Doesn't your relationship with God matter more than your denomination?

[James248]

Hi Ben, thanks for the replies.

Well Ben, Christ established one Church, correct? And He gave that Church the power to bind and loose, correct? He gave that Church infallibility. I am sure you will disagree with that statement, but I will prove it later on in addressing one of your other replies. And He promised to give that Church the Holy Spirit to guide it into all truth. THIS CHURCH MUST BE VISIBLE. Otherwise this Church could not bind and loose anyone, as no one would truly know who is in authority. But the Council of Jerusalem clearly shows that it was a visible Church, and clearly shows who had authority in the Church. Now if this Church has taught error, then Christ is a liar, as the Spirit obviously did not guide it into all truth. It is not arrogant of the Catholic Church to say she cannot teach error. She truly believes the promises of Christ. It is far more problematic for you. Your denomination does not claim that it will not teach error. If they are truly the one Church that Christ established, they should be shouting they are infallible from the rooftops. It should be fundamental to them.

Not everyone does this. I know of people who did not understand why the CC taught contraception was a grave sin. They felt their was nothing wrong with contraception. They followed the Church anyway. They truly let the Church bind their wills. And now years later, they understand, and are happier for having followed the Church when they doubted her teachings. Truth is objective. For a Christian, Peter was being objective. How do you think one who practiced Judaism would respond?

Unless that Church was given Divine Authority. Ben, I know you don’t think that Church is the CC, but where is that Church now? Surely, if Christ is not a liar, that Church must exist somewhere, with the Divine Authority that when she speaks you hear Christ, and when you reject what she says, you reject Christ. If that Church existed before one word of the New Testament was written down, surely that Church must exist today, else Christ is a liar again. If that Church was visible in the first century, then it must be visible today.

What you have read is wrong. Here is the passage:Ummm no. You try to change Jesus’ words, but shall means it is not bound or loosed until the Church decides to bind or loose. AND SINCE HEAVEN CANNOT CONTAIN ANY ERROR, THE CHURCH WILL NEVER BIND OR LOOSE IN ERROR. For to loose error on Earth, would mean error is loosed in Heaven. That is why the Church is infallible.

By the way, your once right always right statement, is just an excuse to not listen to Jesus when He speaks through His Church. It is hard to listen to His Church when she teaches something that you, as an individual, thinks is wrong. Christ never promised that when His Church binds, we will agree with the binding, or loosing. He does promise that the Church, when she does exercise that power, will get it right from the beginning. The funny thing is, nowhere do I see where Jesus says that it will not be once right, always right. In fact, if it is not once right always right, then He cannot be God. If it is not once right, always right, then He established a Church that teaches error, and the gates of Hell prevailed.

Prots have a horrible problem on their hands. They cannot state that their “churches” have not taught error (This is proven from the Lambeth Conference of 1930. Before this, almost all of Christianity taught that contraception was a grave sin. Now just about all teach it is not a sin. Either error was taught before that conference, or error has been taught after. This is bound to have happened, as they do not have the authority to bind or loose.). They know they do not have the birth-right that Christ gave His Church, so they try to tear down any that would claim that they are that Church. Truly, beware this modern leaven.

This dude speaks the truth.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Hi Ben, thanks for the replies.

Well Ben, Christ established one Church, correct? And He gave that Church the power to bind and loose, correct? He gave that Church infallibility. I am sure you will disagree with that statement, but I will prove it later on in addressing one of your other replies. And He promised to give that Church the Holy Spirit to guide it into all truth. THIS CHURCH MUST BE VISIBLE. Otherwise this Church could not bind and loose anyone, as no one would truly know who is in authority. But the Council of Jerusalem clearly shows that it was a visible Church, and clearly shows who had authority in the Church. Now if this Church has taught error, then Christ is a liar, as the Spirit obviously did not guide it into all truth. It is not arrogant of the Catholic Church to say she cannot teach error. She truly believes the promises of Christ. It is far more problematic for you. Your denomination does not claim that it will not teach error. If they are truly the one Church that Christ established, they should be shouting they are infallible from the rooftops. It should be fundamental to them.

Not everyone does this. I know of people who did not understand why the CC taught contraception was a grave sin. They felt their was nothing wrong with contraception. They followed the Church anyway. They truly let the Church bind their wills. And now years later, they understand, and are happier for having followed the Church when they doubted her teachings. Truth is objective. For a Christian, Peter was being objective. How do you think one who practiced Judaism would respond?

Unless that Church was given Divine Authority. Ben, I know you don’t think that Church is the CC, but where is that Church now? Surely, if Christ is not a liar, that Church must exist somewhere, with the Divine Authority that when she speaks you hear Christ, and when you reject what she says, you reject Christ. If that Church existed before one word of the New Testament was written down, surely that Church must exist today, else Christ is a liar again. If that Church was visible in the first century, then it must be visible today.

What you have read is wrong. Here is the passage:Ummm no. You try to change Jesus’ words, but shall means it is not bound or loosed until the Church decides to bind or loose. AND SINCE HEAVEN CANNOT CONTAIN ANY ERROR, THE CHURCH WILL NEVER BIND OR LOOSE IN ERROR. For to loose error on Earth, would mean error is loosed in Heaven. That is why the Church is infallible.

