A Convicted Evangelical (Church of Christ)

[kwortham]

Important: Two churches claiming apostolicity come to contradicting conclusions on doctrinal claims. This just goes to prove my point that possessing apostolic succession doesn’t mean that a church has remained faithful to apostolic teaching. And If (as you admitted) it is possible for an apostolic church to drift, why do the individuals on this forum continue to throw out apostolic claims as some kind of trump card–the ace of spades which shuts down Evangelical assertions? Why should I believe that the Catholics are the true church and not the Eastern Orthodox?

You did not start this thread on the subject of the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church. Why have you abandoned your original subject? We are left to speculate as to why. Hence, I will.

You have seen for several days both catholic and orthodox asking you questions that you cannot possibly answer. You are being crushed by the strain of not being able to answer. What better way to escape the thread that you started than to start a holy war between Catholics and Orthodox? Then, you can run away while the war rages on behind you.

Also, throwing out data such as “your church began in the 19th century” doesn’t hold as much weight anymore. Hypothetically speaking, if the Roman Catholic Church is the one that has drifted from the apostolic teaching, then the Reformation was a necessity.

If Christ and the Holy Spirit were too weak to keep their Church from falling away, then Christ is too weak to give you eternal life. What you are suggesting is not just heresy, it is the quintessential definition of blasphemy.

In my opinion, if I was to convert to anything, it would be to Eastern Orthodoxy. They are far closer to the fathers and Scripture than Catholics are. And thus in my assessment of church history, I am of the opinion that if only one of the apostolic churches has drifted, it is the Catholics who have gone astray.

There you go again! How is it christian to stir up strife? Alas, your opinion is not rooted in history, just as your claim that the so-call “church of Christ” is the true church.

 

[sdegutis]

Also, throwing out data such as “your church began in the 19th century” doesn’t hold as much weight anymore. Hypothetically speaking, if the Roman Catholic Church is the one that has drifted from the apostolic teaching, then the Reformation was a necessity.

Well, hypothetically speaking, if the Church has erred, then who can we trust to say that it has not erred? Calvin? Then why not Luther? Whoever your answer is, how can we know that such person is the one to trust as “The One” that God gave the official interpretation to of the Scriptures? Why should I believe that your denomination’s founder is the one who alone the Holy Spirit guides in interpreting the Scriptures, and not a different denomination with contradictory doctrines to yours?

Plus, isn’t one of the Protestant tenets that each individual should read Scripture for themselves and let the Holy Spirit guide them to interpret it for themselves? If that’s the case, then why when I read it did I read an interpretation that only fit the Catholic Church’s doctrines which you say are incorrect? Does that mean I erred in interpreting it? If so, doesn’t this then contradict the very principle of personal interpretation?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Thanks. I’ve had some forgotten steam hemmed up, whenever that gritty cigaratte smoke wafts by, or an abusive fathers or husbands colonge, throws it’s ugly scent that you whiff even though you held your breath, then all sort of thinking awaken. I would not say I was beaten purple, though I’ve thrown a few licks myself! Not anymore though. God, I hope not anymore. At first I felt bad about not wanting to discuss the Bible and religion. Now, I realize that the cologne isn’t the problem. Naw, It’s the memory of the colonge smell that lingers after a beating, or that intesifies when you kiss in a way reserved for someone special. I’ve kept hush for a bit now, but I felt it was time to make my confession. To break the heavy silence.

Thanks for sharing.

I pray our Lord receives you with open arms and heal your wounds.

God Bless,

Jose

 

[pablope]

Granted. You are correct in your assessment (i.e. that one church can be wrong and the other right).

But notice what you admit here, namely that a church which has claims to apostolicity can cease to be the true church.

 

[CopticChristian]

Granted. You are correct in your assessment (i.e. that one church can be wrong and the other right). But notice what you admit here, namely that a church which has claims to apostolicity can cease to be the true church.

Important: Two churches claiming apostolicity come to contradicting conclusions on doctrinal claims. This just goes to prove my point that possessing apostolic succession doesn’t mean that a church has remained faithful to apostolic teaching. And If (as you admitted) it is possible for an apostolic church to drift, why do the individuals on this forum continue to throw out apostolic claims as some kind of trump card–the ace of spades which shuts down Evangelical assertions? Why should I believe that the Catholics are the true church and not the Eastern Orthodox?

