Calling all non-Catholic Christians!

[Deacon110]

Deacon_d, I agree with most of what you wrote, and you give a very good defense of what Protestants find distasteful about the CC. Doctrine is principally defined in response to heresies. Since in the first century, heresies about who Jesus was began. How would we even know who Jesus was or what His teachings were if we did not have a “keeper of the records.”

Yes I agree with you. But how was this doctrine developed? They had huge councils specifically devoted to understanding Jesus true nature.

But here is the problem I have. Instead of being inclusive of all opinions of scripture, possibly using the council model, the Roman Catholic church has taken the posture only they possess the fullness of the truth. It’s then handed down by the Pope and Magisterium and everyone is supposed to accept the Holy Spirit is guiding only them. Isn’t this what the gnostics proclaimed? And I’m not talking about considering yours and my interpretations, but how about all major church leaders working together and letting the Holy Spirit guide them collectively?

Prime example comes to mind. The first schism resulted in the Bishop of Rome assuming the role of Pontifex Maximus. Using specifically Matthew 16 as justification. The other Bishops countered with their argument Jesus said their would be no over-riding authority, no lordship. Also citing scripture to support this like Luke 22 and Matthew 20. Why didn’t they hold a council, go into deep prayer, and let the Holy Spirit guide them from there? Instead it was a singular decision. So who was the Holy Spirit guiding during this split?? We saw GOD split the Jews into the north and south. Why couldn’t he have done it here??

Was He really true God AND true man? JW’s and Mormons today do not accept the Divinity of Christ being on a equal par with God the Father. The Trinity. The Bible. (Old and New Testaments). This “keeper” has to be free from error.

Well here’s an interesting question. Do we have to accept Jesus is equal to GOD for our salvation?? I’m not saying I don’t. I have JWs I work with I vehemently disagree with. But if they truly believe Christ is the son of GOD and accept HIM as their savior, does their misunderstandings of HIS nature compromise their salvation?? Or would Jesus clarify that for them when the time is right? Help me on this one.

Without defined doctine, anybody can (and do) read anything they want into the Bible, and ultilimately Truth is compromised.

I wouldn’t disagree with you. I think the question is does their reading of the Bible lead them away from Jesus, or to Jesus? If the Bible leads them to Jesus I think that’s more important. I’ll use the same example I used in another post. The Pharisees were very proud of their understanding of doctrine. But Jesus criticized them for being so into the doctrine they didn’t realize the doctrine pointed to HIM.

Likewise I would submit to you sometimes we get so caught up in doctrine and argue about it we lose sight of Christ. Looking at Paul’s letter to the Corinthians he tells us the person who plants the seed and waters is of no consequence in the end. It’s ultimately GOD WHO will make you grow spiritually. GOD only, knows what’s in our hearts. Not any Christian denomination. If someone can’t grow spiritually within the Roman Catholic church, then I believe GOD guides them to another provided their heart is in the right place.

Whether people realize it or not, All Christianity rests on the Holy Spirit’s guidance of the CC and her infallibility in matters of faith and morals.

I guess I see it differently. I believe the Holy Spirit guides us all into the truth on morals and faith. Paul tells us it’s written in our hearts. We know it’s not right to steal or kill. Why? Not because of some doctrine. When Cain killed Abel he knew it was wrong. GOD’s written law didn’t exist then.

I don’t believe the Roman Catholic church to be infallible because it’s still headed by men who are finite creatures and very much fallible. The church itself is infallible but that doesn’t mean there can’t be corruption or misunderstandings by those who belong to it. Look at how much Greek philosophy has influence Biblical interpretations. Look at how the political climate of Rome influenced the church. Look at how Pagan rituals and symbols got merged into the church.

I believe the Holy Spirit guides us through this corruption, but certainly doesn’t pevent it. Jesus never promised there wouldn’t be corruption. He promised we would be led to the truth and that the gates of hell would never prevail over it. But he never promised we would be infallible in how we taught. Notice I said how. Not the content itself.

Take for instance the Eucharist. We see Paul teaching it was to be done in remembrance.
The Greek word for remembrance is ***anamnaysis ***and literally means to call up or recall to the mind. This word was used to express that the participant needed to remember, or be reminded of past events that might have been forgotten. It is a word used to express that the participant needs to stop, recall and meditate on what the moment represents. Notice the word represents. I find that very interesting.

Now suppose I teach this to someone and they mistake my teaching for implying the real presence. They then in turn teach this real presence to others. Suddenly we have 2 opposing interpretations. Is the truth infallible?? Yes. But the understanding of the teaching is not. It just became corrupt. I’m not using this to segway into a discussion about the Eucharist, I’m merely using it as an example. But this doesn’t mean the Roman Catholic church is the ultimate authority. They could have gotten it wrong. Notice I said could have. Again not trying to create conflict

PEACE

 

[jmcrae]

Yes I agree with you. But how was this doctrine developed? They had huge councils specifically devoted to understanding Jesus true nature.

