [GOD hates fornicators].

I do not believe there is any more stringent walk to holiness than that found in the Catholic Church, that is of course if chooses to follow the teachings of the Church. We believe that even one unrepented mortal sin on your soul at the time of death puts your soul in jeopardy of eternal damnation.

I know you mentioned a couple of priests that have left the faith but I can name a whole lot more [former miniters and otherwise] that have come home in the last few years: Dr. Scott Hahn, Tim Staples, James Akin, Marcus Grodi, Thomas Howard, David Currie, Steve Wood, Patty Bonds [sister of James White], Dave Armstrong, Steve Ray, Paul Thigpen, Alex Jones and Carl E. Olsen just to name a few. There indeed is a new spring time within the Church.

Seriously though, I am not here to cause divide, I want more than anything to clear up myths and misconceptions about the Catholic faith. This quote sums this up quite well:

"There are not over a hundred people in the United States who hate the Catholic Church. There are millions, however, who hate what they wrongly believe to be the Catholic Church — which is, of course, quite a different thing." [Archbishop Fulton Sheen]

You cannot get the true scoop on Catholicism without reading some pro-Catholic sources so if you are interested I can provide you some. GOD Bless!

IP: Logged |

RioLion
unregistered

posted

Where in scripture does it tell us that scripture itself is the ultimate authority?

Where else would one look for the words of God but in Scripture? If scripture is the word of God, then clearly it would be the ultimate authority, would it not?

Romans 15:4 For whatever things were written before were written for our learning, that we through the patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope.

1 Corinthians 4:6 Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively transferred to myself and Apollos for your sakes, that you may learn in us not to think beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up on behalf of one against the other.

There are other places in scripture where we see the phrase "it is written".

I have often wondered why the Roman Catholic feels that scripture itself is inadequate for the Christian faith.

"From among the things that are plainly laid down in Scripture are to be found ALL MATTERS tha concern faith and the manner of life." St. Augustine.

IP: Logged |

RioLion
unregistered

posted

Very true that we as Christians need to be submissive to our church leaders as God has appointed them over us for our own benefit. The church would not function too well without authority over believers; but this authority has its limits. [Mad]

Howbeit, we also are to heed the warning that there would be wolves in the leadership of the church introducing destructive doctrines of demons. These we are not to follow as we would be participants in their evil.
[mad2]

John 10:3-5 "To him the doorkeeper opens, and the sheep hear his voice; and he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out."And when he brings out his own sheep, he goes before them; and the sheep follow him, for they know his voice. "Yet they will by no means follow a stranger, but will flee from him, for they do not know the voice of strangers."

Anyone familiar with church history will realize that church offices were often filled with political appointees with the laity not having any voice whatsoever. Many of these people were just evil people and such were some of the popes who btw created some of those non-scriptural doctrines prevailing in the Roman Church. A good reference on this is "Vicars of Christ, the Dark side of the Papacy", by Peter de Rosa.

Interesting to note that of the 5 popes that presided over the Council of Trent, 4 of them were fornicators, having children from their mistresses; one was a ardent inquisitor and murderer with much blood on his hand. And you like to say that the Roman Church has not really changed. I can believe that!

I am not sure but isn't fornication a mere venial sin in the Roman Church? Biblical Christianity takes another viewpoint -

1 Corinthians 6:9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, ... will inherit the kingdom of God. [Big Grin]

IP: Logged |

INRI
unregistered

posted

[QUOTE]Originally posted by RioLion:"
Scripture tells to conform ourselves not to this world, but to Him.

Your statement is very true howbeit, Roman Catholics believe that obedience to their church is the same as to Christ.

RioLion,

Thanks for your replied and this continued dialogue. Scripture tells us that JESUS CHRIST is the head, and the church is His body.

Acts 9:4 (KJV) [also Acts 22:7; 26:14]
4 And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?

We know that before his conversion Paul [then Saul] was persecuting the church, JESUS does not ask why Paul is persecuting the church, but rather He asks why do you persecute ME.

