Debating with protestants who just won't listen

[De_Maria]

De_Maria:

Ephesians 3:10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,

The Church will teach the wisdom of God, even in the heavens. If that’s not infallible, what is?

Agreed. But we all can teach the manifold wisdom of God! …

We can all claim to do whatever we want. But the only ones with the charism of infallibility are the Church which Jesus Christ commissioned to Teach His Word and the Pope whom Jesus Christ appointed to represent Him in the world.

Why do I say we all? Because we all are members of God’s Church. It is not a select special inner circle found in Rome. But as mentioned before, Paul didn’t believe the Church was infallible. His letters of correction to the CHURCH is the evidence.

He is also a member of the Church. But he is a member of the Teaching Church and in that capacity is writing to his disciple Church.

cont’d after guanaphore’s comment

 

[guanophore]

No… it was never God’s intention to have two heads. You say Christ is the head, yet, the pope is the head here on the earth. One plus one equals= one, in your estimation. right…

I can see how you perceive it that way, since you have problems with the authority appointed by Christ. But the Church only has one Head, who is Christ. The Pope is the servant of the servants of God.

This only proves that the Church is fallible and needs to return to holy scripture to help them to the truth.

No, tgG, it proves that individual human beings are fallible, and especially when they don’t follow the Teachings of the Church preserved infallibly by the Holy Spirit.

Although there have been some ordained people that have departed from the Scriptures, the Church has not. On the contrary, the New Testament was written by, for, and about Catholics!

I guess it is only fair, after all, I am the Catholic who just won’t listen to the protestants.

Listening does not necessarily mean agreement.

The Church is built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets with Christ Jesus Himself as the cornerstone. Eph. 2:20

Paul’s inference here is that the Church is build upon the teachings of the apostles and Christ being the supporter of all of it. Those twelve men were the pillars and Christ was/is their foundation.

What a very Catholic thing for you to say!

The problem here is how the word Church is treated. For you there is the Church (=hieratical organized system founded in Rome by Peter) and then there is us … on the outside.

I agree, it all boils down to how Church is defined, and the issue of authority. Just as we do not limit the Church to “the body of believers here on earth”, we do not limit it to a hierarchical, organized system. These are all aspects of the Church.

The Church was not founded in Rome by Peter. On the contrary, it was founded in Palestine upon Peter by Jesus. The Church actually spread to Rome by believers who were most likely at Pentecost, and Paul’s letter makes it clear that the Church was alive and well in Rome before any Apostle went there.

You say you are not “protesting” Rome, but you continue to make these statements that misrepresent the facts and press these Reformation resentments toward Rome.

 

[De_Maria]

cont’d with @tgGodsway

But because Paul and Peter, and James, and John and a few others were inspired by the holy Spirit when they were living and through their actions, and then inspired by the holy Spirit when they put it all down on paper before they died, we can trust their testament.

And they were inspired because they were members of Christ’s Teaching Church. This is the group of men, with the exception of St. Paul, to whom Jesus said:

Matt 28:18And 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.

Anything, or anyone who comes along after the eye-witnesses to the truth, must be filtered through the inspired record.

Let’s see what Scripture describes as the inspired record.

2 Peter 1:19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed,

We have a better revelation from God.

as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:

This revelation brings knowledge to the ignorant.

20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

But first you must know, that you should not interpret Scripture privately.
Wow! What? You shouldn’t interpret Scripture privately.

But why?

21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Because the word of God did not come from a man. It came from God who inspired men to Preach as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.

The implication is unmistakable. The Church was inspired to preach the Word of God. It is from this preaching that the Scripture was afterwards derived.

The idea that the Church today is infallible is heretical on its face.

It’s the other way around. The idea that the Catholic Church is not infallible, is the heresy. This has been the Teaching of the Church from the time of Christ. In fact, anyone who does not believe His Church is infallible, can not believe that Christ is the head of their Church. Because certainly, Christ is infallible.