But here is the problem I have. Instead of being inclusive of all opinions of scripture, possibly using the council model, the Roman Catholic church has taken the posture only they possess the fullness of the truth. It’s then handed down by the Pope and Magisterium and everyone is supposed to accept the Holy Spirit is guiding only them.

Not because the Holy Spirit is choosing only them, but because they alone are choosing the Holy Spirit.

Isn’t this what the gnostics proclaimed?

No. The Gnostics proclaimed that matter is evil, among other things.

And I’m not talking about considering yours and my interpretations, but how about all major church leaders working together and letting the Holy Spirit guide them collectively?

The Catholic Church is open to this; we don’t forbid anybody from becoming a member of our Church.

Prime example comes to mind. The first schism resulted in the Bishop of Rome assuming the role of Pontifex Maximus. Using specifically Matthew 16 as justification. The other Bishops countered with their argument Jesus said their would be no over-riding authority, no lordship. Also citing scripture to support this like Luke 22 and Matthew 20. Why didn’t they hold a council, go into deep prayer, and let the Holy Spirit guide them from there?

They did; it was called “Vatican I.”

Well here’s an interesting question. Do we have to accept Jesus is equal to GOD for our salvation??

Absolutely yes. You cannot even be considered a bad Christian if you don’t worship Jesus, or understand that He is your Creator.

I’m not saying I don’t. I have JWs I work with I vehemently disagree with. But if they truly believe Christ is the son of GOD and accept HIM as their savior, does their misunderstandings of HIS nature compromise their salvation??

It seems to be basic to the whole concept of salvation itself. How can you accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Saviour, if you do not understand first of all that He is your Creator?

 

[Deacon110]

The Lord left us a sheperd to lead us into the will of God. just like God chose Moses to lead the jews. God did not do it Himself, He chose a visible man to do the job. the last time the decision was left to the people, the people crucified Jesus.

“and I know that you love me if you obey my commandments.’”

That’s kind of a ridiculous statement. No offense but you are saying GOD did nothing and Moses did everything. True GOD chose Moses but he told Moses what to do. Actually Moses didn’t even want to speak. So GOD chose Aaron to actually speak for HIM. GOD also empowered Moses to perform all the plagues except the last which was the death of the first born. GOD did this HIMSELF. Could Moses perform the plagues alone? Then it wasn’t Moses who led it was GOD. Remember the pillar of fire and smoke?? GOD gave Moses explicit commands the whole way. Did Moses part the red sea or did GOD?

You then say the last time it was left to the people they crucified Jesus. That makes no sense either. Jesus HIMSELF, the CHIEF shepherd, was here. Doesn’t get any better than that. GOD sent Jesus and they still crucified HIM. Are you implying Peter was a better leader than Jesus? That’s the implication of this statement.

Also take a look at how Israel’s kingdom ended up after Moses. GOD eventually created prophets, priests, raised Judges, then ultimately Kings. Now King David’s line was always supposed to rule. But the corruption became so bad that GOD split the Kingdom into 2 creating a new line of leaders for one side while leaving a remnant of King David’s line intact. Then the corruption became even worse on both sides that GOD let the Assyrians take over and placed all Jews into exile.

Amazing how this parallels the Catholic church. The reformers would tell you that GOD sent them to fix the coruption. Not saying he did or didn’t but let’s face it. GOD not only allowed the reformers to survive, HE’s moved Roman Catholics over to their churches.

PEACE

 

[Deacon110]

You make a good point however, I don’t know if I would base and put my faith in a system of revelation with such far reaching implications based on this alone. Also I think one needs to consider that this is Paul a destined Apostle was the central figure here. The NT as a whole seems pretty clear that submission to the teaching authority of the Church is normative. The Council of Jerusalem declared on the issue of circumcision and the decision wasn’t debatable after that.

I’m not sure what your point is here. Sorry

I guess I’ll say this. I agree that the circumcision decision was communicated from the leaders of the church. But they decided as a group and it wasn’t a singular decision made by anyone. Actually it appears James made the final ruling according to the text. I asked how Paul and Barnabus already knew this?? Maybe since Paul was an Apostle Jesus gave this revelation to him. But then you are making my point from about 3 posts ago. It seems you are only catching the tail end.

Other remarkable events include teleportations and firey tongues. Notice however, that these things were typically gifted to Apostles and this was during the establishment of the Church. Signs were needed and God needed to call together the men that would establish His Church. Simply put the Church was being built it was complete yet.

