I don't get it...if you are a non-Catholic Christian, then why aren't you a Catholic Christian?

[Rightlydivide]

Answering a question with a question is not an answer.

Let me demonstrate by asking, is there anything in Paul’s writing to indicate that the traditions to be held, whether by word or epistle, was to be temporary?

No. And none of your traditions can be proven to come from Him. None. So if you want to prove a tradition you would have. You cannot. In all my time on this forum, its never happened.
To answer your question, unlike what you do for me,
IF Paul had said only scripture in that context, it would have been inaccurate but I am not sure you know why. Because some scripture was yet to be written. It would have made it void and closed revelation prematurely. You cannot trap God. He knew what he was doing when He inspired Paul to write that.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Ok, so Catholics come to a Catholic forum to challenge other faiths? Come on. Catholics are challenged here by other faiths. We respond with how we believe and some of us rely heavily on scriptures, only to have our interpretation totally dismissed with accusations of Catholic beliefs are ‘non-scriptural’. It seems too much for some to even admit that they can see how an interpretation is derived from scriptures. It would be too close to ‘agreeing with the Catholics’.

When Catholicism is challenged, we cannot help the fact that we get that Christ established an authoritative Church from scriptures, not only authoritative but scriptures support ONE Church, of the same mind and judgement, of the same accord. Can you honestly say that’s what Protestantism has brought about?

Then when our interpretation is challenged, we ask where is it written that the scriptures are the ‘final authority’, as you claim it to be. Where does your Church get it’s interpretation? Explain that process, if you would. You said private interpretation is a ‘sin’.

You know Bible history, and you know that Catholics have been in possession of the scriptures since the beginning. It wasn’t until the 1500s that Protestants took the scriptures with them and began ‘new’ traditions with it.

No Catholics are the agressors and you are the perfect example. You consistently challenge our faith.
I will not accept Protestantisms sins. Why should I? As a fundamentalist I absolutely am not responsible for the actions of Protestants, Catholics, and the Orthodox. All those who adhere to traditions have created this mess by not following the teachings of the Bible.
I can tell you one thing my group has brought about. We have not persecuted or involved the state in forcing our beliefs on others and taking away their religious freedoms. We have not compromised the importance of personal character and placed the lineage of our ministers over the content of their character.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Rightlydivide,

Then you have no objections to any traditions of the Catholic Church?

You seem to want me to list all traditions of the Church and tie them in with scriptures for you to simply ‘blow off’. Yes, those in the Old Testament were Levites, but those in Revelation were not. I was showing the ‘typology’. What was once God’s chosen, encompassed all ‘man’, as God intended. Now there is neither Jew nor Gentile. This doesn’t completely do away with God’s commands, Jesus fulfilled them. He was the perfect Jew. Through His ministry, He perfected all commands. There were changes, that were more perfections (corrections) than changes. He became the sacrificial Lamb, the Temple became a Church; the same only better in His fulfillment, His teachings and the things He did.

I gave examples of the Sanctus, said/prayed every Mass. The Mass itself is a ‘Tradition’, yet you seem to think I am somehow changing the subject to make an attempt to discuss it fully, step by step. Yes, I offered you a link to one of the best explanations I’ve seen, through Scott Hahn’s online Bible study. The ‘Tradition’ of the Mass is full of tradtions in itself. As we discuss the many differences, the Catholic Church, in many locations, has the same Mass in every Catholic Church worldwide, each day. The liturgy of the word is the same; with the same readings from scriptures. The teachings are of the same mind and judgment and of the same accord. Does this mean each and every individual accepts all the teachings the same? No, this depends on each and every individual’s relationship with God and the works of the Holy Spirit.

We do debate heavily on these forums, but I do not challenge Protestantism intentionally. I know the many objections to Catholicism presented here and I present the Catholic view, which in itself is the challenge to Protestantism.