 

[guanophore]

You can believe that all you want, but I’ve seen examples of their interpretation of scripture and much of it is not interpretation at all. It is (via decree) invention!

The CC preserves and obeys the Apostolic command to preserve what was committed to us. When there is a risk of the faithful becoming deceived or lost, then declarations are made to make the Teachings clear. This has been going on since the first council of Jerusalem described in Acts.

The Reformers had to reject this Authority, and replace it with an invented one (Sola Scriptura) so that they could carry on with changing doctrines of the faith.

I’m not sure what world you are living in, but every single one of those cardinals throughout all of history, have no choice but to read the N.T. manuscript and make an interpretation.

Of course everyone who reads interprets! Catholics are bound to interpret within what the Apostles committed to the Church. I do agree with you, tho, not all of those Cardinals followed what they read. But saying that the Church is not the pillar and ground of the truth because some members of it were disobedient to the Truth is like saying that the Teaching of Jesus was not valid because Judas did not embrace it.

Then they go and teach what they believe it means. This process is fallible and requires checks and balances. But they do not believe they are fallible or their tradition. It is a deception at a dangerous level.

If this were true, I would agree with you. There are checks and balances, and though individuals are fallible, the Sacred Tradition is not. Human beings certainly can be deceptive at a dangerous level.

 

[guanophore]

Because we all are members of God’s Church. It is not a select special inner circle found in Rome.

We are all members of the One Body, but we have not all been given the responsibility to carry out all the ministries. You are right, it is not a "select special inner circle found in Rome’. This is your Reformation resentment talking.

But as mentioned before, Paul didn’t believe the Church was infallible. His letters of correction to the CHURCH is the evidence.

This again goes back to the definition of Church. Paul was addressing the members of the Church, who are all fallible and need constant correction. He did so by acting in the infallible authority given to the Apostles.

Paul and Peter, and James, and John and a few others were inspired by the holy Spirit when they were living and through their actions, and then inspired by the holy Spirit when they put it all down on paper before they died, we can trust their testament.

This inspiration did not cease to exist after part of that infallible revelation was written.

Anything, or anyone who comes along after the eye-witnesses to the truth, must be filtered through the inspired record. The idea that the Church today is infallible is heretical on its face.

It has to be for you, so that you can persist in separation from the authority appointed by Christ. There are two strands of divine inspiration, the scriptures is half, and the Word Of God at work in the Church, preserved infallibly by the Holy Spirit.They cannot contradict, because they both come from the same Source.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Who does the scripture say is the pillar and foundation of truth? You? Nope! It’s the Church. The only Church that is there. The only Church Jesus established Himself. The Catholic Church. Get over it.

yes to which I and millions around the world are apart whether you like it or not… We are all part of the same Universal Church but not all of us answer to R. and we are not suppose to answer to R. because R wasn’t suppose to force the world (of Churches) to answer to them.

You’re using Rome in the wrong sense. I’m using it as a code word for the chair of Peter. EVERYONE is to be perfectly united to Peter and those in union with Peter. That’s not me talking that’s what Jesus said He wanted.

tgGodsway:

They imposed themselves in a headship role never given to them.

"They"as in Rome, didn’t impose, Jesus “willed” that all would follow Peter.
I’ve shown you this before. Peter is the greatest among the apostles. That’s by Jesus design. Matthew 16:18 controversy - #188 by steve-b and also here
Lk 22:

24 “A dispute also arose among them, which of them was to be regarded as the greatest. 25 And he said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and those in authority over them are called benefactors. 26 But not so with you; rather let the greatest among you become as the youngest, and the leader as one who serves.”

Jesus is validating one of THEM is the greatest AND the leader.

