Debating with protestants who just won't listen

[tgGodsway]

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.

No, i did not say that the word Church is only used as a verb. I know it is used as a noun. But you’ve missed my point. The church as an institution was pioneered from Jerusalem and commanded to reach the world. No where did any one local church dominate another. This is where you are in denial. For over three centuries the church enjoyed local authority.snd certainly no apostle taught a central authority. The word of God assigned Peter to the office of Apostle not Bishop and his audience, according to inspired scripture was the Jews.

 

[MT1926]

No, i did not say that the word Church is only used as a verb. I know it is used as a noun.

I never said you don’t use it as a noun. I said…

According to Strong’s Greek concordance “ekklesia” is used 114 times in the NT, and is used as a feminine Noun.

I further defined what I meant by saying the Apostles never used it as a verb.

Look at your definition…

Hence, ekklesia =those called out.

The word is a famine noun. Which would mean the word is referencing the people (those) not the action (called out). You want to apply it to the action to try to prove your point, but that is not how grammar works.

No where did any one local church dominate another.

Sure looks to me like it did in Acts 15.

Why is it so hard to believe this hierarchical structure ceased after the death of the Apostles. Do you believe no other difficulties arose in the Church in the 2nd century?

For over three centuries the church enjoyed local authority.snd certainly no apostle taught a central authority.

Evidence please?

St. Paul’s writings to the local Churches demanding that they…

10 I appeal to you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no dissensions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment.

Do you believe St. Paul makes this command to the Church of Corinth but he is also saying, as long as you guys can come to an agreement I don’t care if you agree with Ephesis, Galatia or Rome, they have their own mind and will make their own judgements.

The word of God assigned Peter to the office of Apostle not Bishop and his audience, according to inspired scripture was the Jews.

For you to say Peter didn’t preach to gentiles is reading scripture with blinders on.

 

[tgGodsway]

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.

But that is exactly how they used it. The distinctions between the body of Christ and the Church are in several places of the N.T. Okay, I will concede the point about the word itself, … you are right MT, (in a grammatical sense.) I was wrong.

But the concept of Church did not begin in the N.T. It is actually an old testament idea. The tabernacle, as we find it in Exodus, was meant to be a sign of God’s presence among the people and a beacon or tower for His plan. Once the tabernacle was complete, God’s presence came into the House/Church and filled it and a cloud with fire in it rested over it so that all the people could see and give God glory.
The Lord told them, “When the cloud moves, you move.”

Depending on which Hebrew word for “tabernacle” we use, it can mean either a place to meet or a place that moves. That tells me God never meant for His tabernacle to get stuck in one place. It was built to move. This pattern is found in the book of Acts. It wasn’t as much about the place for Church, as it was about how the Church was on the move…

In other words, when God moves we move. What we can learn from our desert ancestors in Exodus is to change what we understand about the nature of the Church itself.

If “church” is designed to move, then it is more “Verb” than “noun.” Nouns sit. Verbs go. A noun is something I come to and sit in. A verb is not a monument but a movement.

It was no accident that our Lord used the word Church when speaking about His bride. These are people much like the seventy who were sent out two by two. They were on the move as a prelude to what was yet to come.

 

[tgGodsway]

Why is it so hard to believe this hierarchical structure ceased after the death of the Apostles

I never suggested the hierarchical structure ceased after the death of the Apostles MT … But you’ve got Peter sitting in Rome, not as an Apostle, but as a Bishop in what 42-67 a.d… and the book of Romans and the entire N.T. has nothing to say about it. Not to mention Peter’s letters.

When I think of hierarchical structure I am not thinking about one structure in Rome for every local Church around the world. Nor can I find this pattern anywhere in scripture.

When the Apostles were alive they could manage the way truth was delivered and processed, and acted upon. The Acts 15 dispute is a good example of that.
But after their death, truth needed to be interpreted not from a real human being standing in front of them, but from their writings. Who could understand all that the Apostles knew and understood?.. few… but some… to some degree…

The further removed from their lives, ( not to mention the various cultures an customs in different parts of the world) the more difficult it was to understand their written messages. Interpretation of the Epistles and Gospels was definitely a centerpiece into the 2nd. Century. Thank God the Holy Spirit promised to be our teacher and would teach us all things.

 

[MT1926]

In other words, when God moves we move.

Sorry you lost me? Where’s he going?

I thought the tabernacle moved in the OT because they where on their way to the promised land?

If “church” is designed to move, then it is more “Verb” than “noun.” Nouns sit. Verbs go. A noun is something I come to and sit in. A verb is not a monument but a movement.

So are you saying your church meets in different places every week?

It was no accident that our Lord used the word Church when speaking about His bride. These are people much like the seventy who were sent out two by two. They were on the move as a prelude to what was yet to come.

I don’t think so.

