Because it is a false criterion that has been imposed by you (and other Protestants), but never declared anywhere to be a criterion by God.
Man, that an awful analogy! :nope:Because it is a false criterion that has been imposed by you (and other Protestants), but never declared anywhere to be a criterion by God.
It is like an atheist mathematician demanding that Catholics prove God’s existence by using Math-Alone. He declares: you say your God made Math. Then why can’t you use Math alone to prove He exists?
Why should we use Math alone? Why would we?
Perhaps.
Perhaps. This is your interpretation. But as you are a proponent, I assume, that it’s just you and the Holy Spirit and the Bible that’s required for understanding and interpreting the Bible, you cannot point out that another’s interpretation is incorrect, no? For he will simply say, “Fragile, I sat down and asked the Holy Spirit to help me understand this passage, and this is what I concluded.”
The scriptures are the infalible word of God…math sucks!Perhaps.
As all analogies do, they will fail.
But I think it illustrated my point quite well.
If you feel it fails, please provide an argument as to how it does.
'Tis true, perhaps for you that you don’t like Math.The scriptures are the infalible word of God…math sucks!
LOL!
You haven’t studied back for enough in History. And you arrive at a loose interpretation of what you "think " may have happened but in fact are not sure.OK, I will try to explain and hopefully in a way that will not offend anyone. If the “group” that compiled those scriptures thinks that I am wrong, then why not use the scriptures that “they” compiled to show me that I am wrong?
To me, it is quite simple, I do not think it mandatory to belong to a named church, i.e., RCC, Methodist, Lutheran, Baptist etc as a pre-requisite for salvation. Therefore, if I am wrong, all one must do to change my mind is to quote the scriptures from the Bible, or the original text stating that membership is required for salvation, and, to explain the verses that I have quoted that says differently. That is not saying that I do not believe that it is important to belong to a Bible believing church, because I do.
Well, that makes us kind of even, it does not make sense to me when one has difficulty using the Bible that their church claims responsibility for, to prove the teachings of that church.
Personally, I do not buy into the RCC starting with Peter, and I am not saying that to be offensive. There were many churches started by the Disciples of Christ not just Peter. I believe that I am correct that they were known as Christians, not Catholics. Just as there were different churches, by name, in the first century, as there are today. If one believed in and was a follower of Christ, was he not referred to as “Christian”? I believe in and I follow Christ, at least to the best of my ability, therefore, am I not a Christian? If you contend that all Christians are Catholic, then call me whatever you wish. I am a Christian, according to many verses in the Bible that you say came about because of Catholics.
It says in Acts 11:26, “…And the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch.”
Again in Acts 26:28 the word Christian is used,
"Then Agrippa said to Paul, “You almost persuade me to become a Christian.”
Even Peter refers to “Christians” in 1 Peter 4:16,
“Yet if anyone suffers as a Christian…”
How many verses can you quote that one is referred to as a “Catholic”?
According to the Catholic Encyclopedia,
“The combination “the Catholic Church” (he katholike ekklesia) is found for the first time in the letter of St. Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans, written about the year 110.”
Jesus did not use the word Catholic, His disciples did not use the word, in fact, it appears no one did until 110 AD. Why do you suppose that something that seems to be so important for so many was not mentioned by Jesus?
Possibly, but the argument is, why can you not prove some of the teachings of the CC with the same Bible as they compiled, can you answer that?
Thanks for expressing your views and listening to mine, however, I think we have moved way off topic of the original thread. I suggest our other interest be pursued in new threads, would you agree?
God bless.
Bear
Yes, indeed. All Scriptural texts support CC teachings. And all CC teachings are found in the Scriptures.
Fromk your lips to God’s Ear.s dear friend.=DCNBILL;7883031]I do not think that being an actual registered member makes a difference, just so you use an envelope, at least that is what I hear.
A confusion factor is that the same word, “church,” is often used to mean different things. Sometimes it is used for “congregation,” sometimes it stands in for the word “denomination.” (Sometimes for a building.) So, yes, there were different churches, or congregations, in the first century, such as the Romans, the Corinthians, the Smyrnians, et al. But they were all part of the Great Church, the Universal Church, the Catholic Church, the Body of Christ. As opposed to the fragmented heretical and apostate churches that also existed.
Yes, you are, if baptized. However, Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses call themselves Christians too. Would we consider them Christian? Their beliefs are quite different. The Gnostics thought of themselves as Christian. Would you and I think of them so? In fact, some hard-core evangelicals do not think Catholics to be Christian. How about you?
In a sense, all Christians are Catholic and Orthodox, because we share a common baptism. If validly baptized, you would not be re-baptized.
The word catholic is an adjective, used later on to distinguish the Universal, Catholic, Great Church from the numerous apostate and heretical “christian” groups that sprang up in opposition to the great church from which all of us, you and I, are descended. It means “universal christian” as opposed to the fragmented, local, non-universal, heretical “christian” groups. So, it seems peculiar that you are so hung up on a name, an adjective, which simply means Universal Christian.
We think we can. Of course, your question assumes that all teachings have to be specific in scripture. And they aren’t. Also, Christian writings were not composed in a vacuum, but in the context of the pre-existing apostolic teachings. They are meant to be understood fully within that context. Just as individual verses have a context that needs to be admitted, so does scripture itself have a context that needs to be admitted. That context is called Sacred Tradition. Peter speaks of this context, or framework, in 2Peter 2:15-17 when he refers to Pauls writings as hard to understand, which the untaught and unsteady twist to their own destruction, as they do the rest of scriptures.
I think we’re still on topic, that of church and membership and what it means and its importance. Anyway, I hope this discussion clarifies some questions.Thanks for expressing your views and listening to mine, however, I think we have moved way off topic of the original thread. I suggest our other interest be pursued in new threads, would you agree?
***My friend let me turn this around to aid your understanding: If as you think the Bible did not originate with the CC, which historically was the ONLY church, Only Faith [set of beliefs] not associated with pagan temples and Jewish Synagogue’s historically present. “CHURCH” implies One set of Faith beliefs as was always the Case taught throughout the ENTIRE Bible.], then what is the origin of the Bible for the 1,000 YEARS before the Eastern Schism, dating Back to Christ time on earth? And who is it that authored the ENTIRE New Testament; AND what is their Faith?
***Both of you seem to have a incomplete understanding. Christianity Began with Christ. Judaism was the OT faith. [And yes I did understand your point
]