I guess I was clumsy in my attempt to generalize traditions, but it’s hard to discuss what traditions you have objections too, if you don’t state which ones they are. It appears the biggest tradition you have objection too is the ‘oral tradition’. It seems you think that ‘man’, or ‘time’, can overcome what Christ Himself used in His days on earth. As I’ve stated, Christ never wrote anything or ordered anything scribed. This shows our Lord’s confidence that He can protect His truth, spoken through the authoritative Church He established, through the men He chose and appointed. Why else would He have taught the people, during His lifetime, to observe and do whatsoever those who sat upon the seat of Moses said to them, instead of telling them to weigh what was said and take it to scriptures? You are aware of the many times Christ told the people that they erred with scriptures, not understanding them. Nehemiah 8 gives us the example of those who sat in the seat of authority explaining scriptures to the people causing them to understand. We see from the example of the Ethiopian eunuch, one cannot simply possess scriptures and read them and understand. The Ethiopian needed the ‘oral tradition’ to explain those scriptures to him. Paul preached the truth to the Bereans, then they searched the scriptures they knew by heart and found truth in what Paul had preached to them. Peter specifically said that no prophecy of scriptures came from ‘private interpretation’ and he warned that there were the ‘unlearned’ and unstable that wrested scriptures, to their own destruction. He warned the people not to be led astray by the error of the unwise.

(CONTINUED)

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

(CONTINUED)

We live in a world today, where communication is superior to the times we discuss. The minority who could read, became the majority. The things that only the men of the Church possessed and had to be learned from them directly, is now available for every person to search for themself, without the men of the Church having to speak directly to us concerning every issue of faith the Church has documented. Does that mean each and every individual can understand 2000 years worth of documentation?

You had mentioned that Peter ‘had’ to approve everything Mark had written. Surely you realize our Lord chose men of heart and not education. Peter was a simple fisherman of his time. Christ did not choose scribes/scholars to establish His Church on. Man had erred many times with what was ‘written’. Through His Holy Spirit, Christ can protect His truth through the most common and uneducated man, even those who cannot read or write. He gave us a Church and those men of that Church wrote the New Testament scriptures, in that order yet, as much time had passed, people have placed the scriptures over His Church. The Church and scriptures go hand in hand. You cannot only accept one over the other.

To discard a ‘one’ Church that existed since the beginning, from any point of time between then to now, is to say Christ left some generations without access to His truth. The printing press wasn’t invented until the 1400 to 1500s. Not every individual since the beginning owned their own Bible, certainly not a large majority of the people. It was only available in His Church and that Church preserved the scriptures through all the ages for us to have one in our possession today. Yet, the Catholic Church receives no recognition as being ‘true’ Christians for preserving the inspired word of God through all the years. Read these forums, or other ‘Christian’ forums and see what accusations are placed against the Church. It is widely stated that the Catholic Church is so erred, it cannot be God’s Church, but God used that Church to read the scriptures and give God’s truth to many, many generations. The Church itself did not err, sinful men within the Church did. Just as, at any point in time, there were sinful and corrupt men in the Church, there were many, many more who were faithful to Him. Among all those who make accusations against the Church, none can say their Church is without sinful men, most of all the ‘invisible’ Church, the ‘assembly’ of believers, who preach and teach different doctrines as His truth.

Throughout time, God chose men over His truth. Now we have many who choose themselves over His truth, claiming His Holy Spirit guides them. What is a non-believer to believe? There are thousands claiming His truth, each conflicting with each other. The most common person sees no truth in it because of the many different claims.

Now you claim that we ‘better get with your program’. You say you are a fundamentalist, and identify yourself as following a little Church that follows the Bible. You claim righteousness over all other Churches, including the many Protestant Churches. Show us the history of the ‘fundamentalist’ Church, unbroken so that we know we have the same truth as men since the beginning had. Show us where your Church receives it’s interpretation, other than from a ‘private interpretation’. Show us where scriptures firmly teach that scriptures themself are the sole and final authority.

List those ‘traditions’ we hold too that are so erred and flawed, specifically. As you do, there will be responses and those responses will be what challenge your beliefs. We are not going to forsake what we believe, or not state what we believe, because it challenges your beliefs. That would not be honest, or the truth we hold too, to do so.

As you claim your Church is correct over all other Churches, because you follow the Bible, you fail to recognize the ‘mess’, as you call it, was created from men following their own interpretation of the Bible. Being ‘non-denominational’, or a ‘fundamentalist’ does not exclude you from doing the same thing, at least as I can see it. The ‘rightness’ of any Church is going to have to be proven, historically as well as spiritually. God did not leave generation after generation without His truth, for someone in the 1500, or much later, to ‘rediscover’ on their own. This places a lot of explaining on your part, to make such claims. This thread is asking why Christians aren’t Catholic Christians. Explain specifically where we’re so erred, and have been throughout history, or at exactly what point the errors started, leaving what time periods without the ‘real’ truth.

