Calling all non-Catholic Christians!

[deacon_d]

That’s true. The headquarters of the Church were moved from Jerusalem to Rome when the Apostles were carried to Rome in chains.

Contd. Sorry again

Not all the Apostles were taken to Rome. John went to Ephesus. Polycarp who trained with John was at Smyrna. They were all over the place until they were killed. Your assuming Peter’s primacy here which is a very different argument.

We don’t ascribe authority to Rome on that premise. Rather, we ascribe authority to the successors of the Apostles, and they happen at this moment to be living in Rome. When the Vatican had to move to Avignon for a short period of time, the Pope was the Bishop of Avignon - but he was still the Successor of St. Peter.

What about when there were 2 Popes, both of whom claimed primacy. Rome was only afforded respect because Peter and Paul died there. As far as submitting to the authority of Rome and the Pope, well this was the cause of the first schism. Where was the Holy Spirit at work then? How do you know?

That was supposedly St. James’ ossuary, first of all, and secondly, that ossuary has been proven to be a fake. (Get your conspiracy theories straight, man!! )

No that was not St. James. That’s a different one. There’s an ossuary that was under the Mount of Olives that had the inscription Simon Bar Jonah. It was found with other ossuaries that had the names of people who were followers of Jesus. The bones of the supposed body of Peter in Rome turned out to be animal bones.

Being well-versed in the Scriptures is certainly a requirement for every Catholic who is capable of it - but being well-versed in the Scriptures is not the same thing as believing in Sola Scriptura (salvation comes from the Bible alone). The opposite of Sola Scriptura is not “no Scripture at all” but rather, keeping the Scriptures in their proper place in the order of things. First the Magisterium (Jesus appoints the Apostles), next, the Holy Tradition (Jesus teaches the Apostles the Gospel by word of mouth, which they then pass on to others by word of mouth), and next, the Scriptures (the Apostles write various letters and memoirs which are then circulated around the Church, and eventually canonized as the New Testament by Pope Innocent I in 405 AD).

But all matters of salvation come from the Bible. Everything I need to know for my salvation comes from the Bible. Please tell me something that is not in the Bible that I need for salvation. I don’t discount church history and certainly our church does not. But in all matters of Faith we revert back to the Bible.

They followed the Holy Tradition, which is the teachings of the Apostles.

Yes but not everyone had the opportunity to learn from an Apostle. Christianity was growing too fast for them to get around. Hence the reason Paul’s letters were generated and then the Gospels.

They were making use of the Sacraments of the Church according to the Holy Tradition and they were using them according to the disciplines of that time that they had been given by the Apostles and their successors.

Yes but what they taught is now in the Bible.

And they didn’t have a Bible yet (that came about in 405 AD), so they certainly weren’t operating according to Sola Scriptura.

You act as if no scripture existed before then. No disrespect but this argument is so old. You need to brush up a little on history To clarify, no the Bible in it’s current form did not exist. But scripture most certainly did. We have a parchment copy of Marks Gospel that dates back to 42AD. That means the original had to be written before that. Many of Paul’s letters precede the Gospels so that means they were written and circulated probably around 38-40AD. Just 5-8 years after Christ’s death. That’s why they are so reliable. Scripture was being circulated like crazy. As a matter of fact the 4 Gospels were chosen to be in the Bible because they were the most widely read and most widely accepted. You’re implying that no one read the Bible until 405AD. They may not have read the Bible in it’s form but they certainly read all the scripture that was in it and some. You treat scripture as if it is separate from the Bible and that no one had access to it. Scripture makes up the Bible. I hear this so much as an argument against sola scripture and it makes no sense. Everyone assumes that because the books and letters that make up official Canon were not assembled until 405AD that no one read them until after. That’s why we have like over 27,000 manuscripts of the NT alone.

PEACE

 

[jmcrae]

Contd. Sorry again

Not all the Apostles were taken to Rome. John went to Ephesus. Polycarp who trained with John was at Smyrna. They were all over the place until they were killed. Your assuming Peter’s primacy here which is a very different argument.

Jesus set Peter over the whole Church in John 21:15-19.

What about when there were 2 Popes, both of whom claimed primacy.

We have several Popes today, all claiming primacy, but I think we all know who’s who - certainly, no practicing Catholic is confused about who the real Pope is. (I am sure you’ve heard of Pope Adrian, right?)

But all matters of salvation come from the Bible. Everything I need to know for my salvation comes from the Bible. Please tell me something that is not in the Bible that I need for salvation.

Faith in God. The Bible can tell you to have faith in God, but it can’t give it to you. That has to come from God Himself, together with your own willingness to receive that faith.

Yes but not everyone had the opportunity to learn from an Apostle. Christianity was growing too fast for them to get around. Hence the reason Paul’s letters were generated and then the Gospels.

It’s also why they were training and ordaining Bishops, deacons, and priests - they certainly did not expect the people to just pick up their writings and gain everything they needed to know from that alone.

