Not By Scripture Alone

  • Thread starter Thread starter Randy_Carson
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The Power that **Jesus **bestowed upon Peter with the Keys and the same Power bestowed upon the other Apostles without the Keys is the “Binding and Loosening” is that other Faith Source you have not found.
Actually I have considered that and found it wanting for the following reasons:
  • Just because God endowed that power to Peter and the Apostles does not necessarily mean that somebody has that type of authority today.
  • If He did give this authority to one denomination, it begs the question why would He favour this denomination above all the remaining denominations. I see no credible evidence that God has a favorite denomination.
  • No denomination or person that I am aware of has apostolic authority in ways that I can confirm (the ability to perform the miraculous at will). Why should I believe that a denomination has apostolic authority in areas that I can not confirm when it clearly does not have apostolic authority in areas I can confirm.
 
My primary reason is that without the Bible identifying a faith source as its equivalent, I have no way to verify a claim of equivalency as true or false. Therefore I stick with what I know to be true thank you.

As far as an apostolic pedigree (assuming for now it is a true statement that the RC denomination has apostolic roots), that does not mean that this is a governing metric that means therefore I should accept the RC denomination’s interpretation of tradition and magisterium as infallible above those of every other branch of Christianity.

If God has a favorite denomination of Christianity now, sheesh I have no way of knowing what it is.
HE does. It’s the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church that He founded. The reason you don’t see the Catholic Church referred to by name in Scripture is that there was no other church to distinguish from it. The New Testament is Catholics writing to other Catholics about the Catholic Church and Catholic teachings. There was no need for the distinction of Catholic until later when various heretical groups began to emerge.
When I am writing to other members of the Mopar club to which I belong, I don’t need to distinguish that my car is a Dodge or is made by Chrysler, because the same applies to the people to whom I am writing.
Make sense?
 
God chose fallible men to write infallible documents. When Paul was writing his letters to those churches, was he not in a state of infallibility during the actual writing?
I am going to nitpick about word meanings if you don’t mind, because in this case I think fine distinctions are very important.

The meaning of the word “infallible” I believe is “incapable of being in error”. This should not be confused with “capable of being correct”.

Infallibility implies a repeatable process that can not fail.

To illustrate, just because I get 100 on a math test does not mean I am infallible in math. It simply means I am capable of being 100 percent correct at a point in time in math. Sheesh, I might ace all of my college math test with perfect scores, and it still does not demonstrate I am infallible in math.

When Paul wrote letters to the churches, it clearly illustrates He was capable of being correct. That is no surprise, as throughout history God has used mortal men and (surprise) sometimes moral men have gotten it right. This does not mean Paul was incapable of being incorrect.

Similarly, when God used men to determine what books of the NT were canonical, we agree that these men were correct in their assessment. It does not necessarily follow that these men were infallible.

I know this may seem like a fine point, but the distinction is really quite important.
 
Actually I have considered that and found it wanting for the following reasons:
  • Just because God endowed that power to Peter and the Apostles does not necessarily mean that somebody has that type of authority today.
Jesus said He would build His Church and that it would last til the end of time. If you say He gave that authority to Peter but that it wasn’t passed on, you are A)calling Jesus a liar, or B)saying that Scritpure is not the inerrant word of God.
  • If He did give this authority to one denomination, it begs the question why would He favour this denomination above all the remaining denominations. I see no credible evidence that God has a favorite denomination.
Jesus said He would build His Church, not His 30,000 denominations that would disagree on His message. He also said He would send the Holy Spirit to guide His Church. If all are in disagreement how could all be guided by The Spirit?
  • No denomination or person that I am aware of has apostolic authority in ways that I can confirm (the ability to perform the miraculous at will). Why should I believe that a denomination has apostolic authority in areas that I can not confirm when it clearly does not have apostolic authority in areas I can confirm.
“Performing miracles at will” would be a good indication that the person was not of God. As to apostolic authority, the Catholic Church & Orthodox Church can clearly trace thier roots back to the apostles. It’s not a secret, look it up.
God bless.
 