By the way, your once right always right statement, is just an excuse to not listen to Jesus when He speaks through His Church. It is hard to listen to His Church when she teaches something that you, as an individual, thinks is wrong. Christ never promised that when His Church binds, we will agree with the binding, or loosing. He does promise that the Church, when she does exercise that power, will get it right from the beginning. The funny thing is, nowhere do I see where Jesus says that it will not be once right, always right. In fact, if it is not once right always right, then He cannot be God. If it is not once right, always right, then He established a Church that teaches error, and the gates of Hell prevailed.

Prots have a horrible problem on their hands. They cannot state that their “churches” have not taught error (This is proven from the Lambeth Conference of 1930. Before this, almost all of Christianity taught that contraception was a grave sin. Now just about all teach it is not a sin. Either error was taught before that conference, or error has been taught after. This is bound to have happened, as they do not have the authority to bind or loose.). They know they do not have the birth-right that Christ gave His Church, so they try to tear down any that would claim that they are that Church. Truly, beware this modern leaven.

:yup::clapping::clapping:

 

[PJM]

Hi Ben,

The part that I highlighted, what does that entail? Christ established one Church to transmit His teachings, and what “keeping our eyes on Jesus” entails. Keeping our eyes on Jesus in all likelihood will be totally different for an LDS than it will be for you. And your definition is definitely different than the Catholic Church’s. Since you believe ultimately that only your interpretation of Scripture can bind you, what keeping your eyes on Jesus entails for you, is totally subjective. As it is for many believers. Your many posts have borne this out.

Not a straw man. The problem is, many (pro-abortion Christians) truly believe they have their eyes on Jesus. The Christians who expounded every heresy throughout the ages truly believed they had their eyes on Jesus. This is what is bound to happen when ultimately you give yourself the authority to bind or loose, rather than who Christ gave the authority. The Catholic Church gives objective guidelines for what keeping your eyes on Jesus entails. Ultimately, for any sola scripturist, it is subjective, because it becomes how they interpret Scripture. Again, your many posts have borne this out.

The following part of a post made my jaw drop.

Part of your reply was correct. Truly the devil is in the details.

I have a relative who belongs to a “community” that does not read the epistles of Paul, as they feel he was a false Apostle. This person now is pro-choice, transgender is okay, homosexuality is okay…The minister preaches that every one of these things is not wrong. And they call themselves Christian. This person feels that they have grown extensively spiritually and that their relationship with Christ is deep. This person knows Christ will call them a good and faithful servant when they are judged.

Should I encourage this relative to stay with that community of believers?

Thank you my friend, and as you know the answer is NO

GBY

 

[PJM]

As an addendum to that, would anyone claim that the University handbook, workplace Manual, or a book on marriage is THE FINAL word on any of those circumstances; or are there person(s) given authority to properly interpret and define those texts in the appropriate context?

WELL DONE!

Great and valid point!

Blessings

 

[benhur]

Well Ben, Christ established one Church, correct?

Hi D,

Correct, though we must differ, so one can be right and one wrong (as St Paul said almost tongue in cheek)

And He gave that Church the power to bind and loose, correct?

Absolutely. But again, we will see what is truly bound and loosed on that great day.

He gave that Church infallibility.

Nowhere is this in scripture. It can only be interpolated, implicit but not explicit. Only Christ has met all conditions for perfection. He can truly perfectly guide a child of His, even his church.It does not guarantee a perfect result in knowing all things on faith and morals. If you were to guide your children perfectly does that guarantee their perfection (on faith and morals) ?

THIS CHURCH MUST BE VISIBLE.

Otherwise this Church could not bind and loose anyone, as no one would truly know who is in authority. But the Council of Jerusalem clearly shows that it was a visible Church, and clearly shows who had authority in the Church. Agree. The JW’s and Mormons and Baptists and Lutherans are all quite visible churches, as is The CC and O’s.

A "catholic’’ council is no longer possible, as was the very first council at Jerusalem. Petrine doctrine, Marion Doctrine, communion doctrine and many other things did not divide (were not dogmatized) that first council, as today. I believe the last chance for that was made impossible by Rome just at the beginning of the reformation(not considering any reformers points). Most points of contention were not pacified. (The Didache says, “cause not a schism, and pacify those that contend”). Even Jerusalem was a compromise (no meats strangled, no meats offered to idols…had to be “kosher”…really ?)

Now if this Church has taught error, then Christ is a liar, as the Spirit obviously did not guide it into all truth.

This would be true if the entire church taught the truths in question. As an example, God would be a liar, except that He apparently guided the Orthodox from the beginning on errant Petrine Doctrine.

]It is not arrogant of the Catholic Church to say she cannot teach error.

And such infallible belief can lead to fallible corruption (entry of error). Exactly like extreme forms of OSAS, or abounding grace , covering all sin , and one can do no wrong, and sooo…(as St. Paul talks about this)

It is far more problematic for you.

No longer problematic for reformed churches. Only for those remaining in error (true for all churches, like the 7 letters in Revelations).

Your denomination does not claim that it will not teach error.