You act as if no scripture existed before then. No disrespect but this argument is so old. You need to brush up a little on history To clarify, no the Bible in it’s current form did not exist.

And most people only had access to one or two books of it at a time.

But scripture most certainly did. We have a parchment copy of Marks Gospel that dates back to 42AD. That means the original had to be written before that. Many of Paul’s letters precede the Gospels so that means they were written and circulated probably around 38-40AD. Just 5-8 years after Christ’s death.

Even if that’s true, what did they do for those 5-8 years? Did they just put everything into suspension until Mark’s Gospel and a few of St. Paul’s letters came out? No - they were already saying Mass, hearing Confessions, ordaining Bishops, performing various miracles using relics (St. Paul’s handkerchief, for example), etc., already - they even had already held an Ecumenical Council before they ever had any Scripture written down of the New Testament.

 

[jmcrae]

Dude, if THAT Church stuck to the Bible, then I would be there.

It does. Always did. Always will.

 

[deacon_d]

What’s the difference? How can we be guided into the truth, without being taught the truth?

I’m not saying we can’t be taught the truth. We can be taught the truth but then suppose someone misunderstands our teaching. Your assuming we teach infallibly. If the Holy Spirit teaches me 2+2=4. That’s an absolute truth. But if someone then misunderstands me and thinks I taught them 2+2=5 then what? Suppose they then go around and teach 2+2=5. Then all the sudden we have 1 group claiming 1 answer and the other claiming another. How do we reconcile it. Well we would have to go to what is written in a math book by an expert. Hence the BIBLE.

But the teachings are still always there. Their poor understandings can always be corrected.

Yes the teachings are there but where??? If you have a disagreement then you have to go to a source. That’s the Bible again. It’s the only way we can properly validate it. If I say Jesus didn’t die on a cross, I won’t believe you because you say Rome says so. But if you show me in the Bible that’s different. I could still choose to not believe it. But that would be stupid.

Actually, this is where the Holy Tradition keeps us grounded. The Bible, by itself, can’t correct anyone’s errors, or point out to them that they are believing something inconsistent with the teaching of the Apostles.

I disagree with you on this. Again I refer to 2 timothy 3:

16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God [2] may be competent, equipped for every good work.

Notice the word correction

So were all of the other sects of Judaism; that’s why there was a Court of the Gentiles in the Temple - that was where Gentiles who were being converted to Judaism would gather for worship.
Actually, that’s what they were meeting to determine at the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 - that fact was not established officially until St. Peter made the ruling at the end of that Council. Before that, it was open to interpretation, and as we see when we read that chapter, different people were interpreting it differently from each other.

I disagree. How did Paul and Barnabus know then. They had no communication with Peter. And Peter himself didn’t teach circumcision. They only responded because of the false teachers circulating around from Judea and because of the demands of the Pharisees.

PEACE

 

[jmcrae]

I’m not saying we can’t be taught the truth. We can be taught the truth but then suppose someone misunderstands our teaching. Your assuming we teach infallibly. If the Holy Spirit teaches me 2+2=4. That’s an absolute truth. But if someone then misunderstands me and thinks I taught them 2+2=5 then what? Suppose they then go around and teach 2+2=5. Then all the sudden we have 1 group claiming 1 answer and the other claiming another. How do we reconcile it. Well we would have to go to what is written in a math book by an expert. Hence the BIBLE.

Yes the teachings are there but where??? If you have a disagreement then you have to go to a source. That’s the Bible again. It’s the only way we can properly validate it. If I say Jesus didn’t die on a cross, I won’t believe you because you say Rome says so. But if you show me in the Bible that’s different. I could still choose to not believe it. But that would be stupid.

I disagree with you on this. Again I refer to 2 timothy 3:

16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God [2] may be competent, equipped for every good work.

Notice the word correction

But not all by itself. Someone has to open the Bible and show you the verse that you are mistaken about.

I disagree. How did Paul and Barnabus know then. They had no communication with Peter.

They were at the Council; what are you talking about, “no communication”? This makes absolutely no sense - Peter was the one sending them out on their missions, and giving them their instructions.

And Peter himself didn’t teach circumcision. They only responded because of the false teachers circulating around from Judea and because of the demands of the Pharisees.

Where are you getting the Pharisees from? The Pharisees didn’t care about the entrance requirements into Christianity; it was none of their business. They hated Christianity because they thought it was heretical for teaching that Jesus is God, but they weren’t nitpicking about the entrance requirements.

The Jews they were responding to were Christian missionaries who had been appointed by the Apostles; maybe even by Jesus Himself, since some of them were probably from among the Seventy. They were equally as Christian as the Apostles themselves, but they were requiring their new converts to be circumcised, if they had not been, before.

That’s why the Apostles had to hold a Council - in order to resolve this disagreement, and bring all of the Christian missionaries into conformity with the same doctrines, practices, and disciplines.

 

[rtconstant]

Since no strait answer has yet been given for selecting the correct Church or for even finding Truth for that matter. Then lets try to clarify what we’ve heard so far.

