Debating with protestants who just won't listen

[TheButler]

Jesus’ Church is already united, tgG. He did not pray that we would “become one”, but that we “be one”

By ‘we’ I think he meant mankind. There was no Church in Jesus’ time. Jesus prayed that humanity would both ‘become one’ and ‘be one’. He is given the title ‘Son of Man’ is he not, not ‘Son of a church’?

 

[TheButler]

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

A bride is only without blemish in the groom’s eyes otherwise he wouldn’t marry her. Who knows her past? Maybe she was a terrible teenager. Maybe she has a criminal record. Maybe the groom knows. But he loves her regardless. He’s chosen to spend his life with her warts and all.

Only at the point he says ‘I do’, in that moment, to him is she perfect.

As far as I am aware Jesus has not returned to claim his bride and say ‘I do’.

 

[MT1926]

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.

OK but how does this disprove the Catholic Church? It seems like you are saying the Catholic Church has brought absolutely no “ACTION” to the world in the last 2000 years?

 

[Curious11]

I think debating people with a loving, respectful and humble manner can help, along with leading by example

 

[MT1926]

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

Are you being sarcastic or clueless to spiritual realities?

To be honest I had the exact same question for you as @guanophore

It sure seemed like your whole argument is…Since the Pope and teaching magesterium of the Catholic Church resides in Rome it can’t be Jesus Church because it is only in one location and therefore it doesn’t move.

No sarcasm intended. This is exactly what it seems you are trying to prove?

 

[steve-b]

Vonsalza:

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.

In addition, he ignores, the corruption of Protestants and the leaders of their revolt. Not to mention, their division from the Catholic Church and the Pope of Rome, is condemned as are they who do it, using the very scriptures they say they follow as their sole source of truth.

 

[MT1926]

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?

Actually it is pretty evident from the verse that the bundles were thrown on the bonfire heap and the wheat was gathered in the barn. Nothing here about saving the bundles for baking the bread.

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

Normally we would burn wood, not weeds, to heat the oven. When baking in a wood fired oven the bread, or pizza in my case , takes on the flavor of the wood used to bake it. If you were using weeds that flavor would permeate the bread and ruin it.

So if the sinners were used to bake the bread then their sinful nature would permeate the righteous bread and it would no longer be worthy of the kingdom of heaven.

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

This I do agree with

God Bless

 

[tgGodsway]

OK but how does this disprove the Catholic Church? It seems like you are saying the Catholic Church has brought absolutely no “ACTION” to the world in the last 2000 years?

no no I wasn’t trying to disprove anything about how the CC does what it does. I’m sure you guys run circles around many denominations when it comes to good works. This is your expertise.

 

[tgGodsway]

Well it least you said “it seems” to be… thank you. No. I was defending the early Christians who evangelized and preached the gospel beginning first in Jerusalem and went out to all the world from there.

 

[tgGodsway]

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

No… the first century Church taught it. Did you forget about them.

 

[TheButler]

Normally we would burn wood, not weeds, to heat the oven.

Ever tried to start a fire with just logs? Don’t you need kindling?

This I do agree with

 

[tgGodsway]

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.

No. not me, the Apostle Paul said the Church was deficient when he said to the Churches of Galatia " Who has bewitched you that you should not obey the truth…" Gal 3:1.

How about when he reprimanded the Church at Corinth in chapter 5 because of a case of incent?

How about the Apostle Peter, (not Bishop) who preached to a string of churches (1:1) telling them they needed to “gird up the loins of their mind and to be sober…” 1:13.

How about Paul’s many corrections to the Church at Rome. In Chapter 2 he dealt with unsaved Jews and their false doctrine. In chapters 3-5 he tacked the false doctrine of justification by keeping the Law.

Let’s not forget the seven church mentioned in the book of Revelation where Jesus himself corrects the many many sin problems of the CHURCH.

For you to say the Church need not answer the call to be holy … I do not understand.

 

[MT1926]

Ever tried to start a fire with just logs? Don’t you need kindling?