Only in things the Holy Spirit graces as universal knowledge do we claim error free doctrine. We do not dabble in claiming perfect revelation on Marion doctrine, or just how exactly we Eucharist and “eat” the Lord , etc…

We do claim that if one seeks the Lord on anything He is faithful to guide per His good graces and pleasure.

If they are truly the one Church that Christ established, they should be shouting they are infallible from the rooftops. It should be fundamental to them.

As you know , P’s are varied but I suppose shout quite a bit from God’s rooftops, and on many fundamental issues. They are* less * sectarian (what church to belong to ), but more about meeting and walking with Christ, as part of His body/ecclesia /church.

Not everyone does this. I know of people who did not understand why the CC taught contraception was a grave sin. They felt their was nothing wrong with contraception. They followed the Church anyway. They truly let the Church bind their wills.

Again, we are all alike in this . The Catholic may not understand a doctrine or decree, but he personally believes the church. It can be just as subjective faith that you place on others. Pretty sure not every P and O understands everything proclaimed by their church but trusts their elders, or acquired “tradition”. A Catholic personally believes, just like a P or O.

Truth is objective. For a Christian, Peter was being objective.

Exactly. Just what I was "saying’ with my question.

Yet truth we personally behold , that is indeed rooted in spirit and truth, is much more than subjective/objective for it comes from without, as from God, who only deal with absolute truths. We only have evidences , and can not prove our faith to this world. So the words objective /subjective are insufficient. I must say I am terribly now biased to the truth that is in Christ. That is the opinion of Christ is now tantamount, and renders many emotions to his followers, as all truth’s should.

Blessings

 

[Peter_J]

I believe the last chance for that was made impossible by Rome just at the beginning of the reformation(not considering any reformers points).

Hi benhur. I’m slightly torn – I’m reluctant to get involved in your conversation with Duane1996, but I can’t resist saying one thing. In reply to the above I’d ask, would you concede that in recent times Rome has had a very different approach?

 

[benhur]

Hi benhur. I’m slightly torn – I’m reluctant to get involved in your conversation with Duane1996, but I can’t resist saying one thing. In reply to the above I’d ask, would you concede that in recent times Rome has had a very different approach?

I think so…certainly vat 2 is seen by some to be more realistically ecumenical…but it seems most bridging is with churches most resembling CC…and mostly regarding practices and not doctrine…blessings

 

[benhur]

Unless that Church was given Divine Authority. Ben, I know you don’t think that Church is the CC, but where is that Church now? Surely, if Christ is not a liar, that Church must exist somewhere, with the Divine Authority that when she speaks you hear Christ, and when you reject what she says, you reject Christ. If that Church existed before one word of the New Testament was written down, surely that Church must exist today, else Christ is a liar again. If that Church was visible in the first century, then it must be visible today.

Hi D,

Again, that is your subjective opinion, just as you rightly claim that all others have their own subjective opinion. Agree that wherever any of our opinions are correct, they are so because they are really His, and ours adoptively.

Not sure why you set up the paradigm that Christ is a liar if O’s or P’s are right in any contested doctrine. Someone has built themselves a house of cards, and for what? Is it so desirable to be over others ? All churches face this temptation by the way.

The O’s and P’s do not have a problem with history, or the apostles, or Writ, or being visible, or having hierarchy or having leaders.

What you have read is wrong. Here is the passage:Ummm no. You try to change Jesus’ words, but shall means it is not bound or loosed until the Church decides to bind or loose. AND SINCE HEAVEN CANNOT CONTAIN ANY ERROR, THE CHURCH WILL NEVER BIND OR LOOSE IN ERROR. For to loose error on Earth, would mean error is loosed in Heaven. That is why the Church is infallible.

Ok understand. But if you fail to acknowledge any conditionality , or see only predestined perfect obedience, ignoring the possibility for not only error, but for rejecting perfect correction as shown in 7 churches of Revelations, then one must challenge your sectarian view of “church”.

It seems that for the most part the more an error tries to become dogmatized, a remnant or more is raised to challenge it . So a truth carrying church on all pertinent doctrines has been with us since the beginning. Of course that would require "other’ churches, yet under Christ’s banner ( as 7 churches in Revelations again).

I can only say His kingdom is to come down here. We are His representatives, kindred in spirit and truth. We do mirror that primarily, and not the other way around.

Agree the church can not bind any error, because if she does, it is not binding.

We have seen this before (the Pharisees and seat of Moses)…obey their perfect mirroring of the law, but beware of any leaven…Did God lie to the patriarchs and Israel and keep them infallible in doctrine and morals? Did and does He not promise guidance to all past and present covenants ? They all succeeded and delivered on mission, just not infallibly…no house of cards for them (and if so , they fell…for the time being)

The CC By the way, your once right always right statement, is just an excuse to not listen to Jesus when He speaks through His Church.

Well, proponents of OSAS could say the same of its detractors, an excuse not believe God and all His promises towards that end. Where the excuse pointing fails, is that there also other Godly statements of qualifying such promises. Can’t forget the verses of persevering, as if we could give up, even get lost, even error. Why does He say abide, as if it is a predestine surety or not ?

It is hard to listen to His Church when she teaches something that you, as an individual, thinks is wrong.

