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

[Prodigal_Son1]

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.

Seriously, this is your ‘explanation’? The truth is clearly in the Bible for anyone to find, only we have thousands of different denominations, with slight to great differences in teachings/doctrines, all claiming Holy Spirit guidance in receiving their ‘correct’ interpretation?

Then the final authority must tell us who has the authority to say what traditions are misapplied, or overreached. It does not. Christ gave us ONE authoritative Church. It was only when individuals took it upon themselves to interpret scriptures for themselves, and then lead others with that interpretation, that many ‘new’ Churches were formed.

The Bible does teach the authority of men over the Church, a single Church. There were not many individual Churches, all with different variations and applications of the one faith, who worked harmoniously with one another. That wouild be against being the same mind and judgment and of the same accord.

Christ didn’t teach US to sit around and debate for months. He didn’t instruct the multitudes in the matters of the Church. He taught that to those He chose and appointed over His Church, those He gave the keys to the kingdom of heaven to, and the authority to bind and loose on earth with promises it would be so in heaven. Of course the first council was short and sweet and easily documented on a single piece of paper, the Church was just beginning in applying the authority given it. As time passed those who produced new and different beliefs/teachings that didn’t appear to be in line with the teachings the Church held, those beliefs/teachings, were fully examined and discussed to assure God’s truth was being protected. Nothing was dismissed quickly and possibly with error. Of course then I would imagine there would be some who would now claim, the Church dismissed a belief/teaching too quickly, without appropriate discussion! That’s the problem here. People have appointed themself to ‘judge’ the actions of the Church and have the Church ‘obey’ them, instead of subjecting themselves to their prelates as scriptures tell us to do.

Your views, like your interpretations, are of a private opinion, even though you can find some to agree with those views. I don’t see it as ‘mainstream’ in any sense of the word. I mean, look at what you’ve posted to this point. You’ve included many Protestants and the Orthodox with the Catholics in being a contradiction to the ‘fundamentalist’s’ truth that we should all be getting with the program on.

The Bible teaches the authoritative Church. It does not teach that scriptures themselves, and alone, are the final authority.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

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.

Yes, let’s keep it brief and on topic, even though you ignore many questions and points asked of your view of the one true Church? We’ll never know how fully we agree or disagree when you refuse to share responses to specific questions…

There were not mass BIbles. People went to Church to hear God’s truth and plans for salvation. The Church itself did not provide grace and salvation alone, it TAUGHT it to the people. Of course you say, that one Church that possessed the scriptures didn’t teach truth. So all the people, generation after generation (this is an assumption since you refuse to timeline when the teachings became so corrupted that people were no longer ‘with the program’ you preach) were without the true teachings of Christ; i.e. faith, grace, salvation.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Prodigal Son1;6545275]Seriously, this is your ‘explanation’? The truth is clearly in the Bible for anyone to find, only we have thousands of different denominations, with slight to great differences in teachings/doctrines, all claiming Holy Spirit guidance in receiving their ‘correct’ interpretation?

That people do not agree with Truth does not negate Truth. I have said this so many times.

Then the final authority must tell us who has the authority to say what traditions are misapplied, or overreached. It does not. Christ gave us ONE authoritative Church. It was only when individuals took it upon themselves to interpret scriptures for themselves, and then lead others with that interpretation, that many ‘new’ Churches were formed.

Well thats not even historical much less biblical. I suppose if one only reads Catholic history books by apologists with an axe to grind they could come up with history that fanciful. Your church is not authoratative for anyone but the Catholics that actually care what she teaches.

The Bible does teach the authority of men over the Church, a single Church. There were not many individual Churches, all with different variations and applications of the one faith, who worked harmoniously with one another. That wouild be against being the same mind and judgment and of the same accord.

What?!?! In what book of the Bible did people actually have one faith and work harmoniously with one another? It never happened.