Yes I agree. When did I deny this? I merely made the point that when Paul and Barnabus were chosen to be sent off from Antioch, it was the work of the Holy Spirit and not the Apostles or Peter specifically. So again you are reinforcing my point. I stated that the Apostles were in Jerusalem and Peter was on the run from Herod. The prophets and teachers along with a few named individuals, Simeon, Lucius , and Manaen were the ones who did the laying on of hands. This was done by the authority of the church in Antioch obviously and I don’t deny that. But that authority didn’t include the Apostles or Peter specifically. It was as we read in Acts 13 the work of the Holy Spirit. You can’t get anymore authoritative than that.

 

[jmcrae]

I’m not sure what your point is here. Sorry

I guess I’ll say this. I agree that the circumcision decision was communicated from the leaders of the church. But they decided as a group and it wasn’t a singular decision made by anyone.

But once they made the ruling, it was binding upon everyone who called themselves “Christians.” People couldn’t separate from the Church to start up their own form of Christianity where people would have to be circumcised.

This was done by the authority of the church in Antioch obviously and I don’t deny that. But that authority didn’t include the Apostles or Peter specifically. It was as we read in Acts 13 the work of the Holy Spirit. You can’t get anymore authoritative than that.

Yes, but the Holy Spirit was working through the Church collectively; He was not locuting to each of them separately, nor to any of them directly. The Holy Spirit spoke to those with authority to send, and said “Send out Saul and Barnabus” but He did not locute directly to Saul and Barnabas and say “Go out.”

Saul and Barnabas obeyed the human authorities of the Church who had been given charge by the Holy Spirit to send them out.

 

[wisdomseeker]

That’s kind of a ridiculous statement. No offense but you are saying GOD did nothing and Moses did everything. True GOD chose Moses but he told Moses what to do. Actually Moses didn’t even want to speak. So GOD chose Aaron to actually speak for HIM. GOD also empowered Moses to perform all the plagues except the last which was the death of the first born. GOD did this HIMSELF. Could Moses perform the plagues alone? Then it wasn’t Moses who led it was GOD. Remember the pillar of fire and smoke?? GOD gave Moses explicit commands the whole way. Did Moses part the red sea or did GOD?

You then say the last time it was left to the people they crucified Jesus. That makes no sense either. Jesus HIMSELF, the CHIEF shepherd, was here. Doesn’t get any better than that. GOD sent Jesus and they still crucified HIM. Are you implying Peter was a better leader than Jesus? That’s the implication of this statement.

Also take a look at how Israel’s kingdom ended up after Moses. GOD eventually created prophets, priests, raised Judges, then ultimately Kings. Now King David’s line was always supposed to rule. But the corruption became so bad that GOD split the Kingdom into 2 creating a new line of leaders for one side while leaving a remnant of King David’s line intact. Then the corruption became even worse on both sides that GOD let the Assyrians take over and placed all Jews into exile.

Amazing how this parallels the Catholic church. The reformers would tell you that GOD sent them to fix the coruption. Not saying he did or didn’t but let’s face it. GOD not only allowed the reformers to survive, HE’s moved Roman Catholics over to their churches.

PEACE

sorry. you are so confused. you do not know what are saying. what you said is totally off from what i said.
God has allowed evil since the beginning. does that mean evil is a good thing?

 

[wisdomseeker]

That’s kind of a ridiculous statement. No offense but you are saying GOD did nothing and Moses did everything. True GOD chose Moses but he told Moses what to do. Actually Moses didn’t even want to speak. So GOD chose Aaron to actually speak for HIM. GOD also empowered Moses to perform all the plagues except the last which was the death of the first born. GOD did this HIMSELF. Could Moses perform the plagues alone? Then it wasn’t Moses who led it was GOD. Remember the pillar of fire and smoke?? GOD gave Moses explicit commands the whole way. Did Moses part the red sea or did GOD?

You then say the last time it was left to the people they crucified Jesus. That makes no sense either. Jesus HIMSELF, the CHIEF shepherd, was here. Doesn’t get any better than that. GOD sent Jesus and they still crucified HIM. Are you implying Peter was a better leader than Jesus? That’s the implication of this statement.

Also take a look at how Israel’s kingdom ended up after Moses. GOD eventually created prophets, priests, raised Judges, then ultimately Kings. Now King David’s line was always supposed to rule. But the corruption became so bad that GOD split the Kingdom into 2 creating a new line of leaders for one side while leaving a remnant of King David’s line intact. Then the corruption became even worse on both sides that GOD let the Assyrians take over and placed all Jews into exile.

Amazing how this parallels the Catholic church. The reformers would tell you that GOD sent them to fix the coruption. Not saying he did or didn’t but let’s face it. GOD not only allowed the reformers to survive, HE’s moved Roman Catholics over to their churches.