First look at what that protestant church teaches about God and Christ. Does it line up with the Scriptures?

Well obviously a Church should line up with Scripture. Every denomination and pseudo-Christian sect holds to this. So we’ve narrowed it down so far to every non-Catholic denomination, sect and cult.

Secondly, do they believe that the Scriptures are the inspired-inerrant Word of God?

Again most Christian and pseudo-Christian denominations, sects and cults hold to this. So we’re still pretty much at everbody minus a few liberal denominations.

Thirdly, do they believe that the Scriptures are the basis for all beliefs and practices for a Christian?

This really doesn’t narrow it down any further than the previous qualifier.

Fourth, what do they teach what the gospel message is?

Since no standard or qualifier is given here does this mean that any gospel message is OK, so long as one knows what it is? Or is there a particular gospel message being sought after here? I don’t want to put words in anyone’s mouth but I would assume the poster means there is an actual correct gospel message. If this is so then how does one know they are hearing the correct one?

Since we’ve already moved through the previous qualifiers we know that the denomination who’s gospel message we’re listening to is based on the Bible as the inspired inerrant word of God. So we know the message meets the Biblical standard. So now what standard must one use to know if the message is correct?

Earlier in the thread a poster said that he/she more or less goes with their opinion. Is this the process? Hear what the denomination/sect/cult says and if it matches up to your opinion then it is truth?

These would be just some of the many issues to determine which protestant church is teaching the truth.

I’m glad to hear there are many issues to determine which Protestant Church teaches the Truth because thus far we’ve narrowed it down to all of them. So lets have the next batch of qualifiers.

 

[justasking4]

rtconstant;3314100]
Since no strait answer has yet been given for selecting the correct Church or for even finding Truth for that matter. Then lets try to clarify what we’ve heard so far.

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
First look at what that protestant church teaches about God and Christ. Does it line up with the Scriptures?

rtconstant;
Well obviously a Church should line up with Scripture. Every denomination and pseudo-Christian sect holds to this. So we’ve narrowed it down so far to every non-Catholic denomination, sect and cult.

Have studied Mormomism on its doctrine of God? There is no way it can be truly said that they hold to Scripture.

Quote:justasking4
Secondly, do they believe that the Scriptures are the inspired-inerrant Word of God?

rtconstant;
Again most Christian and pseudo-Christian denominations, sects and cults hold to this. So we’re still pretty much at everbody minus a few liberal denominations.

Good then we can eliminate them and shorten our list.

Quote:justasking4
Thirdly, do they believe that the Scriptures are the basis for all beliefs and practices for a Christian?

rtconstant;
This really doesn’t narrow it down any further than the previous qualifier.

This would eliminate the Roman Catholic church though.

Quote:justasking4
Fourth, what do they teach what the gospel message is?

rtconstant;
Since no standard or qualifier is given here does this mean that any gospel message is OK, so long as one knows what it is? Or is there a particular gospel message being sought after here? I don’t want to put words in anyone’s mouth but I would assume the poster means there is an actual correct gospel message. If this is so then how does one know they are hearing the correct one?

A couple places to look would be Romans 10:9-10 and I Corinthians 15:1-4

Since we’ve already moved through the previous qualifiers we know that the denomination who’s gospel message we’re listening to is based on the Bible as the inspired inerrant word of God. So we know the message meets the Biblical standard. So now what standard must one use to know if the message is correct?

Does it line up with Scripture.

Earlier in the thread a poster said that he/she more or less goes with their opinion. Is this the process? Hear what the denomination/sect/cult says and if it matches up to your opinion then it is truth?

No. See my previous post.

Quote:justasking4
These would be just some of the many issues to determine which protestant church is teaching the truth.

rtconstant;
I’m glad to hear there are many issues to determine which Protestant Church teaches the Truth because thus far we’ve narrowed it down to all of them. So lets have the next batch of qualifiers.

Not so. I gave a short essential list of things to look for.

 

[jmcrae]

Not so. I gave a short essential list of things to look for.

You have not narrowed it down to the one-and-only that was founded by Christ, though. (And rather than suggest all these tests, why not simply give us the name of that one, together with the Biblical, historical, and archaeological proofs that identify it as the one that Christ founded, so that we can stop wondering, and go join it.)

 

[Kay_Cee]

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

I wanted to see how, if you’re not looking at it through a Catholic lens, you would discover which church teaches the truth. That is, how you would figure this out, if you were starting from scratch.

Nobody seems able to answer the dilemma I gave in post #47. I think it’s a valid question, one that many people must face. Surely Christ did not intend to leave us with such dilemmas. Surely He wanted us to have the truth.

So, for what it’s worth, here’s my answer to it:

Since the dilemma is caused by two differing interpretations of scripture, one must determine which interpretation is the correct one.

We can do this by examining more scripture, but as debates on this forum prove, that usually accomplishes little more that verse slinging. Each side tends to look at the issue through its own interpretive lens.

