Calvin or Luther or someone else?

[jlhargus]

After Constantine, however, this was no longer necessary. After that time, the church was composed not of a collection of believers within a population, but the entire population!

JL: Nonsense, you’re off about 1500 years. Most of the Roman senators and people remained pagan. Paganism was still around long after Constantine died. Brian you need to go to a library and read real history instead of fiction. Get a book in the HISTORY, not fiction, section or look it up in an encyclopedia. Have you ever asked yourself why it is Christians outside the Roman Empire had the same faith as those in the empire? Where is the historic evidence for an outcry of faithful Christians, when the Church went wrong as you say. Can you name one of those so called faithful Christians as you see it?

People became Christians because of where they lived, not because of the Holy Spirit. They became Christian by birth or by coercion–you believed or you were burned at the stake.

JL: Again you are off about 1500 hundred years Brian. It was during the reformation. In the German principalities of the Holy Roman Empire. If the prince was a Lutheran then the people became Lutheran or left. Going to a principality where the prince was Catholic and vice versa.

Protestants don’t have clean hands Brian. www25.uua.org/uuhs/duub/articles/michaelservetus.html Move down to paragraph 13-15 to read about Michael Servetus’s BURNING by Calvin’s Protestant Geneva. As disgusting as we find burning today it was an option of state capital punishment. In five hundred years, if not today, the electric chair will be considered just as disgusting.

The church went from the persecuted to the persecutor.

JL: No, not the Church, but the state persecuted heretics. Although the Church didn’t object. So it is partially true. One thing to always remember. Those who do wrong will be called to account regardless of who it is unless they repent. Christ didn’t abandon the Apostles’ Fellowship because one became a bad apple.

As preaching receded, it was replaced by sacraments. How can you identify the heretics? Watch for those that do not participate in the sacraments.

JL: So when your faith group baptizes is it done to identify, who is or is not, a heretic? If someone didn’t get married in those days were they considered heretics? Have you some evidence, other than your statement, that PREACHING RECEDED being replaced by sacraments? Did no one get baptized before Constantine? Did no one get confirmed before Constantine? Did no one receive the anointing of the sick before Constantine? Did no one confess their sins before Constantine? Did no one eat the body and blood of Christ before Constantine? Did no one get ordained before Constantine? Did no one get married before Constantine? Honestly Brian don’t you ever think when you read or hear such nonsense.

 As the sacraments grew in importance, the people who administered them became more important. Thus the church hierarchy grew in power. With this increase in power, the sacraments themselves took on a mystical quality.

JL: Again have you any historic evidence other than your statement. Sacrament, if not mistaken, is Latin meaning mystery. The Orthodox call the sacraments Holy Mysteries. Which is right on and to the point. [1Cor4:1 Let a man so account of us, as of the **MINISTERS of Christ, AND STEWARDS OF the mysteries of God.] What are some of those mysteries that the ministers of Christ are STEWARDS of? I have just listed at least seven of them. In English we call them sacraments. CONTINUED

 

[jlhargus]

CONTINUED

It was through the church that a person became saved. Little by little, the church drifted along these paths until, after centuries, it was quite different from the church described in the NT and the writings of the earliest church fathers.

JL: Yes and it still is. Thru the Church and sacraments Christ brings about that free gift of salvation. [Eph5:25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also LOVED THE CHURCH, and gave himself for it; 26 That he might **sanctify and cleanse it with the WASHING OF WATER BY THE WORD,]

[1Pt3:20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, **eight souls were SAVED BY WATER. 21 THE LIKE FIGURE whereunto even BAPTISM DOTH also NOW SAVE US (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:]

Acts two gives the definitive definition of how people are set on the road to salvation. After the Holy Spirit came on the Church at Pentecost.

[Acts2:37 Now when **THEY HEARD this, they WERE PRICKED IN THEIR HEART, and SAID unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, WHAT SHALL WE DO? 38 Then PETER SAID unto them, REPENT, and BE BAPTIZED every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ FOR the remission OF SINS, and ye shall RECEIVE the gift of THE HOLY GHOST. 39 For THE PROMISE is unto you, AND to your CHILDREN, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the LORD our God shall call.] Acts2:37-39 gives a simple and concise example how people are saved including children.

