Does it matter what denomination you are a part of?

[Fauken]

Christian, Catholic, Lutheran, Jew, protestant, Muslim, atheist, we are ALL brothers and sisters on this tiny pale blue dot in the universe and should respect and be kind while we tolerate other’s beliefs or lack thereof.

Sure.

So in the scheme of things it doesn’t matter one bit, what matters are your actions and words and how you treat your fellow man and woman.

It would be the greatest insult to allow someone to continue to worship something I know to be absolutely false in the name of “tolerance” and “love” when I know that they can have the infinite love of God and the source and fullness of all truth.

 

[Ellipses]

So are you saying they should not be allowed to worship how or what they want? How would you stop them from doing this then if it is an insult to them?

 

[Fauken]

So are you saying they should not be allowed to worship how or what they want?

No. But I think we should evangelize and try to convert them.

 

[Ellipses]

Where do you draw the line at evangelizing and converted them? If they say no you should never try to force your beliefs on others. Just look at that missionary who died recently.

 

[Fauken]

Where do you draw the line at evangelizing and converted them?

There is no line. Ideally, one should lead to another. I think what you may be really asking is where do I draw the line between evangelizing and proselytizing, and that line is drawn at force. Catholicism may contain the fullness of truth, but wrongfully forcing someone to believe in it does not make it right.

 

[steve-b]

Because there are many Bible versus where they tell us to not teach another gospel, to hold fast to what they were taught and so forth.

If you read the ante-nicene writings you will find quote after quote from both the Old and New Testament in defense of the faith. They used scripture to prove authentic Christianity and the teachings of the apostles. They also refuted attempts at those distorting the scriptures for their own end.

Take this example of Hippolytus in Against Noetus

1. There is, brethren, one God, the knowledge of whom we gain from the Holy Scriptures, and from no other source. For just as a man, if he wishes to be skilled in the wisdom of this world, will find himself unable to get at it in any other way than by mastering the dogmas of philosophers, so all of us who wish to practise piety will be unable to learn its practice from any other quarter than the oracles of God. Whatever things, then, the Holy Scriptures declare, at these let us took; and whatsoever things they teach, these let us learn; and as the Father wills our belief to be, let us believe; and as He wills the Son to be glorified, let us glorify Him; and as He wills the Holy Spirit to be bestowed, let us receive Him. Not according to our own will, nor according to our own mind, nor yet as using violently those things which are given by God, but even as He has chosen to teach them by the Holy Scriptures, so let us discern them.

and later he says

These testimonies are sufficient for the believing who study truth, and the unbelieving credit no testimony. For the Holy Spirit, indeed, in the person of the apostles, has testified to this, saying, "And who has believed our report? " Therefore let us not prove ourselves unbelieving, lest the word spoken be fulfilled in us. Let us believe then, dear brethren, according to the tradition of the apostles, that God the Word came down from heaven,

You see, he used scripture to verify authentic teachings of the apostles.

He quotes scripture over and over again to “believe, dear brethren, according to the tradition of the apostles”.

As you know, Hippolytus was a early third century Bishop in Rome. He used scripture as the sole place to gain knowledge of God and defended the faith from scripture. He did all of this before a canon of scripture was set by the church.

scripture yes. It is NOT the sole place
The writers of the NT were all in the Church they were building and writing to. The household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth. 1 Tim 3:15. The Church that canonized 27 NT books, + 46 OT books as well = 73 books. The one Church Jesus established on Peter and those in union with Peter. The Catholic Church

 

[lanman87]

The writers of the NT were all in the Church they were building and writing to . The household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth . 1 Tim 3:15. The Church that canonized 27 NT books, AND 46 OT books as well.

Yes, the church is the “assembly of believers” or “called out ones” or “God’s people”. All of “God’s People” make up the household of God. Not just Catholics.

 

[goout]

steve-b:

The writers of the NT were all in the Church they were building and writing to . The household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth . 1 Tim 3:15. The Church that canonized 27 NT books, AND 46 OT books as well.