I propose a different way. It does involve going outside scripture, but those of you who have said I should ask the Holy Spirit for guidance have already told me to go to a source outside scripture.

I think there are other things we can look at to find the answer.

1. Logic. Human beings are capable of discerning certain truths this way. For example, we can tell from the law of non-contradiction that both sides in the dilemma I proposed cannot be right.
2. What we know of human nature. Human beings usually do not up and forget the most charismatic person they ever met, nor are they normally willing to undergo torture and death for a cause they do not believe in. We also take great care to teach what we believe is true to future generations. Granted, there are exceptions, like a person who’s insane, but I think overall these things are true of most people.
3. History. We have writings (for example, scripture) to tell us what happened in the early church.
4. God is always truthful.

So, going by #4, we realize Jesus taught his disciples the truth. Certainly, since he wanted us to know this truth, he chose as his disciples persons who were competent enough to remember what he did and said. The fact that we have scripture confirms this, even though scripture does not record all of it (see John 21:6).

These disciples, in turn, taught others, such as the next generation of Christians. They were there to correct these new Christians if they got anything wrong, and since they too would have wanted Christ’s truth preserved, would have selected as leaders those who were competent enough to pass on this truth to yet future generations.

We see from history that this first generation of new Christians were willing to undergo torture and be put to death for what they believed. And if they were that fierce about holding to the truth, certainly they took great care to choose as leaders for the second generation those who would similarily hold to the truth.

So, the place I would look to solve my dilemma (since scripture alone doesn’t solve it) would be the writings of these early Christians. What did *they *believe about the Eucharist? What were they willing to die for? What would they have taken great care to pass on to future generations? If you can find a consensus there, I think that’s incredibly compelling evidence that that’s what Christ intended us to believe about the Eucharist.

Anyway, that’s how I would solve it.

 

[rtconstant]

Have studied Mormomism on its doctrine of God? There is no way it can be truly said that they hold to Scripture.

According to you and me. To them not so much. But then that’s just our thoughts verses theirs.

Good then we can eliminate them and shorten our list.

Yes it does shorten it. Proabably by less than a percent but it is shortened. Mormons and JW’s are still in though.

This would eliminate the Roman Catholic church though.

Um, you may remember the RCC was disqualified at the beginning of the thread. Sorry for the wasted zinger. BTW, the JW’s still in there.

A couple places to look would be Romans 10:9-10 and I Corinthians 15:1-4

Hmm, six verses out of the entire Bible eh? You know there are one or two more than that. So if someone put up different verses would that mean you then do not line up? Or are the above verses of more importance than the others? If so where do we draw that information? Also you didn’t give your interpretation of those verses. What happens if someone doesn’t agree with how you look at them, or has a different point of view?

Does it line up with Scripture.

Well as I said if we’ve already made it this far down your list we can assume it lines up with scripture from the point of view of the denomination/sect/cult in question.

No. See my previous post.

See my previous post.

Not so. I gave a short essential list of things to look for.

Isn’t that list what we just went over? I’ve looked through the entire thread. I don’t see any other list than the one we just discussed.

So again we’re at pretty much denomination/sect/cult being “Pillar and ground of Truth”. Minus, a couple of liberal churches and the RCC (since we bowed out).

 

[Non_Serviam]

I’ve been a bit to busy with real life lately to invest time at CAF, but now I can afford to discuss a bit.

Looking at this thread, I must admit that it has been amusing to see the Catholics treeing the protestants so quickly.

I’d offer congratulations if it wasn’t for the small matter of not respecting the OP.

So to give the protestants a chance to beat a dignified retreat, I’m going to point something out to them and then return to my studies of Catholicism.

Hypothetically, let us say that the Catholic Church is indeed completely false:

Among all the other denominations, where is Christian truth? Everyone argues that the Catholic Church is full of man-made changes and thus has fallen into error. Though every Protestant church is blatantly man-made. They came hundreds of years after Christ and presume to be individually inspired toward truth.

So, again, hypothetically speaking, the Catholic Church is wrong. Which Protestant denomination is correct? Which Non-Denominational church is correct? Which interpretation of the Bible is correct? You guys cannot trust Catholicism, then which of these man-made churches and interpretations are we to go to for truth?

There’s a fundamental disconnect in this request. After positing the hypothesis that the Catholic church is completely false, the questions that are posed to non-Catholics are still constructed according to a Catholic mindset. They assume the existence of a visible, infallible church with a fixed body of dogma that is maintained by its hierarchy.

If the first part of the OP is true, than these assumptions are also “completely false” and to continue to demand that non-Catholics answer questions based on these assumptions doesn’t respect the initial premise of the OP.

I suggest we all agree to stay on topic. This thread is NOT about the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church should not even come up in the conversation. There should be no mention of it at all.

Agreed?

Agreed, likewise Catholics should not insist that non-Catholics respond to questions based on Catholic assumptions, and in fact such Catholicism-informed cross examination shouldn’t even come up, being based on “completely false” premises and all.