Colossians 1:18 (KJV)
18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

Colossians 1:24 (KJV)
24 Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake, which is the church:

Ephesians 1:21-23 (KJV)
21 Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come:
22 And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church,
23 Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.

Ephesians 5:23 (KJV)
23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

Scripture also tells us to obey the church.

Hebrews 13:17 (KJV)
17 Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.

Biblical Christians that hold the Scripture to be the ultimate authority discern the difference between the word of man and that of God.

Where in scripture does it tell us that scripture itself is the ultimate authority? Are you saying that scripture is the pillar and foundation of truth? Please clarify to me what you understand to be the "word of man" and the "Word of GOD" so that we can further this conversation.

Acts 20:29 "For I know this, that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock.

And it is just too easy to see from history that the wolves have too often been in charge of the church.

--------------------
lee j.

Yes indeed they have, many heresies have risen out of the church, it was at these times when most of the doctrines of the church were defined, in order to clarify these misunderstandings.

IP: Logged |

RioLion
unregistered

posted

" Scripture tells to conform ourselves not to this world, but to Him.

Your statement is very true howbeit, Roman Catholics believe that obedience to their church is the same as to Christ. Biblical Christians that hold the Scripture to be the ultimate authority discern the difference between the word of man and that of God.

Acts 20:29 "For I know this, that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock.

And it is just too easy to see from history that the wolves have too often been in charge of the church. It is certainly no wonder at all that sexual perverts have had a field day within the Roman Church with this kind of mentality.

IP: Logged |

INRI
unregistered

posted

[QUOTE]Originally posted by RioLion:
There are just too many other verses, some already given, that indicate that the church in its latter days will become an apostate church. And that would clearly indicate that there has been no immunity from error given by the Lord and certainly no mandate given to the bishops of Rome as the successors of the Apostle Peter. The concept, I trust, you will find is rather difficult to defend.

Interesting that the primacy of Rome in the very early centuries was defended with the statement that "it has always been that way" but then later they appealed to Mt 16:18.

A very good and well written book on the apostle Peter being given some kind of authority keys that he passed down to his successors, is "The Matthew 16 Controversy - Peter & the Rock" by William Webster. I would suspect that if you were to take the time to read his book, you find the claims of the Roman Church regarding their alledged authority to be totally untenable.

You would feel the same if you read the book "Jesus, Peter and the Keys" by Norm Dahlgren and Scott Butler.

The phase that the church is currently in, is the denominational phase that more so reflects the power of the church as a whole over that of its elected or appointed leaders. It is really a more democratic versus the authoritative and often abusive style of government under which His church has greatly suffered - a system with better checks and balances; yet not perfect.

GOD is not subjective, He is absolute truth. Denominationalism teaches the former and this splintering is in error IMO. This splintering is not found within the Catholic Church. Scripture tells to conform ourselves not to this world, but to Him.

Ephesians 4:13-15(KJV)
13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;
15 But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:

IP: Logged |

INRI
unregistered

posted

[QUOTE]Originally posted by RioLion:
Mt. 16:19 "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven."

The verse does not include anything being passed downward via the apostles, especially the Apostle Peter.

Check out the OT parallel where the Lord replaces Shebna with Eliakim, thus this shows succession and illustrates that when someone is giving the "keys" they are given authority from GOD.

Isaiah 22:22 (KJV)
22 And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.

The Roman Church extrapolates (to infer from unknown data) on this verse to claim primary. It is interesting that the Eastern Orthodox Church makes similar claims.

Of course the Orthodox Churches make similar claims, because they have apostolic succession back to St. Peter as well, but there is a 1000 year schism between the two Churches, the West and East, they broke from Rome but yet they will claim it is vice versa.

