On WHAT basis does your Church claim to be the One TRUE-Faith Church of the Bible?

[susanlo]

Then why does Paul call himself a Father to Timothy and Tius… or Abraham a father to us all?

Abraham is the patriarch of the Israelites and all who belong to Christ. Galatians 3:29 And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s descendants, heirs according to promise.
I believe Paul did say that he begot individuals into Christ. I am not sure if his language for father is the same as in Matthew 23. I would have to look into that.

But what I am really getting at is if the apostles there at the time of Matthew 23 ended up calling Peter their holy father. Did the apostles have language to identify one as being in authority over the other apostles? I thought they referred to each other as brethren.

 

[susanlo]

Thank you for your reply.
i would not consider some one that teaches something that the Holy Spirit and the Apostles have spoke against as a brother in Christ.

I think a misunderstanding of teaching is different than deliberate disagreement with God’s word.

They may have had disagreements about circumcision at one time. I don’t know how this played into the timeline with Acts 15. It was probably before they parted ways at that time.
I think this disagreement didn’t end any of them being accepted by God.

Galatians 2:11 But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For prior to the coming of certain men from [j]James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing [k]the party of the circumcision. 13 The rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy. 14 But when I saw that they were not [l]straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all, “If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?

 

[josephback]

One more note on rank and hierarchy. In order to defeat the enemy an army needs to hear the trumpet sound. It also needs to be organized into units with leaders that can defeat the enemy. These leaders must be invested with real authority or the army will disintegrate into chaos. In order that the Church stand and endure against the powers of sin, death, and hell there needs to be a hierarchy with real teaching authority, going back in unbroken succession to the age of the Apostles. A church or community which cannot trace it’s lineage back to the Apostles has no way of knowing if in fact the doctrine preached is that which was preached in the beginning. Anyone can claim to be a pastor or elder, but how does one know that the Gospel they preach is that of Christ? This is the essential question to answer.

 

[Abu]

Wannano #114
No doubt Peter was a leader, his personality shows itself several times causing him to be admonished even by Jesus. There is a pecking order in every group of people and personalities like Peter usually come out as leaders. Does the fact that he visited the churches make him the Pope. That is my question rc, why dIdn’t Paul and the others refer to him as Pope Peter? Did Peter ever know he was a Pope?

Yes, the recognition that Christ appointed St Peter as the Leader of His Church, a fact made very clear by Christ Himself.

What is important is that the popes are the Vicars of Christ, leading His Church, as established by Him, and teach faith and morals infallibly.

susanlo #121
The terms Rabbi and leaders are not prohibited - only father. I haven’t researched the original Greek of these words. However, I don’t know if my concern is that the term father is later used. But, I just think this is a place where Jesus clearly explained the hierarchy that was to be - “brothers.”
#139
Did the apostles have language to identify one as being in authority over the other apostles? I thought they referred to each other as brethren.

“Father” for priests is prohibited? No. What Christ referred to was the supreme Fatherhood of God, which must not be subjugated to any earthly father.

As Christ Himself taught: “Why do you call Me good? One is good, God.” [Mt 19:17].
So, the title Father for priests who celebrate the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the sacraments, and minister to souls, is most appropriate.

As clearly taught by Christ, He built His Church on St Peter who was preeminent and unchallenged in teaching, as we have seen.

 

[steve_b]

How does one know the pure word of God and administration of the sacraments without the Church to determine them?

True

And only one fits the description. #34
j:

In the beginning and indeed today there were many competing writings and movements that all claim to be Christian yet teach things radically at odds with each other.

True. That’s why the necessity of one authority that Jesus established #34
j:

Everyone insists on some sort of standard, but how is that standard objectively determined in the absence of a teaching office?

True.

And Jesus gave us that. The pillar and foundation of truth 1 Timothy 3:15, the Catholic Church #34
j:

Would a God who leaves us to ourselves on matters of heaven and hell truly be a God of love?

Hence that’s why He gave us the Catholic Church.

 

[steve_b]

ONLY HIGHLY CONDITIONALLY TRUE

**FROM THE CATHOLIC CATECHISM

1260 **“Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery.” Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.

**846 **How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door.** Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it**

**847 **This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation

So, it would seen a prudent question to ask:

For Protestants on CAF; do they, or do they NOT qualify based on the above, given the fact that CAF is precisely that “possibility?”