Yes, the church is the “assembly of believers” or “called out ones” or “God’s people”. All of “God’s People” make up the household of God. Not just Catholics.

I am curious how reformed deal with this question:

Is Christ part of the Church?
If so, what is his relationship to the whole body of believers,
and what is his relationship to the scriptures?

We are hearing that the Church is a subject of scripture, and this begs the question above.

 

[lanman87]

You claim Hippolytus proves all we need is scripture.

I’m not saying that Hippolytus said all we need is scripture. I’m saying that he saw scripture as the way we identify what is actual “traditions/teachings of the apostles” and what is “traditions/teachings of men (who claim their teaching is from the apostles)”.

However, the entire passage was an attempt to show that the early church used scripture, even before a formal canon, to defend the faith against gnostics and others who “taught another gospel”.

From several history books I’ve read say that the Gnostics claimed a “Special knowledge” that was passed on to them orally from the apostles. The scriptures were one of the main ways the early church countered the claims of the gnostics. They both had “Oral Tradition” but the church had clear teachings from writings to back up their “oral tradition”. This in effect, became sola scriptura, because the Scriptures became the way “oral tradition” was to be discerned. Sola Scriptura doesn’t say that there wasn’t an oral tradition. It says that oral tradition became subject to the scriptures because oral tradition can be claimed by anyone to be anything. The Holy Scriptures became the “rule of faith”.

Things that were accepted were what was “established by the proofs and teachings of the Holy Scriptures.”

For example, when the Arians claimed that their “Tradition” didn’t included the Trinity. Gregory of Nyssa responded with the following:

What then is our reply? We do not think that it is right to make their prevailing custom the law and rule of sound doctrine. For if custom is to avail for proof of soundness, we too, surely, may advance our prevailing custom; and if they reject this, we are surely not bound to follow theirs. Let the inspired Scripture, then, be our umpire, and the vote of truth will surely be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words. (Dogmatic Treatises, Book 12. On the Trinity, To Eustathius.)

That is the practice of sola scriptura in a nutshell. The scripture is the umpire when different claims are made. That doesn’t mean people, or even the leadership of the church, are going to accept what the scriptures teach, just as the Arians didn’t. But the scriptures are still “the umpire”.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

The writers of the NT were all in the Church they were building and writing to . The household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth . 1 Tim 3:15. The Church that canonized 27 NT books, AND 46 OT books as well.

Yes, the church is the “assembly of believers” or “called out ones” or “God’s people”. All of “God’s People” make up the household of God. Not just Catholics.

If you would

Please show me where

1. people get the idea that God approves all the divisions we see from His Church, the Catholic Church?.
2. people think there are no consequences from God for such divisions for those in those divisions

and the validation for this comes from?

 

[lanman87]

If you would

Please show me where

1. people get the idea that God approves all the divisions we see from His Church, the Catholic Church?.
2. people think there are no consequences from God for such divisions for those in those divisions

and the validation for this comes from?

I don’t think God approves of all the divisions we see in the catholic (universal) church. I think they are a consequence of our sinful, stubborn, prideful and willful natures. I also think they are a result of those in authority abandoning the gospel, becoming corrupt, and being tyrannical.

Some churches split because someone says “I’m in charge” and the people go “not your not”.
Some churches split because someone says “I know better and people follow”
Some churches split because the church leadership says “Thus sayeth the Lord” and the people recognize it is a teaching of men instead a teaching of Christ.
Some churches split because the leadership is abusing the flock and not being held accountable so the flock forms a new congregation to get away from the abuse.
Some churches split when the church abandons the gospel for cultural and social acceptance.

I believe the Lord grieves when any of those things happen. But I do believe His prayer of unity will be answered one day. It will be the day we all stand before the Lord and all mysteries are revealed and we all rest in Christ and His love and mercy.

 

[MT1926]

You claim Hippolytus proves all we need is scripture.

I disagree. I would be willing to go with he saw scripture as A TOOL to identify the apostles teachings. But to outright say he saw scripture “as the way” is to infer it is the only way. You are saying the exact same thing I said by dressing it up in a pretty bow.