 

[Rightlydivide]

That was the longest attempt yet to change the topic to something else. You made assertions that my church should somehow wear robes based on Revelation. There is nothing in Revelation that indicates robe as nothing more than what people wore. There is nothing to indicate that certain people are to wear them. Its not there. We looked at Revelation and found nothing of the sort. So you go to the Levites. Of course that did not apply as well.
I have decided you cannot help it. The conversation is supposed to be about what WE do. You is also consistent for you to mention the Seat of Moses. What did the person sitting in the Seat of Moses do? Do you differentiate between what Christ said about the Pharisees elsewhere in establishing what that means?
You also mention “prophecy of scripture” not coming from private interpretation. You do realize that is speaking about where scriptures come from. The origins. Men of old who gave us those scriptures were not using their own private interpretations but were moved by the Holy Spirit. And yet you turn the verse around, ripped out of its context, and misapply it.
The conversation is very frustrating because instead of talking about what we were talking about you change the topic to your own church. I cannot figure it out because it could be constructive. . I simply cannot spend time with someone who always changes the topic! I am naive. I log on and think that we are going to discuss what I spent time writing and we do not. Its not constructive for my mental health!

 

[Rightlydivide]

For the record, I have never stated that God left his church without truth but the fact is the church abandoned those with the Truth. Paul was alone. BROAD is the path that leads to destruction. Narrow is the way which leads to everlasting life but the FEW who find it will never die (my paraphrase).
Christ’s Truth is God’s Truth. At certain times with millions and millions of people on the Earth He only saved how many people on His Ark?
I believe that the writings of the early church show a structure, practices, and beliefs very consistent with what I believe. We have been down this route before. When people who shared my beliefs attempted to rebel, they got killed. When they wrote, there writings were misinterpreted. In your spare time, actually read the Key of Truth. Not what people say about it but the document itself.
amazon.com/Truth-Manual-Paulician-Church-Armenia/dp/1402155921/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1271691810&sr=1-1

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

That was the longest attempt yet to change the topic to something else. You made assertions that my church should somehow wear robes based on Revelation. There is nothing in Revelation that indicates robe as nothing more than what people wore. There is nothing to indicate that certain people are to wear them. Its not there. We looked at Revelation and found nothing of the sort. So you go to the Levites. Of course that did not apply as well.
I have decided you cannot help it. The conversation is supposed to be about what WE do. You is also consistent for you to mention the Seat of Moses. What did the person sitting in the Seat of Moses do? Do you differentiate between what Christ said about the Pharisees elsewhere in establishing what that means?
You also mention “prophecy of scripture” not coming from private interpretation. You do realize that is speaking about where scriptures come from. The origins. Men of old who gave us those scriptures were not using their own private interpretations but were moved by the Holy Spirit. And yet you turn the verse around, ripped out of its context, and misapply it.
The conversation is very frustrating because instead of talking about what we were talking about you change the topic to your own church. I cannot figure it out because it could be constructive. . I simply cannot spend time with someone who always changes the topic! I am naive. I log on and think that we are going to discuss what I spent time writing and we do not. Its not constructive for my mental health!

There is no attempt to avoid any subject, and I think you know that. We are limited on what can be explain on these forums.

What you see as ‘not applying’ is based on your own private interpretation, whether you are willing to admit it or not. What was it John saw in his Revelation? I say He saw the Kingdom’s Mass, at least that’s what I believe.

Those that sat on the seat of Moses, bound and loosed, according to God’s law. The differentation you refer to puts Jesus’ teaching into a contradiction with other teachings, or are we to ignore one teaching for another?

Prophecy of scriptures is the ‘teaching’ of scriptures. Scriptures did not come from private interpretation, therefore ‘teaching’, or prophecying, scriptures should not come from private interpretation as well. Again, you express a superior interpretation over another interpretation of scriptures, and go to the extent of denying that it comes from an interpretation by using ad hominem worded statements such as ‘turned the verse around’,‘ripped out of context’ and ‘misapplying it’. I can honestly say, I can see how you arrive at your interpretation, but I simply do not agree with it. Why is it so hard for a ‘Protestant’, or ‘fundamentalist’, to even admit that what we say is from an interpretation, even if they don’t agree with the interpretation?