Again, the jury is still out as to whether “others” are sons of Korah, or indeed cast aside prophets (both exhibited errors of ancient Israel)

He does promise that the Church, when she does exercise that power, will get it right from the beginning.

Again OSAS. He also promises and warns of pitfalls as far as leadership and shepherding.

The funny thing is, nowhere do I see where Jesus says that it will not be once right, always right.

There will be great apostasy , from a perfectly guided church. And can there also be not apostasy, but small error ?

 

[benhur]

In fact, if it is not once right always right, then He cannot be God. If it is not once right, always right, then He established a Church that teaches error, and the gates of Hell prevailed.

This is unbiblical, this notion of historical perfection from beginning to end on every doctrine, especially peripheral doctrines.

The gates of hell do not prevail when the church falters or is in error. Hell will prevail when the church disappears, and there is none to be found when Christ returns. We are warned of apostasy, from a perfectly guided church. And can there also be not apostasy, but small error ?

Prevailing is winning the war, not never losing a battle.

Prevailing is getting knocked down(error) , but getting back up and into spirit and truth.

Why Satan has not even prevailed against Israel though temporarily now winning.

Prots have a horrible problem on their hands. They cannot state that their “churches” have not taught error (This is proven from the Lambeth Conference of 1930. Before this, almost all of Christianity taught that contraception was a grave sin. Now just about all teach it is not a sin. Either error was taught before that conference, or error has been taught after.

This is horrible, but not quite as horrible as a world going to hell, and avoiding the truth that is in the apostles creed. Shall we be like the Pharisees and tradition of old(OT) , that tried to cover absolutely everything legally/spiritually under the sun yet missed the “Son” when He came ?

This is bound to have happened, as they do not have the authority to bind or loose.).

No, they just bound on this peripheral doctrine incorrectly for their flocks.

They know they do not have the birth-right that Christ gave His Church, so they try to tear down any that would claim that they are that Church.

Everyone claims birthright. The scribes and pharisee did against Jesus. Korah did so against Moses …In the end all will all truly see that which is birthright doctrine

Truly, beware this modern leaven.

“There is nothing new under the sun”. Leaven has been masquerading as good since the Garden.

Blessings

 

[Duane1966]

Hi D,

Correct, though we must differ, so one can be right and one wrong (as St Paul said almost tongue in cheek)

Actually, St. Paul says we should not differ, and he warns about schisms. And this is where you have a problem. Since you do not know where the Church that Christ founded is, it becomes impossible for you to say that any church is in schism from that one Church. Very unbiblical on your part.

Absolutely. But again, we will see what is truly bound and loosed on that great day.

I thought Jesus said whatever you bind. It is you that puts limitations.

Nowhere is this in scripture. It can only be interpolated, implicit but not explicit. Only Christ has met all conditions for perfection. He can truly perfectly guide a child of His, even his church.It does not guarantee a perfect result in knowing all things on faith and morals.

Actually, it does guarantee a perfect result, if you truly believe in the promises of Christ. We know no error can be in Heaven, yet He said whatever the Church binds on Earth shall be bound in Heaven. You cannot get around that statement, so you try to limit Christ’s words. You make a liar out of Him Ben. Plus He said who hears you, hears Him. So when the Church speaks, it is Him talking.

If you were to guide your children perfectly does that guarantee their perfection (on faith and morals) ?

Yes. Guided means you led them to the destination. So if I guided them perfectly it means they were led to the correct destination. And who did Christ entrust to hand on the faith.

Agree. The JW’s and Mormons and Baptists and Lutherans are all quite visible churches, as is The CC and O’s.

Ben, do all these churches have the power backed with Divine Authority that Christ gave His Church to bind and loose you, just because they are visible? You had better say yes, because if you say no, that means you recognize that not all of those churches is the true Church that Christ founded, but it must exist somewhere. Right now I have no doubt that not knowing where that Church is, you have given that power unto yourself.

A "catholic’’ council is no longer possible, as was the very first council at Jerusalem. Petrine doctrine, Marion Doctrine, communion doctrine and many other things did not divide (were not dogmatized) that first council, as today. I believe the last chance for that was made impossible by Rome just at the beginning of the reformation(not considering any reformers points). Most points of contention were not pacified. (The Didache says, “cause not a schism, and pacify those that contend”). Even Jerusalem was a compromise (no meats strangled, no meats offered to idols…had to be “kosher”…really ?)

This statement is wrong, and shows a major flaw in your thinking. Because a schism exists, does not mean a catholic council cannot exist. You do not know your history. We know from the early fathers that a community (Ebionites) came into existence sometime after that first council, and they rejected that first council’s compromise. So that first council seemingly did divide. Just because a group decides to leave, and start a competing community, does not mean the original Church that Christ founded does not still exist, with the Divine Authority to bind and loose. By the way Ben, pacify does not mean compromise. It means give an answer that they accept. St. Paul realized that the Church will sometimes give answers that it’s members do not want to accept. So he warns against schisms. This is what happened with the Reformers. They would not accept what the Church answered. But the Catholic Church gave a true answer. More than one Protestant historian admits that sola fide cannot be found in any writings of the early Church. Luther admitted this himself. But that is the false doctrine that you would have the Catholic Church accept to please the Reformers.