There, protestants, I’ve thrown you a lifeline, hopefully you’ll have sense to grab hold of it and let this thread rest before the Catholics chase you any further up the tree.

Good evening all.

 

[khutcheson]

There, protestants, I’ve thrown you a lifeline, hopefully you’ll have sense to grab hold of it and let this thread rest before the Catholics chase you any further up the tree.

Good evening all.

Nobody’s running me up a tree.

 

[deacon_d]

=jmcrae;3314056]But not all by itself. Someone has to open the Bible and show you the verse that you are mistaken about.

That’s very true. But who’s to say I can’t find it myself?? I guess it comes down then to interpretation.

They were at the Council; what are you talking about, “no communication”? This makes absolutely no sense - Peter was the one sending them out on their missions, and giving them their instructions.

JMCRAE you need to re-read Acts. Peter was not sending Paul and Barnabus out. The Holy Spirit was. Paul was commissioned directly by Jesus. As a matter of fact when Paul first met with the Apostles they were fearful of HIM because they remembered the persecutions he was commissioning. With regard to the council meeting in Jerusalem; that happened after Paul and Barnabus were in antioch as well as Peter being in the home of the gentiles after he had his vision from GOD and after his imprisonment. Remember?

Please re-read Acts 13:

Barnabas and Saul Sent Off
Acts: 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.

Who sent them off? The Holy Spirit. Peter had nothing to do with it. From Antioch Paul who was originally named Saul and Barnabus travelled to Cyprus where they met up with Mark. From there they went to Pisidia where Mark split off and returned to Jerusalem. Paul and Barnabus continued their journey through Iconium, then Lystra (where Paul was stoned), and then eventually back to Antioch in Syria. This all takes place before the council in Jerusalem. Peter has absolutely nothing to do with their travel plans. He had been in jail and was actually on the run.

While in Antioch men from Judea came and started preaching that gentiles had to be circumcised to which Paul and Barnabus emphatically said no. Upon request of the church in Antioch they returned to Jerusalem passing through Phoenicia and Samaria preaching all the good news. Once in Jerusalem Peter spoke to the council asking why they would yoke the disciples with laws their own people could not keep. After this Paul and Barnabus spoke and the crowd fell silent as they described their successes that GOD had done through them. After hearing this James not Peter issues a judgement (Acts 15:19) and a letter is dispatched. I’m very puzzled as to why you think Peter had so much to do with this. He had no contact with them whatsoever.

Where are you getting the Pharisees from? The Pharisees didn’t care about the entrance requirements into Christianity; it was none of their business. They hated Christianity because they thought it was heretical for teaching that Jesus is God, but they weren’t nitpicking about the entrance requirements.

**You stand corrected. **Again please re-read Acts:

Acts 15:5: But some believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees rose up and said, “It is necessary to circumcise them (the Gentiles) and to order them to keep the law of Moses.”

Notice some, not all, but some of the believers were Pharisees at this point. This was right after Paul and Barnabus returned to Jerusalem from Antioch and just before the Council. Some Pharisees started to accept Jesus. This was the exact cause of that council meeting. They wanted to enforce strict Mosaic law even for the Gentiles. No disrespect my sister but you obviously are not well versed with Acts.

The Jews they were responding to were Christian missionaries who had been appointed by the Apostles; maybe even by Jesus Himself, since some of them were probably from among the Seventy. They were equally as Christian as the Apostles themselves, but they were requiring their new converts to be circumcised, if they had not been, before.

Again as stated above you stand corrected. The Bible states specifically it was the Pharisees. Actually if you read Acts and Paul’s journeys you will notice how much Jewish resistance they ran into.

That’s why the Apostles had to hold a Council - in order to resolve this disagreement, and bring all of the Christian missionaries into conformity with the same doctrines, practices, and disciplines.

Don’t mean to keep repeating myself but please re-read Acts carefully. You stand corrected on this.

PEACE

 

[deacon_d]

Jesus set Peter over the whole Church in John 21:15-19.

Well again your reading more into that. Remember Peter had stopped being an Apostle. Jesus was simply re-commissioning him to do exactly what he expected the other Apostles to do.

We have several Popes today, all claiming primacy, but I think we all know who’s who - certainly, no practicing Catholic is confused about who the real Pope is. (I am sure you’ve heard of Pope Adrian, right?)

Yes but that’s not what I am talking about. My history is a little rusty on this. I’m talking about something much earlier within Roman Catholic history. I’ll find it and post it for you.

Faith in God. The Bible can tell you to have faith in God, but it can’t give it to you. That has to come from God Himself, together with your own willingness to receive that faith.

So you are confiming my point. I asked you to provide something to me that was required for salvation, that only the Roman Catholic church possessed the knowledge, and it wasn’t in the Bible. You are saying Faith. But then you are admitting Faith is in the Bible although you rightly state the Bible can’t give it to you. But guess what? Neither can the Roman Catholic church. No one can. So again, you are making my exact point here. Salvation is not dependent on the Roman Catholic church. It’s in your HEART where GOD HIMSELF is most intimate with you. I grew up Roman Catholic. They didn’t give me my Faith. They taught it. But I can be taught anywhere as well as read the Bible and learn it. But then as you so perfectly stated, you have to ACCEPT it. Again back to Paul’s letter to the Corinthians; it doesn’t matter who plants the seed and waters it, GOD makes it grow.