Re: the Greek, in those passages from Luke
the one who is the “leader” in the Greek the word also means rules ἡγούμενος http://bibleapps.com/greek/2233.htm , you don’t open links, so I offer this for all others who want the answer. Who is Jesus talking about? It’s Peter. The only apostle Jesus names and addresses in this episode… Note that Part of the understanding of that word used [lead, rules ἡγούμενος, ] is, Peter deserves cooperation by those who are led by Peter and obviously Peter is the one Jesus has already selected to be the ruler. Those who cooperate with Jesus will, are the few Jesus talks about in the end.

Don’t let facts get in your way. The one who continues to argue over this is the one being sifted by Satan.

tgGodsway:

They were all walking after the flesh when they demanded control over all things in the 4th. Century. But that is the way the R. empire did things in those days. And of course their supposed key of authority is to spout succession, a bad and weak interpretation. No… it was never God’s intention to have two heads. You say Christ is the head, yet, the pope is the head here on the earth. One plus one equals= one, in your estimation. right…

You prove you aren’t qualified to interpret scripture

tgGodsway:

This only proves that the Church is fallible and needs to return to holy scripture to help them to the truth. And I noticed you didn’t answer my questions about that. you just did your usual rant.

I answered you. You’re hardly in a position to lecture ANYONE on not answering .

 

[tgGodsway]

The bride of Christ is without blemish. You be careful how you talk about our Lord’s wife.

Well, again, using Paul’s analogy of a married couple, where the husband is the “savior” of the body, so is Christ. In this sense, Christ has made us clean by his blood on Calvary. But Christ, much like the husband, is to "sanctify and cleanse her (The Church) with the washing of water by the WORD!! Eph. 5:26.
Why would the Church need to be cleansed by the word unless the Church, potentially, can be defiled!

Paul goes on… that He might present her (The Church) to Himself a glorious church not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she (the Church) should be holy and without blemish."
Eph, 5:27

If you notice the obvious language Paul uses here. The state of the Church is not a settled matter, yet. The Church can be defiled. To say the Church cannot be defiled is to argue against all that Paul said here in Eph. 5. and throughout scripture about the Church.

I am not only careful about the Lord’s wife, I am part of His bride and accurate in my statements Vonsalza

Blessings to you sir.

 

[tgGodsway]

So what is your “outside” unified “structure” that joins you together in ONE, Jesus did pray that we be one, unified truth?

Well, I have a theory about that. I know that Jesus prayed that we would all become one. Obviously by knowing our fallen nature to divided, he said that. We, as a spiritual body, are many parts and have many opinions, yet we have one savior who sits on his one throne.
The only thing I know that could possibly unite the Church in doctrine and deed, … in my humble opinion, is persecution.

When persecution comes, no body cares so much about some of the details. When our lives will be threatened at the end of a knife or gun, these other issues seem to fade.

honestly, I don’t know how Christ will unity His Church, but it seems like persecution is a uniter to me. When the anti-Christ comes and demands worship, it will be the Church who will refuse. But please understand that before that happens, a great falling out will take place within the Church. I’m using the word Church as a verb here, not a noun. Only a remnant Church will preserver the persecution of the anti-Christ in my view.
Blessings.

 

[tgGodsway]

If it is not the Catholic Church I am all ears as to which Church it is, but your claim that this verse is saying any Church that uses the Bible only, is no where in the text.

again, you use this word as a noun, where I am using it as a verb. The Church is not necessarily all members of the body of Christ. The Church is a group who come out of the body. Hence, ekklesia =those called out. Called out from where?.. the larger body.

Here’s a subtle example of what I’m talking about. Paul addressing the church at Corinth and said, "Now you are the body of Christ and individual members of it. v28 And God has placed these (members of the body) in the CHURCH. … (a distinction made) … apostles second prophets, third teachers… etc.

By definition, the Church is a group of sanctified workers who take their faith into the public.

Private faith and private meetings, by definition are not the Church, even though they could be members of Christ body.

so when Paul said to the Church at Rome, "So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another.

He did not say we are all one Church, though we could be. Ro. 12:5 The body of Christ is spiritual, but the Church is literal and physical.