 

[MT1926]

When I think of hierarchical structure I am not thinking about one structure in Rome for every local Church around the world. Nor can I find this pattern anywhere in scripture.

I don’t think about it this way either. When I think of hierarchical structure I think of the teaching Magesterium of the Catholic Church. Sure the Pope is Peter’s successor and the vicar of Christ, but it’s not like I’m pointing to a building. Which is the way you see it. I’m pointing to a living breathing teaching authority who can make decisions just like the one made in Acts 15.

If Christ didn’t appoint some one with authority then there is no authority here on earth.

So what’s your hierarchical structure. You said what it isn’t but never said what it is?

But after their death, truth needed to be interpreted from their writings. Who could understand all the Apostles knew and understood?.. few… but some… to some degree…

Yeah you keep saying this but never say who these few are, you just keep saying it’s definetly not those few who called themselves Catholic.

The further removed from their lives, ( not to mention the various cultures an customs in different parts of the world) the more difficult it was to understand their written message. Interpretation of the Epistles and Gospels was definitely a centerpiece into the 2nd. Century.

I totally agree with this. Thank goodness the Catholic Church was there from the beginning. Without the teaching Magesterium and the Church Fathers we would be stuck relying on the Interpretations of the Reformers who are 1500 years removed. They had to have had some major difficulties trying to figure it out 1500 years after the Apostles died.

 

[guanophore]

The church as an institution was pioneered from Jerusalem and commanded to reach the world. No where did any one local church dominate another.

I don’t think I missed your point, tgG, I just don’t agree with it. The fact that Rome had a primacy was because of the doctrinal purity laid upon the foundation of the teaching of Peter and Paul.

A “church” cannot “dominate”. There may be domineering clerics.

This is where you are in denial.

You seem to have an axe to grind about the primacy of Rome. Had you considered exercising any forgiveness? I mean, really, you are still upset over something you imagine occurred in the fourth century?!

For over three centuries the church enjoyed local authority.snd certainly no apostle taught a central authority.

The Church has enjoyed local authority, as well as centralized authority.

We read the record differently, tgG. We accept what was handed down to us from the Apostles, which is authority centered around their successors, the Bishops. Thus it has been since the first century until now.

The word of God assigned Peter to the office of Apostle not Bishop and his audience, according to inspired scripture was the Jews.

Technically speaking, I suppose this is true, though the Apostles referred to their office as a “bishopric”. Generally the term Apostle is reserved for those who knew Christ/were appointed personally by HIm, and their successors were called bishops.

You seem to have a problem with authority, and the nature of the episcopal office?

In other words, when God moves we move.

I will accept that this conceptualization is important to you personally. It does not mean that there were never to be permanent buildings.

 

[guanophore]

But you’ve got Peter sitting in Rome, not as an Apostle, but as a Bishop in what 42-67 a.d… and the book of Romans and the entire N.T. has nothing to say about it. Not to mention Peter’s letters.

It is a testimony to how much is not written. But, if you ever come across it, I would like to buy the full text of the lectures in Tyrannus!

When the Apostles were alive they could manage the way truth was delivered and processed, and acted upon.

This just supports @MT1926 point. Why would you think that the structure would be needed LESS after the Apostles died? In fact, the early writings point to the opposite!

But after their death, truth needed to be interpreted not from a real human being standing in front of them, but from their writings. Who could understand all that the Apostles knew and understood?.

Most of those writings were still not created when the Apostles died, tgG.

The Holy Spirit can understand all that the Apostles knew and understood. Jesus promised that He would preserve this information in the Church.

The further removed from their lives, ( not to mention the various cultures an customs in different parts of the world) the more difficult it was to understand their written messages.

This is also a support as to why we need Sacred Tradition alongside the writings. Otherwise, we cannot understand them from the same perspective as they were written.

Interpretation of the Epistles and Gospels was definitely a centerpiece into the 2nd. Century. Thank God the Holy Spirit promised to be our teacher and would teach us all things.

Yes, and thank God that He did not abandon the Church, as you suggest, and leave us each to our own private interpretation!

 

[tgGodsway]

I thought the tabernacle moved in the OT because they where on their way to the promised land?

MT… the natural lessons of the O.T. were given to us for spiritual examples. It wasn’t that God just wanted to give us cute little stories about Israel’s journey. Each narrative is packed with spiritual truth.

Israel was commanded to “eat the manna”, drink from the rock and follow the cloud. Each element was a type and shadow, pointing to a N.T. spiritual truth.

Eating the manna (in this case) was to feast on God’s word. Jesus said He was the bread of Life. So that we (spiritually) feed on Christ.

Secondly, they were to drink from the rock. Again, Christ is our Rock to which the Spirit of God is poured out from within. Jn. 7:37 Moses Got angry with them and struck the rock twice.

He wanted judgment on Israel instead of grace, and for it, God told him he would only see the promise with his eyes but die short of it. But out from within the Rock, came living water. See. John. 7:37.

