Joe370 Reading from your post you are an ex-Lutheran may I recommend the autobiography of Scott Hahn, I highly recommend it. Read, devour and enjoy(If you haven’t already done so). He was very high up in the Lutheran Church and taking Bible in hand decided to discredit the CC, instead he was converted:thumbsup:
- Status
J
joe370
Guest
If it was answered, I wouldn’t be asking again.
What if some people disagreed with the Bereans regarding something in scripture; who then would have the authority to resolve their differences, if Paul and the rest of the Apostles were out of town?If you and I are both subject to sacred scripture alone, and not the other way around, and you and I disagree on many things, which we do, then please show me how to use norming to resolve our differences, once and for all? Do what Josiah refuses to do.
Thanks friend…
K
KEVIN_WILCOX
Guest
Joe370
Pius 1X declared: “By Faith it is to be firmly held that outside the Apostolic Roman Church none can achieve salvation. This is the only ark of salvation. He who does not enter into it, will perish in the flood. Nevertheless equally certain it is to be held that those who suffer from invincible ignorance of the true religion, are not for this reason guilty in the eyes of the Lord.”
Pius 1X declared: “By Faith it is to be firmly held that outside the Apostolic Roman Church none can achieve salvation. This is the only ark of salvation. He who does not enter into it, will perish in the flood. Nevertheless equally certain it is to be held that those who suffer from invincible ignorance of the true religion, are not for this reason guilty in the eyes of the Lord.”
K
KEVIN_WILCOX
Guest
JonNC
Lutheran, and very highly regarded. In converting to CC he sacrificed a lot.
K
KEVIN_WILCOX
Guest
“And if he pays no attention to the Church, then treat him as a heathen and tax-collector” (Matt 18:17)
Authority is necessary in the Church as in every human community. God willed that we live with others in many societies. God willed that we should live and work with others in the religious society called His Church. The Church can neither fulfill the purpose of its existence, nor provide for its members, nor even exist without laws, regulations and persons in authority.
“You must all obey the governing authorities” (Rm 13:1)
K
KEVIN_WILCOX
Guest
In the 1st century the primacy of the CC was exercised: Pope Clement in Rome, about the year 96, writes as one commanding, to the Church of Corinth in Greece, “If any disobey what He (Christ) says through us, let them know that they will be involved in no small offense and danger; but that we shall be innocent of this sin.”
In the 3rd century St Cyprian says there is “one Church founded by Christ our Lord on Peter, by the source and reason of unity…It is the mother and root of the Catholic Church…Bring letters to the throne of Peter and the chief Church, whence priestly unity came forth.”
In the 4th century St Ambrose tells the Emperors “the Roman Church is the head of the whole Roman world.”
“I speak with the successor of the fisherman and the disciple of the cross. Following no one as my chief but Christ, I am joined in communion with Your Beatitude, that is, with the See of Peter. I know that on that rock the Church is built” (St Jerome addressing Pope Damasus)
**“To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant” (St John Newman, 1845) **
J
joe370
Guest
Hey Jon, you are right.
J
joe370
Guest
I am really glad he said the part in the red!!!
P
Pax
Guest
AmericanJosiah in Christ,
Sorry, but you’ve already been shown where “catholic” is found in the bible and in history.
Please notice that the word Christian which is a noun is also used as an adjective in the instance you referenced as the moniker “The Christian Church.” This is another example of how a word is used as a noun in one instance and adjective in another. I have no problem with that usage and you should have no problem with the usage of the term “catholic” as either a noun or an adjective either. This kind of usage happens over and over in language and the examples are easily multiplied. Likewise, your demand that adjectives are not to be capitalized only applies to common adjectives as opposed to proper adjectives. The moniker “The Christian Church” is an example of a proper adjective appropriately capitalized, just as “Catholic” is capitalized in the reference “Catholic Church.” The rules of grammar cannot be wielded in the way you presume. I am wondering why you are using this gambit…it doesn’t make much sense to me.
