Calling all non-Catholic Christians!

[guanophore]

Well, despite my best efforts, this has turned into a discussion about Catholicism.

Can we pull back and regroup? I am guilty of it too. It seems like we all have trouble looking through Protestant lenses, as much as they do Catholic.

 

[jmcrae]

It’s quite obvious that you didn’t read my entire post because you are putting words into my post that don’t exist. If you want to converse at least do it honestly. That’s not what I said. I said the Holy spirit guides me to the truth in my daily actions. Calling the Holy Spirit my moral compass and Jesus the only thing that really mattered. As far as my interpretation of scripture I do not make an assumption that I am right. I merely acknowledged that it wasn’t a simple matter of one side being right and the other wrong. Both could be wrong because in interpreting scripture 3 people could see 3 different things.

Yes, both could be wrong. All three could be wrong. How do you discern who is right and who is wrong? If all three are wrong, then you don’t go to any of those three Churches - you go to the one that is right.

Jesus promised us that the gates of Hell (that is, anything that is not Truth Itself) would not prevail against His Church. He made no promises about anyone else’s Church. (Not Arius, not Nestorius, not Martin Luther, not John Calvin, not Joe down the street, and not you and not me.)

Assuming that the Catholic Church is not the Church that Christ founded, we still know that it exists, somewhere, because He promised that it would prevail until the end of time. Which means that it’s around here somewhere.

The task in this thread now is to identify that Church so that we can all know where to sign up.

 

[Non_Serviam]

Okay, looks like I’m forced by circumstances to discuss Catholicism after all.

I must say I’m disappointed by how quickly there was a flipflop on “respecting the OP” Now that deacon d has jumped outside the box (kudos to him, btw!) and he is arguing for a different model of God dealing with His church than the Catholic church offers, you want to rewrite the rules of the discussion.

I can only hope he doesn’t follow back into measuring everything by the shape of Catholicism.

Deacon D:

I considered going over your post point by point, but I think it ultimately boils down to this:

You are convinced that your interpretation of scripture is correct. What I gather from reading your writing is that you believe the Holy Spirit guides you; therefore you know you are correct.

I must respectfully submit that if the Holy Spirit guides Christians the way you say, He is doing one incredibly lousy job. Somehow all these sincere Christians guided by the Holy Spirit are teaching opposing doctrines.

You likened Tradition to a game of telephone in which the message gets distorted as it is handed down. I have to disagree. The analogy doesn’t fit because in this supposed “game of telephone” God is in charge of the phone. That is why the Catholic Church has not changed its doctrine.

On the other hand, I can look at Protestantism and see a variety of doctrines from one denomination to the next. I see splintering into thousands of denominations.

So, we’ve got Catholicism with its doctrinal unity or we’ve got Protestantism with its doctrinal disunity.

I know which one I’m sticking with.

the deacon has proposed a perfectly credible alternative to God’s working. Why is it credible? Because He already did it that way with Israel. Fallible leadership, people making mistakes, having periods of insight and close communion with God and periods of lukewarmness and lack of awareness of God’s presence, purpose and plans.

In spite of human fallibility, God’s sovereignty prevailed and His purpose, to bring a saviour to mankind through Israel was fulfilled. In spite of this, Catholics reject this model outright when considering the church, opting instead for an abstract “church” which has no sin in spite of being made up of sinners, which is infallible, in spite of being made up of fallible individuals, and which is one which begs the question of Jesus needing to pray for the church to become one if they already were.

God’s view of the church is past, present and future-He sees the blemishes and divisions through time, but also sees the end result in eternity with Him-perfect, sinless and one.

deacon d has provided an alternative to this Catholic concept and it would be intellectually respectful to interact with his proposal for a bit, instead of rejecting it because you prefer your own.

My apologies if I’ve seemed harsh in this thread, but I’ve found it troublesome for one reason or another.

 

[Non_Serviam]

I can’t respond to that whole great long thing, but I will respond to this one point. Notice that the Holy Spirit isn’t speaking directly to Saul and Barnabas and the others, and saying “You go out and do this” - Rather, the Holy Spirit is saying to someone else, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” Then they (these other people, not named in the passage) laid hands on them (that is, they gave them the Sacrament of Ordination to make them Bishops) and sent them out.