PEACE

plus, havent you read the passage that says the weeds will grow with the wheat until the end? that is something for you to think about.

 

[Catherine_S]

Here’s what** I** would submit to you. If Paul was living today** I** would expect him to address the different denominations to clarify their doctrinal mis-interpretations. And this includes any that the Catholic church has made.** I** don’t believe Paul would excommunicate any of these churches because their foundation is Christ. If Calvinism is wrong about prevenient grace then he would correct them. But that doesn’t mean they don’t believe in Christ. And** I** hardly think that Jesus would turn HIS back on anyone because they may have misunderstood some doctrine.** I** don’t believe any church is trying to interpret doctrine for the sole purpose of moving away from Christ. If anything most churches believe their doctrinal interpetations bring them closer to Christ.

If you want to get to know GOD you read the Bible. If you misinterpret or don’t understand something** I** don’t think GOD is waiting to punish you. If your heart has pure intentions of loving GOD and wanting to know HIM, then this is what GOD** I** believe focuses on.** I** always refer back to the Pharisees who were so prideful for knowing doctrine yet Jesus criticized them for not seeing HIM in the doctrine. All Christian denominations see Jesus in the doctrine. They just thinktheyhave figured out more of the details of what he was saying.

PEACE

*So the the church that **Jesus Christ **established could be called the I church? *
What I think, what I believe or what **I **feel!
What if I’s wrong ?

 

[Deacon110]

These are certainly valid questions. There isn’t really anything tangible that declares the Church is correct. We can show that our origins and many of our practices go back first days of the Church but that ultimately doesn’t prove anything. For that matter we have nothing that tangibly proves the Apostles knew what they were talking about either.

Had to be 2 posts. Sorry Lots of good discussion though

But I trust the Apostles. What I would submit to you is the possibility that the Apostles teachings could have gotten skewed. Notice I said possibly. Like the game whisper something into a persons ear. I’ve used this before. The sky is blue. 200 people later we hear the wall is green. I think Paul’s letters are also evidence that the techings got skewed. Why else would he have to address the Corinthians if the oral teachings were perfect? What if Paul were alive today? How many letters do you think he would be writing not just to Protestant churches but probably to Rome herself.?? Now there’s a scary thought

Here’s the problem though. If the Catholic Church is wrong on some of these things. Then we’re all in trouble protestants included. Basically everything in Faith becomes personal assumption. We have to assume that the Church was correct when it codexed the Scriptures. There is no basis for establishing what books are inspired otherwise.

Yes!!! Absolutely great point!!! So how did they do this? Probably under the guidance of the Holy Spirit wouldn’t you say?

Then we have to assume that the Church was correct on such things as the Trinity. While one can find implicit evidence of the Trinity one really does have to look at the Bible with that concept already in mind.

I disagree slightly. We don’t have to assume the church is correct on the Trinity. Suppose the church is misinterpreting this. We definetly see the notion of the trinity in the Bible. It’s not hard to find. We know Jesus was the Son of GOD and in fact GOD HIMSELF because Jesus tells us that. Then Jesus tells us he will leave a helper, the Holy Spirit. One has to assume the 3 all tie to GOD somehow. But we don’t really understand how it all fits. That’s the mystery part of it. So we use the word trinity. But the definition we use could be slightly wrong. Or absolutely correct. We can’t say 100% for sure that we know. Therefore we can’t make an assumption that the church is 100% right. We can say they may be right.

The only consistant throughout the life of the Faith has been the Church if it is in error then we have to question all of it. Now you could argue that the HS has been there guiding the whole time (which is true) but then we still have no basis by which to say when you’re understanding of the HS is correct and when mine is if they disagree.

Wow you’re like reading my mind here I see exactly what you are saying and have posed the same question over and over again. Who is absolutely right and absolutely wrong. It could be both are right and wrong but on different points. So I believe this is where our Faith needs to become a little more simplistic. We can get so caught up in disputing differences that we lose sight of Christ. Again the Pharisees example applies here. Our salvation to me is solely dependent on our acceptance of Christ. Most Christian religions I’m sure would agree with me. Christ is first and foremost. Isn’t it possible then that the disagreements we have on doctrine have absolutely no impact on our salvation? We all believe IN Christ. Read the Bible and you get that.

I believe if some Christians were that in danger of jeopardizing their salvation the Holy Spirit would guide them appropriately. Maybe I’m too optimistic here. I don’t believe in the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. Even after growing up Roman Catholic. I don’t believe his real bones and real blood are going into my body. After reading the scripture and historical evidence I think this comes from heavy Greek philosophical influence which many of the early church fathers were into. Also I read Paul’s letter and see the meaning of the greek word for remembrance is memorial.