Please note that the term “catholic” is found in scripture, and the reason it is important in all of this is because of the connection the term has historically with the Catholic Church. I’ve had history courses taught by atheist professors that had to straighten students out that raised questions similar to your objections concerning the claims of the Catholic Church being the original Christian Church and that all others are off shoots. These instructors were not friends of the Church and had no axe to grind. They merely told it like it is. History is very clear on this issue. Your only real hope of argument, IMHO, is to somehow “prove” that the Church somehow truly went off the rails into heresy and that it took 1500 years before the reformation corrected things. Moreover, you are burdened at that point with the promises Jesus made to the Church and must reconcile his promises with what you would contend to be the failure of the Church for 1500 years even though Jesus said that the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church.
The LDS rightly recognize that the Catholic Church is the historical church. There contention is that immediately after the apostles died that the Catholic Church went into the great apostasy. It is for this reason that they generally argue that there are only two possibilities. It is the Catholic Church or it is the LDS. They contend that the LDS is the restoration of the church as it existed before going into the great apostasy. I will give the LDS one bit of credit in all of this. They clearly see the historical chain and their only possible alternative explanation is the great apostasy at the death of the last apostle.
I’ve done a lot of historical research as well as biblical study, and I disagree completely with that particular professor. Read John 17 and Jesus words on unity along with Eph 4:1-5, Phi 1:27, and Phi 2:1-2 for starters. Likewise, all of the NT letters demonstrate authority over the local churches. I also strongly suggest reading 3 John 1:9-10 where it says:
John clearly shows that he has authority and Diotrephes has no authority to do what he is doing. Diotrephes simply does not acknowledge John’s authority.
You might also consider checking out the historical record when the church at Corinth appealed to Clement, the bishop of Rome, to settle a dispute in that local church around 80 to 90 A.D. I could go on and on about this stuff, but this should be sufficient.
God bless.
K
KEVIN_WILCOX
Guest
Yep, there’s the crux of it Joe370:thumbsup:I am really glad he said the part in the red!!!
J
joe370
Guest
Josiah, you said:
The word Trinity, Rapture, Bible, Sola Scriptura, Lutheran confessions, Incarnation, Original Sin, Norma Norm, Lutheran Church were never used by Christ or any Apostle, so what’s your point?
Big C or small c, one thing is for certain, Jesus only founded one church in the 1st century, and you do not believe that the “self claiming self” catholic church or the Catholic Church, is the church founded by Jesus, on Pentecost, in Jerusalem circa AD 33, by your own admission, so why are you even here at CAF? Don’t get me wrong; I am glad you are here, but clearly you did not come here to learn anything about the reputed man–made catholic church, so again, what is your agenda here at this forum, if not to learn about the catholic church, if you don’t mind me asking?
"
The word Trinity, Rapture, Bible, Sola Scriptura, Lutheran confessions, Incarnation, Original Sin, Norma Norm, Lutheran Church were never used by Christ or any Apostle, so what’s your point?
Big C or small c, one thing is for certain, Jesus only founded one church in the 1st century, and you do not believe that the “self claiming self” catholic church or the Catholic Church, is the church founded by Jesus, on Pentecost, in Jerusalem circa AD 33, by your own admission, so why are you even here at CAF? Don’t get me wrong; I am glad you are here, but clearly you did not come here to learn anything about the reputed man–made catholic church, so again, what is your agenda here at this forum, if not to learn about the catholic church, if you don’t mind me asking?
K
KEVIN_WILCOX
Guest
Hey Jon, you are right.
Should of looked it up first before posting - Scott Hahn, ex-Presbyterian
I’m wrong, again
Joe370 & Jon, you’re right on:thumbsup:
K
KEVIN_WILCOX
Guest
Protestants gave the Catholic Church the name “Catholic”. Before people began divorcing themselves from it, why call it anything other than Christian? To go looking for the name ‘Catholic Church’ in Scripture is redundant. Quite pointless.
Against what are Protestants breaking away from and protesting about? They cannot call themselves the one true Church, by their title they claim they are a splinter group. From what did they splinter? It must have been the Catholic Church.
Against what are Protestants breaking away from and protesting about? They cannot call themselves the one true Church, by their title they claim they are a splinter group. From what did they splinter? It must have been the Catholic Church.
P
Pax
Guest
AmericanJosiah in Christ,
I have already gone into the issue of Jesus promises and the Church and her historical position as the the Church established by Jesus and will no longer dwell on that issue.
The issue of infallibility is one that I will only touch on because we could devote an entire thread to that discussion. Moreover, there have already been numerous thread discussions on that topic on this forum. Exploring those would give you both sides of every argument on that one.