Now, who could it have been, who had the authority to ordain Saul and Barnabas as Bishops?

(Psst: it was Peter, together with some of the other Apostles)

Might I respectfully suggest that you consult with a Catholic that you trust who has a solid grasp of biblical Greek? He or she will tell you that the “they” who are fasting and praying are the group named in the previous verse, including Saul and Barnabas.

It is these group members who lay hands on them and send them out from Antioch as ministry representatives. (I’m not looking to debate whether they were Bishops, but the grammar of the passage doesn’t permit action by “others”, so bringing in Peter et al isn’t kosher-pun intended).

 

[deacon_d]

I can’t respond to that whole great long thing, but I will respond to this one point. Notice that the Holy Spirit isn’t speaking directly to Saul and Barnabas and the others, and saying “You go out and do this” - Rather, the Holy Spirit is saying to someone else, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” Then they (these other people, not named in the passage) laid hands on them (that is, they gave them the Sacrament of Ordination to make them Bishops) and sent them out.

You can’t respond because you were flat out wrong.

Now, who could it have been, who had the authority to ordain Saul and Barnabas as Bishops?

(Psst: it was Peter, together with some of the other Apostles)

No apostles were there and I can demonstrate that to you. The Psst is kindo of cute but again you stand corrected. It was not Peter or any apostles. Let’s re-visit shall we. This is real simple.

13:1 Now there were in the church at Antioch **prophets and teachers, Barnabas, Simeon who was called Niger, [1] Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen a member of the court of Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. **2 While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” 3 Then after fasting and praying they laid their hands on them and sent them off.

Now where does that say Apostles?? Psst: It doesn’t The Apostles were in Jerusalem not in Antioch. I guarantee if it was Peter, Luke would have written it was Peter. You really think Luke would take the time to mention specifically Simeon, Lucius, Manaen, Saul, and Barnabus and not mention the Apostles or even specifically Peter? Come on!! So someone other than Peter and the Apostles had the authority to send them. The people I named were the ones laying on the hands. Isn’t that an amazing discovery? Seems the church has some power to send without the Apostles. So where were Peter and the apostles??

Acts 15:1 But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brothers, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” 2 And after Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and debate with them, Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the** apostles **and the elders about this question.

Seems like they were in Jerusalem. And notice they were always referred to as the apostles in either plural form or by name. Apostles were never referred to as Prophets and teachers. Like the ones who sent off Barnabus and Saul.

So exactly where was Peter??

12 When he realized this, he went to the house of Mary, the mother of John whose other name was Mark, where many were gathered together and were praying. 13 And when he knocked at the door of the gateway, a servant girl named Rhoda came to answer. 14 Recognizing Peter’s voice, in her joy she did not open the gate but ran in and reported that Peter was standing at the gate. 15 They said to her, “You are out of your mind.” But she kept insisting that it was so, and they kept saying, “It is his angel!” 16 But Peter continued knocking, and when they opened, they saw him and were amazed. 17 But motioning to them with his hand to be silent, he described to them how the Lord had brought him out of the prison. And he said, “Tell these things to James and to the brothers.” [1] Then he departed and went to another place.

So this is in Acts 12. The question is what was the other place?Couldn’t be Antioch. His name is never mentioned. Peter was on the run and hiding from Herod. After Herod died he returned to Jerusalem when it was safe.

You really need to read Acts carefully and further understand the laying on of hands.

PEACE

 

[jmcrae]

Might I respectfully suggest that you consult with a Catholic that you trust who has a solid grasp of biblical Greek? He or she will tell you that the “they” who are fasting and praying are the group named in the previous verse, including Saul and Barnabas.

Yes, that’s the “they” who are about to be ordained and sent out.

The “you” to whom the Holy Spirit is speaking is St. Peter and the Apostles.

 

[Non_Serviam]

Yes, that’s the “they” who are about to be ordained and sent out.

The “you” to whom the Holy Spirit is speaking is St. Peter and the Apostles.