The body of Christ is the Church. But not all members of the body take their faith into the public.

Another example: “For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is the head of the church, AND He is the savior of the body.” Eph. 5:23. What body might that be?.. the church. see also Col. 1:24

 

[tgGodsway]

For example. Jesus Christ was not baptized because it says so in Scripture. Scripture describes the Baptism of Jesus Christ, because it actually happened.

Yes, but the cardinals who are reading the event, are not pondering it as if they were there. They weren’t there, and in most cases they were removed by centuries of time. Therefore they must reflect upon the writings of others who were closer to that time, AND, the actual record of what happened. THEN … they still must employ an interpretation of what it means. To say that when they read the scriptures they know it is part of a certain Catholic doctrine that PRECEDS the verse. how does that work?

I think you are too quick to label it all Catholic while the epistles of Paul and other’ were passed around the region beginning in Jerusalem not Rome. It was the word of God before it was collected and placed into one volume. The succession idea is unconvincing to me.

But this was the reliable source. If post-apostolic traditions sprang from these epistles those traditions must be checked to see whether they are in line what all that the Apostles have said. 2Thes. 2:15 says,"… stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle. Otherwise Paul’s admonition to do so means nothing.

Either way, it was a specific and narrow doctrine locked into that time-frame. As time passed any added traditions outside of the apostolic circle, all should have been in subjection to the eyewitnesses of their time.

What is the difference between the Mk. 7:3 passage where the Jews held to the traditions of the elders, from that of Paul’s command to hold His traditions? Read the narrative it is telling.

But the difference was really all about the Character of the Elders from that of the Apostles. The elder’s traditions were called, “traditions of men” while Paul’s traditions were excepted as the word of God.

When Christ ascended and SAT DOWN on his throne, this was symbolic of a work that is finished. Christ is no longer speaking beyond what He has already said in written form or tradition. The door has been closed to any other words declaring to be on par with scripture.

 

[De_Maria]

De_Maria:

For example. Jesus Christ was not baptized because it says so in Scripture. Scripture describes the Baptism of Jesus Christ, because it actually happened.

Yes, but the cardinals who are reading the event, are not pondering it as if they were there. They weren’t there, and in most cases they were removed by centuries of time. Therefore they must reflect upon the writings of others who were closer to that time, AND, the actual record of what happened. THEN … they still must employ an interpretation of what it means. To say that when they read the scriptures they know it is part of a certain Catholic doctrine that PRECEDS the verse. how does that work?

I thought I just explained it.

CCC#83 The Tradition here in question comes from the apostles and hands on what they received from Jesus’ teaching and example and what they learned from the Holy Spirit. The first generation of Christians did not yet have a written New Testament, and the New Testament itself demonstrates the process of living Tradition.

I think you are too quick to label it all Catholic while the epistles of Paul and other’ were passed around the region beginning in Jerusalem not Rome.

You get “Rome” all tripped up in your head. The Catholic Church is universal. Rome is merely the city where St. Peter set up shop.

No other Church has evangelized the world. Only the Catholic Church.

It was the word of God before it was collected and placed into one volume. The succession idea is unconvincing to me.

Well, I’m not trying to convince you of anything. But I can show the logic of succession by simple narrative. And I can point to Scripture to show where Scripture supports succession. All you can do is offer a denial. That’s not much of an argument.

But this was the reliable source.

The Church is the reliable source. Scripture can’t defend itself from misinterpretation. The Church can defend Christian doctrine from misinterpretation, misapplication and misunderstanding.

Scripture is an object. The Catholic Church provides the living word of God.

If post-apostolic traditions sprang from these epistles

They didn’t. The epistles sprang from pre-existing Christian Doctrine.

cont’d

 

[De_Maria]

cont’d with @tgGodsway

those traditions must be checked to see whether they are in line what all that the Apostles have said. 2Thes. 2:15 says,"… stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle. Otherwise Paul’s admonition to do so means nothing.