I’m sorry about your ‘mental health’. Wouldn’t it be grand if we could express what we see so clearly so that others would simply drop all that they believe and follow a new ‘interpretation’, whether it’s new because one never viewed it that way, or whether it’s really ‘new’ for other reasons.

You adamantly accuse me of avoiding topics, yet you fail to respond to any ‘sharing’ of your faith. How does your Church arrive at ‘correct’ interpretations other than someone’s private interpretation, which you referred to as a ‘sin’? How do you recognize the ‘authoritative’ Church in today’s world as taught in scriptures?

 

[Cristian_B]

Let’s see, the Ethiopian eunuch had scriptures, was reading them aloud, but it took Philip to teach Jesus to him for him to understand and then he converted. Acts 8.

I’ll just make a quick note here.

The Holy Spirit doesn’t implant knowledge like this. He can inspire, but He doesn’t introduce knowledge just like that. The eunuch never actually heard of Jesus. He didn’t have the necessary knowledge. He had nothing to understand since he didn’t have the necessary knowledge. But when the apostle told him about Jesus, then the Holy Spirit could work and make him understand. Until then, how was he supposed to understand if he never actually heard of Jesus? I mean that he possibly heard of a guy named Jesus that was crucified some time ago and that cause a lot of trouble to the Jews, but how was he supposed to know the details, I mean the prophecies about Jesus fulfilled? For example the fact that none of His bones were broken, when the soldiers took His clothes and took lots on them… etc. The eunuch knew not these things and neither more important details. The eunuch knew nothing about Jesus so the Spirit could not make him understand knowledge he did not possess. If the Spirit would have just implanted knowledge in his mind then the eunuch would interpret his ideas as ‘imagination’. But when the apostle told the eunuch the life of Jesus, his eyes began to open. The Spirit made him understand the knowledge which he received from the apostle, because then he had the necessary knowledge. This is like interpreting a passage or prophecy or message from God without the message itself or without big portions of the message. It’s like giving someone a prophecy that was fulfilled and ask him to explain how does it fit in history without that person knowing history at all. The eunuch didn’t have the knowledge about Jesus. For example he didn’t know who the Lamb was because He didn’t know the similarities between a sacrificial lamb and Jesus. This is just an example.

You see that the apostle started to preach him Jesus and telling him about Jesus. If someone tells you about Jesus it means you didn’t know what he’s telling you. The eunuch didn’t know anything about Jesus, and that’s why he didn’t understand. The Spirit doesn’t make you understand missing information. You first must possess it. When he learned what he needed about Jesus he understood.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

For the record, I have never stated that God left his church without truth but the fact is the church abandoned those with the Truth. Paul was alone. BROAD is the path that leads to destruction. Narrow is the way which leads to everlasting life but the FEW who find it will never die (my paraphrase).
Christ’s Truth is God’s Truth. At certain times with millions and millions of people on the Earth He only saved how many people on His Ark?
I believe that the writings of the early church show a structure, practices, and beliefs very consistent with what I believe. We have been down this route before. When people who shared my beliefs attempted to rebel, they got killed. When they wrote, there writings were misinterpreted. In your spare time, actually read the Key of Truth. Not what people say about it but the document itself.
amazon.com/Truth-Manual-Paulician-Church-Armenia/dp/1402155921/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1271691810&sr=1-1

So you believe that millions and millions of people, from generation to generation, were intentionally without grace and salvation, similar to Noah’s story? The only difference being, the Church that delivered the Bible, what you consider to be the ‘final authority’, was without the truth even though it delivered it to the ‘appropriate’ generation to interpret and understand hundreds and hundreds of years later. I’m sorry, but I’m not buying that one without some supporting explanation using scriptures, and historic documentation.

It’s ironic that you totally blow off my offer of a theologian’s study as changing the subject and then ask me to read another theologian’s writing as proof. Is the Paulican Armenian Church the ‘fundamentalist’ Church you’re saying everyone better get with the program with? Come on. If that was the ‘true Church’, why aren’t you a member of that Church? Why would there have been a name change if that were the one true Church? It just doesn’t add up to common sense to me.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I’ll just make a quick note here.