Christ didn’t teach US to sit around and debate for months. He didn’t instruct the multitudes in the matters of the Church. He taught that to those He chose and appointed over His Church, those He gave the keys to the kingdom of heaven to, and the authority to bind and loose on earth with promises it would be so in heaven. Of course the first council was short and sweet and easily documented on a single piece of paper, the Church was just beginning in applying the authority given it. As time passed those who produced new and different beliefs/teachings that didn’t appear to be in line with the teachings the Church held, those beliefs/teachings, were fully examined and discussed to assure God’s truth was being protected. Nothing was dismissed quickly and possibly with error. Of course then I would imagine there would be some who would now claim, the Church dismissed a belief/teaching too quickly, without appropriate discussion! That’s the problem here. People have appointed themself to ‘judge’ the actions of the Church and have the Church ‘obey’ them, instead of subjecting themselves to their prelates as scriptures tell us to do.

The authorities have to follow the teachings of Christ and have the personal character to be in that authority. If they fail on either one or both, they fail to be the correct authorities. Paul’s letter to Timothy must be read in light of Hebrews and of course vice versa.

Your views, like your interpretations, are of a private opinion, even though you can find some to agree with those views. I don’t see it as ‘mainstream’ in any sense of the word. I mean, look at what you’ve posted to this point. You’ve included many Protestants and the Orthodox with the Catholics in being a contradiction to the ‘fundamentalist’s’ truth that we should all be getting with the program on.

The Bible teaches the authoritative Church. It does not teach that scriptures themselves, and alone, are the final authority.

!! The Bible does not teach…you said it yourself because there is no such thing as infallible tradition or any knowledge about what Christ actually said or did apart from scripture. Nothing. You have to return again, you always do, to what we all know and accept to be the Truth: scripture. Scripture is always the final authority because it contains all of the teachings of Christ and His apostles. You have nothing that can be proven to come from them. You have a church that SAYS they have the correct tradition. Of course, thousands of churches make the same claim. Its a giant game of chance according to your view. Hope you pick the right combo of scripture and tradition…if not…out of luck. NO thank you. I will rely on what scripture teaches on this matter. If you want to take your chances elsewhere, its a free country! Thanks to those who believe in religous liberty I might add…

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

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

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.

The emphasis in your quote above is mine.

You cannot belong to that Church, because that Church killed off some ‘fundamentalists’, even though you failed to identify those fundamentalist and the timeline that they existed. That is condemning an entire Church for the actions of a few.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Yes, let’s keep it brief and on topic, even though you ignore many questions and points asked of your view of the one true Church? We’ll never know how fully we agree or disagree when you refuse to share responses to specific questions…

There were not mass BIbles. People went to Church to hear God’s truth and plans for salvation. The Church itself did not provide grace and salvation alone, it TAUGHT it to the people. Of course you say, that one Church that possessed the scriptures didn’t teach truth. So all the people, generation after generation (this is an assumption since you refuse to timeline when the teachings became so corrupted that people were no longer ‘with the program’ you preach) were without the true teachings of Christ; i.e. faith, grace, salvation.

I asked you how someone is saved and you refuse to answer THAT question?!?! That is horrible. I mean whether you agree or disagree about anything THAT question must be able to be answered or why be here at all??
I sure hope a nonChristian was not reading this because you just blew a direct question about how they could be saved, the most important question there is! Answer it.
Give me a direct question. Just one please.

 

[Rightlydivide]

The emphasis in your quote above is mine.

You cannot belong to that Church, because that Church killed off some ‘fundamentalists’, even though you failed to identify those fundamentalist and the timeline that they existed. That is condemning an entire Church for the actions of a few.

The Paulicians as their views expressed in their one and ONLY existing historical document closely align with many of our own beliefs. That is just a fact. Catholic historians at the time did not give an accurate picture of their views. That is why when they actually found a document belonging to them scholarship completely did a 180 on them. Any recent Christian history book, not a book from a hundred years ago, will confirm that.
And yes, your church did kill them.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Oh and this whole discussion started because ProdigalSon said we do not follow the book of Revelation concerning robes ( a point NEVER proved) and other items. That is how much you changed the topic. I am more than happy to return to how we follow what the Bible teaches if you wish to.
It might be better than listening to you recite santized history. But it is your choice as always. I will answer your direct questions if you will answer mine. Give me one…but you ahve to answer mine.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

That people do not agree with Truth does not negate Truth. I have said this so many times.