Well, that’s true. That is why the Catholic Church uses the three legged stool method. All purported traditions must be proved by Sacred Tradition, Scripture and the continuing Teaching of the Catholic Church.

For a tradition to be true, the proof must be in all those legs in order to support its legitimacy.

Either way, it was a specific and narrow doctrine locked into that time-frame. As time passed any added traditions outside of the apostolic circle, all should have been in subjection to the eyewitnesses of their time.

I don’t know what you mean. I can look at Scripture and see that there is not one narrow doctrine written in there. It is huge and many faceted. It is the Wisdom of God:

Ephesians 3:10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,

What is the difference between the Mk. 7:3 passage where the Jews held to the traditions of the elders, from that of Paul’s command to hold His traditions? Read the narrative it is telling.

It is the difference between you telling us to hold to your man-made tradition of sola scriptura and St. Paul’s command in 2 Thess 2:15. More than that, by holding on to your man-made tradition, you reject St. Paul’s command to reject those:

2 Thess 3:6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.

No one taught the doctrine of sola scriptura until the advent of Martin Luther.

But the difference was really all about the Character of the Elders from that of the Apostles. The elder’s traditions were called, “traditions of men” while Paul’s traditions were excepted as the word of God.

Good. Exactly what we’ve been trying to tell you.

When Christ ascended and SAT DOWN on his throne,

Ok.

this was symbolic of a work that is finished.

Yes. His work was finished. Our wasn’t. Nor was the Holy Spirit’s.

Christ is no longer speaking beyond what He has already said in written form or tradition.

Exactly. In written form or Tradition. Tradition is still being passed down and Jesus voice can still be heard there.

The door has been closed to any other words declaring to be on par with scripture.

The Word of God is superior to Scripture. Scripture merely conveys the Word of God. So does Sacred Tradition. The difference between Scripture and Tradition, is that Tradition is alive and can adapt and be adapted as the Holy Spirit inspires the Church to do. While, Tradition is also the hermeneutical principle with which men can develop a deeper and fuller understanding of the Word of God in Scripture.

113 2. Read the Scripture within “the living Tradition of the whole Church”. …

 

[dallas_r]

We need a series to this thread.

Debating with Protestants who just won’t listen II- Cafeteria Catholics

 

[guanophore]

He shouldn’t have said “might be,” if Paul believed the Church was infallible. He would have said, WILL BE…

I find it the peak of arrogance that you keep indicating what scripture “should” say that would convince you that it means what Catholics believe it means. Paul does mean the Church is infallible, but he also knew that there would be people like yourself that would refuse that revelation, and that it would only be effective for those who receive it in faith.

The Church must answer the call to be holy, (as Peter said) before God could use her effectively. … without holiness and without true obedience coming from the CHURCH, she can be disqualified from any good work…

No, tgG, the Church need not answer the call to be Holy, as Jesus is her Head, and she is ensouled by the Holy Spirit. You seem to define “church” without these divine elements, and thus you need to insist that she is deficient somehow.

I agree, the human members of the church do need to answer the call of holiness and obedience to be effective for Christ. Members of the Church that do not answer this call are certainly disqualified for any good work.

There is no such thing as an infallible Church, to the contrary!

I think you must insist that this is not true, not realizing that you deny the promises of Christ in doing so.

You must cling to your truncated definition of Church to justify your disobedience to those appointed by Christ.

Have you ever considered forgiving the Popes and Cardinals whose deficient behavior precipitated the Reformation? Do you realize that holding a resentment is like drinking poison, and expecting others to die?

Have you considered that holding to a theology based in resentment and defiance is a faulty foundation? All Protestant sects are defined by which parts, and to what extent, they depart from the Catholic faith. This is what it means to “denominate”.

The only reason why you believe this is because I’m sure somewhere down in history, a pope said it was true.

