a question for "Bible Only" churches

[Prodigal_Son1]

What do you believe about the chair of Moses specifically? I have seen you mention this for time to time in different contexts dealing with authority.
What was it?
Please be specific as possible.
What does it mean now?
How is it applicable now?
When you have time.

The chair of Moses was the seat of authority in the Temple. Christ taught the people to observe and do whatsoever the authority said, but do not do as they do. He taught this knowing He was soon building a Church of the new and everlasting covenant.

 

[Rightlydivide]

The chair of Moses was the seat of authority in the Temple. Christ taught the people to observe and do whatsoever the authority said, but do not do as they do. He taught this knowing He was soon building a Church of the new and everlasting covenant.

What did the person who sat in the seat specifically do? I understand there is some diversity of thought on the issue but what do you think they did?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

You are assuming the Holy Spirit did not go with M Luther. Wasn’t it one of the ECFs that said that where Jesus/Holy Spirit is there is the church. If the Holy Spirit was with M Luther he was part of the church.​

I can see this is going to go the way of all the discussions between you and me.

Where did Christ or the Apostles teach to go start a new Church? Christ said, ‘observe and do’, ‘the author’ of Hebrews said, ‘obey your prelates’. There’s nothing in scriptures about starting a ‘new’ Church.

What the early Church father said was ‘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.’ Martin Luther was a priest, who was excommunicated, not a ‘bishop’ and where he went was not the Catholic Church.

It seems, scriptures are useful for ‘correcting’ Catholics, but if it supports a Catholic view, ‘what if’, ‘but’, etc. etc.

 

[Dokimas]

Where did Christ or the Apostles teach to go start a new Church? Christ said, ‘observe and do’, ‘the author’ of Hebrews said, ‘obey your prelates’. There’s nothing in scriptures about starting a ‘new’ Church.

What the early Church father said was ‘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.’ Martin Luther was a priest, who was excommunicated, not a ‘bishop’ and where he went was not the Catholic Church.

It seems, scriptures are useful for ‘correcting’ Catholics, but if it supports a Catholic view, ‘what if’, ‘but’, etc. etc.

Paul started new churches everywhere he went that didn’t have a church. Each church was part of the universal church.​

Paul told Timothy to ‘ordain’ church leaders in the city he was sent by Paul to minister is. I believe Titus was directed similarly.​

Scriptures are to direct and correct us all. Could you please stop making unwarrented assumptions.-

Don’t you see a common pattern emmerging again with our discussion?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Paul started new churches everywhere he went that didn’t have a church. Each church was part of the universal church.​

Paul told Timothy to ‘ordain’ church leaders in the city he was sent by Paul to minister is. I believe Titus was directed similarly.​

Scriptures are to direct and correct us all. Could you please stop making unwarrented assumptions.-

Don’t you see a common pattern emmerging again with our discussion?

Ok, let me clarify ‘new’. Where does scriptures tell us to start a ‘different’ Church? That’s essentially what we have with Protestantism. Where does scriptures teach, if you don’t believe the Church is correct, then go start a ‘different’ Church? It’s almost like ‘man’ assuming He could improve on the ONE Church Christ built. Catholic is universal, in meaning an in actuality. As I stated before, the Church made the necessary reforms, without changing doctrines.

Paul started the ‘one’ Church in many locations. He didn’t start different Churches, with different doctrines/teachings.

They aren’t ‘assumptions’ as much as they are observations. When a scripture, with an explanation of Catholic interpretation, is presented, all kinds of ‘ifs’ and ‘buts’ arise. It seems to be no more than speculation, or trying to make those scriptures fit a ‘theology’.

When Christ prayed for us to be one, He clearly prayed for those that believed in ‘their’ word, referring to the Apostles. He did not refer to His own word, because He chose and appointed men over His Church for ‘them’ to preach His word, causing people to believe. Again, we are to share the hope and joy within us, but we are not appointed to any position of authority in Church. An Apostolic succession was established through the men He chose and appointed.

You say scriptures are to direct and correct us all, with the authoritative men over His Church teaching us. Scriptures nowhere, establishes itself as the ‘sole authority’, ‘sole teacher’ or the ‘final authority’. It’s Church, plus scriptures, in the same order God gave them to us.

It maybe a common pattern, but scriptures, read together and in context, support the Catholic view, in my honest opinion.

 

[adrift]

No problem. If been told I’m all wet before. However, if you’re honest with yourself, you have your believe that the CC has the correct historical records. Seems we both are subject to puting trust in what we’ve read.​

Except for the general term ‘universal’ which is what catholic means, when did the church beging to call itself Catholic? Answer this and you’ll be on your way to answer your own question.