What did Peter tell those who wanted to know WHAT TO DO. Repent, be baptized FOR remission of sins, RECEIVE the gift of the Holy Spirit. They heard thru those Christ SENT to preach. They heard, believed, repented, were baptized FOR remission of sins, RECEIVED the gift of the Holy Spirit. [Rms10:14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? 15 And **how shall they preach, except they be SENT? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!]

[Acts40 And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, **SAVE YOUSELVES from this untoward generation. 41 THEN THEY that gladly received his word WERE BAPTIZED: and the same day there WERE ADDED unto them about three thousand souls.]

How did they save themselves form a crooked generation? Hearing the Word preached by one SENT. Then those who believed repented, being baptized FOR remission of sins to RECEIVE the gift of the Holy Spirit. After baptism they were ADDED to the Bark of Peter the Church the body of Christ. ONE VISIBLE FELLOWSHIP. Just as Noah and his family saved themselves from a crooked generation, by water entering the ark. Notice even when they gladly received his word Peter NEVER SAYS since you now BELIEVE you are born again, regenerated and received the Holy Spirit. Now you can be baptized as a confession of what God has already done. What did those new Christians?

[Acts2:42 And **THEY CONTINUED stedfastly IN the APOSTLES’ DOCTRINE and FELLOWSHIP, and in BREADKING OF BREAD, and in PRAYERS.]. They continued in ONE VISIBLE FELLOWSHIP one doctrine, breaking of bread, we call it Mass today and prayers.

As a former Protestant I can tell you there is no more scriptural church than the Catholic Church. The scriptures testify of the Church. To save space I will post four links I have previously posted. It’s my scriptural evidence for ONE VISIBLE Catholic Church. After reading them maybe you can post scripture evidence for your elusive invisible conglomeration church. The one no one can see, name or find any trace of in history. Nor can anyone name it’s leaders from the first to the fifteenth century.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7447593&postcount=987

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7447600&postcount=988

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7447604&postcount=989

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7447619&postcount=990

CONTINUED

 

[jlhargus]

Every one of the reforms you listed is aimed squarely at correcting something that deviated from the faith and practice of the first-century church.

JL: The following are the reforms Coptic Christian listed. Please tell us HOW those reforms corrected and what did they correct? Reading them over I see nothing but traditions of men made doctrines of God to nullify the Word of God. Not one of them is found in scripture. If you would like to start a line debating them I would be glad to join in.

EXplain how the 1611 Bible appeard similar to the Catholic Bible and then it didn’t…what abuse was this intent on correcting?

The Bible alone…what abuse was this intent on correcting?

Extrinsic Justification…what abuse was this intent on correcting?

Sola Fide…what abuse was this intent on correcting?

Denial of Church Authority…what abuse was this intent on correcting?

Now, this is not to say that the RCC is, today, a state-church. It is important to recognize, however, that this is her heritage. When claims are made that the RCC is the one, true church without acknowledging or explaining how the history of Constantinism affected her path I am skeptical. Protestants share this heritage up to the 16th century, but after that chose a different path.

JL: Yes most Protestants certainly chose a different path. They tried to build a tower to heaven and was scattered by having the ONE faith language Christ spoke. Changed into a Tower of Babel thru sola scriptura. No longer speaking ONE faith but thousands each speaking another faith language.

Constantine was emperor of the west only in 313 AD. He didn’t become sole emperor till about 325 AD. He never made Christianity the state religion. He made it legal to practice Christianity just as it was STILL legal to practice paganism. He didn’t ourlaw paganism. Constantine for some time continued to perform his pagan duties as emperor. He did favor Christianity whether because he had a vision or because his mother was a devote Christian is anyone’s guess.

Constantine was not baptized until 337AD on his death bed. Baptized by an Arian (not Catholic) Bishop of Nicomedia who reverted to Arianism after the council. Nicomedia the temporary capital was located near the new capital Constantinople which was still being constructed. Many senators and people were pagan after Constantine died.