Now does this impact my salvation? I say no because I still accept Jesus as my savior, and I believe in my heart that I am honoring Jesus’ request. I also believe it is a spiritual nourishing because Jesus says the flesh means nothing, it is the spirit that saves.

I think there are many common things we all have in common within our Faith and it is on these things that we are unanimous which will give us our salvation.

Contd. below

 

[Deacon110]

Contd from above

Pretty much all of it then becomes relative.
Further if we assume that the Protestant denominations got things right then we have answer why that it took centuries for obviously (name removed by moderator)ired Saints to re-realize the True Gospel. It also then suggests that the average person in a Protestant Church is more in tune with the HS then people like St. Francis or Thomas Aquinas, Theresa of Avila or even Mother Theresa. Which seems like a stretch.

Remember, St. Francis was kind of a reformer. Or he pushed for reform. He didn’t split off though. He decided to work from within. Also you are making an assumption here that the Holy Spirit only communicates to certain people and it is only those people who understand HIM. This is no different than gnosticism. I keep saying this. The Holy Spirit doesn’t have degrees of communication. One may be more in tune with HIM than another. But that doesn’t degrade or imply less of a quantity. Like I keep saying. I believe both sides are wrong. Right on some points and wrong on others. No one is 100% right. So then unite and work it out. If we unite I believe the Holy Spirit would be right behind us.

I’m not bashing Protestant sprituality there but I’m sure you’d agree that the average Protestant like the average Catholic is not quiet that devoted to the Lord. Sincere certainly but most people don’t really like their spirituality conflicting with their daily life.

You’re right 100%. But I don’t think that the people who broke away from the Roman Catholic Church, the Protestants and Orthodox did it because they were less devoted to GOD and wanted an easy way out. I think that’s a bad implication here. Luther was a monk. The orthodox were just as devoted. I think they broke away because they saw what they believed to be the Roman Catholic church going down an errant path. Likewise for people like you and me I think we choose where we feel we can get spiritually fed the word of GOD. The Roman Catholic church wasn’t satisfying my spiritual craving for Christ. I hate to sound selfish but that’s the reality. And I’ve met other similar Roman Catholics. Actually of the 3500 members we have at our non-denom church 3000 of them are Roman Catholic. All saying similar things. I see the Roman Catholic church spending way too much time on Mary. Not that I don’t respect and love her. But it’s not about her. It’s Christ. Sometimes I think there’s a bigger focus put on creating doctrine for Mary than Christ. Like right now. Cardinals are moving to create a doctrine that makes her co-mediatrix or something like that. Why? They need to be following Jesus commission of making disciples. There are still many many lost souls out there. If we were all saved then we could start working on other details. But there are people who haven’t even heard the Gospel of Christ let alone Mary. 66.6% of the world to be exact.

Even with the guidance of the Holy Spirit in our lives there still must be a measuring stick. If not we are ultimately left up to our own devices and judgement.

I think that’s why GOD gave us the Bible. It’s the only constant we have. If people are making bad judgements while reading the Bible then GOD will judge that.

No argument from me here. Jesus is the Truth. The Ultimate Truth. He is Our Lord and Savior and there is no one who can excel Him.

Agreed

Believe it or not I actually totally get what you’re saying here. There is always a danger when one applies a definition to something. At that point we are attempting to use limited human language to describe something eternal and divine. While it might not technically be incorrect by its very nature it sets limits. Also human nature has a tendancy to focus on definitions and not the subjects to which they relate whenever definitions or laws are made.

Nice point This is what I’ve been saying. Finite men are trying to interpret an infinite being. The 2 don’t mix. Somebody will get something mixed up.

Sometimes it has to be done, like the Council of Nicea which I’m sure you would agree was necessary. Still, the Church should always take utmost care in defining things.

Yes exactly. Why aren’t we doing that? I’d love to see that.

I agree and disagree with this. Yes absolutely Faith and love of Our Lord is paramount. However, when we have available to us proper belief and moral action which He gave to us Himself. I think we have obligation to try and follow it. Being a Theologian isn’t required but loving Jesus I think should assume a desire to obey Him. While I’m the first one to agree that Jesus changes us and the Holy Spirit continually moves us towards Truth that guidance depends a great deal on our obedience to Christ’s teachings. If it were not then Christians would for the most part be perfect people or close to it.

I woudn’t disagree with you. It’s a good point. I honestly think true Christians really try to obey Christ.

PEACE

 

[jmcrae]

Had to be 2 posts. Sorry Lots of good discussion though

But I trust the Apostles. What I would submit to you is the possibility that the Apostles teachings could have gotten skewed. Notice I said possibly. Like the game whisper something into a persons ear. I’ve used this before. The sky is blue. 200 people later we hear the wall is green.