Also, throwing out data such as “your church began in the 19th century” doesn’t hold as much weight anymore. Hypothetically speaking, if the Roman Catholic Church is the one that has drifted from the apostolic teaching, then the Reformation was a necessity.

In my opinion, if I was to convert to anything, it would be to Eastern Orthodoxy. They are far closer to the fathers and Scripture than Catholics are. And thus in my assessment of church history, I am of the opinion that if only one of the apostolic churches has drifted, it is the Catholics who have gone astray.

Amen, Amen…you are going Orthodox and leaving the so called “church of Christ”…I am with you and believe you made a wise decision.

 

[JRKH]

Granted. You are correct in your assessment (i.e. that one church can be wrong and the other right). But notice what you admit here, namely that a church which has claims to apostolicity can cease to be the true church.

Important: Two churches claiming apostolicity come to contradicting conclusions on doctrinal claims. This just goes to prove my point that possessing apostolic succession doesn’t mean that a church has remained faithful to apostolic teaching. And If (as you admitted) it is possible for an apostolic church to drift, why do the individuals on this forum continue to throw out apostolic claims as some kind of trump card–the ace of spades which shuts down Evangelical assertions? Why should I believe that the Catholics are the true church and not the Eastern Orthodox?

I haven’t been following all of the “ins and outs” of this conversation so if I missed something please forgive…but could you point out a doctrine where the EO and RC had conflicting claims?
Just curious.

Peace
James

 

[rinnie]

As my title indicates, I am a committed and active member within the circle of Churches of Christ. I am convinced (through reading the earliest Fathers and New Testament) that the Church of Christ, (and not the Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox) has a right claim to the true faith instituted by Christ. As a disclaimer, I do not consider the RCC and EOC to be devoid of true and genuine believers. I do, however, believe that these churches have in large part departed from what I would consider to be a truly Orthodox view.

That being said (and keeping in mind that I am a minority voice in this forum), I would like this particular blog to center on:

1. How you came to the conclusion that whatever religious body you are a part of is in fact the one true church?
2. Why you feel/don’t feel that the Church of Christ is the one true church.
3. Are there eternal consequences for being outside the true church? (Here I am not talking about the post-Vatican II view that considers Evangelicals to be separated brethren that are in some form or fashion mystically part of the RC faith. Rather, my inquiry is mean to be taken thusly: If RC is true, will Evangelicals go to heaven since they are not true Catholics? And if Evangelicalism is true, will Roman Catholics go to heaven since they are not true “Protestants?”
4. Based on your answer to (3) If both groups have the same eternal destiny, why does it matter if one is Protestant or Catholic?

1. I have that promise from God, you are Peter and to you I give the keys to the Kingdom. The Pope still holds the Keys to God’s Kingdom.
2. I have no clue what the Church that you refer to is. Christ gave us the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church, That is the true Church of Christ. It has all of the Sacraments promised to us, and the Living Bread from heaven, the True Eucharist , Body and Blood of Christ.
3. No true Catholic will tell you they have the knowledge of God. God makes the decision on who will receive eternal life or eternal death.
4. Why do you think it would matter? One Church protests the true word of God and one Proclaims it.

How can you proclaim the word of God as taught by his disciples and the protest the Eucharist as being the true bread from heaven.

How can you proclaim the true word of God when you have no Oral teachings?

 

[bwmnstar]

1 Samuel 15:22-23

22 So Samuel said:

“Has the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices,
As in obeying the voice of the Lord?
Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice,
And to heed than the fat of rams.
23 For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft,
And stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry.
Because you have rejected the word of the Lord,
He also has rejected you from being king.

Who founded your church? Can you trace its apostolic lineage and provide proof?

 

[sdegutis]

First of all, please see my last post on page 10, I would love to hear your answer to it.

The implications from the passage you referenced does not match the decision made by the Catholic Church. If I’m interpreting what you said correctly, it should follow that God rejects Protestants from the kingdom of heaven. But that’s not what the Catechism teaches. Post Vatican II stipulates Protestants as separated brethren. In essence, rebellion, heretical, and idolatrous Protestants are candidates for the kingdom. A bit of a contradiction, unless the passage you references is inadequate, or that Catechism is wrong.