This would be true if the entire church taught the truths in question. As an example, God would be a liar, except that He apparently guided the Orthodox from the beginning on errant Petrine Doctrine.

Alright. But there are Orthodox scholars who admit that the Orthodox answers do not refute the Petrine claims (Meyerdoff). And I know of at least one Orthodox scholar who stated that without a doubt the Church of Rome from it’s foundation had governance of the Church.

And such infallible belief can lead to fallible corruption (entry of error). Exactly like extreme forms of OSAS, or abounding grace , covering all sin , and one can do no wrong, and sooo…(as St. Paul talks about this)

Only if your infallible belief is in a church that Jesus did not found. All the other churches, including yours Ben, has a human founder. The true Church, was founded by Christ. You better find out where that one is Ben. Christ says you can find it.

 

[Duane1966]

No longer problematic for reformed churches. Only for those remaining in error (true for all churches, like the 7 letters in Revelations). Only in things the Holy Spirit graces as universal knowledge do we claim error free doctrine. We do not dabble in claiming perfect revelation on Marion doctrine, or just how exactly we Eucharist and “eat” the Lord , etc…

Every one of those doctrines the Holy Spirit has graced with universal knowledge. Can the Catholic Church help it that you, like the followers of Christ in John 6, choose to walk away rather than accept the teachings of the Lord?

We do claim that if one seeks the Lord on anything He is faithful to guide per His good graces and pleasure. As you know , P’s are varied but I suppose shout quite a bit from God’s rooftops, and on many fundamental issues. They are* less * sectarian (what church to belong to ), but more about meeting and walking with Christ, as part of His body/ecclesia /church.

You meet Christ through His Church. To behold one, is to behold the other.

Again, we are all alike in this . The Catholic may not understand a doctrine or decree, but he personally believes the church. It can be just as subjective faith that you place on others. Pretty sure not every P and O understands everything proclaimed by their church but trusts their elders, or acquired “tradition”. A Catholic personally believes, just like a P or O.

The Reformation proves your statement to be untrue. The hierarchy gave an answer, and the Reformers rejected it. By doing so, they caused a rip in Christendom that has led to many denominations, teaching opposite doctrines. If you disagree with one of them, find one that you agree with is what P’s do. But this cannot be correct. There must be one Church that Christ founded that you will let bind you even if you disagree. Ben, if your church tries to bind you, where you disagree from your interpretation of Scripture, will you let them bind you?

Yet truth we personally behold , that is indeed rooted in spirit and truth, is much more than subjective/objective for it comes from without, as from God, who only deal with absolute truths. We only have evidences , and can not prove our faith to this world. So the words objective /subjective are insufficient. I must say I am terribly now biased to the truth that is in Christ. That is the opinion of Christ is now tantamount, and renders many emotions to his followers, as all truth’s should.

Blessings

And where does Scripture say that truth is found? In His Church. Ben your many words show that you do not believe any of the churches teach all truth. But the Church that Christ founded would teach all truth, or else He founded a useless Church. In your adversity to let nothing but your own reading of the bible be the only thing that can bind you, you have in essence given yourself the power to bind and loose.

I thought of you when I read this article: calledtocommunion.com/2009/07/ecclesial-deism/

 

[Duane1966]

Ben before I answer your other posts, I have two questions for you

1.) What does whatever mean?

2.) Since you state the Church is found in all those denominations you listed, how is the schism that St.Paul warns against possible from the Church?

It seems it would be impossible since in your paradigm their is no visible boundaries to the Church Christ founded, foranyone to ever be in schism, or to ever be excommunicated. If one were excommunicated, they simply have to go to the other church down the street and commune.

 

[benhur]

But the Church that Christ founded would teach all truth, or else He founded a useless Church.

Hi D,

So if indeed Mary was "assumed ( or not) , then *all *else is useless? Or if one Eucharists consubstantially and not transubstantially , then *all *is vain? And if indeed purgatory is a bit different that the CC teaches Catholicism is all useless?

Such all or nothing on all issues , big and small, take or leave it sounds like a high pressured sales pitch. A legitimate, high quality car needs not such seller , or buyer. The car sells itself, without any bells or whistles.

The high pressure salesman is more concerned about his dealership than the product he sells.

“Give honor to whom honor is due ( and not when it is not due)…the gifts and callings of God are without repentance.”

So for example, if the CC erred on Marion doctrine, then that does not do away with her rightly extolling Christology etc…

Blessings

 

[SyroMalankara]

Does that apply only to the Church or does it extend to Christ as well? Post-modern Christians tend to say Christ was wrong or only said xyz on minimal matters, etc and still claim to be as orthodox and Christian as everyone else. When Sponge says the Resurrection was just lingo and allegory not literal, says he’s right - does that affect your Christian faith? It should, if you are orthodox. If it doesn’t there is a serious disconnect there. If you cannot know in truth that your Church is on the orthodox side of faith matters there is a serious disconnect there. Why bother to belong and support such a body, that can only be partially right and most certainly wrong on many matters?

 

[Duane1966]

Hi D,

So if indeed Mary was "assumed ( or not) , then *all *else is useless? Or if one Eucharists consubstantially and not transubstantially , then *all *is vain? And if indeed purgatory is a bit different that the CC teaches Catholicism is all useless?