The Church does not play the whisper game, though.

And in my experience of playing this game, what happens is that along the way, someone doesn’t hear what they were told at all, and the other person refuses to repeat it, so the person who didn’t hear it just makes something up. That’s not something that would ever happen in the Church - the Church is constantly repeating things, to the point where a lot of people are saying, “Yes, we know this already; could we change the subject, please.” And for what it’s worth, the thing that the person in the middle makes up always makes it to the back of the line, word-perfect.

I think Paul’s letters are also evidence that the techings got skewed. Why else would he have to address the Corinthians if the oral teachings were perfect? What if Paul were alive today? How many letters do you think he would be writing not just to Protestant churches but probably to Rome herself.?? Now there’s a scary thought

Well, personally, I think he would be writing from Rome, and that he would be set up in an office next door to the Pope.

Yes!!! Absolutely great point!!! So how did they do this? Probably under the guidance of the Holy Spirit wouldn’t you say?

Not with each Bishop having his own Holy Spirit, though. It was collective. They were working together. And then it was ratified when they brought the list to Pope Innocent I, and he promulgated it to the whole Church, infallibly.

 

[Deacon110]

Uh, I can’t forget about the church for a second. This thread is about how one selects a Protestant church, not how an individual determines if an action is morally right or wrong. Let’s stick to the topic, okay?

Well that’s what we were talking about so I just continued.

And let’s not discuss Catholicism either, okay? I promised I wouldn’t, but you keep bringing it up.

I’m not bringing it up. Again I was continuing a discussion from before. Only using a Catholic Priest’s position to make a point. Not trying to point it to a Catholic discussion.

I’m not interested in getting into a discussion about contraception. That would be off topic. I threw it our as an example of a church flipping on its doctrine. If you want to open a thread about contraception, please feel free.

Yes you threw it out so I responded. I’m not interested in talking about contraception either. Just answering your post.

And I’m sure those churches wouldn’t think they’re doing anything wrong. I’m sure they wouldn’t think they’re going against scripture or the Holy Spirit.

True. But does that mean you are absolutely right and they are absolutely wrong? No.

And, in the meantime, until God sorts it out, what then? Souls can be led astray by false doctrine. Is this really the best we’ve got, to wait until God sorts it out? Is that what God really intends for us?

OK so what is the solution then? You can’t force people to listen to you. You can present your case the best way you can but in the end people may tell you to mind your own business. Jesus told the Apostles that not everyone would accept them. Did they say “Is that the best YOU can do”? No. They moved on to the next house just like Jesus told them to. I admire your passion but you have to keep it real. Otherwise you’ll go crazy. I have a close friend who’s an agnostic. I can’t do anything to change his beliefs. I’ll keep trying but in the end GOD may have to sort this one out. And there will be plenty more like this. So yes that may be the best we’ve got. What else do you suggest?

Maybe, maybe not. I also have a 17 year old child. (She’s graduating high school this year, and I’m proud to say she’s at the top of her class. GPA is 4.89. This is the kid the doctors told me could very well be born mentally retarded.)

That’s awesome.:extrahappy:

I do think we have very similar moral beliefs.

And who judges which definition is right? Who has the authority to say “This definition is the right one, and that other one is wrong”?

Only GOD I’m sorry to say. Both sides could be wrong but on different points. I don’t think what we disagree on has any impact on our salvation. You might disagree. So we’ll just have to look each other up in Heaven

And I’m sure people here could show you evidence and present an overwhelming case that demonstrates is is the Real Presence. Open a thread if you’re interested in discussing it. Let’s stay on topic, please.

Yes that’s my point. And as you say above who’s right and wrong? Not trying to get off topic really. I think we had some open questions which forced us here.

PEACE

 

[Deacon110]

I’m sure it is—*to you. *That is, to the way you’re interpreting it. But that’s the problem, isn’t it? You said earlier you don’t believe in the Real Presence, but there are sincere Protestants who do, and I’m sure they’d show you in black and white where Jesus says, “This is my body.” And they wouldn’t see any wiggle room for turning it into a mere symbol. So, who determines who’s right and who’s wrong?

(Not interested in getting into an off-topic discussion about the Eucharist. Just throwing it out as an example. I could have used Baptism or anything else there is doctrinal disagreement about from one Protestant church to another.)

And I could point them to John chapter 6 and also Paul’s letter to the corinthians. Jesus also says chop your hand off and gouge your eyes out. Is that figurative or literal. You don’t have to answer. Ultimately I still say it’s GOD who will make the final determination. Unless everyone suddenly starts believeing one way which I doubt.

Well, that’s lawyers for you. Let’s stick to what theologians do.

They do the same things.

Open a thread if you want to discuss it. I made a promise not to discuss Catholicism here. Don’t you think I should stick to my promise?