The Church teaches that anyone who has invincible ignorance of the Catholic Church can be saved, not that people who know about it but reject it can be saved. Invincible ignorance would be like someone who lives on an island with a bunch of Protestants and who never had the chance to hear about the Catholic Church but lived such a life that they would have joined it if they knew about it. On the other hand, I know several people who have argued against the Catholic Church to me, making all sorts of insane claims like there is no Trinity or whatever. These people I’m not so hopeful for, because although they are ignorant, they foster their own ignorance, much like the Pharisees and teachers of the Law fostered their own ignorance to the Gospel when Jesus and the Apostles proclaimed it. Seeing how perfect this analogy is, it should be understood that the Catechism isn’t saying that heretics or idolaters can enter the kingdom of Heaven as they are unless they have invincible ignorance.

But like I said, I’m more interested in you reading my last reply to you on page 10 and answering that question for me.

 

[pablope]

1 Samuel 15:22-23

Because you have rejected the word of the Lord,
He also has rejected you from being king.

I think I’ve handled this dispute in a future post (around page 10 or so).

May I suggest that you reference previous posts by their Post Number, which is located on the upper right corner. This would make it easier to reference, instead of “page 10” or so…

Apostolic lineage is not proof that a church has remained faithful to apostolic teaching. Luther’s efforts (initially) were not to split the church, but to reform it.

The Catholic Church continually refused to heed his voice, and thus the Reformation.

The implications from the passage you referenced does not match the decision made by the Catholic Church. If I’m interpreting what you said correctly, it should follow that God rejects Protestants from the kingdom of heaven. But that’s not what the Catechism teaches. Post Vatican II stipulates Protestants as separated brethren. In essence, rebellion, heretical, and idolatrous Protestants are candidates for the kingdom. A bit of a contradiction, unless the passage you references is inadequate, or that Catechism is wrong.

 

[pablope]

1 Samuel 15:22-23

Because you have rejected the word of the Lord,
He also has rejected you from being king.

I think I’ve handled this dispute in a future post (around page 10 or so).

May I suggest that you reference previous posts by their Post Number, which is located on the upper right corner. This would make it easier to reference, instead of “page 10” or so…

Apostolic lineage is not proof that a church has remained faithful to apostolic teaching.

Pls. refer to Post 152…my reply to you regarding Apostolic Succession. On the contrary, Apostolic Succession is the way to preserve Apostolic Tradition.

I will repost St. Ireneus:

St. Irenaeus explains how the Apostolic Tradition was to be found, to whom it was entrusted, and how it was preserved:

But, again, when we refer [the heretics] to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth. For [they maintain] that the apostles intermingled the things of the law with the words of the Saviour; . . . It comes to this, therefore, that these men do now consent neither to Scripture nor to tradition.10

It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about. For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to “the perfect” apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves. For they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men; which men, if they discharged their functions honestly, would be a great boon [to the Church], but if they should fall away, the direst calamity.

Luther’s efforts (initially) were not to split the church, but to reform it.

But his pride took over. Please refer to Post 152 for my response.

The Catholic Church continually refused to heed his voice, and thus the Reformation.

The Council of Trent is the reform of the Church, in response to Luther. Luther just did not have the patience to persevere to the end, did not trust God.

Prior to Luther, there was Catherine of Sienna. Why was Catherine able to reform the Church without splitting it? Why did Luther necessitate a split in the Church?

The implications from the passage you referenced does not match the decision made by the Catholic Church. If I’m interpreting what you said correctly, it should follow that God rejects Protestants from the kingdom of heaven. But that’s not what the Catechism teaches. Post Vatican II stipulates Protestants as separated brethren. In essence, rebellion, heretical, and idolatrous Protestants are candidates for the kingdom. A bit of a contradiction, unless the passage you references is inadequate, or that Catechism is wrong.

The implication is, since Luther et al rebelled against the Church, you now have no assurance that what they taught is free from error, there is no assurance of the protection of the Holy Spirit…for as the passage says… For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft,
And stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry.
Because you have rejected the word of the Lord,
He also has rejected you from being king.

Just take a look at the history of protestantism…since the split…Luther was still alive, he started to have disagreements with his Reformation friends. And the splitting continues to this day.

And by fomenting that rebellion and disobedience…are you not then committing that rebellion and suffering the consequences…*For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft,
And stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry
*

As I said in Post 152, look and study at Catherine of Sienna…she reformed the Church, and she did not need to cause a split in the Church. Why is that?

Why is it…that she can deny any personal authority to define doctrine, can defer willingly, even joyfully, to the authority of Pope and council…she could maintain the biblical ideal of doctrinal unity (1 Corinthians 1:10), without claiming to be the source of that unity?