After Constantine died the empire was divided between his 3 sons. Long story short Constantius became sole emperor in 350-361AD and tried to force Arianism on the whole Church and the struggle started. Then Julian 360-363AD the apostate tried to reinstate paganism. Finally Theodocius 379-395AD who was not Arian or pagan, but Catholic became emperor. Theodocius made Christianity the state religion. He closed pagan temples and ended pagan PUBLIC worship. There were still practicing pagans everyone was not Christians.

Constantine is used as the big bad boogieman, for the fable of apostasy. In order to salve the conscience and justify those founding other faith groups. Apart from the ONE Christ instituted and SENT. Most people don’t have the foggiest idea about history and believe whatever they are told. It takes a lot of time to research and refute half trues and down right fiction history. That’s why most of the time we just pass over those posts. Which probably leaves the poster with the impression they are correct.

By the way ALL the reformation faith groups were state religions that is their heritage. The only one I know that wasn’t were the Anabaptist. Yet they formed a theocracy for a short period.

The source for most of my comments are the following. (The Rise of Christianity by W.H.C. Frend). (The Story of Civilization Caesar And Christ by Will Durant.) (One Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic The Early Church Was the Catholic Church byKenneth D. Whitehead.)

 

[BrianGular]

JL: Nonsense, you’re off about 1500 years.
…
Protestants don’t have clean hands Brian.
…
No, not the Church, but the state persecuted heretics.

Hey, JL. Thanks for the note.

What I tried to summarize was a process. The process began with Constantine. It became official law of the empire under Theodocius.It was against this western portion of the church that the Reformers railed. It is not true that the abuses of the church started in the 1800’s–1500 years after Constantine.

The Reformers do not have clean hands. Luther, Zwingli, Calvin and others continued the sacral practices that the Anabaptists and others suffered under. A large portion of today’s American protestant church is closer to the Anabaptists than they are to the more famous reformers.

One need only look to the Inquisition, run primarily by the Dominicans, to see the church’s strong hand in persecution. We might say that technically the state executed, but that’s PR spin plain and simple.

 

[BrianGular]

Explain how the 1611 Bible appeared similar to the Catholic Bible and then it didn’t…what abuse was this intent on correcting?

The Bible alone…what abuse was this intent on correcting?

Extrinsic Justification…what abuse was this intent on correcting?

Sola Fide…what abuse was this intent on correcting?

Denial of Church Authority…what abuse was this intent on correcting?

1. I don’t follow exactly what I’m being asked to defend regarding the 1611 Bible. I’d have to do more research, and I have no time to do that now. Cannonicity of some books had been debated for years. The core collection of books that everybody always agreed to could not be in question. If we’re talking about the Apocrypha, they are books that the church considered helpful but not inspired. By the way, I don’t know any Protestants who consider the Reformers infallible. It is clear they got some things wrong. Church history is reaction,over-eaction, counter-reaction, repeat. I liken it to fishtailing down an icy road, first left, then right, then left again, desperately trying to keep her on the pavement.
2. Bible alone was an attempt to put God’s word in a position of authority over the history and traditions of the church. It was not an attempt to end tradition, as some incorrectly interpret it. The church had come a long way from the pre-Constantinian church. This was an attempt to return her to her roots.
3. Justification by faith alone through grace alone was an attempt to return the church to her pre-Contantinian roots. It’s not Jesus-and. It’s just Jesus.
4. See #3.
5. See #2.

I don’t look at church history in terms of the discrete points you’ve asked me to debate. I look at it in terms of the meta-issue of authority. Authority in the wrong place–as in linking the church to the state–led to abuses. I think even the RCC would agree with me on that–though we’d probably disagree on which things get identified as abuses.

 

[jwright82]

The key word there is started. Calvin started, he was the originator of a novel body of doctrine. His doctrine is not of the apostles, the men who were sent by Jesus into all the world to teach the nations what He taught them.

This is not a matter of theology. It is history.

Those who followed after him took his ideas and kept some, changed some and morphed them into various versions of what he started.

If Calvin’s ideas are correct, true, then the things the Church believed before Him, which his beliefs contradict, are false.

