Does it matter what denomination you are a part of?

[lanman87]

To me that is my evidence from the scriptures that the Apostles intended for us to know what their proper interpretation was.

Now you have two option you can say I am correct on my interpretation which means now you have to show you have a line of hand offs back to Timothy. OR you can say I am wrong, which means we have absolutely no way of knowing, which is the rub.

I absolutely believe the apostles intended to teach others who taught others. But that teaching had to be what the apostles taught and not what the next generation claims it to be. The next generation had to teach what Paul taught and the generation after that and the generation after that. Their duty is to present the teachings of Paul. Not create new teachings or change the teachings they were given. When the create new teachings or change teachings then they have left the Gospel and are teaching another Gospel. It may be similar to what Paul taught and have elements of what Paul taught but it is still another gospel.

I contend that the Gospel that was taught in the middle ages was not the Gospel Paul taught to Timothy. It contains much of what Paul taught but it also contains speculations and inferences that Paul did not teach.

The Trinity is inferred.

The Bible clearly teaches that the Christ and God are one. It calls the Holy Spirit God. And Christ himself gives the Father, Son, and Spirit equal billing (so to speak). I don’t know if the Catholic “logic” of the Trinity is absolutely the correct one. But I don’t believe in the Trinity because the Catholic church tells me to. I believe in the Trinity because the Scriptures affirm, in some mystical way that we humans have a really hard time understanding, That God is the Father, God is the Son and God is the Holy Spirit.

 

[fbl9]

Hi Ianman87 My i suggest you sit down with an Oneness Pentecostal and discuss the Trinity. I bet dimes to doughnuts you will not get any where using scripture alone. And it is because neither have any authority to define that what is said is what is meant.

Out of his store room the good man brings forth his treasures of faith . Like wise the bad man brings forth his treasures of disunity.

 

[goout]

goout:

k. If scripture has that kind of integrity, and I believe it certainly does,
and you will admit the personal unity of the scriptures with the community,
how can the community it comes from err in core matters of faith?

If you don’t admit the full unified integrity of the community with the scriptures, you denigrate the scriptures themselves, because the scriptures were written by that very community of persons.

The scriptures were written by God as He inspired men. Not the church. God gave the scriptures to the church, the church did not “write” the scriptures.

The Scriptures were written by God?
That would be news to Paul and others.
See with what large letters I am writing to you…

Paul was not part of the Church?
This is all very innovative.

I know where you are going with this, and it puts God in the position of robbing human beings of their free will, and calling that “inspiration”.

 

[lanman87]

The Scriptures were written by God?
That would be news to Paul and others.
See with what large letters I am writing to you…

Paul was not part of the Church?
This is all very innovative.

I know where you are going with this, and it puts God in the position of robbing human beings of their free will, and calling that “inspiration”.

Do you believe all scriptures are “God Breathed”?

 

[lanman87]

Hi Ianman87 My i suggest you sit down with an Oneness Pentecostal and discuss the Trinity.

Just as the Scriptures and Church Authority did not get anywhere with the followers of Arius.

 

[MT1926]

I absolutely believe the apostles intended to teach others who taught others. But that teaching had to be what the apostles taught and not what the next generation claims it to be.

I contend that the Gospel that was taught in the middle ages was not the Gospel Paul taught to Timothy. It contains much of what Paul taught but it also contains speculations and inferences that Paul did not teach.

Either you are missing my point or deliberately ignoring it.

How can you “absolutely believe” 2 Timothy 2 yet only “contend” the interpretations were changed?

Jesus said He would be with these men until the end of the age. How can you believe the interpretations changed without believing Jesus didn’t fulfill his promise to be with them? Did the Holy Spirit Guide men like Timothy to choose other men or was it a man made religion from the beginning?

Also the Church believed in the real presence prior to the middle ages, so how do you deal with all of the denominations that changed the teaching on the real presence of the literal interpretation of John 6 to figurative 1000 years after the middle ages? Doesn’t their gospel now contain something that wasn’t Paul’s gospel?

Once again all I am arguing is interpretation here, nothing else. Where do we draw the DATE line on the correct interpretation of scripture? The reason I ask is because it seems that you are willing to stand with the fathers when they speak about scriptures being an umpire but you don’t seem to want to stand with them when they sound awfully Catholic.

God Bless

 

[Francis]

@unitive_mystic

When Our Lord said to Peter, “And I will give thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven,” He clearly meant: “I will give you supreme authority over My Church. You shall be My representative.” The true test of loyalty to Christ is not only to believe in Him and worship Him, but to honor and obey the representatives He has chosen. Our Lord chose St. Peter as His Vicar. It is rebellion against Christ to say to Him: “I will worship You, but I will not recognize Your representative.” This is what Christians do, who deny the authority of the successor of Peter.1 Corinthians 3:11 For no one can lay any foundation other than the one that has been laid; that foundation is Jesus Christ.Ephesians 2:20 20 built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the cornerstone.1 Timothy 3:15 if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.