Once again, consult a Catholic you trust who is knowledgeable in NT Greek, the passage would not have been written as it was without mentioning an additional group if there was one.

I’ve just grabbed my copy of the Navarre Bible commentary on Acts and it describes the event as sending them on a Missionary journey, not an ordination to the Episcopate. (pps.140-141)

Likewise, if Peter was ordaining Paul as a Bishop in Antioch, what does that do to the claim that Peter ordained him during Paul’s visit to Jerusalem? (Galatians 1:18)

 

[Kay_Cee]

It’s quite obvious that you didn’t read my entire post because you are putting words into my post that don’t exist. If you want to converse at least do it honestly. That’s not what I said. I said the Holy spirit guides me to the truth in my daily actions. Calling the Holy Spirit my moral compass and Jesus the only thing that really mattered. As far as my interpretation of scripture I do not make an assumption that I am right. I merely acknowledged that it wasn’t a simple matter of one side being right and the other wrong. Both could be wrong because in interpreting scripture 3 people could see 3 different thigs.

I don’t understand how the Holy Spirit guides you to the truth in your daily actions while guiding another sincere Christian to the opposite action. For example, some Christians find it perfectly acceptable to use contraception. Others regard it as a sin. Who is right? Shall we depend upon the Holy Spirit to guide these Christians in their daily actions–including the use of contraceptives?

Again you are mis-quoting me. Without getting too sarcastic here I invite you to re-read my post a little more carefully and understand what I am saying. I said the Holy Spirit is in us all once we are baptized. The Holy Spirit provides guidance for us if we allow HIM to. One can simply tune out if you will the guidance of the Holy Spirit. It’s not that the Holy Spirit is doing a lousy job as you say in utter disrespect, it’s that people don’t listen to HIM.

So you listen to him but other sincere Christians don’t? If another Christian disagrees with you, how do you settle which one of you is truly listening and which one of you is tuning him out?

Yes GOD is in charge of the phone. But then why did Adam and Eve sin?? Did they get a bad message? No they didn’t listen. Likewise the Holy Spirit will reveal an infallible truth, but that does not mean that the person doing the teaching is infallible. It would be easy to misunderstand that teaching and when re-taught by that very person you now have a distorted teaching. It doesn’t make the truth infallible or false, or the Holy Spirit a lousy teacher. I can bring to you plenty of Roman Catholics who are badly teaching what Roman Catholicism is all about. There are plenty on this board. This led me to use the proverbial example of the telephone line. One Roman Catholic says no salvation outside the Roman Catholic church, the other Roman Catholic says yes. One Roman Catholic doesn’t believe in confession to a Priest, the other does. Roman Catholics are not perfect and I would certainly throw you in this category as well. Look how you already completely misunderstood my teaching. If I said the sky was blue, you would say if I understand your position you think the wall is green. That’s essentially what you’ve done.

The fact that some Catholics do not know their doctrine or are mistaken about it doesn’t mean that doctrine doesn’t exist. The Church has a set of official doctrines from which it does not deviate.

I would submit that you don’t know the first thing about the reformation. Anytime I see someone on these boards criticizing Protestants they submit the same arguments without substance. It’s always thousands of denominations, inconsistent doctrine. But never any examples. I would equally submit that the Roman Catholic church is not consistent either. Free will and grace have been re-defined in opposing directions since I started Catholic school in the 1960’s. Is this infallible?? Must be nice to be able to call the kettle black.

Yes, I was expecting this. You’re mistaking people not following official doctrine for not actually having an official doctrine.

You may claim Rome has doctrinal unity. But that is only on paper. Most Catholics don’t understand half the teachings. The half they think they understand; well we’re back to the wall being green again instead of the sky being blue.

Again, the fact that people misunderstand does not undermine that fact that an official doctrine exists.

So I assume that you didn’t read my post because in the last couple of sentences I submitted to you that I would return to the Roman Catholic church if you could fulfill the simple action I requested. If your true purpose of being here is to help those come back, or come to the Roman Catholic church, then demonstrate it.

PEACE

Well, you were awfully vague about that. You said:

If you can convince me or show me something that changes me, I will gladly return to the Roman Catholic church. I have no quarrels over that.

but what to you would qualify as “something”?