Of course you do. But kindling is usually the driest material that will burn. Weeds are as wet as can be. Sure you could dry the weeds and use them to start a fire, but the verse says to bundle them. Once bundled if not burned, the weeds will start to mulch in the bundles creating heat and even more moisture. That’s why we have to make sure the hay is raked and turned several times before bailing. If you don’t you will have a wet moldy mess on your hands when you go yo feed the hay.

 

[guanophore]

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

I find this mind boggling. You might as well say “God is not interested in Creating the Universe, and the Sun, and the Moon”. He said “let there be light” and there was light. He said “this is my body, broken for you”, and yet, every day you see the sun come up, and know that God appointed it, but you do not believe what He said at the last supper?

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.

Yes, indeed. And it is because He gave us Himself in the Eucharist - He said “unless you eat my Body and drink My Blood, you shall not have life in you”. His love, shed abroad in our hearts, is so because He is present to us in the Sacraments.

Are you being sarcastic or clueless to spiritual realities?

Actually, ,it seems rather practical. You are saying you move with the Cloud, and when He moves, you move. You also said that God did not intend to have buildings for His Church (especially any in Rome) so that leaves one thinking that you might belong to a pilgrimmage group, like those who followed Lighting Amen?

. My heart and conscience are pure before the Lord and I love the Catholic people.

The “Catholic people” are not separated from the One Church founded by Christ. We are submitted to the Bishops, successors of the Apostles, and to the successor of Peter, in Rome. It is there that your hatred seems to be focused, or perhaps a 1000 year old hatred?

The church comes out of the body and move about the earth.

I am sure there is a private revelation to you from God that has transformed your life and world view. You cannot expect others to embrace it, especially those who have received the faith of the Apostles.

By ‘we’ I think he meant mankind. There was no Church in Jesus’ time. Jesus prayed that humanity would both ‘become one’ and ‘be one’. He is given the title ‘Son of Man’ is he not, not ‘Son of a church’?

Jesus founded HIs Church during His lifetime. He trained the Apostles to be the foundation stones. He knew that not all of humanity would accept HIm. He prayed that the Unity He established would remain in the Church.

Jesus is not the “son of a Church”, he is the Head of the Church.

 

[guanophore]

the first century Church taught it. Did you forget about them.

The first century Church was Catholic, and when the Apostles referred to Scriputre they used the Septuagint. Of course they did not teach or believe in Sola Scriptura,because that would have invalidated the whole mihistry of Jesus.

The New Testament is a Catholic book, tgG. It was written by, for, and about Catholics. It does not contain the doctrine of Sola Scriptura because that is not an apostolic teaching.

No. not me, the Apostle Paul said the Church was deficient when he said to the Churches of Galatia " Who has bewitched you that you should not obey the truth…" Gal 3:1.

How about when he reprimanded the Church at Corinth in c

He is speaking to the individual members of the Church, tgG. The Church is incarnational. She has Jesus as her Head and the Holy Spirit as her Soul. Thse divine elements are what make her infallible and pure. The humans attached to her are subject to deficiencies.

How about when he reprimanded the Church at Corinth in chapter 5 because of a case of incent?

He is talking to beleivers that are out of order.

How about the Apostle Peter, (not Bishop) who preached to a string of churches (1:1) telling them they needed to “gird up the loins of their mind and to be sober…” 1:13.

It was Peter who spoke of the office of Apostle as a bishopric.

He is addressing the members of the Body of Christ. If they do not gird up their loins, they may be left out in the cold!

How about Paul’s many corrections to the Church at Rome. In Chapter 2 he dealt with unsaved Jews and their false doctrine. In chapters 3-5 he tacked the false doctrine of justification by keeping the Law.

The Apostles, like their successors the Bishops, have the duty to warn and instruct the believers. It is a teaching office. The members of the Church always need instruction and guidance. This does not change the Holy and unblemished Church.

Let’s not forget the seven church mentioned in the book of Revelation where Jesus himself corrects the many many sin problems of the CHURCH.