Such all or nothing on all issues , big and small, take or leave it sounds like a high pressured sales pitch. A legitimate, high quality car needs not such seller , or buyer. The car sells itself, without any bells or whistles.

The high pressure salesman is more concerned about his dealership than the product he sells.

“Give honor to whom honor is due ( and not when it is not due)…the gifts and callings of God are without repentance.”

So for example, if the CC erred on Marion doctrine, then that does not do away with her rightly extolling Christology etc…

Blessings

Hi Ben,

And this is where it shows you do not believe the promises of Christ.

1.) Christ said He would found a Church.
You are fine with that, and you say you want to belong.

2.) Christ said He would send the Spirit to guide that Church into all truth.
You have already admitted you balk at this. So this is one of the areas you believe Christ lied. I find it funny that you believe the Spirit has not guided the Church into all truth. Must be a poor guide in your opinion.

2a.) Notice, Christ said that Church would be guided by the Spirit into all truth.
This means that we, as members of that Church, have a guarantee by Christ that if we follow the teachings of the Church He founded, we ourselves will also be guided into all truth.

2b) Christ made that guarantee to one Church. You have already admitted that Church was visible, did it suddenly become invisible? If any church teaches error, it cannot be the Church that Christ founded, because obviously that church was not guided into all truth, it was only guided into some truth.

3.) Christ said whatever that Church binds is bound in Heaven.
You have already said that this promise of Christ is conditional. Nowhere in Scripture, or the writings of the early Church is this strange belief of yours found. It’s a guarantee by Christ to His Church. We know no error can be in Heaven. That makes the guarantee on Christ’s part two-fold.
1.) Since Christ said whatever the… and there can be no error in Heaven, it’s a guarantee that what she does bind will contain no error.
2.) And it’s a guarantee by Christ to any of his sheep that may believe that the Church did make an error, that it is not the Church, but you, the individual, that is in error.

You face a dilemma and cannot get around it. It is one you will have to answer either in this life, or answer to God.

You admit Christ founded a Church which He said would be guided into all truth and can bind and loose us. Christ said whatever that Church binds is bound. Meaning, just because I may disagree, or do not see the importance of such a binding, does not mean it is not bound. It is a guarantee by Christ to His followers that the Church He founded will not ever bind in error, since there can be no error in Heaven, but He said whatever it binds.

Christ said that Church He founded, and you admit was visible, would last into perpetuity. That Church must still exist somewhere. If it has taught error, then Christ lied, because the Spirit did not lead it into all truth, it only led it into some truth. Or the Spirit did lead that Church into all truth, and it is you that is in error.

Most Prots either taught error when they said contraception was a sin, or most teach error now, when they say it is not. This cuts any of them out from laying claim to being the true Church. They have no power to bind or loose. That gift was not given to them.

I want to come back to something else you said to show how you have not thought it through.

A "catholic’’ council is no longer possible, as was the very first council at Jerusalem. Petrine doctrine, Marion Doctrine, communion doctrine and many other things did not divide (were not dogmatized) that first council, as today.

We know from the early fathers that a schismatic community (Ebionites) came into existence not long after this council. We also know from the early fathers when St. John wrote about a group “that went out from us”, that he is writing about a schismatic group. Both the early fathers, and St. John, are probably writing about the same group. This grouip remained Christian, but rejected the teachings of that first council.

Now, Ben, in your paradigm, since that early church was no longer unified, any council that the early Church may have decided to call was no longer catholic, unless that early schismatic group attended. That is just an untenable position.

I will respond to your other posts at a later time.

 

[Duane1966]

Hi D,

Again, that is your subjective opinion, just as you rightly claim that all others have their own subjective opinion. Agree that wherever any of our opinions are correct, they are so because they are really His, and ours adoptively.

So you have already agreed that Christ founded a visible Church. He said it would last into perpetuity. Now you are saying it is a subjective opinion if that Church, which you agree would last into perpetuity, would have to remain visible. If something has went such a fundamental change that it is now invisible, it cannot be the Church Christ founded. Christ says take disagreements to the Church. How, if it is now invisible? Also, how would you know which groups are in schism, which Scripture warns against, since the boundaries of an invisible Church would be unknown?

Not sure why you set up the paradigm that Christ is a liar if O’s or P’s are right in any contested doctrine. Someone has built themselves a house of cards, and for what? Is it so desirable to be over others ? All churches face this temptation by the way.
The O’s and P’s do not have a problem with history, or the apostles, or Writ, or being visible, or having hierarchy or having leaders.

You realize the O’s claim for themselves exactly what I am claiming for the Catholic Church? Catholics do not have a problem with history, or the Apostles, or Writ…either.

But Christ clearly gave authority to only a select few. And it He makes it clear that if you do not listen to them, you are rejecting Him, even if you believe they are in error.

Ok understand. But if you fail to acknowledge any conditionality , or see only predestined perfect obedience, ignoring the possibility for not only error, but for rejecting perfect correction as shown in 7 churches of Revelations, then one must challenge your sectarian view of “church”.

It seems that for the most part the more an error tries to become dogmatized, a remnant or more is raised to challenge it . So a truth carrying church on all pertinent doctrines has been with us since the beginning. Of course that would require "other’ churches, yet under Christ’s banner ( as 7 churches in Revelations again).