I am going to nitpick about word meanings if you don’t mind, because in this case I think fine distinctions are very important.
God bless you, I think details are incredibly important.
The meaning of the word “infallible” I believe is “incapable of being in error”. This should not be confused with “capable of being correct”.
Infallibility implies a repeatable process that can not fail.
To illustrate, just because I get 100 on a math test does not mean I am infallible in math. It simply means I am capable of being 100 percent correct at a point in time in math. Sheesh, I might ace all of my college math test with perfect scores, and it still does not demonstrate I am infallible in math.
When Paul wrote letters to the churches, it clearly illustrates He was capable of being correct. That is no surprise, as throughout history God has used mortal men and (surprise) sometimes moral men have gotten it right. This does not mean Paul was incapable of being incorrect.
Similarly, when God used men to determine what books of the NT were canonical, we agree that these men were correct in their assessment. It does not necessarily follow that these men were infallible.
I know this may seem like a fine point, but the distinction is really quite important.
No man is infallible in & of himself. The Pope and the Magisterium are infallible in the teaching of Faith and Morals because Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to guide His Church.
 
HE does. It’s the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church that He founded.
Just to make sure I understand…are you claiming that God does have a favorite denomination, and it just happens to be yours?

I have long felt that claim was implicit in Catholic theology, but this is the first time I have heard it stated explicitely.

All that I can say is that when I examine the churches in the small city near which I live, I see no evidence that any of them (let alone yours and certainly not mine) have the inside edge with the Lord Jesus Christ. Instead, I see a flawed bunch of local assemblies trying to do the will of Christ as they individually discern it.
 
Just to make sure I understand…are you claiming that God does have a favorite denomination, and it just happens to be yours?

I have long felt that claim was implicit in Catholic theology, but this is the first time I have heard it stated explicitely.
The fullness of God’s Truth as revealed to us by Jesus Christ subsists in the Catholic Church. That is not to say that all Catholics are better Christians than non-Catholics. In many cases (myself especially), we are beat hands-down on living out the Christian life. But that does not change the fact that Jesus established His Church upon the rock of Peter, and that it is the Catholic (& Orthodox) Church that can trace it’s apostolic succesion back to Peter and thus to Christ. It is the Catholic Church, guided by the Holy Spirit that gave the Bible to the world.
All that I can say is that when I examine the churches in the small city near which I live, I see no evidence that any of them (let alone yours and certainly not mine) have the inside edge with the Lord Jesus Christ. Instead, I see a flawed bunch of local assemblies trying to do the will of Christ as they individually discern it.
You’re absolutely right on that, we’re all flawed. The diference is that Jesus promised us a church and promised His Spirit to guide it. Does it make sense that the Holy Spirit would guide 30,000 different churches in different directions?
 
Jesus said He would build His Church and that it would last til the end of time. If you say He gave that authority to Peter but that it wasn’t passed on, you are A)calling Jesus a liar, or B)saying that Scritpure is not the inerrant word of God.

Jesus said He would build His Church, not His 30,000 denominations that would disagree on His message. He also said He would send the Holy Spirit to guide His Church. If all are in disagreement how could all be guided by The Spirit?
Yup Jesus said He would build His church. The reality exists that at the present time, his church is divided into approximately 9,235,689 different ecclesiastical organizations we call denominations (of which yours is one). It is likely this is not what He had in mind when He designed this thing called “church”, and for all I know, He might fix this before He returns again, but the reality is that his is what He has at the present time.

Given this reality, why should I assume that your denomination is His favorite. For all I know (please I do not really believe this) your denomination ticked God off and His favorite now is the Southern Baptist one (another denomination that is not mine). Why is that scenario any less credible than your claims of superiority.
“Performing miracles at will” would be a good indication that the person was not of God. As to apostolic authority, the Catholic Church & Orthodox Church can clearly trace thier roots back to the apostles. It’s not a secret, look it up.
God bless.
Read the book of Acts, and you will see miracles performed at will. Sheesh, even the shadow of Peter healed folks. Whether you believe this is “at will” or not, the point remains that nobody has this type of apostolic authority today in the areas of the miraculous that the apostles seemed to have (not even Benny Hinn…sorry). Why should I believe somebody has apostolic authority in an area I can not confirm, when they clearly do not have apostolic authority in an area I can confirm.

Past my bedtime…enough arguing the Christian faith over the internet…gotta get my sleepie.
 