The Holy Spirit doesn’t implant knowledge like this. He can inspire, but He doesn’t introduce knowledge just like that. The eunuch never actually heard of Jesus. He didn’t have the necessary knowledge. He had nothing to understand since he didn’t have the necessary knowledge. But when the apostle told him about Jesus, then the Holy Spirit could work and make him understand. Until then, how was he supposed to understand if he never actually heard of Jesus? I mean that he possibly heard of a guy named Jesus that was crucified some time ago and that cause a lot of trouble to the Jews, but how was he supposed to know the details, I mean the prophecies about Jesus fulfilled? For example the fact that none of His bones were broken, when the soldiers took His clothes and took lots on them… etc. The eunuch knew not these things and neither more important details. The eunuch knew nothing about Jesus so the Spirit could not make him understand knowledge he did not possess. If the Spirit would have just implanted knowledge in his mind then the eunuch would interpret his ideas as ‘imagination’. But when the apostle told the eunuch the life of Jesus, his eyes began to open. The Spirit made him understand the knowledge which he received from the apostle, because then he had the necessary knowledge. This is like interpreting a passage or prophecy or message from God without the message itself or without big portions of the message. It’s like giving someone a prophecy that was fulfilled and ask him to explain how does it fit in history without that person knowing history at all. The eunuch didn’t have the knowledge about Jesus. For example he didn’t know who the Lamb was because He didn’t know the similarities between a sacrificial lamb and Jesus. This is just an example.

You see that the apostle started to preach him Jesus and telling him about Jesus. If someone tells you about Jesus it means you didn’t know what he’s telling you. The eunuch didn’t know anything about Jesus, and that’s why he didn’t understand. The Spirit doesn’t make you understand missing information. You first must possess it. When he learned what he needed about Jesus he understood.

So we could search the earth for someone who has never heard of God and hand him a Bible and walk away and they would understand everything they needed to know? What if we gave it to 10 different people, who didn’t know one another, would they all be of the same mind and judgment and of the same accord? That’s not what is proved through Protestantism. They knew the story of Christ, they received the Bible yet, they have different teachings/doctrines.

There was and is an authoritative Church. It was established by Christ, God Himself. Man cannot possibly improve on what He established, in my honest opinion.

 

[Cristian_B]

So we could search the earth for someone who has never heard of God and hand him a Bible and walk away and they would understand everything they needed to know? What if we gave it to 10 different people, who didn’t know one another, would they all be of the same mind and judgment and of the same accord? That’s not what is proved through Protestantism. They knew the story of Christ, they received the Bible yet, they have different teachings/doctrines.

There was and is an authoritative Church. It was established by Christ, God Himself. Man cannot possibly improve on what He established, in my honest opinion.

That is not what I said but well … whatever.

God bless,

Emanuel

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

That is not what I said but well … whatever.

God bless,

Emanuel

Paul preached the ‘explanation’ of Jesus to the Bereans, who searched the scriptures that they knew by heart, and they discovered Paul preached truth when they weighed his explanation against their ‘interpretation’.

Look at those two who walked to Emmaus. Christ walked with them and they certainly knew Christ and what had happened to Him, but He opened their heart to the scriptures, that they knew by heart and He, Himself, taught them prior to being crucified. Only in the breaking of the bread did they realize who He was. Only in a ‘tradition’ He taught.

There are numerous examples of misinterpretation of scriptures, in the scriptures. There are no examples of each and every individual being able to, or that they should, interpret them for themselves. Just as there are no examples of people being taught to weigh the teachings of the Church Christ established against scriptures, making the scriptures the ‘final authority’. Those are man made traditions that are not only non-scriptural, but against what the scriptures teach us, in my opinion.

‘Whatever’ is a poor choice of wording to further explain exactly what you’re trying to say. I have not forgotten our other discussions where you quit posting and acknowledging whether you understood our view, or explaining your view more in detail, or ‘whatever’.

 

[Rightlydivide]

So you believe that millions and millions of people, from generation to generation, were intentionally without grace and salvation, similar to Noah’s story? The only difference being, the Church that delivered the Bible, what you consider to be the ‘final authority’, was without the truth even though it delivered it to the ‘appropriate’ generation to interpret and understand hundreds and hundreds of years later. I’m sorry, but I’m not buying that one without some supporting explanation using scriptures, and historic documentation.