Absolutely. We agreed we wouldn’t go down that path. For some reason we have some open items that we need to just close

And to you too.

Thanks

 

[Deacon110]

I think you’re discussing Catholicism, knowing full well I promised not to discuss that. Please stick to the topic.

Yes we’ll close this one

And in the meantime, we have many being led astray, don’t we?

Yes we do but that’s why GOD gave free will. What else do you propose? Help me here.

What I’m getting from you here is that having the right doctrine isn’t all that important. (Correct me if I’m wrong.)

I don’t think we’ll ever have all the right doctrine. I think it’s impossible because people will always disagree cutting and pasting the same scripture to justify their point.

Of course Jesus is the truth, but so is correct doctrine. Doesn’t Jesus want us to have the truth, especially when it comes to being saved?

But Jesus is the way we are saved. You keep looking past that and stressing doctrine. Just like the Pharisees. Jesus does want us to have the truth. The problem is we’ve complicated it with too much doctrine. This much doctrine did not exist in the beginning of the church. It just didn’t. And I doubt that Jesus would expect us to have volumes upon volumes of catechisms. He gives us a simple request. Believe I am the son of GOD and I’m your savior. Then accept me into your heart. That’s it plain and simple. Anything else will lead to another type of discussion which I’m glad to oblidge in another thread. Once we have Jesus in our hearts we ARE a part of HIS church and HE will lead us to the truth on faith and morals. Anyone who believes a mere man can do that has a major problem.

This is so unfair. You keep talking about Catholicism, knowing full well I’m essentially gagged about it within this thread. Please cut it out.

Yes we agreed to close these out

Agreed that we don’t need a certain level of doctrinal knowledge in order to be saved. But that’s not my point.

What happens when your average Joe Christian who doesn’t have much doctrinal knowledge gets visited by a couple of JW’s? What happens when they start quoting scripture to him to “prove” Jesus is not equal to God the Father? And because he’s not well versed in doctrine, he falls for it? Such things do happen.

But your making an assumption JWs aren’t saved and that’s being judgemental. Something Jesus tells us not to do. If we go to heaven and see JWs right now we would feel pretty stupid. And I’m not saying they are saved. But it’s not for me or you to judge. I converse with 2 of them at work all the time. Sometimes I feel I make in-roads, other times it’s a lost cause. But I’m not thinking I’m trying to save them. For all we know they may be just fine. People who are approached by JWs have to make their own decision. We can preach to them what we believe about Jesus but in the end they will have to decide for themselves. What else do we do? GOD knows what’s in our hearts. Don’t ever forget that. If someone is trying desperately to get close to GOD and believes in Jesus but somehow messes up on some interpretational things, I think GOD will overlook that. That’s why he loves us so much.

PEACE

 

[Deacon110]

If Jesus wanted us to come individually each direct to Him, then there is really no need for a Church is there?
why He even bothered in mention it?
just a thought.

When we come to HIM that puts us in HIS church. A church isn’t a physical building that Jesus built and then said make sure you go here. Christ’s church ARE HIS followers. If Christ came to us right now he wouldn’t go to Rome looking for HIS people. We would be running to HIM.

 

[qui_est_ce]

It looks like we can’t seem to get away from talking about the CC. I’m not sure if this is a diversionary tactic, or if it is an inevitable outcome of the topic. From what I have read here, Protestants do not agree on any doctrine or practice except the inspired-inerrancy of the Bible, Jesus commanded us to love one another, and He died for our sins.
Deacon, correct me if I’m wrong.

I’m not going to get into the Catholic position on this, because we all already know what it is, and much to lengthy for my post.

IF it is true that only the following are essential to being saved:

1. inspired-inerrancy of the Bible
2. love one another
3. Jesus died for our sins.

Is the below logical?

IMHO the conculsion:

Jesus died to save ALL, whether they believe in Him or not. Only God can judge our hearts. Therefore, all the extra fluff the CC teaches should not offend any Protestants, because we all agree on the “Essentials.” Protestant denominations differ in their theology of Eucharist, Baptism, Sola Fide, Sola Scriptura, the Divinity of Jesus. So, if a JW or Mormon come to my door proseltizing, I should not correct them, because it is all irrelvant.

2,000 years of theological debate, history, Scripture itself, is irrelevant, because the message is boiled down to “Jesus saves” and “love one another.”

What I am left with is why did the Apostles feel the need to clarify the teachings of Jesus in the Epsitles? Why did Acts stress bother to talk about circumcision, purification rituals, etc.

Why is the inspired-inerrancy of the OT necessary?

Now don’t accuse me of damning anyone! I haven’t said anything about who is not saved! (I have enough trouble keeping myself in line).