Yup Jesus said He would build His church. The reality exists that at the present time, his church is divided into approximately 9,235,689 different ecclesiastical organizations we call denominations (of which yours is one). It is likely this is not what He had in mind when He designed this thing called “church”, and for all I know, He might fix this before He returns again, but the reality is that his is what He has at the present time.
The fact is that all those denominations are denominations, while the Catholic and Orthodox Churches are the only ones that predate the reformation. Do you really think so little of God that He would not keep His promise regarding His Church? It sounds to me like your problem is less one of determing which is the True Church, than of trusting in God’s word. Read the writings of the earliest Christians and it should be obvious that in spite of Her flaws, the Catholic Church has never strayed from what Christ made Her to be.
Given this reality, why should I assume that your denomination is His favorite. For all I know (please I do not really believe this) your denomination ticked God off and His favorite now is the Southern Baptist one (another denomination that is not mine). Why is that scenario any less credible than your claims of superiority.
That’s quite inflamatory. I never made any claims of superiority. In fact I pointed out that many non-Catholics live out their Christian lives better than I do. As to the Church “ticking God off”, I’m sure She has many a time, but God remains faithful even when we don’t. Again, to propose that He changed His mind about the Church, or withdrew from it, is to call Jesus a liar.
Read the book of Acts, and you will see miracles performed at will. Sheesh, even the shadow of Peter healed folks. Whether you believe this is “at will” or not, the point remains that nobody has this type of apostolic authority today in the areas of the miraculous that the apostles seemed to have (not even Benny Hinn…sorry). Why should I believe somebody has apostolic authority in an area I can not confirm, when they clearly do not have apostolic authority in an area I can confirm.
Past my bedtime…enough arguing the Christian faith over the internet…gotta get my sleepie.
As you suggest, I would hardly call that a “miracle at will”. Peter did not perform the miracle, God did. If you want a history of miracles performed by God sice the writing of the NT, I recommend you read up on the lives of the saints. I’m quite aware of protestant “Faith-Healers” claiming to perform miracles “at will”, but I would hazard that such occurences are far more rare in Catholicism.
God bless
 
I am sorry but I have never read a more sorry excuse of a blog claiming to be apologetic, you may as well have put a title up that says “Protestant Bashing Abounds, Be Wary All Ye Who Enter Here.” I propose that we take a good look at what Scripture has to say…and I will even consider church tradition, if I am allowed to look at the lives of the men who participated in the writing of such. Then draw conclusions about whom’s doctrine is absurd. I think we can all agree on the fact that no doctrine ought to completely contradict Scripture. So lets function out of that premise, do some homework, and stop arguing with emotion blinding us.
 
Just to make sure I understand…are you claiming that God does have a favorite denomination, and it just happens to be yours?

I have long felt that claim was implicit in Catholic theology, but this is the first time I have heard it stated explicitely.

All that I can say is that when I examine the churches in the small city near which I live, I see no evidence that any of them (let alone yours and certainly not mine) have the inside edge with the Lord Jesus Christ. Instead, I see a flawed bunch of local assemblies trying to do the will of Christ as they individually discern it.
It’s safe to say that God doesn’t have a favorite christian denomination. The Catholic Church is not a denomination! Never has been. It is the Church founded by Christ; there it is plain and simple. Christ does favor “The Bride of Christ” his Church.

Now do you treat Christ’s bride as a blood relative or an in-law. That’s the difference.
 
Isn’t that a tad polemic?

Now I guess I should accept as a given that the RC denomination has no logs in their own eyes, so that makes you well qualified to pick out the specks from your brothers eyes.

Still, I think you are giving us too much credit to assume that all problems that exist in the super bucket of “Protestantism” are due to an undefined abstraction called “Sola Scripture” (particularly when many of us really don’t use the term).

These problems couldn’t exist because our arrogance, bullheadedness, nitpicking, and lack of love could they?

But if you want to claim to us that your magisterium and your interpretation of tradition is exactly equivalent in authority level to the Bible, I for one am going to put on my skeptic hat and will not buy into it until and unless it is confirmed.
Polemical? As in “pertaining to controversial argument”? I think everything I stated was obvious fact. 🙂

Sola scriptura is a novelty; it’s 500 years old at this point but it was unheard of for the first 15 centuries of Christianity.