No, tgG, we believe this because this is what was handed down to us from the Apostles. You are right, though, there have been a number of holy popes that have affirmed the Truth of what Jesus taught.

 

[guanophore]

This is obviously so off-the-hoof that no one is going to take this remark very seriously. I suggest you delete it for sake of preserving your own credibility…

tgG is demonstrating for us that his resentment and unforgiveness against “Rome” and the corrupted Catholic officials that precipitated the Reformation is alive and well.

"sanctify and cleanse her (The Church) with the washing of water by the WORD!! Eph. 5:26.

Why would the Church need to be cleansed by the word unless the Church, potentially, can be defiled!

"sanctify and cleanse her (The Church) with the washing of water by the WORD!! Eph. 5:26.

Why would the Church need to be cleansed by the word unless the Church, potentially, can be defiled!

The Church contains members that are human beings with a fallen nature. This is why the Church needs cleansing. Jesus, as the Head, does not need cleansing, and the Holy Spirit, the Soul of the church, does not need cleansing. the saints who have gone on before us are already cleansed.

Paul goes on… that He might present her (The Church) to Himself a glorious church not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she (the Church) should be holy and without blemish."
Eph, 5:27

If you notice the obvious language Paul uses here. The state of the Church is not a settled matter, yet. The Church can be defiled. To say the Church cannot be defiled is to argue against all that Paul said here in Eph. 5. and throughout scripture about the Church.

On the contrary, the state of the Church is a settled matter, as we see in the book of Revelation. What is not settled is the fate of the fallen members attached to her. Individuals can be defiled, require cleansing, and can fall from grace. The unblemished bride cannot be sullied, because the bride is protected by Him.

You are suffering from a deficient notion of “Church”.

 

[guanophore]

honestly, I don’t know how Christ will unity His Church, but it seems like persecution is a uniter to me.

I guess that explains why it is that you continue to persecute Catholics, taking up the banner of the Reformers, and accusing the brethren (especially those in '“Rome”).

Here’s a subtle example of what I’m talking about. Paul addressing the church at Corinth and said, "Now you are the body of Christ and individual members of it. v28 And God has placed these (members of the body) in the CHURCH. … (a distinction made) … apostles second prophets, third teachers… etc.

By definition, the Church is a group of sanctified workers who take their faith into the public.

You are reading your theology into the passage, tgG. You accurately note that a distinction is made between members of the Body and the Church. If you can follow this “distinction” you can grasp that the Church is more than “the body of believers on earth”.

No, the Church is a body of sanctified workers who are call out of the the world. The called out ones are those who are pilgrims here, whose home is in heaven. This does not mean that we cannot also be light and salt to the world, but the offices that are referenced in Ephesians are there to minister to the Body, not to the world.

He did not say we are all one Church, though we could be. Ro. 12:5 The body of Christ is spiritual, but the Church is literal and physical.

The Apostles taught that there is no distinction between the Body of Christ and the Church. But we are in agreement, there are spiritual aspects of the Church, and physical. Both of these are “literal” (real). The Church, like Christ, is incarnational. There are divine and spiritual aspects of the Church, and physical/human elements of the Church. The Church is infallible because of her divine elements. The human elements cannot prevent her from divinity.

Yes, but the cardinals who are reading the event, are not pondering it as if they were there. They weren’t there, and in most cases they were removed by centuries of time. Therefore they must reflect upon the writings of others who were closer to that time, AND, the actual record of what happened. THEN … they still must employ an interpretation of what it means.

I think you describe al l of us, tgG. This condition is not confined to cardinals, but is shared by you and me.

To say that when they read the scriptures they know it is part of a certain Catholic doctrine that PRECEDS the verse. how does that work?

Anyone who receives the Apostolic faith can know what the Apostles taught, and read the scriptures in the light of what they believed and practiced.

 

[MT1926]

When persecution comes, no body cares so much about some of the details. When our lives will be threatened at the end of a knife or gun, these other issues seem to fade.