No, tgG, He is correcting the many sin errors of the members of the Church. The Church is much larger than you have been taught to believe. It includes all those (also mentioned in Revelation) who are already in heaven, are sanctified, and thus, no longer need any correction.

For you to say the Church need not answer the call to be holy … I do not understand.

I can understand why this is difficult, suffering from a deficient concept of the Church. People are always in need of reform, and always need a call to holiness. The pure bride of Christ does not.

 

[MT1926]

Well it least you said “it seems” to be… thank you. No. I was defending the early Christians who evangelized and preached the gospel beginning first in Jerusalem and went out to all the world from there.

What did we say against the first Christians that you felt they needed defended?

I totally agree that the first Christians evangelized and preached the gospel and went out to the whole world.

I think our disagreement comes from I believe they went out to the world preaching the exact same thing to every nation. Once they set up a following in those nations they set up Churches to continue their preaching, and taught others to preach and evangelize the exact same message, the exact same way it was taught to them.

It seems to me the difference between us is I also believe the ones that went out to evangelize and preached to the NEW Churches (In every Nation) had authority over those Churches, that was given to them by the ones that taught them (2 Tim 2:2) and that authority went the whole way back to the Apostles.

I further believe the only possible way anyone who went out and evangelized could prove he had this authority, would be if it could be traced back to a central location that held the deposit of faith. This deposit would be held by the Administrators of 1 Corinthians 12:28. I further believe this very fact is so important that St. Paul, who received the gospel message directly from Christ, felt it necessary that he should also have his gospel message sealed with the approval of Peter first and then the other Apostles. (Galatians 1 & 2 and Acts 15)

Where as it seems you believe…

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 reason you made this claim is because you defined the Church as…

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.

You also made the point that

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

You used 1 Corinthians 12:28 as you defense of this, but failed to address who these administrators are and what exactly do they go around to the public doing.

You further seemed to state that Jesus and the Apostles did not plan on these Churches being unified until the second coming.

Am I missing something here, because what you write seems to be coming across in this way.

Thanks

God Bless

 

[tgGodsway]

I also believe the ones that went out to evangelize and preached to the NEW Churches (In every Nation) had authority over those Churches, that was given to them by the ones that taught them (2 Tim 2:2) and that authority went the whole way back to the Apostles.

I do not. Once the Apostles died, inspiration of scripture was critical seeing that people cannot pass on truth without twisting it. But here (below) is a quote from the book “Are We Together,” a Protestant Analyzes of Roman Catholicism, author Dr. RC Sproul p.87, on this topic.

“Over the centuries, there was a gradual increase of the power and authority of the bishop or Rome. For example, in the controversies of the fourth century, the theological debates between Pelagius and Augustine in North Africa, the local church authorities appealed at one point for a decision by the bishop of Rome. As time passed, the popes began to assert a claim of universal jurisdiction over all the Churches. This claim was especially resented in the eastern areas of the empire. Finally, in 1054, a group of papal representatives traveled to Constantinople to insist that Michael Cerularius, the patriarch of Constantinople, recognize the church in Rome as the mother church. He refused, sparking the Great Schism, the division of the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches, a breach that has never been healed.”

This same attitude, Sproul later suggest, is what led to the idea of “separation of Church and state” a worthy American ideal in our constitution today. I thank God every day that the CC does not rule our government from Rome.

 

[tgGodsway]

but you do not believe what He said at the last supper?

It’s not that I don’t believe what He said in the Lord’s supper. I don’t believe the way you want to interpret it. Jesus also said He was the door. But this doesn’t mean I should believe he turned into a door. He said, I am the light of the world, but unless we are talking about His transfiguration, He didn’t walk around with a literal glow. He spoke in figures of speech all the time but you want to go literal on this one so that Jesus’ presence enters the very bread He holds in His hand. That is laughable.

By the way, what verse were you looking at where the bible tells us that His presence went into the bread?.. please show me how the bible actually says what you say… please.

 

[guanophore]

I do not.