The Bible itself does not teach sola scriptura; if the Bible does not teach sola scriptura, then the idea that the Bible Alone is the sole infallible rule of faith is self-refuting. An outside source has produced this extra-biblical doctrine.

The source of this novelty was a man, Martin Luther.

This man was one of the Protestant “Reformers”.

Protestants today hold fast to the tradition of sola scriptura taught by this Protestant man.

The practical result of “sola scriptura” has been the splintering of Protestantism into thousands of bickering and competing denominations.

Viewed as a whole, Protestant theology is incoherent; Protestants cannot agree amongst themselves about issues such as baptism (infant or not), communion (Real Presence or symbol), the role of the Holy Spirit today (Pentecostalism or not), etc.

Protestant theology is incomplete; whole chunks of the true faith were tossed out by the Reformers - for example, in Luther’s Small Catechism, I find a line-by-line explanation of the entire Apostles’ Creed except for “the communion of saints” which is passed over in silence. Why? Why do Methodists and Baptists not consider Confession a sacrament? What does the average non-Catholic believe about Purgatory? You get the idea.

Protestant theology is insufficient; absent some of the doctrines that make it incomplete, Protestant theology has fostered the dangerous “once saved, always saved” notion that is strong in some quarters. Many souls will be lost because they have trusted in this false notion.

I appreciate you are being “swarmed” by many posts at the moment, so I will wrap up at this point.
 
Yeah, I have seen that argument, but I really don’t know what it demonstrates.

Even if I temporarily put my Catholic hat on and say that God used the Catholic (universal church) to determine what the books of the NT are, what does that really prove.

Sometimes God can work through humans and (surprise) us humans can get it right. There is no disagreement on that point.
I think that is an excellent question. So, go ahead and put that Catholic hat on for a second. Okay, now on the one hand you state that the “Bible never gives an equivalent to itself” so why would you do such a thing. On the other hand, the only way you can have an infallible Bible is if God infallibly used the Church to canonize it. So, next question is, “If you accept that God could use the Church infallibly in this case, why can’t He do it permanently to preserve the Orthodox interpretation of Scripture?” The other question is, “If God used the Church infallibly up until the point that Scripture was infallibly canonized, isn’t the burden of proof now on you to show that He intended the Bible to replace the Church as so the sole infallible rule of faith?”
 
The following quotations are taken from several posts from mozart-250:
All I am saying is that if any denomination claims another source is equal to the Bible, I need a means to verify that. Since the Bible does not identify any other sources as its equal, I don’t know what that means is.

I think I added (or should have added) the qualifier “identifiable faith source”. The problem with “Apostolic Tradition” is that it is not identifiable. Outside of the Bible, I have no way of determining what traditions originated from the apostles and which are nice ideas.

2000 year old games of telephone do not work very well.

Even if your assertions about your lineage are true, it does not mean your interpration of tradition and your infallible pronouncements “ex cathedra” are in fact infallible and equal in authority to the Bible.
  • There are many conflicting claims out there in ChristianityLand concerning faith sources that claim to be equivalent to the Bible (RC tradition, RC magisterium, Book of Mormon, writings of Mary Baker Eddy…).
  • The Bible in 1 Thess 5:21 instructs me to examine everything carefully and hold fast what is good. I have no way of examining these conflicting claims of equivalency and verifying what if any of these claims are actually true. In absence of verification, I would reject these claims.
  • Just because God endowed that power to Peter and the Apostles does not necessarily mean that somebody has that type of authority today.
  • If He did give this authority to one denomination, it begs the question why would He favour this denomination above all the remaining denominations. I see no credible evidence that God has a favorite denomination.
  • No denomination or person that I am aware of has apostolic authority in ways that I can confirm (the ability to perform the miraculous at will). Why should I believe that a denomination has apostolic authority in areas that I can not confirm when it clearly does not have apostolic authority in areas I can confirm.
But if you want to claim to us that your magisterium and your interpretation of tradition is exactly equivalent in authority level to the Bible, I for one am going to put on my skeptic hat and will not buy into it until and unless it is confirmed.
To which I reply:

  1. *]We can prove from written accounts of eyewitnesses and historians that a man named Jesus died, rose from the dead, and appeared to many people before ascending into heaven.
    *]We can demonstrate through historical sources (many of which are actually biased against the claims of the Christian Church) that Jesus instituted a church.
    *]We can reliably identify some ancient manuscripts as copies of documents written by the early members of that Church including the Apostles, their disciples and men and women in the post-apostolic era.
    *]We can demonstrate that some of the writings of the early Church were put together to form the New Testament of the Bible.
    *]We can compile a profile or description of the Church that Jesus established from the New Testament and determine that the Church is described therein as having certain attributes, characteristics, and functions that it has been commissioned to perform.
    *]We can analyze the existing churches of our own day to determine if one of them matches the description of the Church found in the pages of the New Testament.
    *]We can also scrutinize the existing churches of our own day to determine if one of them matches the descriptions of the Church found in the writings of the early Christians and ancient historians.
    *]We can review the historical records to determine if any Church of our own day can demonstrate a continuous connection or link to the New Testament Church.
    *]We can conclude that if a Church of our own day matches the descriptions of the Church found in both the New Testament and the writings of the earliest Christians and can demonstrate a continuous connection to the Apostles, then that Church must be the true Church founded by Jesus.
    *]We can know that when we hear the true Church speaking, we are hearing voice of Jesus Himself because Jesus said, “He who listens to you listens to Me”. (Luke 10:16)
    *]We can trust that the true Church, speaking with the voice of Christ Himself, teaches correctly about its own infallibility and teaching authority, or Magisterium.
    Adapted from Catholicism and Fundamentalism by Karl Keating.
 
Yes, when Augustine stated that there was one universal (Catholic) church. Since that time the universal church has split into several different ecclesiastical organizations that we now call denominations. So any comparison between the present and the time of Augustine is apples to oranges.
I’ll address the rest of this post later today, but I will take this second to address this paragraph. For starters, I think you missed the point I was making. Augustine wasn’t just confirming for us that the “Catholic Church” is the Church. Augustine was confirming that our only way to know that the Scripture is the God’s Word is by the authority of the Church. I was merely providing support for my position. That’s it.

Secondly, if this was the only quote I relied on to prove that the Catholic Church is THE Church Christ established, that would be different. However, that is not the case. I won’t get into citing a whole bunch of them right at this minute, but we can do that on another thread if you would like.

You rightly point out that the term Catholic was always meant to show that the Church is universal. What you seem to miss is that this was not meant as a denominational distinction. Originally, their were no competing sects of Christianity with the pull of Protestantism. The Catholic Church was the only Church. The Catholic Church is still the Universal Church. The fact that there are other churches competing now cannot take that authority granted by Christ away. Those who have gone outside of this Church have done so wrongly. C.S. Lewis stated in the Abolition of Man, “Wherever traditional values are questioned, as if the burden of proof lay with them, we have taken the wrong position.” In other words, the Church found a way to work well for 1500 years prior to the Reformation. The Reformers and their followers have the burden to prove that external reform of doctrine, not just practice, was necessary. That includes the rejection of the Authority of the Church.

Finally, the apples and oranges argument is simply not true. Just because denominations broke off does not mean they were right in doing so. As we all know, heresies have sprung up throughout the history of the Church, including long before the Reformation. The mere fact that you happen to agree with one of them, does not validate it. If you want to know what Church Augustine would agree with today, I recommend reading some of his writings. Augustine participated in the sacraments, believed in the authority of the Church (which he happened to call Catholic), held to the Catholic view of justification, etc. Which Church you think models Augustine’s? Hint: It’s not the Presbyterian, Methodist, Baptist, or Lutheran churches.

I also just want to say. None of this means that Catholics do not acknowledge Protestants as Christians. We absolutely hold you to be our brothers in Christ. Where we grieve is that you have forsaken so many of the gifts and treasures Christ gave us, including the sacraments and the FULLNESS of truth. We acknowledge that you guys share in much of the truth, however the Catholic Church is the only Church that possesses it in it’s fullness.
 
Mozart-250 said : Yup Jesus said He would build His church. The reality exists that at the present time, his church is divided into approximately 9,235,689 different ecclesiastical organizations we call denominations (of which yours is one).
Your arguement has holes in it and is leaking in water badly and will sink. The scriptures tell us to be of one spirit, one mind, one faith, one body. If this scripture is true then you are saying that Jesus lost control of his flock where he is the Chief Shepherd and the High Priest. Jesus did not fail, what he created via Peter still stands today. All entities outside of the RCC is Satan’s counterfiet.
It is likely this is not what He had in mind when He designed this thing called “church”, and for all I know, He might fix this before He returns again, but the reality is that his is what He has at the present time
Jesus is all of his perfection is settling for division?