Regarding the keys in Matthew 16:19,

"There is absolutely nothing in this passage which speaks of successors to Peter and the passing on of his personal perogatives to them. The keys, rather than signifying the establishment of the institution of the papacy and supreme authority to rule the church and the world, are representative of the authority to exercise discipline in the church and to proclaim the gospel, declaring the free forgiveness of sins in the Lord Jesus Christ. Such a declaration opens the kingdom of God to men or, if they reject the message, closes it to them. The keys are not the possession of a single individual, for exactly the same authority which Christ promises to Peter he also grants to the other apostles in Matthew 18:18 and john 20:22-23. They are all given authority to bind and loose by declaring the forgiveness of sins through Christ. They are all equal under the authority of one head, the Lord Jesus. The authority they are given is a delegated, declarative authority, which is in Christ's name and comes from him who alone possesses the supreme authority to rule the Church." page 39-40, The Church of Rome at the Bar of History, William Webster. [Wink]

Yes first Peter then the other apostles are given the power to "bind and loose"; however, Peter alone was given the "keys of the kingdom" as is illustrated in Isaiah 22:22. The Orthodox, although not conceeding that the Pope has universal jurisdiction officially they did in application when it came to abolishing early heresies, they have always felt that he is the "first in honor" or the "big brother" of the Patriarches.

IP: Logged |

RioLion
unregistered

posted

There are just too many other verses, some already given, that indicate that the church in its latter days will become an apostate church. And that would clearly indicate that there has been no immunity from error given by the Lord and certainly no mandate given to the bishops of Rome as the successors of the Apostle Peter. The concept, I trust, you will find is rather difficult to defend.

A very good and well written book on the apostle Peter being given some kind of authority keys that he passed down to his successors, is "The Matthew 16 Controversy - Peter & the Rock" by William Webster. I would suspect that if you were to take the time to read his book, you find the claims of the Roman Church regarding their alledged authority to be totally untenable.

The phase that the church is currently in, is the denominational phase that more so reflects the power of the church as a whole over that of its elected or appointed leaders. It is really a more democratic versus the authoritative and often abusive style of government under which His church has greatly suffered - a system with better checks and balances; yet not perfect.

IP: Logged |

RioLion
unregistered

posted

Mt. 16:19 "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven."

The verse does not include anything being passed downward via the apostles, especially the Apostle Peter. The Roman Church extrapolates (to infer from unknown data) on this verse to claim primary. It is interesting that the Eastern Orthodox Church makes similar claims.

Regarding the keys in Matthew 16:19,

"There is absolutely nothing in this passage which speaks of successors to Peter and the passing on of his personal perogatives to them. The keys, rather than signifying the establishment of the institution of the papacy and supreme authority to rule the church and the world, are representative of the authority to exercise discipline in the church and to proclaim the gospel, declaring the free forgiveness of sins in the Lord Jesus Christ. Such a declaration opens the kingdom of God to men or, if they reject the message, closes it to them. The keys are not the possession of a single individual, for exactly the same authority which Christ promises to Peter he also grants to the other apostles in Matthew 18:18 and john 20:22-23. They are all given authority to bind and loose by declaring the forgiveness of sins through Christ. They are all equal under the authority of one head, the Lord Jesus. The authority they are given is a delegated, declarative authority, which is in Christ's name and comes from him who alone possesses the supreme authority to rule the Church." page 39-40, The Church of Rome at the Bar of History, William Webster. [Wink]

IP: Logged |

INRI
unregistered

posted

X. Pascha,

Welcome aboard! I always enjoy conversing my my Orthodox brothers and sisters in CHRIST. I agree with much of what you said, we Catholics and Orthodox see things much the same.

IP: Logged |

INRI
unregistered

posted

[QUOTE]Originally posted by RioLion:
... Mt. 16:18 "And I say also unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

RioLion,

Matthew 16:18 tells us the Church will stand no matter the forces acting against it. However, it is in Matthew 16:19,

19 "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven."

where the real authority is given to Peter "binding and loosing" and then later to the other apostles in Matthew 18. The unique thing here is that Peter is given the "keys of the kingdom" a symbol of authority to serve as prime minister of the universal Church [Isaiah 22:22].