I will say this about infallibility. First of all it is extremely important to know the definition and meaning of the term and how it operates within the Catholic Church. Your comments indicate that you don’t understand how it is used or operates within the Catholic Church. This is not something that involves a Pope simply making a declaration and bingo it’s an infallible doctrine. Infallibility only comes into play when the Church teaches something authoritatively that all the faithful must believe in matters of faith and morals. This is nothing more than a negative protection of the Church by the Holy Spirit. It simply means that the Holy Spirit protects the Pope and bishops in concert with him from proclaiming a false doctrine binding on the faithful. The decisions by the Church on the Canon of Scripture is an infallible declaration. The Church is protected by the Holy Spirit from establishing a canon with too few books or too many books.
The decisions made by the Church are not made in a vacuum. The Church’s decision are based on the prayerful and careful study of the issue by way of scripture and tradition. None of this is willy nilly. This process, IMHO, has considerably more accountability and norming(your term) than any other process within Christian circles. The Church sits on a 2000 year mountain of scriptural study, scholarship, and tradition. There’s plenty of “norming” and “accountability.”
I find infallibility to be something of a necessity by way of scripture and logic. The proclamations by the apostles such as the decision on circumcision of gentiles at the first Council in Jerusalem were infallible. If anyone is going to argue otherwise, then it seems to me that they do not believe scripture. Jesus gave Peter individually the keys and the power to bind and loose. Later, Jesus gave the apostles, collectively, the power to bind and loose. This binding and loosing on earth included a binding or loosing of the same thing in heaven. We know this from scripture where it says:
That means that something becomes a reality in heaven just as it has become a reality on earth. The book of Revelation tells us something very important regarding heaven. It says:
If the Church made a false binding or loosing on earth, then that false binding or loosing would be a reality in heaven. That is not possible because nothing unclean can enter heaven. Since scripture says that “**whatever **you bind or loose on earth will be bound in heaven,” then those things that are bound and loosed must be protected from error. This is an important part of why infallibility is a necessity by way of scripture and logic.
God bless.
P.S. The lack of unity within Christianity is something that gives me a heavy heart especially after a spend a few minutes reading John 17 and Paul’s warnings against factions. The Church is supposed to be one, and I continually pray that someday we will all be united as Jesus intended.
God bless.
J
joe370
Guest
I have the same debate with my sister who belongs to a church founded by Pastor Brown in 1980. I asked my sister: If the reformation corrected things, then where is the church, stemming from said reformation, that corrected/reformed the “man-made heretical CC”, to which she said: Joe, it’s the true believers of Christ that comprise the true church, which of course does answer my question.
Josiah told me that the CC is not the church founded by God, on Pentecost, in the 1st century, and I told him that none of the PC’s were founded by Jesus on Pentecost, to which I said, where is the church founded by Jesus in the 1st century as opposed to the church founded by mere men in the 16th, 17th…21st century? I am sure you have already had this discussion with him and are familiar with his response, which does not answer the question: where is the historical church founded by God, in the 1st century.
Which of course renders the holy bible untrustworthy, if, as you and I believe, the CC is the historical church founded by God, in the 1st century.
Which means that Joseph Smith did what God could not do.
My sister, on occasion, will concede the same.
If nothing is impossible for God, then God could certainly maintain the unity and oneness of His House, doctrinally speaking or otherwise, in spite of the will of sinful, fallible people leading His church, the Pillar and Foundation of truth. If not, then something truly is impossible for God.
C
Cinette
Guest
*There is a very basic truth and that is that Jesus established His Church here on earth. He empowered His Apostles (sinners one and all) - they were inspired by the Holy Spirit and entrusted with The Church where they were instructed to spread the Good News.
At that time here were no written scriptures so they relied on the teachings they had received from Jesus himself with whom they spent three years.
This is what the Church calls Oral Tradition.
From Oral Tradition the scriptures emerged. Doctrine was developed.
The Apostles probably never taught the doctrine of The Holy Trinity but as time passed and the Church Fathers discussed and developed doctrine (inspired and guided by the Holy Spirit) several Fathers/Teachers wrote down the beliefs and gave an account of Jesus’ life. We also have the letters of St Paul which gives an account of the lives of the early Christians.