If the Church ever believed what is false, then Christ’s promises to lead her into all truth until the end of time are false. If Calvin’s novel doctrines are true, Christ’s promises to His Church found in scripture are false. The same is true of Luther, Zwingli and all that came after them in the Protestant sects.

I would say that he recovered the true teaching of the church. He saw a truly biblical view of things despite what the Roman Catholic church thought. My point was that he was not alone in his ideas, it is not an either or situation. Bucer, Bullinger, Vermingli, Ursinus, and Olevianus all contributed to the Reformation as well. I also view the post-Reformation thinkers like Turretin as exceptional developers of these ideas. You know most Reformers quoted exstensivly the early church fathers to back up their views. I might stir up a hornets nest here but St. Augustine is the primary source, besides the bible, of the Reformation. After all it was mostly Augustinian monk who sought to reform the church.

 

[jmoneyideas]

WOW this little thread has grown and I am learning alot. Thanks to all of you. Not to get off subject but since my attending mass and not going to my old Church, there has been a deep separation from my friends there. The simple calls of hello and scripture textings back and forth and words of encouragement have all ceased. I reach out and get nothing back in return. I cant help but feel the disdain they feel towards Catholicism. I know some of them may be upset because I was a pretty affluent member of the Church and very active. I cant help but feel that there is to much ego at the church and someones might have gotten hurt. Oh well just felt like saying that.

One thing that I will say on topic is, The one thing I like about the Catholic Church is it is a Living body that has Changed doctrines and certain beliefs through History although still maintaining the Traditional belief system. Also any changes were not a spur of the moment changes done by one man or 2 or 3, they were councils of deeply religious men. As a living body, the church also owns up to its failings which says a lot about it in my eyes. First of all lets not forget people are not perfect and The Church falls into that category as well.

My issue on the Reformation is as I said before that without a referee aka Papal Authority to watch over Doctrine and keep us from going astray, many things get Lost in Translation and muddy the waters of Scripture as I see in different non Catholic Churches. I have heard many Preachers and Pastors speak. From Allister Begg to Joyce Meyers, to Benny Hinn, RC Sproul and to Mr. Motivator Joel Olsteen, yet they all seem to vary in teachings of there interpretation of the Word of GOD. Call me crazy but in my opinion it just seems that way. One can get lost with so many different opinions and beliefs. God Bless you all…

 

[BrianGular]

WOW this little thread has grown and I am learning alot. Thanks to all of you. Not to get off subject but since my attending mass and not going to my old Church, there has been a deep separation from my friends there. The simple calls of hello and scripture textings back and forth and words of encouragement have all ceased. I reach out and get nothing back in return. I cant help but feel the disdain they feel towards Catholicism. I know some of them may be upset because I was a pretty affluent member of the Church and very active. I cant help but feel that there is to much ego at the church and someones might have gotten hurt. Oh well just felt like saying that.

One thing that I will say on topic is, The one thing I like about the Catholic Church is it is a Living body that has Changed doctrines and certain beliefs through History although still maintaining the Traditional belief system. Also any changes were not a spur of the moment changes done by one man or 2 or 3, they were councils of deeply religious men. As a living body, the church also owns up to its failings which says a lot about it in my eyes. First of all lets not forget people are not perfect and The Church falls into that category as well.

My issue on the Reformation is as I said before that without a referee aka Papal Authority to watch over Doctrine and keep us from going astray, many things get Lost in Translation and muddy the waters of Scripture as I see in different non Catholic Churches. I have heard many Preachers and Pastors speak. From Allister Begg to Joyce Meyers, to Benny Hinn, RC Sproul and to Mr. Motivator Joel Olsteen, yet they all seem to vary in teachings of there interpretation of the Word of GOD. Call me crazy but in my opinion it just seems that way. One can get lost with so many different opinions and beliefs. God Bless you all…

Hey, JMoney!

My biggest concern about your post is the misconception that the church had a reliable referee in papal authority before, during, or after the Reformation. Many of the Popes and Cardinals were deeply wicked men that created an environment in which reform was necessary. The gnostic and pagan influences on the church were not repudiated. The RCC today would be very different had good refereeing been in place.