Simple question if you don’t believe all we need is scripture then what else can we use to identify the actual teachings of the Apostles? Because as I already pointed out on this thread if I use the scriptures and point to John 6 that says we must eat the flesh and drink the blood of Christ to abide in him. I point out that every single person, including the disciples took Jesus literally but you say that isn’t literal. Well what do we do now? How do we know what the Apostles actually taught? If we can’t find out on this one subject then this same scenario can be applied to every verse of the Bible.

However, the entire passage was an attempt to show that the early church used scripture, even before a formal canon, to defend the faith against gnostics and others who “taught another gospel”.

I’m not against the early Church using the scriptures all I am pointing out is he outright points to the teaching of the Apostles handed down to him as the reasoning behind his interpretation being the correct one.

They both had “Oral Tradition” but the church had clear teachings from writings to back up their “oral tradition”.

If you would go back and read the original writings on the subject you would see that yes they did use scripture. However, they used interpretations that they showed are backed by the faith of the Church throughout the whole world. Go back through the writings at some point in the writings they always appeal to the Church as the basis of their scriptural interpretation.

It blows my mind that this isn’t common sense. We can argue until the cows come home, unless one of us can show that our interpretation was the interpretation handed on from the Apostles then it is an infinite loop. If you and I, in these more civilized times with absolutely nothing to gain personally, can’t come to an agreement why would you believe these heretics would back down if a personal interpretation is all that was used in the battle?

The Holy Scriptures became the “rule of faith”.

The one that makes the claim must provide the evidence. Where did the early Church proclaim that the scriptures are the rule of faith?

 

[MT1926]

The scripture is the umpire when different claims are made.

Let me say you are reading way to much into that sentence. If you look up the definition of an umpire it is a person charged with officiating a game and enforcing the rules. So what does that tell us? It tells us that the umpire is charged by someone or something. Meaning there needs to be an institution behind the umpire that tells the umpire what the rules are and how the rules are to be enforced. The institution is the one that takes the heat and reinforces what the umpire has to say when he makes the call. It is not sola scriptura in a nutshell because from my understanding sola scriptura has no one institution backing it’s calls. The person interpreting the scripture is the umpire and the institution.

Also, did you read the entire document? I liked the part that says…

If, then, they (the scriptures) do not deny that the Holy Spirit has community with the Father and the Son in those attributes which, in their sense of special excellence, are piously predicated only of the Divine nature, what reason is there to pretend that He is excluded from community in this only, wherein it was shown that, by an equivocal use, even devils and idols share?

Right here it is telling us that the same attributes for the Holy Spirit cannot be argued from scripture, however it also tells us that it is not denied in scripture. In a way he is telling us here that the Umpire cannot make the call. However, at the same time the Umpire isn’t calling it either way. He goes on to reason his way through scripture to show why it is logical. Which is exactly what the Catholic Church does with many of Her dogmas.

So my question is why is it OK in this case for the Catholic Church to reason through the Trinity but She is accused of adding to the Gospel message when she reasons through other tenants of the faith such as purgatory?

I have no problem with the Scriptures being an umpire because an umpire only makes the calls they don’t define the meaning of the calls.

God Bless

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

If you would

Please show me where

1. people get the idea that God approves all the divisions we see from His Church, the Catholic Church?.
2. people think there are no consequences from God for such divisions for those in those divisions

and the validation for this comes from?

I don’t think God approves of all the divisions we see in From the catholic (universal) church.

True.
He condemns division. Note I changed “in” to “from”. The Catholic Church is still one. Those who are divided from her are no longer the Catholic Church.
Ianman87:

I think they are a consequence of our sinful, stubborn, prideful and willful natures. I also think they are a result of those in authority abandoning the gospel, becoming corrupt, and being tyrannical.