You do not believe that the One Faith was grounded in the Teaching of the
Apostles, and that they (and their successors, the Bishops) settled disputes?

nspiration of scripture was critical seeing that people cannot pass on truth without twisting it.

I think we will all agree on this, but problem is that we all agree the scriptures are inspired, and we all agree that the others are twisting it! This is why a Source outside of the Scripture is needed. This is the same authority that wrote, preserved, and promulgated those scriptures. It is the same authority that inserted chapters and verse, arranged the order of the books (after determining the table of contents). This is why we call it a Catholic book!

I do agree with you that the primacy of the see of Rome developed over time, but your assertions that primacy did not exist in the first four centuries is simply false.

It’s not that I don’t believe what He said in the Lord’s supper. I don’t believe the way you want to interpret it.

This is not “my interpretation” but the one handed down from the Apostles. You will find, if you are brave enough to study the Patristics, that any other interpretation was considered heresy and apostasy.

He didn’t walk around with a literal glow.

Only sometimes.

He spoke in figures of speech all the time but you want to go literal on this one so that Jesus’ presence enters the very bread He holds in His hand. That is laughable.

IT is risky to laugh at a teaching of Jesus. I will pray for you that He will enlighten your mind and heart. You are left with explaining how, up until the time of the Reformers, the Church everywhere embraced this belief handed down from the Apostles.

By the way, what verse were you looking at where the bible tells us that His presence went into the bread?.. please show me how the bible actually says what you say… please.

Our faith is not based on the limited info that is contained in the Scriptures, but we read many references to this in both the Old and New Testaments. But you are right, it is all about interpretation. You could say, I guess, that when he said “let there be light” there was not literal light.

Luke 22:19
19 Then he took a loaf of bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”

1 Corinthians 11:24

Jesus gave his literal body, not a figurative or metaphorical body.

 

[MT1926]

I do not. Once the Apostles died, inspiration of scripture was critical

So what you are saying is the Inspiration of scripture is critical except for 2 Timothy 2?

seeing that people cannot pass on truth without twisting it.

It amazes me that you can keep repeating this statement like this applies to everyone else, yet believe you are not among the people twisting the truth?

the controversies of the fourth century, the theological debates between Pelagius and Augustine in North Africa, the local church authorities appealed at one point for a decision by the bishop of Rome.

I don’t understand the point Sprouls is trying to make here. Is he saying (as you also claim) that the Pope should have left the local Churches to enjoy their local authority?

Pelagius was a British monk who, with his disciple Celestius, came to Hippo in 411. He denied that human nature has been affected or weakened in any way by sin. Death is not the result of sin. Human beings can keep the law without the operation of grace. To follow God’s commands, we do not need grace; we need only the instruction Jesus gives us in his teaching and in his example. God does help us, but by properly using our free will we merit that divine aid.

Is Sproul saying it’s OK that Pelagius taught this and the Pope shouldn’t have stepped in?

Did Sproul mention that when Pelagius was confronted by “Rome” he declared conformity with the Church’s teaching. As soon as he was absolved of his heresy, he moved to another “local Church” this time in Palestine and resumed openly teaching this heresy?

Did Sproul mention that when this local Church was powerless to deal with him a synod in Carthage was held in 412 to condemn him?

Did Sproul mention that the synod in Carthage was also powerless to end this heresy and had to appeal to Rome to reverse his prior conviction?

How about that he fled Carthage and went to Jerusalem. There he was able to refine his teaching just enough to fool Bishop John of Jerusalem and make it look like he was in line with the Church.

This deceitful game, that Pelagius was playing, continued into Caesarea and back to Africa.

If it wasn’t for a decision by the Pope binding the entire Church in declaring Pelagius and Celestius heretics, there’s a pretty good chance Sprouls would be preaching Pelagianism.

I don’t see how Sprouls thinks the Catholic Church stopping heresy proves that after this the Church asserted universal jurisdiction. Seems to me History proves if it weren’t for the Churches universal jurisdiction Pelagianism would be alive and well to this very day.