The Protestant landscape is also littered with the garbage left due to the lack of a good referee system. All but Begg and Sproul in the list you provided are untrustworthy witnesses. Sproul is top shelf.

That men cannot be trusted is, in my opinion, the most compelling reason to place the scriptures in a position of authority over the traditions of men.

 

[JRKH]

Hey, JMoney!

My biggest concern about your post is the misconception that the church had a reliable referee in papal authority before, during, or after the Reformation. Many of the Popes and Cardinals were deeply wicked men that created an environment in which reform was necessary. …The RCC today would be very different had good refereeing been in place.

While certainly there is some truth in what you say here, I would respond that the problems you mention were caused less by papal (spiritual) authority than by the temporal/political authority that the Church had grown to wield.
If we should learn anything from this period it is not that the papal office is bad, but rather that it is dangerous to try to combine the spiritual with the political. Thankfully the Holy Spirit has corrected this problem.

The Protestant landscape is also littered with the garbage left due to the lack of a good referee system. All but Begg and Sproul in the list you provided are untrustworthy witnesses. Sproul is top shelf.

That men cannot be trusted is, in my opinion, the most compelling reason to place the scriptures in a position of authority over the traditions of men.

The problem with this argument is that the very men you mention above all base their teaching on the Scriptures don’t they? And where you and they and others disagree is largely in how to read, interpret, and understand Scripture…

Of course I really don’t have a problem with Scripture First, because frankly Scripture leads one right to the Catholic (and/or) the Eastern Orthodox Church.

Peace
James

 

[jlhargus]

What I tried to summarize was a process. The process began with Constantine. It became official law of the empire under Theodocius.It was against this western portion of the church that the Reformers railed. It is not true that the abuses of the church started in the 1800’s–1500 years after Constantine.

JL: Then your so called summarizing and process was misleading and wrong. I notice you now add Theodocius, after my post mentioning him. What process began with Constantine and became official law under Theodocius can you be specific? I suggest you be specific if you want to talk of historic events. So we can know what specific time period, events and place you are talking about. Where did I post anything about abuses starting in the 1800’s–1500 years after Constantine. Please post those remarks of mine I would like to see them.

Show me historically and scripturally in what ways the Catholic Church was different in Constantine’s time as opposed to before Constantine. Also name your faith group and some it’s leaders before, during and after Constantine. Also how your faith group is the same as the Church before Constantine.

It was against this western portion of the church that the Reformers railed.

JL: Then why didn’t they join the Othodox Church or the Coptic, or Eastern Orthodox. Why didn’t they reform abuses instead of changing doctrine and starting new contentious faith groups?

The Reformers do not have clean hands. Luther, Zwingli, Calvin and others continued the sacral practices that the Anabaptists and others suffered under. A large portion of today's American protestant church is closer to the Anabaptists than they are to the more famous reformers.

JL: There is not such thing as an American protestant church. There are thousands of defferent American Protestant churches. I would say being closer to Anabaptist is being further away from the gospel. I have no idea what you’re saying with the word SACRAL. Webster’s Dictionary; Sacral, pertaining to the sacrum. Sacrum, the bone forming the lower extremity of the vertebral column.

One need only look to the Inquisition, run primarily by the Dominicans, to see the church’s strong hand in persecution. We might say that technically the state executed, but that’s PR spin plain and simple.

JL: That’s a WIDE brush stroke with which you are trying to paint the whole Church Brian. Could you be specific how the whole Church was involved. Which Inquisition are you speaking of. What country and time period. What I notice is the lack of evidence and source for your PR spin.

 

[jlhargus]

1. I don’t follow exactly what I’m being asked to defend regarding the 1611 Bible. I’d have to do more research, and I have no time to do that now. Cannonicity of some books had been debated for years. The core collection of books that everybody always agreed to could not be in question. If we’re talking about the Apocrypha, they are books that the church considered helpful but not inspired. By the way, I don’t know any Protestants who consider the Reformers infallible. It is clear they got some things wrong. Church history is reaction,over-eaction, counter-reaction, repeat. I liken it to fishtailing down an icy road, first left, then right, then left again, desperately trying to keep her on the pavement.

JL: I think Coptic Christian was asking what abuse did removing books from the bible correct?