I can only say His kingdom is to come down here. We are His representatives, kindred in spirit and truth. We do mirror that primarily, and not the other way around.

Agree the church can not bind any error, because if she does, it is not binding.

We have seen this before (the Pharisees and seat of Moses)…obey their perfect mirroring of the law, but beware of any leaven…Did God lie to the patriarchs and Israel and keep them infallible in doctrine and morals? Did and does He not promise guidance to all past and present covenants ? They all succeeded and delivered on mission, just not infallibly…no house of cards for them (and if so , they fell…for the time being)

Actually, it becomes clear that you do not understand. Christ said whatever you bind, is bound in Heaven. Look up whatever in the dictionary. Will you please show me the passage where Christ puts a condition on it? Just one is all I ask. Just show me one passage. Since there is no conditionality that Christ places on the promise, and we know that no error can be in Heaven, it is a Divine guarantee that nothing His Church binds will ever be bounded in error.

Your appealing to the OT and Moses is a red herring. Show me where anyone in the Old Testament was given the Divine promise and Authority that Christ gave His Church?

Well, proponents of OSAS could say the same of its detractors, an excuse not believe God and all His promises towards that end. Where the excuse pointing fails, is that there also other Godly statements of qualifying such promises. Can’t forget the verses of persevering, as if we could give up, even get lost, even error. Why does He say abide, as if it is a predestine surety or not ?

Another red herring. We see conditions placed all the time in Scripture that makes the OSAS position untenable. Again, show me where Christ puts a condition on His promise of whatever you bind on Earth.

Again, the jury is still out as to whether “others” are sons of Korah, or indeed cast aside prophets (both exhibited errors of ancient Israel) Again OSAS. He also promises and warns of pitfalls as far as leadership and shepherding.

Notice, His warnings are to individual shepherds, and to individual sheep, not to the Church as a whole. He guaranteed that the gates of Hell would not prevail against the Church.

There will be great apostasy , from a perfectly guided church. And can there also be not apostasy, but small error ?

Another red herring. Nowhere in the passages about apostasy is it mentioned that the visible Church that Christ founded, would ever teach error.

By the way, Christ says to follow those who sat in the Seat of Moses, because their teaching was correct. He criticizes them not for what they taught, but for not living what they taught.

 

[Duane1966]

This is unbiblical, this notion of historical perfection from beginning to end on every doctrine, especially peripheral doctrines.

This is not unbiblical. This is the promise Christ gave His Church.

The gates of hell do not prevail when the church falters or is in error. Hell will prevail when the church disappears, and there is none to be found when Christ returns. We are warned of apostasy, from a perfectly guided church. And can there also be not apostasy, but small error ?

Prevailing is winning the war, not never losing a battle.

Prevailing is getting knocked down(error) , but getting back up and into spirit and truth.

Why Satan has not even prevailed against Israel though temporarily now winning.

And this again shows you do not understand. If the Church teaches error at any time, and causes anyone to stumble because of it, then it can truly be said that the gates of Hell prevailed against the Church at that time. I give you a commentary from Haydock, though you can find this view in early fathers.

The gates of hell, &c. That is, the powers of darkness, and whatever Satan can do, either by himself or his agents. For as the Church is here likened to a house, or fortress, built on a rock; so the adverse powers are likened to a contrary house or fortress, the gates of which, i.e. the whole strength, and all the efforts it can make, will never be able to prevail over the city or Church of Christ. By this promise we are fully assured, that neither idolatry, heresy, nor any pernicious error whatsoever shall at any time prevail over the Church of Christ. (Challoner)

So you see, my view is extremely biblical. Christ said whatever, and I trust He meant whatever. I know guided by His Spirit, she will never bind in error. Whatever she binds, is truly bound. That is the guarantee of Christ.

 

[benhur]

Hi Ben,

And this is where it shows you do not believe the promises of Christ.

1.) Christ said He would found a Church.
You are fine with that, and you say you want to belong.

Hi D,

I do believe in His promises. Do you believe in His prophets, in correction. or is that OT, for correction would imply error ?

Yes to His church, and any baptized believer is part of His church , the body of Christ.

Baptized=belongs.

2.) Christ said He would send the Spirit to guide that Church into all truth.
You have already admitted you balk at this.

No, we balk at each others interpretation, or understanding, as to how He does this.

So this is one of the areas you believe Christ lied.

And can it not be said you believe His prophets are lying ?

I find it funny that you believe the Spirit has not guided the Church into all truth. Must be a poor guide in your opinion.

No, your main problem is that I disagree with your church, not that God does not perfectly guide.

God is not poor, whereas we certainly can be poor in spirit , and blessed are those who admit it.

2a.) Notice, Christ said that Church would be guided by the Spirit into all truth.
This means that we, as members of that Church, have a guarantee by Christ that if we follow the teachings of the Church He founded, we ourselves will also be guided into all truth.

And one can only follow the teachings of the church if guided by the Spirit.

2b) Christ made that guarantee to one Church. You have already admitted that Church was visible, did it suddenly become invisible?