Were these men sinners? Yes. Were they inspired? Yes
If Jesus can trust the Apostles and their successors, why can’t we?
Joe - ask your sister that as well as all the other Protestants who believe in SS.
This is a subject that has been thrashed out exhaustively and painstakingly and I believe the point has been made - the debate has reached a conclusion…
Why be stubborn?
God bless you all
Cinette
At that time here were no written scriptures so they relied on the teachings they had received from Jesus himself with whom they spent three years.
This is what the Church calls Oral Tradition.
From Oral Tradition the scriptures emerged. Doctrine was developed.
The Apostles probably never taught the doctrine of The Holy Trinity but as time passed and the Church Fathers discussed and developed doctrine (inspired and guided by the Holy Spirit) several Fathers/Teachers wrote down the beliefs and gave an account of Jesus’ life. We also have the letters of St Paul which gives an account of the lives of the early Christians.
Were these men sinners? Yes. Were they inspired? Yes
If Jesus can trust the Apostles and their successors, why can’t we?
Joe - ask your sister that as well as all the other Protestants who believe in SS.
This is a subject that has been thrashed out exhaustively and painstakingly and I believe the point has been made - the debate has reached a conclusion…
Why be stubborn?
God bless you all
Cinette
P
Pax
Guest
I have not made any contradictory statements, and you have essentially agreed with my basic point when you said that no amount of heresy is allowed. Your main argument against me was this statement:
I disagree with this. Remember that we are talking about logical possibilities. You and I share a great deal in our Christian understandings, but there are many out there that truly believe that Jesus saved us, but they don’t believe everything else that we consider absolutely essential in Christian teaching. We are not in a position to claim that they do not believe what they profess, and if they claim that they profess to believe that Jesus saved them by his sacrifice on the cross then we have to take them at their word.
You are correct in your view as to why we must believe in the divinity of Jesus, but that is not in others understandings. I know many Christians, both Catholic and non-Catholic, that are perplexed when asked to explain why Jesus sacrifice is necessary for salvation. Many cannot give the correct theological answer and it relates directly to the divinity of Jesus. Is their weakness in this area and their inability to properly articulate the truth make them unable to believe that Jesus is their savior? I don’t think so, and I see no reason to think that others who are pretty far off the rails can’t sincerely believe that Jesus saves them even if they don’t believe that Jesus is divine. Their universe of belief is flawed but they firmly believe it.
Let me elaborate a bit more about the concept of what we must believe when it comes to salvation, and why it is more, IMHO, than what you’ve quoted from scripture and your contentions concerning faith alone.
Please note that scripture speaks of believing Jesus, believing in and on Jesus, and confessing this belief with our lips. Well, scripture says many other things about salvation such as the gospel having the power to save, obedience to the gospel, endurance, hope, baptism, and on, and on, and on. I can give references for all of these things and more, but you are probably beginning to see at least part of my point.
Most importantly, however, is to note that when scripture talks about “belief in Jesus” for salvation, scripture is talking in short hand. We know this because the reference is really in terms of all that Jesus said and taught. We must trust in the Lord and believe all that he said and commanded. That is the true faith in Jesus, and this is where short hand proclamations about how we are saved completely break down especially, IMHO, salvation by faith alone.
I make this claim based upon the words of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. In John 12:47-48 Jesus tells us very directly that:
If we do not keep Jesus’s sayings we will be judged on the last day. If we reject Jesus and do not receive his sayings we will be judged on the last day. When scripture speaks of judgment on the last day, scripture is referring to heaven and hell. This point is clear by way of other passages such as that of the sheep and the goats.
I hope I’m properly articulating my point and that we are not simply talking past one another.
God bless.
P
Pax
Guest
M
moondweller
Guest
“Sola Scriptura” isn’t about agreeing or disagreeing regarding something in Scripture, its about authority and accountability.If it was answered, I wouldn’t be asking again.
If you and I are both subject to sacred scripture alone, and not the other way around, and you and I disagree on many things, which we do, then please show me how to use norming to resolve our differences, once and for all? Do what Josiah refuses to do.
Thanks friend…
For you, Joe, assigning “infallibility” to certain men satisfies your questions, and at the same time conveniently exempts you of any personal accountability, right?
- Status