 

[Deacon110]

So far (omitting references to Catholic Church posts)The True Church would agree on the following characteristics:

1. We have to Love one another
2. We shouldn’t sin
3. We should believe in Scripture, that it is the inspired-inerrant word of God. (j4)
4. The Trinity (therefore Mormons and JW’s are out)
5. It should teach the Gospel message
6. “Mine” (Rightly Divide)
7. The Holy Spirit will lead “me” to the Truth.
8. We should pray about this.
9. Doctrine is not as important as Living the Gospel message
10. Bickering over Doctrine Divides people and keeps them from following the Gospel message.
11. Jesus died on the cross for our sins
12. "You will find the truth in a Messianic congregation that believes Yeshua HaMashiach is God incarnate. This is the Biblical church (which is an organism, not an organization). "(Sola Fide)
13. It couldn’t be the Catholic Church
14. It’s possible it could be the Catholic Church.
15. It has to teach Truth

Which Protestant Church Best Teaches all these? In order for me to accept this Protestant Church as true, it has to give me evidence that EVERYTHING Jesus and the Apostole taught in the Bible is the rule of their Church.

This absoluely is what rules our church. We’re non-denominational though so I can’t give you an actual label. Maybe this why so many of our members are Roman Catholic.

Something like 85%. And 8-9 out of every 10 new members are Roman Catholic.

PEACE

 

[Deacon110]

I am just curious - if St. Paul were to rise again from the dead today and resume his ministry - in the hierarchies of the Protestant churches, what authority would St. Paul have, to tell them what to do?

Why would they be required to obey him? Or would they be?

I’ll only speak for my church. What better authority can you get than someone who was commissioned directly by Jesus. So we would absoluely obey. Now don’t respond to this and say the Roman Catholic church was commisioned by Jesus, please. I think every church and every non-believer would be interested to hear what Paul has to say.

 

[Deacon110]

You are referring to Paul here. So you would add the Lord’s Supper to the list of requirements.

Yes. We must do this in memory of Jesus as he asked.

Which Protestant Church has the doctrinal interpretations that bring people closest to God? And what are they?

I’m not an expert on Protestant churches. Just mine which is non-denominational. I believe we preach the truth. My wife is Methodist. In all fairness I think they preach the truth. At least the important details which I outlined below.

Which one?

I personally love NLT. Bible that is.

So you would say that a sincere JW church or a sincere Mormon church could possibly be the keeper of the Truth?

JWs - No. Jesus was absolutely GOD in the flesh.

Mormons - No. Show me the golden tablets.

Are you saying the the Pharisees could be the True Church?

No - Was commenting that they knew scripture extremely well. But as Jesus pointed out they didn’t realize it pointed to HIM. So absolutely no.

Which details are the correct ones that the Protestant Church should hold as true, inspired-inerrant?

1. Jesus is the son of God
2. Jesus is GOD in the flesh
3. Jesus died on the cross
4. Jesus paid the one time price for our sins.
5. Believing IN Jesus gives us eternal life. Not just acknowledging who HE is. Truly accepting HIM as your savior.

I’m sorry if I’m being obtuse, but I’m trying to read Deacon’s post on topic.

Didn’t think you were being obtuse. Just staying on point. Good job

 

[Deacon110]

Not because the Holy Spirit is choosing only them, but because they alone are choosing the Holy Spirit.

Ahhh you’re stating the same thing a different way. Are you saying Protestant churches rely on something else besides the Holy Spirit?? If they do what is it? If not then who’s right??

No. The Gnostics proclaimed that matter is evil, among other things.

I’m not saying Roman Catholics ARE Gnostics. I’m saying one thing the gnostics claimed was that the Holy Spirit spoke only to them. What are the Roman Catholics claiming? Same thing. It’s called infallibility. Why are they infallible and let’s say methodists aren’t. Or are they both fallible.

The Catholic Church is open to this; we don’t forbid anybody from becoming a member of our Church.

Member yes, but the Roman Catholic church will not allow you to comment on doctrine. This is what I’m referring to. To become a member assumes you subscribe to their doctrine. What if you don’t? Will they entertain your ideas? If you could remotely be right will they consider it?

They did; it was called “Vatican I.”

That wasn’t until 1869. Long long after the office of the Pope and infallibility were declared by Rome and definitely after the first schism and the reformation. Did you really think Rome would change at this point?? This was all a moot point. It didn’t change the position of anyone.

Absolutely yes. You cannot even be considered a bad Christian if you don’t worship Jesus, or understand that He is your Creator

I agree with you. Just asking someone else.

It seems to be basic to the whole concept of salvation itself. How can you accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Saviour, if you do not understand first of all that He is your Creator?

You can’t. Agreed. Again just asking someone else

PEACE