John MacArthur's ironic comment of the day

[MrS]

A coin toss or maybe whoever pulls the longest string?

Sadly that is not what happens. When one is raised to believe that the family choice of faith is the correct admonition to “those unsaved Catholics” then the natural instinct in man surfaces… you know, that willingness to be rebellious, prideful, and in your face.

It is no wonder that those attitudes are manifest in first the rejection of proven authority of the Catholic Church as given by Christ, and second, an eagerness to **embrace **an authority that is “controlled” by the individual.

Thus self interpretation is most important… and that self interpretation masks itself with “the Bible says” defense.

“I say that the Bible says” would be more accurate.

Problems for Catholics do not come from outside of the One Church founded by Jesus Christ “alone”.

Our more serious problem is that of the education in the one Faith of our own. The majority of Catholic parents have a first grade level of understanding.

I know lots of young (teen and under) Baptists, Pentecostals, etc who can quote more chapter and verse than most adult Catholics. But then they are taught very different meanings and understandings of those verses… all “under the guidance of the Holy Spirit”. In truth, they do NOT know the Bible, the book of the Catholic Church.

On the other hand, those Catholics who DO go to Mass and listen to the readings, cannot quote the chapter and verse… but DO have a much better understanding of what the teaching truly is.

I encourage any non-Catholic to continue in actual studying of the Bible… preferably in mixed Bible studies. Eventually, when God is ready, you too will understand who is presenting the truth, and who is not.

.

 

[moondweller]

Since a generation is often represented by 40 years, and lots of the NT was written between 30+ and 100 AD, you can call them what you will.

Regardless, they were all of the same Church… and there was only one.

.

You’re rationalizing. ALL the N.T. writers were first generation Christians and their writings were quickly distributed amongst the first generation churches.

 

[benedictus2]

You’re rationalizing. ALL the N.T. writers were first generation Christians and their writings were quickly distributed amongst the first generation churches.

And Mrs S point regardless (2nd or 1st generation) is that there was only One church right from the beginning.

 

[Tomster]

You’re rationalizing. ALL the N.T. writers were first generation Christians and their writings were quickly distributed amongst the first generation churches.

And so were the Gnostic writings and even the writings of the Early Church Fathers. Some were accepted as Scripture by the nascent, individual Churches only to be rejected by Rome who decided what the Canon was to be.

 

[moondweller]

Definitely most of them were. Paul, whose letters comprise a vast amount of the NT was called after the Resurrection, and quite some time after the Church was established.

You’ve got to be kidding, guanophore. Paul was an Apostle and the church is being built (to this very day) upon the foundation of the Apostles (Eph. 2:20).

The problem with using scripture to discern error is that the reading of it is subject to the reader. If a person reads it with a predisposed mindset that the “Roman Catholic Church” has errors, then one will inevitably find “proof” in the NT that this is the case.

This is what happens when non-Trinitarians read scripture, and “expose” that Jesus and the HS are not divine.

But it’s the Scriptures that “expose” such an error, they don’t uphold it. Although Satan quoted Scripture to Jesus, it was by Scripture that Jesus exposed the error of his thinking. From the beginning Satan has attacked the Word of God (Gen. 3:1,4). Nothing has changed since then.

 

[moondweller]

And so were the Gnostic writings and even the writings of the Early Church Fathers. Some were accepted as Scripture by the nascent, individual Churches only to be rejected by Rome who decided what the Canon was to be.

The ECFs quoted profusely from what we know to be the N.T. Scriptures. From which of the Gnostic writings did they authoritatively quote? Even Peter early on recognized Paul’s writing as Scripture (2 Pet. 3:16).

 

[Tomster]

The ECFs quoted profusely from what we know to be the N.T. Scriptures. From which of the Gnostic writings did they authoritatively quote? Even Peter early on recognized Paul’s writing as Scripture (2 Pet. 3:16).

The point being is that they were in circulation before the Church canonized only those books that were to become officially recognized as the NT.

 

[moondweller]

And Mrs S point regardless (2nd or 1st generation) is that there was only One church right from the beginning.