You did not address those other passages which strongly imply freedom from doctrinal error [Matthew 18:17-18, 1 Timothy 3:15], only because of divine protection from the Holy Spirit [John 14:8-26]. Have you read the context of this passage, JESUS is promising that the Holy Spirit will guide the apostles and their successors, not necessarily individuals. Read it, see who He is addressing.

If the Catholic Church were a mere pagan establishment, it would have fallen long, long ago because its members are far from Holy, but in fact the institution itself is Holy.

The verse does not give the church any immunity from error; it merely assures us that the church will not be destroyed. Howbeit, you need to be made aware that Scripture predicts a church of the end times that is apostate. Consider if you will the following -

2 Thess. 2:3-4 Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.

(Scofield) The order of events is:

(1) The working of the mystery of lawlessness under divine restraint which had already begun in the apostle’s time #2Th 2:7

(2) the apostasy of the professing church
#2Th 1:3 Lu 18:8 2Ti 3:1-8.

If Scripture is to be fulfilled, then clearly we can state that the Lord has not given His church any immunity from error.

Scripture tells us that the beast will appear where the Lord was crucified and that place my friend is not Rome, it is Jerusalem.

Revelation 11:7-8 (KJV)
7 And when they shall have finished their testimony, the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them.
8 And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.

From history it is just too easy to see that the church has fallen into error of various sorts. And there is little support for the view that just because the church errored in practice, that they did not do so doctrinally as well. In fact, any cursory reading of church history should tell one that. [Eek!]

The Catholic Church has endured much tribulation over its 2000 years so it should not surprise anyone that she might have as her past some less-than-favorable events in history. Error in practice does not equal error in doctrine. Even Peter himself was rebuked by Paul over the issue of circumcision, this was an error in practice and not doctrine so it is not surprising that this same fallibility would carry over to Peter's successors.

What version of history do you read - Catholic, Protestant, or secular? Because you will get different answers depending on who you read.

IP: Logged |

RioLion
unregistered

posted

... Mt. 16:18 "And I say also unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

The verse does not give the church any immunity from error; it merely assures us that the church will not be destroyed. Howbeit, you need to be made aware that Scripture predicts a church of the end times that is apostate. Consider if you will the following -

2 Thess. 2:3-4 Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.

(Scofield) The order of events is:

(1) The working of the mystery of lawlessness under divine restraint which had already begun in the apostle’s time #2Th 2:7

(2) the apostasy of the professing church
#2Th 1:3 Lu 18:8 2Ti 3:1-8.

If Scripture is to be fulfilled, then clearly we can state that the Lord has not given His church any immunity from error.

From history it is just too easy to see that the church has fallen into error of various sorts. And there is little support for the view that just because the church errored in practice, that they did not do so doctrinally as well. In fact, any cursory reading of church history should tell one that. [Eek!]

IP: Logged |

X. Pascha
Community Member
Member # 2076

posted

To Life Immortal

Hello I am new; this is my first post.

I think there are different denominations because different people relate to God differently. I am Greek Orthodox and I love going to Divine Liturgy and hearing the chanting and receiving the Sacraments. When you enter the church, you greet the icons and sit down and meditate before service starts. To me, the Divine Liturgy is like watching a Holy Opera. Everything has meaning beyond what is seen. My favourite part is receiving the Body and Blood of Christ. We get both from a spoon. Afterwards, you get a piece of bread to break fast.

I like this forum and hope to post more stuff.

[Cool]

--------------------
Finally, brothers, whatever is true,
whatever is noble, whatever is right,
whatever is pure, whatever is lovely,
whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent
or praiseworthy—think about such things.
Philippians 4:8 NIV

Posts: 9 | From: Haddington PA | Registered: Sep 2003 | IP: Logged |

INRI
unregistered

posted

[QUOTE]Originally posted by RioLion:

RioLion,

I appreciate your answer in regards to Catholicism condemning Freemasonry and Freemasonry being opposed to Catholicism.