But it seems you’ve said your Church’s truth is the truth that everyone needs to get on the program with. That negates all other versions of truth being espoused by the many denominations. Where does your Church receive it’s authority over all other Churches?

Well thats not even historical much less biblical. I suppose if one only reads Catholic history books by apologists with an axe to grind they could come up with history that fanciful. Your church is not authoratative for anyone but the Catholics that actually care what she teaches.

Cop out response. Change the words some. “I suppose if one only reads Protestant history books by apologists with an axe to grind they could come up with a history that fanciful.”

The Church is authoritative because Christ established it. Now you’re here telling us that the Catholic Church is not that authoritative Church, so one can only assume that you’ve chosen that authoritative Church, but you refuse to address the timeline of your Church and where it receives it’s authority. It’s not ‘fanciful’, it’s a FACT that scriptures do not make themselves to be the ‘final authority’.

What?!?! In what book of the Bible did people actually have one faith and work harmoniously with one another? It never happened.

Don’t you believe the scriptures teach one faith? Don’t you believe those letters and epistles were ‘circulated’ among the Churches started by the Apostles? What did Paul mean when he told the people, in several letters and epistles, to be ONE? There were NOT many Churches with different teachings and applications of the one faith. Those Churches were started by the Apostles and they received the SAME teaching.

**Rom 16:17 I appeal to you, brethren, to take note of those who create dissensions and difficulties, in opposition to the doctrine which you have been taught; avoid them.

1Co 1:10 I appeal to you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no dissensions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment.

Php 2:2 complete my joy by being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind.**

The authorities have to follow the teachings of Christ and have the personal character to be in that authority. If they fail on either one or both, they fail to be the correct authorities. Paul’s letter to Timothy must be read in light of Hebrews and of course vice versa.

Where does scriptures teach us to make sure the Church is obeying the will of the people, or for the ‘people’ (the multitudes, those without authority) to weigh those chosen and apppointed with authority over the Church?

**Heb 13:17 Obey your prelates and be subject to them. For they watch as being to render an account of your souls: that they may do this with joy and not with grief. For this is not expedient for you.
Heb 13:18 Pray for us. For we trust we have a good conscience, being willing to behave ourselves well in all things. **

The Bible does not teach…you said it yourself because there is no such thing as infallible tradition or any knowledge about what Christ actually said or did apart from scripture. Nothing. You have to return again, you always do, to what we all know and accept to be the Truth: scripture. Scripture is always the final authority because it contains all of the teachings of Christ and His apostles. You have nothing that can be proven to come from them. You have a church that SAYS they have the correct tradition. Of course, thousands of churches make the same claim. Its a giant game of chance according to your view. Hope you pick the right combo of scripture and tradition…if not…out of luck. NO thank you. I will rely on what scripture teaches on this matter. If you want to take your chances elsewhere, its a free country! Thanks to those who believe in religous liberty I might add…

Christ gave the authority to His Church, along with promises to guide and be with that Church until the consummation of the world. There’s your infallibility. Catholics do not limited God’s power to only protect His truth in a written form. We believe God has the power to protect His truth through the oral tradition and in the written word, hand in hand, even though sinful men.

You have not proven any traditions to be false. You have only generalized and not specified a single tradtion that you have objection too.

There was ONE Church through history, either Church history and secular history. There was only one with traditions for hundreds of years, generation after generation. I prefer to go with that Church over some newly formed Church far removed from that era, that based their beliefs on their interpretation of scriptures only.

Why haven’t you explained how you know that your Church has the correct interpretation? Because the same is said by all the other Churches, with different teachings and doctrines and there’s no way to support it with the scriptures?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Oh and this whole discussion started because ProdigalSon said we do not follow the book of Revelation concerning robes ( a point NEVER proved) and other items. That is how much you changed the topic. I am more than happy to return to how we follow what the Bible teaches if you wish to.
It might be better than listening to you recite santized history. But it is your choice as always. I will answer your direct questions if you will answer mine. Give me one…but you ahve to answer mine.

Never proved, because you reject another interpretation?