JESUS CHRISH HIMSELF THROUGH HIS TRUE CHURCH AND THE POPE Matthew 16:16-18 7 And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven.18 And I say to thee : That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

**Acts 20:28 Keep watch over yourselves and over all the flock, of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God that he obtained with the blood of his own Son.**Jeremiah 3:15 “‘And I will give you shepherds (Popes)after my own heart, who will feed you with knowledge and understanding.Matthew 7:24 “Everyone then who hears these words of mine and acts on them will be like a wise man who built his house on rock.

 

[lanman87]

Also the Church believed in the real presence prior to the middle ages, so how do you deal with all of the denominations that changed the teaching on the real presence of the literal interpretation of John 6 to figurative 1000 years after the middle ages?

Did all of the early church fathers believe that the bread and wine turn into the literal body and blood of Christ. Or did some see the bread and wine as figurative and/or symbols and/or the spiritual body and blood of Christ?

How can you believe the interpretations changed without believing Jesus didn’t fulfill his promise to be with them? Did the Holy Spirit Guide men like Timothy to choose other men or was it a man made religion from the beginning?

Jesus is with all of us who are God’s Children. He abides in us by the Holy Spirit and communes with us in prayer and writes His word on our hearts. That doesn’t mean we are perfect and understand everything perfectly and teach everything perfectly. The same is true for every Bishop in the history of the church.

 

[Francis]

Christ said: “As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself unless it remain on the vine, so neither can you unless you abide in me. I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in me, and I in him, he bears much fruit; for without me you can do nothing. If anyone does not abide in me, he shall be cast outside as the branch and wither; and they shall gather them up and cast them into the fire, and they shall burn” (John 15:4-6). Time has continually proved the truth of what Christ predicted about schisms and their divisions. This is the reason for the fact that they change so often and finally disappear: they are branches broken from the tree, and must wither as He said.

St. Paul says: “Even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel to you other than that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema!” (Gal. 1:8). A church which at any time denies an apostolic doctrine, discards the sacrament of Holy Orders, or breaks away from obedience to the Pope, ceases to be apostolic. It becomes a dead branch broken off from the parent vine which is Christ Himself: “I am the vine: you are the branches” (John 15:5).

 

[goout]

goout:

The Scriptures were written by God?
That would be news to Paul and others.
See with what large letters I am writing to you…

Paul was not part of the Church?
This is all very innovative.

I know where you are going with this, and it puts God in the position of robbing human beings of their free will, and calling that “inspiration”.

Do you believe all scriptures are “God Breathed”?

Yes, if you mean written by human beings Inspired by the Holy Spirit. Inspiration does not rob human beings of free will.

If you mean God putting Paul into a trance and moving his pencil, or God breathing a magic book into existence, no.
You are evading the question.

 

[tgGodsway]

It doesn’t matter in regards to what?

 

[MT1926]

Did all of the early church fathers believe that the bread and wine turn into the literal body and blood of Christ. Or did some see the bread and wine as figurative and/or symbols and/or the spiritual body and blood of Christ?

The Catholic Church teaches the bread and wine is a symbol but it is also more than a symbol. This is perfectly in line with the Church Fathers. You need to read their writings in context of what they are trying to teach. That is why you sometimes see the Fathers speaking of it in a symbolic way.

In any case this isn’t what I was talking about by what I said. What I am talking about is the Catholic Church from the very beginning treated the bread and wine as more than a symbol. John 6 was literal. The actions of the Church long before the middle ages is what I am talking about. Up until the 1500’s no one believed in a purely symbolic Eucharist. This is historically evident. How can you be absolutely certain that the Apostles didn’t teach a literal John 6 and the reformers changed it.

Picking and choosing what you want to hear from the Fathers isn’t a very good answer anyways. It might work for you but it still leaves us with the question of where do you draw the line? Why is this Father authoritative when he says the Scriptures are the Umpire of the faith? But as soon as he says literal John 6 or the Pope is the ruler of the Church on earth he is no longer authoritative? The question still remains…By what authority to you get to draw the line?

Jesus is with all of us who are God’s Children. He abides in us by the Holy Spirit and communes with us in prayer and writes His word on our hearts. That doesn’t mean we are perfect and understand everything perfectly and teach everything perfectly. The same is true for every Bishop in the history of the church.