It’s also why they were training and ordaining Bishops, deacons, and priests - they certainly did not expect the people to just pick up their writings and gain everything they needed to know from that alone.

I wouldn’t disagree with you but not every church had these leaders. Churches were forming on their own and in most cases were meeting in their houses. There’s no way the Apostles could have reached all these locations. Even with their companions like Barnabus, Titus, Timothy etc.

And most people only had access to one or two books of it at a time.

True but they still were in widespread circulation and available to read. The Gospels were written in response to the demand to spread the word. Mark’s Gospel was directed to Rome.

Even if that’s true, what did they do for those 5-8 years? Did they just put everything into suspension until Mark’s Gospel and a few of St. Paul’s letters came out? No - they were already saying Mass, hearing Confessions, ordaining Bishops, performing various miracles using relics (St. Paul’s handkerchief, for example), etc., already - they even had already held an Ecumenical Council before they ever had any Scripture written down of the New Testament.

I would agree they were working from oral teachings. But let’s take a look at how well that was going. Take the church in Corinth as a great example. Our Pastor for spiritual development travelled the exact paths Paul traveled in Acts. He spent alot of time researching the areas where the first churches were established and learned alot about Corinth. They were following the folks who baptized them as also referenced in Acts. This is the division Paul speaks of. They were also excluding the poor people from worship but were taking their donations. They were using the Lord’s supper as an excuse to get drunk which is also referenced in Acts. Sexual immorality was out of control. Now bear in mind they were working from oral teachings which as you state are supposed to be infallible. But as we see and as I keep asserting it’s not infallible. So what does Paul do?? Puts pen to paper essentially And generates a letter to them which then gets into widespread circulation. Now look where that letter is today. In the Bible.

I would ask that you show me documentation that states they were hearing confessions and performing the mass. Actually if you read the didache you get a very different picture of what was going on. I believe Iraneus also wrote how they worshipped. They basically spent their entire time reading scripture from the apostles, praying, and then observing the Lord’s supper after which they would break bread and have dinner together. This is how we worship at our church although we serve communion in the middle. I would submit to you the mass was a much much later invention and was not practiced by those initial churches. If you can show me documentation that specifically states they were re-sacrificing Christ during Communion I would gladly read it. Actually back to Acts we see nothing of this type of worship at all. Acts tells us the following:

The Fellowship of the Believers
42 And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. 43 And awe [4] came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were being done through the apostles. 44 And all who believed were together and had all things in common. 45 And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need. 46 And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts, 47 praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved.

How in the world do we get the mass from that?? You also have to remember how uneducated these people were. We need to imterpret these letters as if we lived during that time. Not by todays language.

PEACE

 

[guanophore]

Where does Jesus use the words doctrinal error??  He said the gates of hell would not prevail against the church period.  That means if we believe we will not go to hell and satan could never prevail over us (the church).

When He prayed for unity, He made it clear that unity is based on adherance to the Truth. “Thy Word is Truth”. That means doctrinal unity. When He told the Apostles to “teach all that I have commanded” He was commanding doctrinal unity.

Jesus said the Holy Spirit would guide us to the truth. If the Holy Spirit is in us all, technically HE’s guiding us all to the truth. Jesus never said the Holy Spirit would prevent you from teaching false doctrine or prevent you from misunderstanding.

Jesus made this promise only to the Church. I agree that individuals are not covered, unless they are in union with the Church. That is why the Church can prevent the teaching of false doctrine, and prevent misunderstanding.

I say go get me a Budweiser from the fridge please. You bring me a Miller. I say, I said Budweiser. You say, I thought you just meant a beer by saying Budweiser so I grabbed the first thing. (Crude example I know). It’s very easy to misunderstand. It’s for this reason that Jesus gave the Holy Spirit to us all.

No, I think not. The reason that Jesus gives the HS to believers is to keep them in union with the Church. To the extent that believers are not, they resist the HS. The reason He gave the HS to the Church is to prevent misunderstanding.

Not just the Pope or Magisterium. That way if someone innocently mis-taught something, the Holy Spirit is there to guide. If the Holy Spirit controlled the way we taught then no one would ever disagree. No schism would ever happen.

You make my point above, that the HS does not prevent individuals from going astray. The HS does keep the Church from going astray, so the extent to which individuals remain in unity with Her, they will stay on track.

You are correct about converting to Judaism. You have to be circumcised in order to be a Jew. But we are no longer under Mosaic law, we are under GOD’s grace both circumcised and uncircumcised.
Jesus never gave instructions to have them circumcised although he didn’t say the apostles couldn’t require it. But I believe Peter summed it up perfectly when he said:

Acts15: 8 And God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us, 9 and he made no distinction between us and them, having cleansed their hearts by faith. 10 Now, therefore, why are you putting God to the test by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? 11 But we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.”