1. 1. Bible alone was an attempt to put God’s word in a position of authority over the history and traditions of the church. It was not an attempt to end tradition, as some incorrectly interpret it. The church had come a long way from the pre-Constantinian church. This was an attempt to return her to her roots.

JL: The Word of God has always been placed over history and interpreted in light of Tradition. The Church guided by the Holy Spirit, using Tradition, is the way the books of the bible were discerned. How can you have BIBLE ALONE before you have a set canon of the BIBLE? The Cathechism says the Church the servant of the Word of God. It is the Church guided by the Holy Spirit who infallibly interprets the Word of God whether BY word OR epistle, 2Thes2:14-15

So your faith group doesn’t hold BIBLE ALONE but bible and tradition. If there is a disagreement on interpretaion what AUTHORITY decides which one is correct? Do you just start another church as we see over and over again? Bible alone is a Tower of Babel. Clearly seen in thousands of contentious faith groups using BIBLE ALONE. .

1. 1. Justification by faith alone through grace alone was an attempt to return the church to her pre-Contantinian roots. It’s not Jesus-and. It’s just Jesus.

JL: With GRACE ALONE I agree. Because EVERYTHING comes by God’s grace alone. I notice you presented no tradition (historic) or scriptural evidence. Teaching FAITH ALONE was a root teaching of the Church before Constantine. Faith alone salvation contradicts scripture it’s a tradition of men. Salvation is on going till death not a one time conversion event. The bible calls FAITH ALONE dead faith.

1Cor13:2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and THOUGH I HAVE ALL FAITH, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I AM NOTHING.

Jms2:14 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? CAN FAITH SAVE HIM? 15 If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, 16 And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit? 17 Even so FAITH, if it hath not works, IS DEAD, being ALONE.

Jms2:24 Ye see then how that BY WORKS A MAN IS JUSTIFIED, and NOT BY FAITH ONLY. 25 Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way? 26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

1. See #3.
2. See #2.

JL: See #s 3&2 ? I’m guessing would that be: # Extrinsic Justification…what abuse was this intent on correcting?

#2 Denial of Church Authority…what abuse was this intent on correcting? I notice you have not answered these two nor the others posted by Coptic Christian, why?

 

[wisdomseeker]

I am new to the Lord. I go to a little Non Denominational Church that is more anti catholic than non denominational. My pastor is so against Catholicism even though he was raised Catholic. He ended up in the Pentecostal denomination where he became a Pastor. I am leaning toward the Catholic side in my religious life. The History and Christ seem to line up with the Roman Catholic Church in my opinion. Since doing more research about our Faith, I mean our Faith in Christ not the different forms of the Faith, who do you feel has caused the biggest so called reformation of the The Church of Christ? Calvin, Luther or someone else. I am so green in my walk that I am soaking everything in like a sponge. This weekend I am going to a mass and my church… Love the lord and love the history of the Church!

reform? where? as far as I know the CC is still the same. leaving a house and building another one is not called reform the other one you left. they have no authority to reform the Church only God can do through his people within the Church. He brings up Saints, holy man to live holy lives within the Church.

the division is among protestants and not the CC.

The Church is not divided among those who left. those who left are outside the Church.

 

[Nicea325]

Hey, JMoney!

My biggest concern about your post is the misconception that the church had a reliable referee in papal authority before, during, or after the Reformation. Many of the Popes and Cardinals were deeply wicked men that created an environment in which reform was necessary. The gnostic and pagan influences on the church were not repudiated. The RCC today would be very different had good refereeing been in place.

The Protestant landscape is also littered with the garbage left due to the lack of a good referee system. All but Begg and Sproul in the list you provided are untrustworthy witnesses. Sproul is top shelf.

That men cannot be trusted is, in my opinion, the most compelling reason to place the scriptures in a position of authority over the traditions of men.

Is your opinion above God? Did not God appoint 12 men? Didn’t Paul apooint others? Timothy and Titus? Are those traditions of men? Problem is that people forget that Jesus came to found a Church for the sinners,not perfectionist,including you.

BTW: Who said the scriptures should be in the position of authority?