It’s ironic that you totally blow off my offer of a theologian’s study as changing the subject and then ask me to read another theologian’s writing as proof. Is the Paulican Armenian Church the ‘fundamentalist’ Church you’re saying everyone better get with the program with? Come on. If that was the ‘true Church’, why aren’t you a member of that Church? Why would there have been a name change if that were the one true Church? It just doesn’t add up to common sense to me.

No salvation? Who said that? I do not believe it is your church that gives salvation. I am not sure that you do either.
What I was attempting to do was clearly show that your version of history is too sanitized. Those who adhere to the teachings of fundamentalism have a much longer history that you imagine. I cannot belong to that church. Your church killed them off essentially.

 

[reteeks21]

No salvation? Who said that? I do not believe it is your church that gives salvation. I am not sure that you do either.
What I was attempting to do was clearly show that your version of history is too sanitized. Those who adhere to the teachings of fundamentalism have a much longer history that you imagine. I cannot belong to that church. Your church killed them off essentially.[/QUOTE]

Wow. That’s just plain…well, I am not exactly sure what that is other than completely wrong and completely uncalled for.**

 

[Rightlydivide]

There is no attempt to avoid any subject, and I think you know that. We are limited on what can be explain on these forums.

What you see as ‘not applying’ is based on your own private interpretation, whether you are willing to admit it or not. What was it John saw in his Revelation? I say He saw the Kingdom’s Mass, at least that’s what I believe.

Those that sat on the seat of Moses, bound and loosed, according to God’s law. The differentation you refer to puts Jesus’ teaching into a contradiction with other teachings, or are we to ignore one teaching for another?

Prophecy of scriptures is the ‘teaching’ of scriptures. Scriptures did not come from private interpretation, therefore ‘teaching’, or prophecying, scriptures should not come from private interpretation as well. Again, you express a superior interpretation over another interpretation of scriptures, and go to the extent of denying that it comes from an interpretation by using ad hominem worded statements such as ‘turned the verse around’,‘ripped out of context’ and ‘misapplying it’. I can honestly say, I can see how you arrive at your interpretation, but I simply do not agree with it. Why is it so hard for a ‘Protestant’, or ‘fundamentalist’, to even admit that what we say is from an interpretation, even if they don’t agree with the interpretation?

I’m sorry about your ‘mental health’. Wouldn’t it be grand if we could express what we see so clearly so that others would simply drop all that they believe and follow a new ‘interpretation’, whether it’s new because one never viewed it that way, or whether it’s really ‘new’ for other reasons.

You adamantly accuse me of avoiding topics, yet you fail to respond to any ‘sharing’ of your faith. How does your Church arrive at ‘correct’ interpretations other than someone’s private interpretation, which you referred to as a ‘sin’? How do you recognize the ‘authoritative’ Church in today’s world as taught in scriptures?

Wrong! That is not what they did at all. I tell you what. Find a link from a Jewish source saying what that means or do you want me to provide it?
No the Pharisees did not do that. But since you seem to believe that, can you tell me why?
No I sincerely absolutely believe you have a script of sort you keep to and when you get knocked off it you are lost and go back to it. Thats the frustrating part. See, we started talking about Revelation. You mentioned the Robes part. How about admitting their is no reason given in scripture for someone in the New Testament church to wear a robe? I am not saying you cannot Prodigal but nothing says we have to.
That was the original question and sure it was limited but thats how we better understand one another. If we need to wear robes, I have said there is nothing indicating that. So if we are wrong, prove it.
A private interpretation is a sin because it violates the correct biblical teachings concerning biblical interpretation. No person ever sits down and reads scripture to come up a new doctrine. On the other hand, councils have been responsible for people sitting around instead of DOING something. Christ never taught us to sit around and debate for months. That is a teaching of men much later.
Our church does not sit around like you guys did for all your meetings to debate and come up with these councils and decrees. Christ never told us to do that. The one church meeting in Jerusalem was small enough to fit on a piece of paper IF of course they used paper back then! It was brief and to the point. Christ never taught His church to sit around and debate these things like your church did. Fundamentalists agree because the Bible is clear in what it teaches unless human tradition gets in the way. That is why fundamentalists agree so much. The Bible has very clear teachings. Its only when the teachings are misapplied or when man overreaches with theier traditions that you get into these problems.
I do believe that each church that follows the teachings of Christ has a degree of authority. The Bible clearly teaches that a form of episcopal, elder rule, and congregationalism in the right mix is the correct polity. Actually your early church history teaches that as well. My views are very mainstream on this matter.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Rightlydivide;6545075:

No salvation? Who said that? I do not believe it is your church that gives salvation. I am not sure that you do either.
What I was attempting to do was clearly show that your version of history is too sanitized. Those who adhere to the teachings of fundamentalism have a much longer history that you imagine. I cannot belong to that church. Your church killed them off essentially.[/QUOTE]

Wow. That’s just plain…well, I am not exactly sure what that is other than completely wrong and completely uncalled for.**

Paulicians were not persecuted and killed for their beliefs by your church? Was it some other Catholic Church?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

No salvation? Who said that? I do not believe it is your church that gives salvation. I am not sure that you do either.
What I was attempting to do was clearly show that your version of history is too sanitized. Those who adhere to the teachings of fundamentalism have a much longer history that you imagine. I cannot belong to that church. Your church killed them off essentially.

So in essence, you’re saying that the actions of sinful men, within Christ’s Church, defeated His Church? I seriously doubt you will present anyone prior to the 1500s that you are willing to affliate your beliefs with, even though the ‘heretics’ didn’t deserve to be put to death, it was not the Church that killed them. It was a ‘few’ select individuals, who were either misguided, or deliberatedly sinful, I cannot say which and find it odd that you can so swiftly pass judgement on those that did. Either way it was not the ENTIRE Church that did such things. To believe such ‘rubbish’ condemns every single Church that has, even one, sinful person in it.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

No salvation? Who said that? I do not believe it is your church that gives salvation. I am not sure that you do either.
What I was attempting to do was clearly show that your version of history is too sanitized. Those who adhere to the teachings of fundamentalism have a much longer history that you imagine. I cannot belong to that church. Your church killed them off essentially.

If there was no ‘true Church’, from which to receive God’s truth, there were people without grace and ‘possibly’ salvation through that timeline you’re ‘vaguely’ referring too. The Bible was not immediately mass produced and a copy given to every person. That didn’t happen until the late 1400s and early 1500s, then it was an expense that the poor could not afford, unless someone made a gift of it and then the giver had to have the resources to make such a widespread ‘gift’ of scriptures.

You keep saying the ‘teachings of fundamentalism has a much longer history’. Is this all the detail you are willing to provide? Or could it be that such evidence can be refuted, or such ‘fundamentalist’ of early times had other beliefs marking them as ‘heretics’, to which no modern day ‘fundamentalist’ is willing to affliate their beliefs with entirely. There is no partial truths, at least that is what I’m understanding you’re saying when you tell us we better get with your program.

 

[Rightlydivide]

If there was no ‘true Church’, from which to receive God’s truth, there were people without grace and ‘possibly’ salvation through that timeline you’re ‘vaguely’ referring too. The Bible was not immediately mass produced and a copy given to every person. That didn’t happen until the late 1400s and early 1500s, then it was an expense that the poor could not afford, unless someone made a gift of it and then the giver had to have the resources to make such a widespread ‘gift’ of scriptures.

You keep saying the ‘teachings of fundamentalism has a much longer history’. Is this all the detail you are willing to provide? Or could it be that such evidence can be refuted, or such ‘fundamentalist’ of early times had other beliefs marking them as ‘heretics’, to which no modern day ‘fundamentalist’ is willing to affliate their beliefs with entirely. There is no partial truths, at least that is what I’m understanding you’re saying when you tell us we better get with your program.

How are people saved? Very briefly.
I wonder how much we disagree. You seem to believe the church provides “grace”. Where is that in the Bible? Lets keep it brief and on-topic.

 

[Rightlydivide]

So in essence, you’re saying that the actions of sinful men, within Christ’s Church, defeated His Church? I seriously doubt you will present anyone prior to the 1500s that you are willing to affliate your beliefs with, even though the ‘heretics’ didn’t deserve to be put to death, it was not the Church that killed them. It was a ‘few’ select individuals, who were either misguided, or deliberatedly sinful, I cannot say which and find it odd that you can so swiftly pass judgement on those that did. Either way it was not the ENTIRE Church that did such things. To believe such ‘rubbish’ condemns every single Church that has, even one, sinful person in it.

The fruits should be evaluated based upon the “entire” church? Where did you get that from?