True

And those who are divided from the Catholic Church and won’t return, are still in that condition you mention.
Ianman87:

Some churches split because someone says “I’m in charge” and the people go “not your not”.
Some churches split because someone says “I know better and people follow”
Some churches split because the church leadership says “Thus sayeth the Lord” and the people recognize it is a teaching of men instead a teaching of Christ.
Some churches split because the leadership is abusing the flock and not being held accountable so the flock forms a new congregation to get away from the abuse.
Some churches split when the church abandons the gospel for cultural and social acceptance.

True

and All examples of those who in effect , are “outside”
Ianman87:

I believe the Lord grieves when any of those things happen. But I do believe His prayer of unity will be answered one day. It will be the day we all stand before the Lord and all mysteries are revealed and we all rest in Christ and His love and mercy.

Yet a qualification is needed

Judgement DAY is NOT a Universalism / Apocatastasis event. A permanent division ALSO occurs at this event. Since As Jesus said, few are saved, so few go to heaven. So the idea that “ALL” will rest in Christ and His love and mercy" refers specifically then, to the "few".

 

[lanman87]

True

and All examples of those who in effect , are “outside”

except I would argue that the Catholic church teaches things of men instead of the teachings of Christ, has at times abused the flock and has, at times become corrupt and tyrannical. In such cases the church (people of God) have a right and duty to reject the authority and hold the church leadership accountable. If the church leadership will not yield then the people must form their own communion that is faithful to the teaching of Christ, free of corruption and free of tyranny.

udgement DAY is NOT a Universalism / Apocatastasis event. A permanent division ALSO occurs at this event. Since As Jesus said, few are saved, so few go to heaven. So the idea that “ALL” will rest in Christ and His love and mercy" refers specifically then, to the "few ".

By “We all” I am speaking of those who are new creations in Christ, are indwelled and sealed by the Holy Spirit, and are adopted sons and daughters of God. Not all of mankind.

 

[Cjbhoward]

Of course it matters. God wants all of us to be reunited with Him for all eternity.

But, at the same time it doesn’t matter. God will call us from where we are.

I think back to old testament times… when the many Jewish sects were awaiting the Messiah. When Jesus did come, he didn’t take only from the Jews. He didn’t call only on the Essenes.

He took from Gallilee, Samaria, Judah, Pharisees, Saducees, traditional, even the secular.

So while I think the Catholic Church is the church established by Jesus, because that’s what he revealed to me. I believe he funnels all the baptized through the Church. So whether you’re Southern Baptist or Episcopalian if you’re called you"ll eventually go through the Catholic Church. Either in this life or the next.

 

[steve-b]

True

and All examples of those who in effect , are “outside”

Ianman87:

except I would argue that the Catholic church teaches things of men instead of the teachings of Christ, has at times abused the flock and has, at times become corrupt and tyrannical. In such cases the church (people of God) have a right and duty to reject the authority and hold the church leadership accountable. If the church leadership will not yield then the people must form their own communion that is faithful to the teaching of Christ, free of corruption and free of tyranny.

Yet

People can and do, rationalize wrongly… especially when rationalism rejects valid authority Library : Rationalism, or the Rejection of the Principle of Authority, the Heresy of Modern Times. | Catholic Culture

Q:​

You look to scripture as your sole source of truth… true? Please quote where scripture approves schism.

judgement DAY is NOT a Universalism / Apocatastasis event. A permanent division ALSO occurs at this event. Since As Jesus said, few are saved, so few go to heaven. So the idea that “ALL” will rest in Christ and His love and mercy" refers specifically then, to the "few ".

Ianman87:

By “We all” I am speaking of those who are new creations in Christ, are indwelled and sealed by the Holy Spirit, and are adopted sons and daughters of God. Not all of mankind.

To your point then,

IOW those who are baptized meet that standard?

consider

. the standard set by baptism, can’t be lost in that one can’t remove baptism from themself. … agreed?

. Baptism is no guarantee one won’t sin mortally, ( gravely, ) true?

. What if one (who is baptized) dies in one of those (mortal / grave) sins?

AND

Jesus looking forward in time when asked is it true only a few are saved? Jesus validated that.