The unity that Christ spoke of in John 10:16 pertain to the Gentiles becoming part of the flock under His leadership.

I have to check the context of the passage again but even so it is clear that Yahweh has revealed one truth, there cannot be multiple and/or conflicting truths about Him, especially not thousands of competing truths. Does this make sense? The truth about GOD is not subjective.

The only unity we can expect to see within the Christian churches will be that under the Anti-Christ and his false prophet. Bear in mind, that the Lord did not given immunity from error to any institution. In fact, He predicted in Scripture that wolves would invade the church and bring into it false doctrines.

I know the passage you speak, Acts 20:29-30. This fact is not surprising and I believe it illustrates the reality that heresies have arisen from individuals or groups within the Church since the very early Church. In fact, our Lord tells us in Mt 16:18 that the "gates of hell will not prevail against it [the Church He established]" so we can be certain that even though satan will try to destroy the Church he will not prevail. I believe our Lord JESUS CHRIST did in fact give the Church immunity from error by giving her the guidance of the Holy Spirit, please refer to John 14:8-26 paying close attention to the context, who is He addressing?

Again, the Roman Church came into being as a denomination at the Council of Trent. "The Council of Trent fixed the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church. Called the 19th ecumenical council, it really made the Roman Catholic Church a denomination. No further Council was destined to meet between 1563 - 1869, a period of 300 years." page 185, "The Church From Pentecost to the Present", Carl S. Meyers.

This makes no sense, a church becomes a denomination when it is established [the Catholic Church was established some 1500 years prior to this Council], yes the Church needed time to study and reflect upon scripture so that she could better understand what was taught and this would later result in formalized doctrine [not a departure from what was previously understood but rather a fuller understanding]. The doctrine of the "Trinity" that all Christians today accept took the Church 800 years to understand. This growth in scriptural understanding of the Church over time is known as "Development of Doctrine". These ideas were not known overnight, they took a great deal of time, sometimes centuries.

While it is true that the Roman Church traces it roots back to the ancient church, that church was quite a different organization that what we see in Roman Catholicism as a modern entity - no doctrine of infallibility, Marian doctrines, etc.

Infallibility to the universal shepard is implied in scripture "binding and loosing", "if you still disagree, take it to the Church", "the Church is the grounds and pillar of the truth". Were you aware that there was already devotion to our Blessed Mother two hundred years before the Bible was formulated by the Catholic Church? It is truly ancient and biblical to give honor to the Mother of God "full of grace" and "all generations shall call me blessed".

In fact, the ancient church more so looked toward Scripture for its primary doctrine despite that fact that non-scriptural beliefs had already crept into the church as was predicted by the apostolic writers themselves.

Like I mentioned before, the Catholic Church did not give us the Bible until the Council of Rome in 382AD I believe, so what did they do before that? They learned about the faith orally as passed down through tradition "hold fast to the traditions passed down to you, either through word of mouth or written epistle". Especially in the early, early Church, the books of the NT were not written so what did they faithful do then? It is not like it is now, in that everyone has a Bible and can read it. Back then there were very few Bibles but no one but Church scholars could read them, "sola scriptura" was unworkable. Like I mentioned before, yes it was predicted that heresies would arrise in the Church as they did and they were effectively eliminated, they have not and will not prevail against the Church.

The statement that it was the secular establishment that executed people is really the stock answer given by the Roman Church in attempt to shift responsibility to someone else. The secular establishments were all too often merely an instrument of the church. This kind of answer is only accepted by those totally unfamiliar with church history.

I was not trying to shift the blame. These were very different times. Things were often handled with the sword rather than debate. Protestantism has considerable amounts of blood on its hands as well. To argue about these unfortunate events in history is fruitless, Christians should work to unite, not divide.

IP: Logged |

RioLion
unregistered

posted

The unity that Christ spoke of in John 10:16 pertain to the Gentiles becoming part of the flock under His leadership.