Care to offer some ideas on how he might fix this? How about him bringing all these lost denominations back into the fold of the True Church he created. The Universal Church, the Catholic Church, the Roman Catholic Church…

The RCC is not a denomination. It is first and original. It has stood the test of time for nearly 2000 years.
 
So little time…so much stuff to wade through…working backwards and seeing how far I get…
Your arguement has holes in it and is leaking in water badly and will sink. The scriptures tell us to be of one spirit, one mind, one faith, one body.
If this scripture is true then you are saying that Jesus lost control of his flock where he is the Chief Shepherd and the High Priest.
False choice here. The Bible is full of examples where because our failings as humans we fell far short of what God designed.

Case in point, the nation of Israel in the OT.

Yet God has not lost control over Israel (and there are scriptures that indicate at some point in time He will restore Israel).

Similarly, God has not lost control over the church of Jesus Christ, even though through human failings it may appear to fall far short of what He had in mind. None of us knows where God is taking the church in the future…
Jesus did not fail, what he created via Peter still stands today. All entities outside of the RCC is Satan’s counterfiet.
Whoa…time out.

First of all, could you guys please get your act together on what exactly we are. On the one hand, some of you say that our churches are Christian but we lack the “fullness of truth” (whatever that is). Now I am reading our churches are Satan’s counterfeit (I assume by that statement we are cultists).

Now if our churches are Satan’s counterfeit, then the presence of the Holy Spirit we feel in our churches is false…the comfort and assurance we receive from God’s word in our churches is false…the people who come to Christ and have their lives radically transformed in our churches have instead had a Satanic encounter…etc.

You probably are not aware of this, but you really sound like the Catholic Jack Chick spewing forth venom like that…

And you guys complain about John MacArthur and Jack Chick. Pot meet kettle.

Sheesh.
Care to offer some ideas on how he might fix this? How about him bringing all these lost denominations back into the fold of the True Church he created. The Universal Church, the Catholic Church, the Roman Catholic Church…
(speculating now) He could possibly do that…after He fixes the Roman Catholic denomination so that we could join it without grossly violating our consciences.
The RCC is not a denomination. It is first and original. It has stood the test of time for nearly 2000 years.
The dictionary disagrees with you. From one online dictionary
4 : a religious organization whose congregations are united in their adherence to its beliefs and practices
Of course you claim special status for yourselves, but then again so do the Mormons and Church of Christ…
 
So little time…so much stuff to wade through…working backwards and seeing how far I get.
We do appreciate the effort. Truly we do.

Please, take a moment and read what the Catechism of the Catholic Church actually has to say about the matters that you are addressing concerning the Holy Spirit and those outside the Church:

817 In fact, “in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame.” The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ’s Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism - do not occur without human sin:

Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.
818 “However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church.”

819 “Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth” are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: “the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements.” Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him, and are in themselves calls to “Catholic unity.”
836 “All men are called to this catholic unity of the People of God. . . . And to it, in different ways, belong or are ordered: the Catholic faithful, others who believe in Christ, and finally all mankind, called by God’s grace to salvation.”
837 “Fully incorporated into the society of the Church are those who, possessing the Spirit of Christ, accept all the means of salvation given to the Church together with her entire organization, and who - by the bonds constituted by the profession of faith, the sacraments, ecclesiastical government, and communion - are joined in the visible structure of the Church of Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. Even though incorporated into the Church, one who does not however persevere in charity is not saved. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but ‘in body’ not ‘in heart.’”

838 “The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter.” Those “who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church.” With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound “that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist.”
God loves all men, and the Holy Spirit seeks to lead those who have separated themselves from the Mystical Body of Christ back into full communion with the Church founded by Jesus.
 
So little time…so much stuff to wade through…working backwards and seeing how far I get…
I know the feeling partner.
False choice here. The Bible is full of examples where because our failings as humans we fell far short of what God designed.