So your theory is when Jesus prayed for unity, that we all be one, He knew there was no way for us to unite so He was praying we would be one at the end times?

Only a remnant Church will preserver the persecution of the anti-Christ in my view.

Just curious what you believe this remnant church will look like? Will it be unified or will it be just a bunch of Christians scattered all over the world.

The reason I ask is because Jesus also said His Church would be a visible light for the world. Will this church you speak of be a visible light?

 

[guanophore]

honestly, I don’t know how Christ will unity His Church

Jesus’ Church is already united, tgG. He did not pray that we would “become one”, but that we “be one”. He created the Church in unity, and this unity is preserved by the members of the Church remaining in the Truth.Those who depart from the Truth depart from the unity he established.

but please understand that before that happens, a great falling out will take place within the Church. I’m using the word Church as a verb here, not a noun.

I think you are having some problems with your parts of speech definitions. Verbs are action words. One cannot use an action word as an object or indirect object. You have already testified that a great falling out has taken place in the Church. We commonly refer to this as the Reformation, or some call it the Deformation.

again, you use this word as a noun, where I am using it as a verb. The Church is not necessarily all members of the body of Christ. The Church is a group who come out of the body. Hence, ekklesia =those called out. Called out from where?.. the larger body.

You have a very active imagination, tgG. Even if there were any validity to your construct, the called out ones are still described by the noun ekklesia.

So your theory is when Jesus prayed for unity, that we all be one, He knew there was no way for us to unite so He was praying we would be one at the end times?

This theory seems to get shot down when we look at the reason for the unity. What point is there for all men to know Jesus if it is the end of times? If unity is to be the mark which draws all to Christ, wouldn’t that be a little too late?

 

[MT1926]

again, you use this word as a noun, where I am using it as a verb. The Church is not necessarily all members of the body of Christ. The Church is a group who come out of the body. Hence, ekklesia =those called out. Called out from where?.. the larger body.

I don’t follow your line of reasoning here. According to Strong’s Greek concordance “ekklesia” is used 114 times in the NT, and is used as a feminine Noun.

Just because you can show you how you are able to use it as a “verb”, so you can make it fit your theology, doesn’t mean that is how the Apostles intended for it to be used.

By definition, the Church is a group of sanctified workers who take their faith into the public.

Maybe you should finish what St. Paul says…

27 Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it. 28 And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, then healers, helpers, administrators, speakers in various kinds of tongues.

In verse 28 St. Paul uses the word kybernēseis. This can be translated as administrators or government.

By definition an administrator, who St. Paul says is part of the “Church” that you are talking about here in this verse, is a person or group of persons who run the business or organization from within. I’m not sure of to many administrators that deal with the public. That’s usually the job of their secretaries.

Private faith and private meetings, by definition are not the Church, even though they could be members of Christ body.

So what you are saying is Acts 15 is not the Church? I’m pretty sure this is a pretty good example of the “kybernēseis” being talked about in 1 Corinthians 12.

All of the verses you provide are based on your assumption, that when the Apostles speak of the “Church” they are only referring to the group of sanctified workers who take their faith to the public.

Sorry but this faulty assumption is the exact mindset that St. Paul is preaching against in 1 Corinthians 12

God Bless

 

[guanophore]

I don’t follow your line of reasoning here. According to Strong’s Greek concordance “ekklesia” is used 114 times in the NT, and is used as a feminine Noun.

Just because you can show you how you are able to use it as a “verb”, so you can make it fit your theology, doesn’t mean that is how the Apostles intended for it to be used.

I had an insight about this today. I think that tgGodsway may have a private revelation about this word that improves his relationship with God and enables him to live out his faith more effectively. In general, private revelation that accomplishes such goals, so long as it is not contrary to the teachings of the Apostles, can be very beneficial.

The problem becomes when he tries to foist this private revelation onto everyone as though it were public revelation.