So much so, that she received the Stigmata and she is one of the incorruptible saints (her body, that is).

 

[bwmnstar]

Again, if the churches of the New Testament are autonomous as you claim, why are they asking for Paul’s decision on issues and why is Paul writing to them with authority, even going as far as to say he has this authority, in order to get them to change their ways and/or theological beliefs?

All of the apostles had unique and infallible authority in terms of what in inscripturated in the Bible. Paul, as an individual, could write to certain churches without appeal to any other church leader. And his writings were taken as infallible and inspired of God.

One must note the difference in what you are saying, and what is actually the case. The Catholic Church does not teach that individual bishops have infallible authority in and of themselves, but instead teaches a collegial authority in concert with the bishop of Rome. Apostolic authority does not equal church authority. “Historical continuity does not mean historical sameness” (Everett Ferguson). Thus there is a difference to be accounted for.

Evangelicals do believe that Scripture as the apostles wrote it is infallible. But we differ with Catholics in giving this same apostolic authority to their successors.

Ignatius notes a difference between his authority and that of the apostles, when he writes:

"I do not issue orders like an apostle.” Epistle to the Trallians, 3)

“For might not I write to you things more full of mystery?..thought I am acquainted with these things, yet am I not therefore by any means perfect; nor am I such a disciple as Paul or Peter. For many things are yet wanting in me, that I may not fall short of God.” Epistle to the Trallians, 5)

Now, I know that the Catholic Church doesn’t teach individual apostolic authority (as I’ve already noted above), but your references to Paul writing in an authoritative capaciy (as an individual) to local congregations seems to suggest such. And thus it seems that you too note the difference between Paul’s letters (who wrote infallibly as an individual) and the epistles of Ignatius (who did not write infalliby as an individual).

One must account for this distinction in order for your argument to hold weight.

 

[bwmnstar]

Then you are unbiblical. Acts 2…46 Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts,

 

[sdegutis]

bwmnstar:

Well, hypothetically speaking, if the Church has erred, then who can we trust to say that it has not erred? Calvin? Then why not Luther? Whoever your answer is, how can we know that such person is the one to trust as “The One” that God gave the official interpretation to of the Scriptures? Why should I believe that your denomination’s founder is the one who alone the Holy Spirit guides in interpreting the Scriptures, and not a different denomination with contradictory doctrines to yours?

Plus, isn’t one of the Protestant tenets that each individual should read Scripture for themselves and let the Holy Spirit guide them to interpret it for themselves? If that’s the case, then why when I read it did I read an interpretation that only fit the Catholic Church’s doctrines which you say are incorrect? Does that mean I erred in interpreting it? If so, doesn’t this then contradict the very principle of personal interpretation?

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

Here bwmnstar is probably right. I think the daily breaking of bread refers to the agape-meals instead of the Eucharist, which was probably (not sure) only done on sundays.

 

[rinnie]

1 Samuel 15:22-23

22 So Samuel said:

“Has the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices,
As in obeying the voice of the Lord?
Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice,
And to heed than the fat of rams.
23 For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft,
And stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry.

Because you have rejected the word of the Lord,
He also has rejected you from being king.

I think I’ve handled this dispute in a future post (around page 10 or so). Apostolic lineage is not proof that a church has remained faithful to apostolic teaching. Luther’s efforts (initially) were not to split the church, but to reform it. The Catholic Church continually refused to heed his voice, and thus the Reformation.

The implications from the passage you referenced does not match the decision made by the Catholic Church. If I’m interpreting what you said correctly, it should follow that God rejects Protestants from the kingdom of heaven. But that’s not what the Catechism teaches. Post Vatican II stipulates Protestants as separated brethren. In essence, rebellion, heretical, and idolatrous Protestants are candidates for the kingdom. A bit of a contradiction, unless the passage you references is inadequate, or that Catechism is wrong.

You are correct Apostolic lineage is not proof that the Church has remained faithful to Apostolic teaching, the word of God is the proof. We are told from Jesus he is sending the advocate the Holy Spirit to lead us to all truths. He just promised us the leaders of the Church would receive the truth from the Advocate.

Regardless what Luthers did or did not set out to do, what gave him the right to try to change the teachings of the Early Fathers of the Church?

As far as the Popes teaching everyone who is baptised in the name of the Trinity are indeed Catholic although not perfectly united to the RCC. But they are united in Baptism.