Case in point, the nation of Israel in the OT…
I appreciate what you’re saying, but their is a difference. Jesus delivered us the fullness of divine revelation and promised that He would be with us always. He left us with the Holy Spirit and promised to lead us into ALL truth. And finally, He told Peter that the gates of Hell would not prevail against His Church, which indeed would have happened if His Church was teaching error. So, while there are many parallels to Israel and the Church, they are not exact. The Old Israel merely forshadowed the New. This Covenant is a new and better one, partly because we have the fullness of truth through the Word made flesh.
Yet God has not lost control over Israel (and there are scriptures that indicate at some point in time He will restore Israel).

Similarly, God has not lost control over the church of Jesus Christ, even though through human failings it may appear to fall far short of what He had in mind. None of us knows where God is taking the church in the future…
This makes the assumption again that the Church has gone astray like Israel has. The burden is on you to prove this.
Whoa…time out.

First of all, could you guys please get your act together on what exactly we are. On the one hand, some of you say that our churches are Christian but we lack the “fullness of truth” (whatever that is). Now I am reading our churches are Satan’s counterfeit (I assume by that statement we are cultists).

Now if our churches are Satan’s counterfeit, then the presence of the Holy Spirit we feel in our churches is false…the comfort and assurance we receive from God’s word in our churches is false…the people who come to Christ and have their lives radically transformed in our churches have instead had a Satanic encounter…etc…
Hey, each person speaks for himself here. Don’t say “you guys.” I am the one that said Catholics consider Protestants our Christian brethren. And while I do agree that Satan is at work in creating disunity amongst Christians, I do not believe that makes you un-Christian. I don’t believe you follow Satan. I believe you are attempting to follow Christ to the best of your knowledge and capability. So, don’t lump us all together. Two different people made two different statements. I kindly request you treat it as such, much like I don’t lump every Protestant in with Jack Chick and John MacArthur.
You probably are not aware of this, but you really sound like the Catholic Jack Chick spewing forth venom like that…

And you guys complain about John MacArthur and Jack Chick. Pot meet kettle.

Sheesh.

(speculating now) He could possibly do that…after He fixes the Roman Catholic denomination so that we could join it without grossly violating our consciences…
But what if your consciences have been formed incompletely? What if the reason it violates your conscience to be Catholic as the RCC today is because you don’t properly understand the teachings? Don’t just assume that the RCC is wrong because you disagree with what you think you know about us. You have already admitted you are fallible. What if you are wrong about the RCC?
The dictionary disagrees with you. From one online dictionary

Of course you claim special status for yourselves, but then again so do the Mormons and Church of Christ…
I would appreciate it if you would stop lumping us in with fundamentalist cults. I find this quite disrespectful. Not to mention, both of these churches have their roots in the last two centuries. This comparison is ridiculous.

As far as how the dictionary defines denominations, I put little stock in that. I don’t expect Webster to get involved in polemical Christian debates.
 
You are misunderstanding me. Perhaps I am not making myself clear. So let me try again…
  • I accept (and am in agreement with the RC denomination) that the Bible is God’s inspired word…
But the question is WHY?
  • There are many conflicting claims out there in ChristianityLand concerning faith sources that claim to be equivalent to the Bible (RC tradition, RC magisterium, Book of Mormon, writings of Mary Baker Eddy…)…
Yeah, but I can trace the roots of these others to the last century of two. I can trace the roots of RC Tradition and the Magisterium to the Apostles. You keep using these comparisons, but they are meaningless.
The Bible in 1 Thess 5:21 instructs me to examine everything carefully and hold fast what is good. I have no way of examining these conflicting claims of equivalency and verifying what if any of these claims are actually true. In absence of verification, I would reject these claims…
Sure you do. Are you willing to is the question. I mean, youjust got done quoting 1 Thess 5:21 that says “Test everything.” Therefore, God has commanded you to examine these “conflicting claims.”

Furthermore, it would not take me long to disprove the Book of Mormon. Heck, even their leading archaeologists admit that most of their claims are impossible.
  • I am skeptical that any future claims would be any more credible than those that have already been made, but who knows. Maybe there is a verse in Ezekiel 49 or some place that I have not encountered.
Future claims? These are the claims of the Catholic Church since the times of the Apostles. You can read Clement, Ignatius of Antioch, Ireneaus, or Justin Martyr and see they were Catholic. Why do you not follow the same “Biblical Christianity” they did?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top