Edit: This really should go into another thread, and we should stick to the topic. I suggest you open one and invite everyone here to “convince me or show me something that challenges me.”

 

[Kay_Cee]

Can we pull back and regroup? I am guilty of it too. It seems like we all have trouble looking through Protestant lenses, as much as they do Catholic.

You’re right! I took the bait too (and after all my admonitons not to!)

The topic of this thread is how Protestants choose a church–and the Catholic Church is not an option.

Guanophore is right. We should stick to that, and other discussions should go into another thread.

 

[Kay_Cee]

I must say I’m disappointed by how quickly there was a flipflop on “respecting the OP” Now that deacon d has jumped outside the box (kudos to him, btw!) and he is arguing for a different model of God dealing with His church than the Catholic church offers, you want to rewrite the rules of the discussion.

You’re right that I should have stuck to the subject. I apologize.

I can only hope he doesn’t follow back into measuring everything by the shape of Catholicism.

the deacon has proposed a perfectly credible alternative to God’s working. Why is it credible? Because He already did it that way with Israel. Fallible leadership, people making mistakes, having periods of insight and close communion with God and periods of lukewarmness and lack of awareness of God’s presence, purpose and plans.

I don’t see a situation where God initiated something like the Reformation with Israel. I would, for one thing, argue that Christianity is the fulfillment of Judaism, not a rejection of it.

In spite of human fallibility, God’s sovereignty prevailed and His purpose, to bring a saviour to mankind through Israel was fulfilled. In spite of this, Catholics reject this model outright when considering the church, opting instead for an abstract “church” which has no sin in spite of being made up of sinners, which is infallible, in spite of being made up of fallible individuals, and which is one which begs the question of Jesus needing to pray for the church to become one if they already were.

Well, this gets into a discussion of Catholicism, and I’ve already promised not to get into that. So please take this to another thread, okay?

God’s view of the church is past, present and future-He sees the blemishes and divisions through time, but also sees the end result in eternity with Him-perfect, sinless and one.

deacon d has provided an alternative to this Catholic concept and it would be intellectually respectful to interact with his proposal for a bit, instead of rejecting it because you prefer your own.

That’s not why I rejected it. I rejected it because I don’t see doctrinal unity there.

My apologies if I’ve seemed harsh in this thread, but I’ve found it troublesome for one reason or another.

No apology needed. I’m the one who’s apologizing for going off topic.

 

[Kay_Cee]

Oh, and Deacon D, I apologize to you too. I obviously misunderstood, but you see, you say:

I said the Holy spirit guides me to the truth in my daily actions.

And you gave me some interpretations of scripture. I just assumed reading and interpreting scripture were a part of those daily actions you mention, and therefore you meant the Holy Spirit was guiding you there too.

But then you say you do not assume your interpretation of scripture is right. So now I’m confused. Are you saying the Holy Spirit doesn’t guide you in your interpretation of scripture? Or he does but somehow you’re not sure you got it right?

 

[deacon_d]

Yes, both could be wrong. All three could be wrong. How do you discern who is right and who is wrong? If all three are wrong, then you don’t go to any of those three Churches - you go to the one that is right.

We’re getting a little off topic. Let me re-circle. What I was merely suggesting was the Protestant and Roman Catholic interpretation could both be wrong. The previous post suggested that one had to be right and one wrong. I was submitting that when we meet GOD he could say you were both wrong. I also submitted that when we interpet scripture there can be more sides than just two (Protestant/Roman Catholic).

What I offered then and what the original poster suggested was to step outside scripture and forget about the labels. Completely take a look at history and observe what the behavior was from the folks who had direct contact with the original 12. Based on their behavior we could probably discern a reasonable interpretation of scripture that both sides could probably agree to. What I offered further was a starting point that included my counter argument of the real presence in the Eucharist. I then confirmed that I would return to the Roman Catholic church if someone could demonstrate to me that either Peter or any of the 12 performed the actual mass because it did not coincide with what we read in the Didache and Acts.

It was a simple conversation that seemed to be misconstrued.