 

[jlhargus]

That men cannot be trusted is, in my opinion, the most compelling reason to place the scriptures in a position of authority over the traditions of men.

JL: Thereby placing your trust in the worse possible man, self. Trusting a man is Russian roulette we see that with thousands of contradicting gospels preached today. No matter how learned or sincere he is. He could be right or wrong on any given interpretation. In the last analysis it’s only his opinion. I notice you gave your opinion without any scripture to support it. Yes the scriptures should ALWAYS be in a position of authority over traditions of men. It is in the Church. The Church is the servant of the Word of God, whether BY word OR epistle, 2Thes3:15.

Yet some still follow after traditions of men despite scripture. We see it clearly in thousand of faith groups. Heaping to themselves teachers, having itching ears, 2Tm4:3. Such as sola scriptura that tradition of men which scatters people of faith into contentious groups. Other traditions of men would be, once saved always saved, baptism only symbolic, Faith alone saves, all Divine Traditions are now in scripture, secret rapture, dispensationalism etc… These traditions of men are not found anywhere in scripture but actually contradict scripture.

Christ chose and SENT ONE VISIBLE teaching authority. That magisterium (teaching authority) is to teach ALL Christ commanded to the whole world till the END of time. Christ promised to be with that teaching authority to the END. Being in union with that ONE VISIBLE FELLOWSHIP you can be sure of the TRUTH. The scripture calls the Church the pillar and ground of TRUTH, 1Tm3:15. So why don’t you take your own adivse and turst what scripture tells you. I guess you don’t like that scripture.

1Jn 4:6 We are of God Whoever knows God LISTENS TO US and he who is not of God DOES NOT LISTEN TO US BY THIS WE KNOW the spirit of TRUTH and the spirit of ERROR] Belonging to that ONE SENT FELLOWSHIP is how we know with assurance TRUTH from ERROR, instead of hit and miss truth and error.

[Mt28:16 Then **THE ELEVEN disciples WENT away into Galilee, INTO A MOUNTAIN where JESUS had APPOINTED them. 17 And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted. 18 And JESUS came and SPAKE UNTO THEM, saying, ALL POWER IS GIVEN UNTO ME IN HEAVEN AND IN EARTH. 19 GO ye therefore, and **TEACH ALL NATIONS, BAPTIZING ** them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20 TEACHING THEM TO OBSERVE ALL THINGS whatsoever I HAVE COMMANDED YOU: and, lo, I AM WITH YOU ALWAYS, even UNTO THE END OF THE WORLD. Amen.] What did people do the first time they heard the gospel and believed.

[ACTS 2:41 Then THEY THAT gladly RECEIVED HIS WORD WERE BAPTIZED AND the same day there were ADDED UNTO THEM about three thousand souls 42 And THEY CONTINUED stedfastly IN THE APOSTLES DOCTRINE AND FELLOWSHIP and IN BREAKING OF BREAD and IN PRAYERS.] They were ADDED to that ONE VISIBLE body of Christ, the Church. They continued stedfastly in the APOSTLES DOCTRINE, and the APOSTLES FELLOWSHIP. In breaking of bread=Echarist, and in prayers=liturgy. We call it Mass today.]

The gnostic and pagan influences on the church were not repudiated. The RCC today would be very different had good refereeing been in place.

JL: I notice you never post EVIDENCE for your statements. To me a statement without evidence is evidence the statement is false. Can you tell us who and what good refereeing would be? I would think Christ’s promise to SEND the Holy Spirit to guide those He chose and SENT into all truth would be good enough.

 

[BrianGular]

Is your opinion above God? Did not God appoint 12 men? Didn’t Paul apooint others? Timothy and Titus? Are those traditions of men? Problem is that people forget that Jesus came to found a Church for the sinners,not perfectionist,including you.

BTW: Who said the scriptures should be in the position of authority?

It would be foolish for me or anyone else to assert that they are above God. I don’t see anywhere that I wrote or even implied that.

The scriptures have always been in a position of authority as have the the history and traditions of the church. Where you and I differ is, I believe, on the relative authority between them. I think we would agree that God, through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, gifted the Apostles and those working directly under their supervision with the revelation that we know as the New Testament. We disagree, however, on what happened after that.