So Peter is admitting that even the Jews couldn’t adhere to their own laws. And GOD doesn’t appear to be making this a requirement. I agree the church should have authority but that authority does not reside in Rome with one person or one group. Jesus makes this very clear when he speaks out against exercising authority over one another.

First the church was not founded in Rome. It was actually founded in Jerusalem. And many other Christian churches were founded long before Peter and Paul ever went to Rome. So to ascribe authority to Rome on this premise doesn’t hold water. Paul actually wasn’t planning to stay in Rome. Only visit on his way to Spain. We don’t know why Peter went to Rome. Only that he supposedly died there. His ossuary interestingly though was found in Jerusalem under the mount of olives where Jesus prayed.

As far as scripture, here’s an interesting quote from Polycarp in his letter to the Phillipians.

"For I trust that ye are well versed in the Sacred Scriptures, and that nothing is hid from you; "

I believe all Apostles would assume we are well versed in sacred scripture. Why? Look at 2 Timothy 3:

16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God [2] may be competent, equipped for every good work.

You’re saying switching to sola scripture was a change in church policy. That assumes there had to be an initial policy. What was it specifically? Many Christians prior to 100AD and even after worshipped and observed the Lord’s Supper in their houses. What policy were they following? Given the education level of these people I doubt they would even be able to comprehend the volumes of catechisms that exist today. It’s not about policy and authority. It’s about Faith. You’re making the same mistake the Jews made that Jesus called them down on. They got so focused on scriptural law and were proud that they were experts on it they didn’t realize the scriptures actually pointed to Jesus. Catholics are so caught up on authority and policy they seem to be losing sight of Jesus as well.

PEACE

 

[deacon_d]

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

2 posts sorry

I wanted to see how, if you’re not looking at it through a Catholic lens, you would discover which church teaches the truth. That is, how you would figure this out, if you were starting from scratch.

Isn’t the basic truth Jesus died on the cross for our sins? I mean really when you boil it down and filter out all the noise isn’t it really about Jesus and Jesus only? If a church is not teaching Jesus as our savior then that church is no church of Jesus.

Nobody seems able to answer the dilemma I gave in post #47. I think it’s a valid question, one that many people must face. Surely Christ did not intend to leave us with such dilemmas. Surely He wanted us to have the truth.

I agree but I don’t think it’s that complicated. This was my problem with the Roman Catholic church. Not trying to hijack the thread. But we have too much information that is simply not relevant for salvation from the Roman Catholic church. It’s Jesus and that’s IT plain and simple. He’s my savior. I accept it without hesitation.

I live my life trying desperately to listen to the Holy Spirit which Jesus said HE would leave us and that we would be guided to the truth by IT. Those truths have nothing to do with the Pope, or the magisterium. It’s everyday truths. How we live our life. Do we listen to the Holy Spirit which is our moral compass or do we submit to satan? A church can teach you about Jesus and plant the seed but then you have to accept it personally and allow GOD to make you grow. I’ve never grown so much in my spiritual life over the last year and a half and it has been completely outside the Roman Catholic church. I don’t give complete credit to my current church. They’re there for edification but it’s GOD who led me there and GOD ONLY who has grown me.

So, for what it’s worth, here’s my answer to it:

Since the dilemma is caused by two differing interpretations of scripture, one must determine which interpretation is the correct one.

Suppose they’re both wrong?? That’s certainly a possibility. Not about Jesus but about the other things like Matthew 18, John 6 etc.

We can do this by examining more scripture, but as debates on this forum prove, that usually accomplishes little more that verse slinging. Each side tends to look at the issue through its own interpretive lens.

So true

I propose a different way. It does involve going outside scripture, but those of you who have said I should ask the Holy Spirit for guidance have already told me to go to a source outside scripture.

I think there are other things we can look at to find the answer.

1. Logic. Human beings are capable of discerning certain truths this way. For example, we can tell from the law of non-contradiction that both sides in the dilemma I proposed cannot be right.

Disagree. We’re talking about intrepretation so yes there can be more than 2 sides. This isn’t a clear cut thing like a car accident. I would agree that most things would come down to our moral compass. So start listing those things and then let’s compare our compasses

1. What we know of human nature. Human beings usually do not up and forget the most charismatic person they ever met, nor are they normally willing to undergo torture and death for a cause they do not believe in. We also take great care to teach what we believe is true to future generations. Granted, there are exceptions, like a person who’s insane, but I think overall these things are true of most people.

Maybe, maybe not. But I’ll go along.

1. History. We have writings (for example, scripture) to tell us what happened in the early church.

But the only way to prove one’s cause is to make sure those documents state emphatically what you’re calling absolute truth. It can’t be left up to interpretation otherwise we’re back to square one. You also have to remember outside influences that may have crept into those documents. Greek Philosophy, Politics, Pagan Beliefs etc.