Jesus promised us that the gates of Hell (that is, anything that is not Truth Itself) would not prevail against His Church. He made no promises about anyone else’s Church. (Not Arius, not Nestorius, not Martin Luther, not John Calvin, not Joe down the street, and not you and not me.)

Well here we are again trying to define Jesus church as the Roman Catholic church. I would respectfully say that we should stop speaking for Jesus. And remember the reformers were Catholic as well. So technically the reformation could be titled something like Catholic Junior. To imply that anyone who is outside the Roman Catholic church is going to hell or falling to satan is extremely judgemental. I think we are going to be surprised that many Roman Catholics may not get to Heaven. It’s what’s in your heart and not the label you wear.

Assuming that the Catholic Church is not the Church that Christ founded, we still know that it exists, somewhere, because He promised that it would prevail until the end of time. Which means that it’s around here somewhere.

The task in this thread now is to identify that Church so that we can all know where to sign up.

OK so let’s focus on that then. Any ideas how to start??

 

[jmcrae]

We’re getting a little off topic. Let me re-circle. What I was merely suggesting was the Protestant and Roman Catholic interpretation could both be wrong. The previous post suggested that one had to be right and one wrong. I was submitting that when we meet GOD he could say you were both wrong. I also submitted that when we interpet scripture there can be more sides than just two (Protestant/Roman Catholic).

Well, there are all different Protestant interpretations, as well - Lutheran, Calvinist, Anabaptist, Anglican, and Mennonite were the original five, and then of course we have everything that came out of those five, that we have today. Now, each of the original five claimed to have the proper interpretation, but how does one discern which of the five had it? Since they obviously disagreed with each other on some pretty fundamental issues.

Well here we are again trying to define Jesus church as the Roman Catholic church.

No, since that would require that we assume that the Catholic Church is the one that Christ founded, which Protestants say He did not.

In this thread, we are to assume that it was not - that Christ founded one of the Protestant churches; not the Catholic Church. So, the task is to figure out which one.

OK so let’s focus on that then. Any ideas how to start??

Well, we could start by looking at the original five Protestant churches - Lutheran, Calvinist, Mennonite, Anglican, and Anabaptist. (Some would argue that the Mennonite and Anabaptist churches are just slightly different expressions of the same thing, so if you want to reduce the list to four on that basis, then please be my guest. )

Now, obviously, all four/five of them claim to be the authentic expression of Christ’s Church. Only one of them can be, which means that at least three of them are not.

So, let’s start by discerning which of them are not, and see if we can arrive at the correct one by a process of elimination.

 

[Publisher]

Well, there are all different Protestant interpretations, as well - Lutheran, Calvinist, Anabaptist, Anglican, and Mennonite were the original five, and then of course we have everything that came out of those five, that we have today. Now, each of the original five claimed to have the proper interpretation, but how does one discern which of the five had it? Since they obviously disagreed with each other on some pretty fundamental issues.

No, since that would require that we assume that the Catholic Church is the one that Christ founded, which Protestants say He did not.

In this thread, we are to assume that it was not - that Christ founded one of the Protestant churches; not the Catholic Church. So, the task is to figure out which one.

Well, we could start by looking at the original five Protestant churches - Lutheran, Calvinist, Mennonite, Anglican, and Anabaptist. (Some would argue that the Mennonite and Anabaptist churches are just slightly different expressions of the same thing, so if you want to reduce the list to four on that basis, then please be my guest. )

Now, obviously, all four/five of them claim to be the authentic expression of Christ’s Church. Only one of them can be, which means that at least three of them are not.

So, let’s start by discerning which of them are not, and see if we can arrive at the correct one by a process of elimination.

Or, all of them could be imperfect expressions of the Church. They are merely orgainizations founded by men that seek to express in community the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. Each congregation of believers which meets in His name and through the Spirit is where the mystical Body of Christ, the Church is. It is not an organization, but a “holy People, a holy nation of believers” who through the work of Christ are redeemed and seek to live His life out in this world.

In many ways the Eastern Orthodox express a very real concept of the church…each local body of believers IS where the Church exists in it’s entirety, it is composed of those whom have been redeemed by the work of Christ.