And finally, they were to follow the cloud. Again, a natural lesson pointing to a spiritual truth. The cloud represented the glory of God that was on the move. The cloud was actually moving in the direction of the Promised land, so if Israel would simply move when the cloud moved and camp when the cloud was stationary, they would arrive at the Promised land, a 12 day journey.

The promise land was a piece of real-estate but also a natural lesson pointing to a N.T. truth. It represented success and blessing. They journeyed from the land of failure to the land of success and blessing. This today is our spiritual journey if we will take the first step.

Eat the manna
Drink from the rock
Follow the cloud.

These truths are all over the N.T. by a Church on the move.

 

[tgGodsway]

but WHY are they so close-minded and harbor such irrational and frankly ridiculous hatred for the true Church?

Annette.Joan, I read your post. I’m kind of shocked at your statements. With all of the studying you claim, you still have a lot to learn about Christ Church. It is so much more than what you think it is.

 

[sainteriksrose]

Having been told by Protestants for years what (some of them, anyway) believe, and the claims - again, some - have made about Catholicism…

I wonder if they suffer from the same clouded understanding we read about in Romans 11. After all, their beliefs are based on men who HAVE rejected most of the Sacraments, including eating the Flesh and drinking the Blood of our Lord, which He has made clear we are to do worthily in order to have life in us. (John 6; 1 Corinthians 11)

So then, this would create a condition wherein His grace would be lacking to some degree, due to this rejection of MOST of what He said - which would cripple their ability to grasp and understand His teachings - just like we read about in Romans 11. I spoke with a Bible believing Calvinist about this one time, and he could not even explain Romans 11 to me. He acted like he never read it before - and his wife was a Sunday school teacher!

Of course, thanks be to God the Holy Spirit can and has gotten through to others before. Charitable correction is always helpful, but I know that I for one am not as knowledgeable as I should be regarding the history of the wonderful Church our Lord gave us. So when a couple of Protestants recently brought up people wanting to leave Europe because of religious freedom, when I said because of the king, they said no - because of the pope.

So imo, a lot of their misconstruing the Church is what they’ve been taught, and by whom.

 

[guanophore]

MT… the natural lessons of the O.T. were given to us for spiritual examples. It wasn’t that God just wanted to give us cute little stories about Israel’s journey. Each narrative is packed with spiritual truth.

Israel was commanded to “eat the manna”, drink from the rock and follow the cloud. Each element was a type and shadow, pointing to a N.T. spiritual truth.

Eating the manna (in this case) was to feast on God’s word. Jesus said He was the bread of Life. So that we (spiritually) feed on Christ.

It is a marvel that you can understand this principle and yet still deny the Real Presence!

These truths are all over the N.T. by a Church on the move.

So, does that mean your congregation never meets in the same place twice?

 

[MT1926]

What on earth does any of this have to do with proving a " moving church".

 

[guanophore]

so close-minded and harbor such irrational and frankly ridiculous hatred for the true Church?

. I’m kind of shocked at your statements. With all of the studying you claim, you still have a lot to learn about Christ Church. It is so much more than what you think it is.

Whether others have much to learn about the Church or not, nothing will explain or excuse how you harbor such irrational hatred for Catholicism.

 

[tgGodsway]

is a marvel that you can understand this principle and yet still deny the Real Presence!

God is not interested in manifesting His wonderful presence in a piece of bread. Haven’t you read that the Holy Spirit is shed abroad in our hearts? His awesome presence is new every morning, great is Thy faithfulness.

 

[tgGodsway]

, does that mean your congregation never meets in the same place twice?

Are you being sarcastic or clueless to spiritual realities?

 

[tgGodsway]

Whether others have much to learn about the Church or not, nothing will explain or excuse how you harbor such irrational hatred for Catholicism.

You are very good at projecting what you think is in my heart as if you say it long enough it will be true. My heart and conscience are pure before the Lord and I love the Catholic people. What is in your heart towards non RC’s!

 

[Elf01]

God is not interested in manifesting His wonderful presence in a piece of bread.

Well, he thank God he was interested in manifesting his wonderful presence in a human nature.

 

[tgGodsway]

What on earth does any of this have to do with proving a " moving church".

Let me re-cap my original thought. The concept of Church bring an action. Word rather than a noun is found in the Tabernacle. God told Moses, when the cloud moves, the Tabernacle is to move. The church comes out of the body and move about the earth.

 

[TheButler]

Are the tares considered saved?

Matthew 13:30 Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.

I’m just saying that without the tares you can’t bake bread. Why do you think the tares are bound into bundles and burned rather than just putting them in a bonfire heap?

Something has to be burned to heat the ovens otherwise the dough remains dough.

‘Even those one considers ‘sinner’ have a beneficial purpose’ is how I see this.