1. God is always truthful.

TRUE!!!

So, going by #4, we realize Jesus taught his disciples the truth. Certainly, since he wanted us to know this truth, he chose as his disciples persons who were competent enough to remember what he did and said. The fact that we have scripture confirms this, even though scripture does not record all of it (see John 21:6).

John 21:6 says there aren’t enough books to record everything Jesus did. Not what he taught. I may be splitting hairs but you are already trying to make a case for going outside the Bible. If number 4 is correct, and the Bible is the revelation of GOD then what else do we need?? Everything we do should be compared against the truth of GOD which is the Bible. Also if there aren’t enough books to record everything Jesus did then I would say that the Apostles had to be choosy about what they decided to record. Remember they were writing to people who had never heard about Jesus, may have heard rumors about HIM, but overall don’t know much. So they need to write something that emphatically causes them to Believe.

contd below…

 

[deacon_d]

contd…

These disciples, in turn, taught others, such as the next generation of Christians. They were there to correct these new Christians if they got anything wrong, and since they too would have wanted Christ’s truth preserved, would have selected as leaders those who were competent enough to pass on this truth to yet future generations.

Wouldn’t disagree. But there’s one problem. You’re making the assumption that they were always there to correct each other. We know that’s not true because that’s the premise of most of the Pauline letters. Also remember this. Ever play the game of pass it along? It starts with the sky is red on one end and ends up with the wall is green on the other. No matter how great of care you take in teaching orally, someone will misunderstand you. The truths are infallible but the person teaching is not infallible. We see this with Paul’s letters to Corinth and Galatia.

We see from history that this first generation of new Christians were willing to undergo torture and be put to death for what they believed. And if they were that fierce about holding to the truth, certainly they took great care to choose as leaders for the second generation those who would similarily hold to the truth.

Yes but they had a simple truth. They would not reject Jesus plain and simple. They would rather die then denounce Jesus. That was the truth they were willing to die for. They didn’t have volumes and volumes of Catechisms they were dying for. Remember Jesus told us we have to be able to enter Heaven as a child. You think a child understands Catechisms?? Again it’s Jesus plain and simple.

So, the place I would look to solve my dilemma (since scripture alone doesn’t solve it) would be the writings of these early Christians. What did *they *believe about the Eucharist? What were they willing to die for? What would they have taken great care to pass on to future generations? If you can find a consensus there, I think that’s incredibly compelling evidence that that’s what Christ intended us to believe about the Eucharist.

I respectfully disagree. I find it hard to believe Jesus would ask a group of GOD-fearing, GOD-loving, law abiding Jews to eat HIS flesh in the literal sense. The problem was the Jews could not realize he was not doing this and look to the deeper meaning. Which was to BELIEVE. Jesus later clarifies this teaching by saying the flesh is to no avail, it is the Spirit that gives life. John never even captures the details of the Lord’s Supper. He never records this is my body and blood. Why? Also read Paul’s letter to the Corinthians where he describes the cup as the new convenant:

“This cup is the new covenant in my blood” Not that the cup becomes blood. The new covenant itself is in Jesus blood. Blood that he spilled at the cross. The cup is the repsentation of that new covenant. If Paul meant that the cup contained blood, he would have said, this cup of my blood is the new covenant. He doesn’t. It’s the covenant that is in Jesus blood. The cup represents the covenant. Just like if I say, this hat is the new covenant in my blood. The covenant is still in blood, but now it’s the hat that represents it.

Also two times Paul uses the word remembrance which in the original Greak means memorial. Paul doesn’t understand it to be literal. It’s a memorial service honoring the sacrifice Jesus made.

Keep one other thing in mind. Jesus also said chop off your hands and gouge out your eyes if they sin. It’s better for one body part to go to hell than the whole. Have you done this? No. Why? Because we know Jesus was being figurative just like he is throughout the whole NT. The OT also has a heavy use of symbolism. I would ask you to provide documentation that shows someone right after Peter or Paul or any of the original 12 that practiced the mass. Not something dated 200AD. The book of Acts has no reference to the mass at all. There’s no mention anywhere in the Bible of this type of practice. The Didache also has no information on it. If it was so important and such a central focal point, then surely the Gospels or something would contain it.

I would also ask you to research the influence of Greek Philosophy in the early church. If you read Plato the doctrine of transubstantiation fits perfectly. Many early church fathers were into Greek Philosophy. I want to know that Peter or Paul or John practiced the mass. Also remember not all church fathers were unanimous on this. Eusebius did’t believe this. Also why didn’t it become doctrine until 1215?? Surely something that widespread and taught so early by the Apostles would not have taken so long for the Pope to declare.

Anyway, that’s how I would solve it.

Ok so let’s begin I’m definitely game. And I’ll make a deal with you. 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.

 

[Kay_Cee]

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

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.

 

[jmcrae]

Barnabas and Saul Sent Off
Acts: 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.

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)

 

[deacon_d]

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

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

I know which one I’m sticking with.

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