 

[Nicea325]

1 Samuel 15:22-23

22 So Samuel said:

“Has the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices,
As in obeying the voice of the Lord?
Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice,
And to heed than the fat of rams.
23 For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft,
And stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry.

Because you have rejected the word of the Lord,
He also has rejected you from being king.

I think I’ve handled this dispute in a future post (around page 10 or so). Apostolic lineage is not proof that a church has remained faithful to apostolic teaching. Luther’s efforts (initially) were not to split the church, but to reform it. The Catholic Church continually refused to heed his voice, and thus the Reformation.

The implications from the passage you referenced does not match the decision made by the Catholic Church. If I’m interpreting what you said correctly, it should follow that God rejects Protestants from the kingdom of heaven. But that’s not what the Catechism teaches. Post Vatican II stipulates Protestants as separated brethren. In essence, rebellion, heretical, and idolatrous Protestants are candidates for the kingdom. A bit of a contradiction, unless the passage you references is inadequate, or that Catechism is wrong.

And my brother in Christ, and I have been waiting for you to present the historical evidence (primary sources) from ANY ECF clearly claiming he is not a follower of the CC or EO churches,but a member of the Churches of Christ? That is your ORIGINAL argument…where are the historical writings supporting it?

Why haven’t you done such a task?

 

[bwmnstar]

bwmnstar;9395226:

And my brother in Christ, and I have been waiting for you to present the historical evidence (primary sources) from ANY ECF clearly claiming he is not a follower of the CC or EO churches,but a member of the Churches of Christ? That is your ORIGINAL argument…where are the historical writings supporting it?

Why haven’t you done such a task?

Patience my brother, patience please. I have started going through and responding today. But everytime I go back to respond, someone has posted a new comment and wants attention. Or another early poster wants me to respond to him or her. Remember that I am in the minority here, and constructing responses to everyone takes time.

Some are easier to respond to than others. I’ve been responding to the simpler ones, and am working on constructing rebuttals to more difficult messages (at my leisure). I will get to you though brother, and that’s a promise.

God bless you,

bwmnstar

 

[rinnie]

All of the apostles had unique and infallible authority in terms of what in inscripturated in the Bible. Paul, as an individual, could write to certain churches without appeal to any other church leader. And his writings were taken as infallible and inspired of God.

One must note the difference in what you are saying, and what is actually the case. The Catholic Church does not teach that individual bishops have infallible authority in and of themselves, but instead teaches a collegial authority in concert with the bishop of Rome. Apostolic authority does not equal church authority. “Historical continuity does not mean historical sameness” (Everett Ferguson). Thus there is a difference to be accounted for.

Evangelicals do believe that Scripture as the apostles wrote it is infallible. But we differ with Catholics in giving this same apostolic authority to their successors.

Ignatius notes a difference between his authority and that of the apostles, when he writes:

"I do not issue orders like an apostle.” Epistle to the Trallians, 3)

“For might not I write to you things more full of mystery?..thought I am acquainted with these things, yet am I not therefore by any means perfect; nor am I such a disciple as Paul or Peter. For many things are yet wanting in me, that I may not fall short of God.” Epistle to the Trallians, 5)

Now, I know that the Catholic Church doesn’t teach individual apostolic authority (as I’ve already noted above), but your references to Paul writing in an authoritative capaciy (as an individual) to local congregations seems to suggest such. And thus it seems that you too note the difference between Paul’s letters (who wrote infallibly as an individual) and the epistles of Ignatius (who did not write infalliby as an individual).

One must account for this distinction in order for your argument to hold weight.

Really? If the Pope does not have Apostolic authority why did Peter stand up in acts 15:8 and state that in the Early days God made his choice among US?

If God did not make Peter the leader of the RCC as the Church teaches, then what choice among the Aposltes and elders of the Church do you believe Peter is talking about?

And if he had no authority to speak on his own, Why did he, and why was he chosen from God among the other’s? What for in your opinion then?

 

[sdegutis]

Nicea325;9396108:

Patience my brother, patience please. I have started going through and responding today. But everytime I go back to respond, someone has posted a new comment and wants attention. Or another early poster wants me to respond to him or her. Remember that I am in the minority here, and constructing responses to everyone takes time.

Some are easier to respond to than others. I’ve been responding to the simpler ones, and am working on constructing rebuttals to more difficult messages (at my leisure). I will get to you though brother, and that’s a promise.

God bless you,

bwmnstar

I am eager to see your response to my question, because it has no answer.