 

[jmcrae]

Or, all of them could be imperfect expressions of the Church. They are merely orgainizations founded by men that seek to express in community the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth.

The Bible tells us in Matthew 16:18-19 that Christ founded a Church, though, and that He promised that the gates of Hell could not prevail against it.

Where did it go? Did the gates of Hell prevail, after all?

 

[Publisher]

The Bible tells us in Matthew 16:18-19 that Christ founded a Church, though, and that He promised that the gates of Hell could not prevail against it.

Where did it go? Did the gates of Hell prevail, after all?

Agreed, the gates of hell will never prevail against the redeemed…we know how this ends…read Revelation…a first to mid second century apocalyptical treatise of the struggle of the People of God in this world.

The Church never went anywhere…God has always had a People…from every nation, kindred, tongue and people. He has redeemed men and women from every place, in every time…there is a “communion of saints”…“a mighty cloud of witnesses” who cheers us on…God’s People are the Chruch…those whom He has redeemed in Christ.

 

[jmcrae]

Agreed, the gates of hell will never prevail against the redeemed…we know how this ends…read Revelation…a first to mid second century apocalyptical treatise of the struggle of the People of God in this world.

Okay. So, what Church do the redeemed go to? (Keep in mind: They can’t disagree with each other on things like who Jesus is, or how to enter into His Church, or on issues of morality, because they are protected by the Holy Spirit into all TRUTH; not into all personal opinions.)

Also, we know from the book of the Acts of the Apostles that it is a visible church with a visible leadership.

 

[deacon_d]

I don’t understand how the Holy Spirit guides you to the truth in your daily actions while guiding another sincere Christian to the opposite action. For example, some Christians find it perfectly acceptable to use contraception. Others regard it as a sin. Who is right? Shall we depend upon the Holy Spirit to guide these Christians in their daily actions–including the use of contraceptives?

Yes now we’re getting to some good stuff. I don’t believe the Holy Spirit would guide true Christians to opposite actions. I think what happens is someone decides not to listen to the Holy Spirit because they either think they know better or just refuse to listen. Contraception is dicey. The church can define contraception as a sin because of the power to bind and loose. But usually contraception is associated with pre-marital relations which is a sin. So in that case it’s not the contraception that’s the sin it’s the sexual immorality. In married Christian couples they may disagree with the church and say they feel it’s OK. But they still would be committing a sin in the churches eyes. Since the church binds it here it’s bound in heaven. It really comes down to that couple reconciling themselves with GOD. Just my opinion but would like to hear yours

So you listen to him but other sincere Christians don’t? If another Christian disagrees with you, how do you settle which one of you is truly listening and which one of you is tuning him out?

I believe there’s no denying that moral compass. I just know in my life I’ve always known what’s right and wrong. I didn’t need the church to tell me. I’m not discounting the church by the way But I chose to do the wrong thing anyway. Why?? Why else do we do stupid things. Selfish attitude, immmediate pleasure, you name it. If someone truly feels that the Holy Spirit is moving them we may never really know. I’ll give you a great example. There’s a nun who competes in the Ironman triathlon in Hawaii every year. Additionally she competes in numerous events all over the place. She’s started her own little ministry and is spreading the Gospel that way. The Roman Catholic church said she was wrong. That she was ignoring her other responsibilities as a nun. She disagreed saying she knows the Holy Spirit is moving her to do this. 3 of her nun friends support her emphatically. So does her priest. But Rome does not. They actually showed footage of her ministering to other competitors before and after the race. Now who is right and who is wrong??

The fact that some Catholics do not know their doctrine or are mistaken about it doesn’t mean that doctrine doesn’t exist. The Church has a set of official doctrines from which it does not deviate.

True and un-true. I’m not sure of your age but they’ve re-defined free will a few times. Actually in opposite directions. You’re right that just because you don’t know it exists doesn’t mean it doesn’t. But people choose not to believe it. I can show you so many Catholics that don’t believe in going to confession. Who don’t believe in the real presence. I would say that if you put all Catholics in a room, I bet less than 50% of them know all doctrine. And what they do know I would say they don’t agree with 100%. This is just my opinion. But that’s been my experience growing up Catholic and now. I remember the meat on fridays thing changing almost yearly as a child.