I do not call "other " baptized brethren “half visible”

If any church teaches error, it cannot be the Church that Christ founded, because obviously that church was not guided into all truth, it was only guided into some truth.

His gifts are without repentance. Sounds like CC paradigm of in and out of grace, dependent on whether a sin is mortal or venial, forcing one into corner of church then must always, always be infallible.

Even by your English here one can have full truth , but that does not mean you can not add to it something not of truth. (yes, thereby nullifying some truth). Haven’t we seen this before ?

Also from within that same church comes correction, reformation,and at every false step. This is what is being denied. This is His body at work, as designed. Promises kept. Full truth upheld.

Blessings

 

[Duane1966]

I do believe in His promises. Do you believe in His prophets, in correction. or is that OT, for correction would imply error ?

Hi Ben.

Of course I believe in His prophets. Can you show me where His prophets corrected the Law?

Yes to His church, and any baptized believer is part of His church , the body of Christ.

Baptized=belongs.

Mt. 18. Jesus says even though this person may belong, kick them out.

No, we balk at each others interpretation, or understanding, as to how He does this. And can it not be said you believe His prophets are lying ?

No it cannot be said that. I have not once contradicted anything they said. You, on the other hand said Jesus’ promise to the Church of binding and loosing was conditional. I asked you to give me one, just one passage from Scripture, showing this bizarre statement of yours. This you have not done. I still wait.

No, your main problem is that I disagree with your church, not that God does not perfectly guide.

Ben, it does not bother me one bit that you disagree with my Church. In the example you gave, if followers are led by a perfect guide, and they are led astray, how can the guide be perfect? What you have stated is an oxymoron.

God is not poor, whereas we certainly can be poor in spirit , and blessed are those who admit it.

Another statement that has nothing to do with what I stated. Once again you do not address the point I made, because you cannot.

And one can only follow the teachings of the church if guided by the Spirit.

True.

I do not call "other " baptized brethren “half visible”

No one has, so what is your point?

His gifts are without repentance. Sounds like CC paradigm of in and out of grace, dependent on whether a sin is mortal or venial, forcing one into corner of church then must always, always be infallible.

Of course, on teachings that bind. Jesus said whatever. Should I only follow when I agree, or should I also trust in Jesus, and follow when I disagree?

Even by your English here one can have full truth , but that does not mean you can not add to it something not of truth. (yes, thereby nullifying some truth). Haven’t we seen this before ?

No, in English full truth would mean no room for anything else. So if you added something to it, you were not full in the first place. So your example fails.

Also from within that same church comes correction, reformation,and at every false step. This is what is being denied. This is His body at work, as designed. Promises kept. Full truth upheld.

Blessings

I highlighted the key part. From within the Church. Ben, the Church always needs reformation, that we agree on. How is it reformation when you are asking the Church to adopt a doctrine that she knows she never taught, and that none of the early church fathers ever taught, and which the founder of said doctrine admits none of the early fathers of the Church believed in? Can you show me where Jesus says, and when you take it to the Church, if they disagree with you, start your own?

**I will ask you these questions again. I have asked them of you before, but you never answer.

1.) In giving the gift of binding and loosing to the Church, where does Jesus make it conditional?

We know a community called the Ebionites sprang up not long after the Council of Jerusalem. We know that they rejected that council’s decision on Gentiles not having to be circumcised. Which leads me to my next question.

2.) Since you say the Church can err on binding and loosing, were they wrong to reject that council, if they really believed the council erred, which they said the Spirit had led them to believe?

3.) Under your paradigm, is it possible for any community to be in the sort of schism that Paul warns us about? If yes, how would that look?**

 

[Duane1966]

How is it reformation when you are asking the Church to adopt a doctrine that she knows she never taught, and that none of the early church fathers ever taught, and which the founder of said doctrine admits none of the early fathers of the Church believed in?

I wanted to expound on this.

The leaders of the Protestant Reformation, too, were sensitive to ecclesiastical abuses and wished to reform them. Yet the reform of abuses was not their fundamental concern. The attempt to reform an institution, after all, suggests that its abuses are temporary blemishes on a body fundamentally sound and beautiful. Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin did not believe this. They attacked the corruption of the Renaissance papacy, but their aim was not merely to reform it; they identified the pope with Antichrist and wished to abolish the papacy altogether. They did not limit their attack on the sacrament of penance to the abuse of indulgences. They plucked out the sacrament itself root and branch because they believed it to have no scriptural foundation. They did not wish simply to reform monasticism; they saw the institution itself as a perversion. The Reformation was a passionate debate on the proper conditions of salvation. It concerned the very foundations of faith and doctrine. Protestants reproached the clergy not so much for living badly as for believing badly, for teaching false and dangerous things. Luther attacked not the corruption of institutions but what he believed to be the corruption of faith itself. The Protestant Reformation was not strictly a “reformation” at all. In the intention of its leaders it was a restoration of biblical Christianity. In practice it was a revolution, a full-scale attack on the traditional doctrines and sacramental structure of the Roman Church. It could say with Christ, “I came not to send peace, but a sword.” In its relation to the Church as it existed in the second decade of the sixteenth century, it came not to reform but to destroy.-The Foundations of Early Modern Europe, 1460-1559 by Eugene F. Rice, Jr.