There still is only one church (although many claim to be it). It began at Pentecost in Jerusalem and is being built upon the foundation of the Apostles to this very day.

 

[moondweller]

The point being is that they were in circulation before the Church canonized only those books that were to become officially recognized as the NT.

The point being they were Scripture the moment they were penned by those first generation Christians. Men, nor council, made them Divine Scripture. They were with and in the churches since the first generation of believers. It’s as simple as that, my friend.

 

[Tomster]

There still is only one church (although many claim to be it). It began at Pentecost in Jerusalem and is being built upon the foundation of the Apostles to this very day.

How does one recognize that one church?

 

[benedictus2]

There still is only one church (although many claim to be it). It began at Pentecost in Jerusalem and is being built upon the foundation of the Apostles to this very day.

And it is the Catholic Church

 

[Tomster]

The point being they were Scripture the moment they were penned by those first generation Christians. Men, nor council, made them Divine Scripture. They were with and in the churches since the first generation of believers. It’s as simple as that, my friend.

Not as simple as you think. It was on the authority of the Church which books made it and which did not.

 

[benedictus2]

The point being they were Scripture the moment they were penned by those first generation Christians. Men, nor council, made them Divine Scripture. They were with and in the churches since the first generation of believers. It’s as simple as that, my friend.

Aaahl but how did they determine from the hundreds of books and letters around that time which constitute Holy Scripture. What was their guide in determining which is scripture?

 

[Tomster]

how does one recognize that one church?

Well, how do you recognize that “one” church? Where does one find it? What does it consist of?

 

[MrS]

You’re rationalizing. ALL the N.T. writers were first generation Christians and their writings were quickly distributed amongst the first generation churches.

probably… even the erroneous letters… and the ones with mistakes (intended or not)

But then, Jesus did say the Holy Spirit would guide His Church (not the usurpers that followed) into the Truth.

Most evident of that is the guidance to determine the canon of Scripture which comes only from and through the Catholic Church.

You are welcome.

.

 

[MrS]

There still is only one church (although many claim to be it). It began at Pentecost in Jerusalem and is being built upon the foundation of the Apostles to this very day.

Agreed in full.

Built on the foundation of the Apostles… that is what the Catholic Church calls Tradition.

It is singular (though often misused as a plural).

Tradition is all that the Apostles were taught…, much of which was written down by a few of them, and by a few of their direct disciples… Mark, Luke, etc.

Then as the Church… building on their foundation… grew… so did the number of letters and copies of letters etc. Not as many versions perhaps as we have “fruits” of the Reformation… but a lot none-the-less.

It was the Catholics, not the Baptists, Lutherans, or Pentecostals who determined which were legit. Perhaps other were legit also… But the Canon of Scripture was set in the 4th century by my Church,… and re-affirmed at Trent in response to usurpers of the Reformation.

.

 

[Tomster]

There still is only one church (although many claim to be it). It began at Pentecost in Jerusalem and is being built upon the foundation of the Apostles to this very day.

Since you are having some difficulty answering the question, I’ll make it easy for you.

Which of these statements is true:

a) The Bible is the pillar and ground of truth.

b) The Church is the pillar and ground of truth.

Either “a” or “b” is true.

Choose !

 

[MrS]

Since you are having some difficulty answering the question, I’ll make it easy for you.

Which of these statements is true:

a) The Bible is the pillar and ground of truth.

b) The Church is the pillar and ground of truth.

Either “a” or “b” is true.

Choose !

you realize that there are two sides to the moon… one which receives the light of the sun, and the other which we have never seen because it is always in the dark.

,

 

[Tomster]

you realize that there are two sides to the moon… one which receives the light of the sun, and the other which we have never seen because it is always in the dark.

,

"10-4 Houston! " Do you think it possible that our esteemed adversary could flag down the next NASA shuttle and return home?

 

[Protestant101]

Christ is not the book. The Word of God in John 1 is not the Bible. It speaks of Him but is not part of Him. The Church on the other hand is part of Him becuase she is His body and He is the head. After the final judgment the Bible will no longer be but His body the Church will remain.

Isa 40:8 The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but** the word of our God shall stand for ever. **