Yes, I was expecting this. You’re mistaking people not following official doctrine for not actually having an official doctrine.

Maybe I mis-spoke. My apologies. But what good is having doctrine if you’re not going to follow it? I got the impression that you were assuming the reformers have no official doctrine. That’s not true. We can go into another thread and discuss that if you like. There is a sound set of beliefs for Reformers. Unfortunately some denominations probably add their spin or delete or who knows what. With freedom of religion you will always have groups starting their own religions and giving themselves a title. We see this more now where cultural lines are drawn like with AME, Hebrew Pentecostal etc. But I wouldn’t automatically place them all in the category of the reformers. To the contrary many actually are not. They’ve developed their own set of beliefs. This is what is so unfair when Protestants get jumped on here about thousands of denominations. Anyone can call themselves Protestant or Christian. But if you say I’m a reformed Christian you are in a very specific set of beliefs.

Again, the fact that people misunderstand does not undermine that fact that an official doctrine exists.

Agreed

Well, you were awfully vague about that. You said:

but what to you would qualify as “something”?

Edit: This really should go into another thread, and we should stick to the topic. I suggest you open one and invite everyone here to “convince me or show me something that challenges me.”

True we can do that. What I meant was I liked your idea of going outside the Bible and the labels of Roman Catholic and Protestant and taking a strict look at history. What I merely asked was could you show documentation where any of the 12 apostles actually peformed the mass and believed in the real presence?? This singularly would bring me back to the church and would confirm that I’m wrong about John chapter 6. That’s all

PEACE

 

[Publisher]

Okay. So, what Church do the redeemed go to? (Keep in mind: They can’t disagree with each other on things like who Jesus is, or how to enter into His Church, or on issues of morality, because they are protected by the Holy Spirit into all TRUTH; not into all personal opinions.)

Also, we know from the book of the Acts of the Apostles that it is a visible church with a visible leadership.

“Where two or three are gathered together in My name, there am I in the midst of them.”

It is the work of the Holy Spirit which makes us One.

You and I do not agree on many things concerning doctrine, but we share in the redemption that comes through Christ. We are led into Truth, a life lived in Truth…a life through whom Christ lives…“it is not I who live but Christ who lives within me…” This is the Life we share, and it is this Life in Christ that unifies us in Him…we are His redeemed People…and I and those with whom I worship with who join together in His Name is the visible Church…it is “universal” in scope, His salvation which He so freely bestows upon those who come to Him in repentance and faith to be His Body in this world.

As a Friend, we seek to “live in that virtue of life of which the apostles lived”…it is in Christ we live, He is our all and in all…we are a visible people…a congregation of the redeemed…a royal priesthood of believers in this world…we are His very presence…it is our hands which He uses to reach out and touch the broken…it is our feet He uses to go where there is darkness…it is our voices He uses when we speak love and kindness to those who need it the most. We are His Body…I’d say we’re pretty visible.

 

[jmcrae]

“Where two or three are gathered together in My name, there am I in the midst of them.”

It is the work of the Holy Spirit which makes us One.

You and I do not agree on many things concerning doctrine, but we share in the redemption that comes through Christ. We are led into Truth, a life lived in Truth…a life through whom Christ lives…“it is not I who live but Christ who lives within me…” This is the Life we share, and it is this Life in Christ that unifies us in Him…we are His redeemed People…and I and those with whom I worship with who join together in His Name is the visible Church…it is “universal” in scope, His salvation which He so freely bestows upon those who come to Him in repentance and faith to be His Body in this world.

As a Friend, we seek to “live in that virtue of life of which the apostles lived”…it is in Christ we live, He is our all and in all…we are a visible people…a congregation of the redeemed…a royal priesthood of believers in this world…we are His very presence…it is our hands which He uses to reach out and touch the broken…it is our feet He uses to go where there is darkness…it is our voices He uses when we speak love and kindness to those who need it the most. We are His Body…I’d say we’re pretty visible.

So, you would say that the true expression of the Church is the Friends (Quakers).

Now we’re getting somewhere.