Don’t you ever get tired of going around in circles to avoid the question on the table. It’s all about authority. Who gets to draw the line in the sand? Us or Jesus? Yes Jesus promised to abide us. I pointed it out in John 6 you disagree and call it symbolic. Well if we have to symbolically eat His flesh and drink His blood wouldn’t that mean that He is symbolically abiding in us?

Once again by what authority do we get to say well the eating and drinking on our part is purely symbolic but the abiding on Jesus part is literal?

One can’t be symbolic and the other literal.

God Bless

 

[lanman87]

Yes, if you mean written by human beings Inspired by the Holy Spirit. Inspiration does not rob human beings of free will.

That is exactly what I mean. God inspired the writers to put His Story to pen and ink. It was God using men to write His Gospel. It wasn’t the church inspiring or directing them to write, it was God. That is why I say God gave the scriptures to the church instead of the church wrote the scriptures.

 

[lanman87]

The question still remains…By what authority to you get to draw the line?

You compare what they teach to the scriptures. And you do that for all teachers. Be it the Pope or John Piper or Billy Graham. If they say “God is Love” you say Amen. “If they say God is sometimes love” you say no way.

 

[MT1926]

You compare what they teach to the scriptures. And you do that for all teachers. Be it the Pope or John Piper or Billy Graham. If they say “God is Love” you say Amen. “If they say God is sometimes love” you say no way.

And what happens when they say Baptism isn’t necessary or Once saved always saved or that’s not how I interpret that verse therefore that is man made.

Or the best of all I can’t see that in scripture therefor it is contrary to the gospel. Which my opinion on this isn’t contrary to the gospel message even though that opinion on this isn’t in scripture.

See what I mean.

I’m just asking where do we draw the line and you refuse to answer the simple question. Instead you only give examples of what you believe in and say AMEN. What happens when I hear what your teachers have to say and you say AMEN and I say nope not AMEN then what? Or when I hear the Pope speak on John 6 and I say AMEN and you say nope not AMEN? Then what who gets to draw the line?

God Bless

 

[lanman87]

I’m just asking where do we draw the line and you refuse to answer the simple question. Instead you only give examples of what you believe in and say AMEN. What happens when I hear what your teachers have to say and you say AMEN and I say nope not AMEN then what? Or when I hear the Pope speak on John 6 and I say AMEN and you say nope not AMEN? Then what who gets to draw the line?

Then we disagree and continue to show Christian love and grace to each other.

 

[StarMapp]

John 1,14 “and the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us”. The Word then is the embodiment of Christ, all of revelation and teachings passed down to the Apostles who were to teach it to the world. Therefore it is Scripture, but now moving forward in time, includes his teaching also, for he is the Son of God. It carries down to the priesthood of that new living Church, and to the revelation of select individuals in our times, who were designated the blessed carriers of the Word. These messages needed to wait for our times when God saw fit to reveal them. They include the Word as revelation passed by the Holy Spirit to Peter’s descendant the Pope, when in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians.

The Word is not only the sayings of Christ and scripture, but because the Church is a living church, it encompasses all the Words and messages from God through all the generations till present, and is now present in it’s fullness in the Doctrine of that one true Church of Christ, there as a complete reference to those who strive for a matured Faith in this temporary world. Because the Church is a Holy Institution started by Christ, this Doctrine includes the decisions of Christ in the governing of that church through the ages, and thus passed on to the deciding counsels and it’s magisterium who are to teach these new instructions or changes to the Faithful.

 

[MT1926]

Then we disagree and continue to show Christian love and grace to each other.

Sure just show me where Jesus and the Apostles taught disagreement is OK in the Scriptures and I would be more than happy to.

God Bless

 

[fbl9]

Hi Ianman87 My i suggest you sit down with an Oneness Pentecostal and discuss the Trinity.

Funny on the old CAF it was myself and an Evangelical discussing the Trinity with an Oneness believer and using scripture only it was a draw.
It seems to me that unless the apostles wrote a specific teaching down in the form of scripture you will not accept it.

I contend that the Gospel that was taught in the middle ages was not the Gospel Paul taught to Timothy. It contains much of what Paul taught but it also contains speculations and inferences that Paul did not teach.

And you know that the Holy Trinity is one of the inferences,

I believe in the Trinity because the Scriptures affirm, in some mystical way that we humans have a really hard time understanding, That God is the Father, God is the Son and God is the Holy Spirit.

Mystical way??? has me puzzled coming from some one who seems to hold that a Catholic teaching must be printed word for word in scripture before accepting it.

 

[Cjbhoward]

Show me where Paul or John calls Mary the Mediatrix of all Graces, show me where they say Mary is the ark of the new covenant,

30Then the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. 31n Behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name him Jesus.