 

[BrianGular]

I notice you have not answered these two nor the others posted by Coptic Christian, why?

Sigh JL, I don’t know why you are so hostile toward me. I also don’t know why you can’t see your own anti-anti-RCC bias. I answered your questions, but you refuse to accept my answers. That’s okay. You don’t have to.

I participate in this forum to increase my own understanding of RCC theology and to help promote understanding of other views of Christian theology. There have been many people way smarter than us who have wrestled with these issues and come to very different conclusions. To deny that one side or the other has evidence is to betray a lack of understanding.

Nothing I have written is controversial or even questioned in orthodox Protestant circles. There is a considerable body of literature that supports it–most of it based on scripture, much of it based on church history. Some books that I have found helpful:

• The Story of Christian Theology, by Roger Olson
• The Reformers and Their Stepchildren, by Leonard Verduin
• The Reformation: how a Monk and a Mallet Changed the World, by Stephen Nichols
• The Anabaptist Story: An Introduction to Sixteenth-Century Anabaptism, by William Roscoe Estep

I have learned quite a bit about the “RCC side” of the debate in these forums. I plan to continue to learn and to promote greater understanding among us.

 

[wisdomseeker]

It would be foolish for me or anyone else to assert that they are above God. I don’t see anywhere that I wrote or even implied that.

The scriptures have always been in a position of authority as have the the history and traditions of the church. Where you and I differ is, I believe, on the relative authority between them. I think we would agree that God, through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, gifted the Apostles and those working directly under their supervision with the revelation that we know as the New Testament. We disagree, however, on what happened after that.

It would be pretty unreasonble to believe that the Church Jesus found would fall into apostasy. protestantism is not a religion commissioned by Christ, yet protestants insists in evangelizing people believing that they can understand the Word of God. what they are really doing is causing confusion in the world. Jesus never intended for His message to be confused to the world. how is the world to believe and believe in what and whom?

with such a confused message about God, the world is going back to paganism and away from God. it is a disserve to God what is happening with His Word today. He sends ONe Message, One Truth but some manage to distort the Truth and confuse the world.

 

[jlhargus]

Originally Posted by jlhargus
I notice you have not answered these two nor the others posted by Coptic Christian, why?

Sigh JL, I don’t know why you are so hostile toward me. I also don’t know why you can’t see your own anti-anti-RCC bias. I answered your questions, but you refuse to accept my answers. That’s okay. You don’t have to.

JL: I didn’t know I was hostile toward you. Could you post some examples I posted, which you consider hostile? Also could you point out and post examples of my anti-anti-RCC bias. If you have answered those questions, Coptic Christian asked, I must have missed that post. Could you re-post those answers or give me the post number? So I may read them.

 

[jlhargus]

I participate in this forum to increase my own understanding of RCC theology and to help promote understanding of other views of Christian theology. There have been many people way smarter than us who have wrestled with these issues and come to very different conclusions. To deny that one side or the other has evidence is to betray a lack of understanding.

JL: I’m gald you want to increase your understanding of Church theology. I hope to help you. Yes we see different conclusions in thousands of faith groups using sola scriptura. Thanks be to God. He gave us a teaching authority to settle those different conclusions. So we don’t have hit and miss truth.

Nothing I have written is controversial or even questioned in orthodox Protestant circles. There is a considerable body of literature that supports it–most of it based on scripture,

JL: I take it you are talking about your posts when you use written. I will assume you are not an author. I haven’t read ALL your post but I seriously doubt nothing you have posted is NOT controversial or even questioned in “orthodox Protestant circles”. By the way can you tell us what defines one as an” orthodox Protestant”? Also what authority decides who is orthodox? Most Protestant don’t hold OSAS, most baptize infants. Isn’t that contrary to your beliefs? Are you orthodox or are they orthodox or do you consider BOTH orthodox? By the way what is the name of your faith group?

 

[wisdomseeker]

I think this video will settle the issue

youtube.com/watch?v=whhQZldd1Gc&feature=results_video&playnext=1&list=PLA09CF30CA37C21E5