 

[Rightlydivide]

I count four questions not answered. Anyway, I am going to hold out and hope that we can answer your contention that I believe that no one was saved without the Catholic Church being the “True Church” for thousands of years.
First, we must define what you think salvation means. If we agree, then I can address that. If we disagree, then I state what I believe and you can clearly see that Christ did not leave people without salvation.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I asked you how someone is saved and you refuse to answer THAT question?!?! That is horrible. I mean whether you agree or disagree about anything THAT question must be able to be answered or why be here at all??
I sure hope a nonChristian was not reading this because you just blew a direct question about how they could be saved, the most important question there is! Answer it.
Give me a direct question. Just one please.

Why have you decided to twist every explanation that I offer?

Christ is the way. Where did generation after generation learn of Christ since the beginning of the Church? THROUGH the Church.

I am not twising and spinning everything I can to grasp onto a ‘new’ idea in this discussion. If anyone doesn’t uindertand something I’ve posted, I’d be glad to take another attempt at articulating it better.

How does your Church arrive at the correct interpretation of scriptures?

 

[Rightlydivide]

Never proved, because you reject another interpretation?

Your interpretation did not include anything saying we had to do that and what they were.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I count four questions not answered. Anyway, I am going to hold out and hope that we can answer your contention that I believe that no one was saved without the Catholic Church being the “True Church” for thousands of years.
First, we must define what you think salvation means. If we agree, then I can address that. If we disagree, then I state what I believe and you can clearly see that Christ did not leave people without salvation.

No, not playing your game anymore. I’ve more than answered every question and you’ve more than avoided many asked of you.

There was one Church throughout history. You deny this, without any documentation. That Church preserved and taught the scriptures throughout history. God’s word reached all generations, through the one authoritative Church, and it’s members. Bibles didn’t fall out of the sky and everyone suddenly learned God’s truth for themselves.

I think our posts speak for themselves, without defining every word to try and make it somehow support your view by, hoping and looking for something you can spin to use against what I’ve been saying.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Your interpretation did not include anything saying we had to do that and what they were.

Oh, I forgot. When the Bible clearly doesn’t specify something to your satisfaction, that supports Catholicism, it is to be ignored, but when it can be taken to support your view of the faith, it is Gospel.

We might as well stop.

 

[psychiatrist]

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.

The Catholic Church does not provide “grace”, only God does. You are extremely misinformed about the Catholic Church.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Why have you decided to twist every explanation that I offer?

Christ is the way. Where did generation after generation learn of Christ since the beginning of the Church? THROUGH the Church.

I am not twising and spinning everything I can to grasp onto a ‘new’ idea in this discussion. If anyone doesn’t uindertand something I’ve posted, I’d be glad to take another attempt at articulating it better.

How does your Church arrive at the correct interpretation of scriptures?

Okay, I think I just got an answer. Christ IS the way but elaborate. If an unsaved person asked you David (not your name but you get the point) how do I get saved and you only had thirty seconds and you would say “Christ is the way” I agree but I think even you believe a tad more than that.
My “church” does not arrive at a correct interpretation as a group. We preach the Bible verse by verse and people see the clear teachings. We have agreement on these issues and historically it did just seem to happen. Seriously you have fundamentalists all over the world who agree without councils or anything of the sort. They just do! My church does not sit around and debate these things. An elder preaches, people read the Bible for themselves, some groups study scripture together, and it just is…you cant make soemthing up that does not happen!

 

[cheese_sdc]

Re: I don’t get it…if you are a non-Catholic Christian, then why aren’t you a Catholic Christian?

Why do you have to “get it”? Isn’t enough that they are living their life and you are living yours? There has been enough written by the Catholic Church that explains that they’re Christian, you’re Christian, and that they have the same chance at Heaven as you do.

So… why worry about it?

 

[Rightlydivide]

The Catholic Church does not provide “grace”, only God does. You are extremely misinformed about the Catholic Church.

I was seeking clarification on this statement from a Catholic

If there was no ‘true Church’, from which to receive God’s truth, there were people without grace

 

[psychiatrist]

Do non-Catholic Christians ever realize that without the Catholic Church there never would’ve been a Bible?

 

[psychiatrist]

I was seeking clarification on this statement from a Catholic

I am Catholic.