1. FEW are saved

Peter followed up with

1. if the righteous man is scarcely saved then…

Re: righteous δίκαιος and going back to the previous questions, then to this main point Jesus makes and Peter follows up on

Q:​

is a person who is in schism, righteous? What if they die in that sin?

 

[MichaelP3]

unless one of us can show that our interpretation was the interpretation handed on from the Apostles then it is an infinite loop.

Personally, that is probably THE THING here.

 

[MT1926]

except I would argue that the Catholic church teaches things of men instead of the teachings of Christ

This is a really important point that comes from people of many denominations that is important to address in regards to this thread. Personally, I believe Jesus would respond to this statement by saying…

Matthew 7:3-5

3 Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? 4 Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.

Now please don’t think I am calling you a hypocrite, I’m speaking about the log here.

You can argue that the Catholic Church teaches things of men instead of Christ, however you have no evidence for this. The lack of evidence is the log. You need to first prove that Jesus and the Apostles taught that the Scriptures ALONE to be our sole rule of faith. I’ve asked you have not.

Just because you and many other denominations no longer want to abide by the interpretations of the Apostles, that have been handed down for 2000 years through the Catholic Church, isn’t evidence that you have it right and She has it wrong. This is just an assertion.

Are you allowed to make this assertion? Sure you are but in the end unless you have rock solid evidence to back up you assertion then it is still nothing more than a log.

Finally, the biggest log of all is the fact that you haven’t proven that you are following the teachings of Christ. Sure you have a Bible and it is your sole rule of faith. However, you haven’t proven that the interpretations (the sole rules of faith that you follow) are the same interpretations the Apostles intended 2000 years ago. This is the biggest log of all, because unless you can prove that your interpretation is what the Apostles meant then in the end you are doing nothing more than teaching the “things of the men” who came before you (in your particular denomination) and handed it on to you.

I apologize for the rant, I do not mean to be unkind but let’s be honest here people making this claim with nothing to back it up, but their own opinions, really is an uncharitable thing to say.

God Bless

 

[MT1926]

has at times abused the flock and has, at times become corrupt and tyrannical.

My advice to you and others is I would really tone down throwing the abuse and corruption in the face of Catholics. It doesn’t have the effect you think it has. In all honesty to me it makes you come off as an uncharitable, unloving and unable to forgive Christian. There has always been corruption in this world Jesus even speaks of it in the Bible. When Jesus points to the corrupt Pharisees does he tell the people look you belong to a corrupt church, there is no way they can be the church in which you are to worship, I suggest you get away from them and start your own Jewish community.

No He said…

Matthew 23:2 “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; 3 therefore, do whatever they teach you and follow it; but do not do as they do, for they do not practice what they teach. 4 They tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on the shoulders of others; but they themselves are unwilling to lift a finger to move them.

When there are evil corrupt individuals leading the flock, as there are today, I don’t believe Jesus wants me to run away, He wants me to stand firm in His teaching, stand strong in the faith, and fight for His Church. Jesus’ Church was a great gift why would I throw that gift aside like a meaningless toy that no longer interests me?

then the people must form their own communion that is faithful to the teaching of Christ, free of corruption and free of tyranny.

On a final note if you are able to find this particular community I would argue Jesus told us this isn’t His Church. He told us the Church in His kingdom would always have corrupt individuals within it.

Matthew 13:24-30

The Parable of Weeds among the Wheat

24 Another parable he put before them, saying, “The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field; 25 but while men were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. 26 So when the plants came up and bore grain, then the weeds appeared also. 27 And the servants of the householder came and said to him, ‘Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then has it weeds?’ 28 He said to them, ‘An enemy has done this.’ The servants said to him, ‘Then do you want us to go and gather them?’ 29 But he said, ‘No; lest in gathering the weeds you root up the wheat along with them. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest; and at harvest time I will tell the reapers, Gather the weeds first and bind them in bundles to be burned, but gather the wheat into my barn.’”

I would even go so far as to argue that the ones who go and form their own community are the ones disobeying Jesus. They are trying to pull out the weeds before it is time and in doing so they are uprooting the wheat (themselves and others).

God Bless