The only unity we can expect to see within the Christian churches will be that under the Anti-Christ and his false prophet. Bear in mind, that the Lord did not given immunity from error to any institution. In fact, He predicted in Scripture that wolves would invade the church and bring into it false doctrines.

Again, the Roman Church came into being as a denomination at the Council of Trent. "The Council of Trent fixed the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church. Called the 19th ecumenical council, it really made the Roman Catholic Church a denomination. No further Council was destined to meet between 1563 - 1869, a period of 300 years." page 185, "The Church From Pentecost to the Present", Carl S. Meyers.

While it is true that the Roman Church traces it roots back to the ancient church, that church was quite a different organization that what we see in Roman Catholicism as a modern entity - no doctrine of infallibility, Marian doctrines, etc. In fact, the ancient church more so looked toward Scripture for its primary doctrine despite that fact that non-scriptural beliefs had already crept into the church as was predicted by the apostolic writers themselves.

The statement that it was the secular establishment that executed people is really the stock answer given by the Roman Church in attempt to shift responsibility to someone else. The secular establishments were all too often merely an instrument of the church. This kind of answer is only accepted by those totally unfamiliar with church history.

IP: Logged |

wonderful_sky
Advanced Member
Member # 1808

posted

From what I have read, this is my conclusion of why there are so many different denominations....so that everyone has something to argue about. I know that the posts were not made in anger, but since I can't hear your voices, I read anger-like feelings in them.

I agree with Betty. Your preferences play a big part into which church that you attend. Some of that also comes from family...generations of generations that attended this church denomination, or that.

I was born baptist (cause that is where my mom, dad and grandparents went) I was baptized into a spirited, meaning upbeat, Christian Church. When I was married I rejoined the Baptist church, because my hubby was a member...and again baptized. My husband and I later joined a Christian church. We later moved and went back to a baptist church...again I was baptized. We attended the Baptist church up until we seperated. I then attended a christian church with my boyfriend, now husband. (whom, by the way, was raised Lutheran) We then married and bought this house and because of moving tried different churches. We wanted somewhere that we were comfortable, and where our children are taught what we believe. Last January my husband was baptized! God wants me to be in this church, I have prayed about it. When He comes again there will be one church, one group, all united with God.
In His continual Service,
Sky [dance]

--------------------
He who kneels down to God, can stand up to anything [Prayer]

Posts: 220 | From: Missouri | Registered: Jul 2003 | IP: Logged |

INRI
unregistered

posted

[QUOTE]Originally posted by RioLion:
But what is the alternative to denominations? If you had structural unity like what the Roman Church advocates, you would need dictatorial powers to enforce that unity of belief. You would in fact, need a government much like Adolf Hitler and his Nazis to enforce unity. Perhaps the guillotine would make a comeback as an enforcer.

It is not what the Catholic Church wants but rather it is what JESUS CHRIST established in one, visible Church so that we all may be of the same fold [Jn 10:16].

The Middle Ages were very different times, things were handled very differently and would not be handled the same in the 21st century. We would use the electric chair. Just kidding ... a little levity never hurts.

Denominations are the phase the church is in now since the Reformation with the Roman Church being just one of those denominations having its birth as a denomination with the Council of Trent.

You keep mentioning that the Catholic Church was formed during the Council of Trent. History simply does not bear this claim out. If you have proof that suggests otherwise I would like to see it. St. Ignatius of Antioch was already calling the Church CHRIST established the "Catholic Church" [in capital letters no less] in the year 107 A.D. less than a decade after St. John the Evangelist [whom he learned the Christian faith from] passed away. It is clear that the history of the Catholic Church can be traced back to JESUS, Peter and the other apostles over 2000 years and 264 Popes in unbroken succession.

BTW, the Roman Church has yet to denounce it 'right' to execute anyone who disagrees with their doctrine. Interesting!

To my knowledge, executions were handled by the secular government authorities, not the Church.

IP: Logged |

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2

Printer-friendly view of this topic

New Message Boards - Click Here