You seem to equate when something is named to when it begins.

So when were the Jews called Jews?

Before being called Jews they were not the same people who were the Israelite?

Abraham was not the same faith?

So a date for being called Catholic could be identified but it would not mean that the Catholic church began then. Just as a date for Jews can be identified would not mean that is when the religion started.

The Catholic Church began on Pentecost forty days after the resurrection of Jesus. That Church was the Church that Constantine recognized because he had a vision of the Cross by which sign he would conquer. Amazing how God worked just like he did with Paul.

How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?

 

[jmcrae]

What were those like Martin Luther to do when they were excommunicated?

Repent of their sins, reform from their heresies, and make a good Confession.

Unfortunately, their pride got in the way, and even when they saw that their system was failing (at one point shortly before his death, it is said that Martin Luther complained, “I had sought to abolish the Pope, and here, I have established ten thousand popes!”) they still proudly refused to return to the Church.

 

[jmcrae]

You are assuming the Holy Spirit did not go with M Luther.

Not only is there no evidence that it did, Martin Luther never even claimed that it did.

Wasn’t it one of the ECFs that said that where Jesus/Holy Spirit is there is the church. If the Holy Spirit was with M Luther he was part of the church.

The actual quotation is “Where the Bishop is, there is the Catholic Church.” The ECF you are looking for is St. Ignatius of Antioch.

 

[jmcrae]

Paul started new churches everywhere he went that didn’t have a church. Each church was part of the universal church.​

Paul told Timothy to ‘ordain’ church leaders in the city he was sent by Paul to minister is. I believe Titus was directed similarly.

Yes, they were. Paul had received the laying on of hands from an authorized Bishop of the Church, and so had authority to ordain men to be Bishops, and to start churches that were in full holy communion with the Apostles.

These men were in no way being instructed to invent their own systems of theology, nor to create new denominations - they were to follow the Apostolic Tradition, and stick to the teachings they had been given.

 

[pr35120]

You’re evading the discussion. You can’t make someone say yes or no on something they’ve never seen. If I could prove your proof as self written or wrong would you join the Catholic Church?

All we’ve seen is what you ‘believe’, but no supporting documentation to show us why you believe whatever. That is just another opinion and if you look around these forums, you’ll see plenty of those…

i think you got something.when it comes to this, people would fight you every inch of the way.we have to be more open.their is so much info out there.i’m just starting to realize,do we really trust man to tell the truth in everything.do we really trust man to decide whats good enough to put in the bible.we cant leave things out! if we believe what some say.we should believe what the jehovah witnesses say about how the writer of their bible was inspired by god.should we run to that religion because they said that.if you read the new testament correctly, it does contridect itself.the facts are not even exactly the same.so it doesn’t flow the way it should.like some people say.so then why take other scripture out.im just saying, i think some people look at things , with a closed mind.

 

[PRmerger]

I think the early Jesus Movement had it right have all the books, gospels and letters on their own let indiviuduals decide which ones to use and leave the use of these between the worshippper and God. Letting the Holy Spirit be the sole teacher to us through the sacrifice of Jesus as His blood saves us from death and sin that would damn us to Hell.

This concept of “letting the Holy Spirit be the sole teacher” has not really worked out too well. It has led to the establishment of over 40,000 different Christian denominations, each claiming to have the guidance of the Holy Spirit behind it.

I can see exactly what would happen if we, as individuals, each claimed the right to read all the books, gospels and letters written by the witnesses to Christ and his disciples and determine if they were inspired, of course, “guided by the Holy Spirit”: we’d get thousands of different permutations of “Bibles”–some would include Matthew, Mark, but not John; some might include the Didache and Acts, but not Revelation; some might exclude the Pauline letters, but include the Gospel of the Nazoreans. etc etc etc.

 

[PRmerger]

Christ taught the people to observe and do all those who sat in the chair of Moses said to them, but do not do as they do. He never told anyone if you don’t agree with what they said to you, go start a new Church, whether anyone here wants to agree with that or not.

Indeed.

And, didn’t the Israelites follow Moses even when he was leading them the wrong way in the desert? There were many (i.e. Korah) who disagreed with Moses, yet upon whom did the authority rest? Moses! Yes, even though Moses was headed the wrong way, he was being directed by God with each and every misstep. It was not God’s will that Korah leave and form his own “chosen people”.