God will Judge us NOT on what we choose to knoew and believe, RATHER on WHAT He GOD has made possible for one to know and believe. Amen!

God Bless you,
Patrick

God Bless you.

Re: one’s ignorance, and if ignorance is innocent or not

Unless someone has absolutely no access to technology, then given the ease and access to information today, it’s never been easier in all history than it is today, to access any and all information one needs on any subject, if they put a modicum of effort into researching any subject.

Therefore

#**14 **, ignorance isn’t always what it seems.

1791 ignorance isn’t always innocent

then there is Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart. That does not diminish, but rather increases, the voluntary character of a sin.

 

[Cyril_Of_Canada]

According to two pastors who talked to me recently in a non-denominational, protestant church:

“The Protestant Church has come out of the Catholic Church.”

and

“Now it’s the Protestant Church…and the actual Catholic
Church that stays behind now.”

“…And that’s why I’m saying the Church that Jesus established got to be so bad. So, the Reformers came out, and it’s still the same Church that Jesus established.”

“So it was a really bad situation, and so the Reformers came out of that. But so it’s still the Church that Jesus established. But the Reformers of the Church that Jesus established, and the Catholic Church, at that point, one would have to say they have gone so far from the Bible, far away from what Jesus said. And so, you could say The Lord took the, er, established the Church and took the Reformers into the future. And the Catholic Church had gotten a bit better since then. They have recanted some of those things, and they’ve stayed with it.”

Just some of the exact quotes from their talk with me as they tried to convince me not to convert to Catholicism and find out why I wanted to convert to Catholicism.

 

[benhur]

Then why does Paul call himself a Father to Timothy and Tius… or Abraham a father to us all?

But did Timothy call Paul “father” ? As far as Abraham, he is our forefather in the faith, and for some, in seed. It is not a title denoting “teacher” per say, except maybe for example.

For sure Jesus was literally warning of teacher’s, rabbis, priests (even a magisterium ?) displacing the power and reality of divine revelation, and the ministry of the Holy Spirit irrespective of persons, even denying the Lord of His *Full *Shepherdship.

There can no longer be an excuse for resting* wrongly or solely *on, “Are we not sons of Abraham, are we not following what my parents and their parents did before them, are we not following that which has been traditional since the beginning etc. etc. ?”.

We must hear His voice, in all things, be it in nature , or family, or church.

“And they shall not teach every man his neighbour and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me from the least to the greatest of them:” Hebrews

Blessings

 

[fbl9]

I think a misunderstanding of teaching is different than deliberate disagreement with God’s word.

They may have had disagreements about circumcision at one time. I don’t know how this played into the timeline with Acts 15. It was probably before they parted ways at that time.
I think this disagreement didn’t end any of them being accepted by God.

Galatians 2:11 But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For prior to the coming of certain men from [j]James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing [k]the party of the circumcision. 13 The rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy. 14 But when I saw that they were not [l]straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all, “If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?

In your previous post you seemed to imply that we (christians) are all in union, though we disagree. Yet your teachers will say that the Catholic Church does deliberately teach against God`s word.
When does a misunderstanding of a teaching become deliberate?
What you cited had nothing to do with what i was asking.
The circumcision issue had already been dealt with ,actually just a few verses, before the split between St.Paul and Barnabas. Again i ask you had this disagreement between St.Paul and Barnabas been about circumcision, with each man taking opposing views would they still be brothers in Christ?

 

[benhur]

ONLY HIGHLY CONDITIONALLY TRUE

**FROM THE CATHOLIC CATECHISM

1260 **“Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery.” Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.

**846 **How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door.** Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it**

**847 **This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation

So, it would seen a prudent question to ask:

For Protestants on CAF; do they, or do they NOT qualify based on the above, given the fact that CAF is precisely that “possibility?”

God will Judge us NOT on what we choose to knoew and believe, RATHER on WHAT He GOD has made possible for one to know and believe. Amen!

God Bless you,
Patrick

God Bless you.

Hi PJM,

Well, He will judge us by the light He has given us and our reaction to it. So we will be judged by how we believe and as you say, according to the light He has provided.

Yes, the CC attitude and teaching about those believers outside of Rome is a bit “complicated”. Part due to the faithfulness to their tradition (sectarian), and part due to desire to face the reality of there effective existence, and therefore ecumenism.

Blessings

 

[Wannano]

One more note on rank and hierarchy. In order to defeat the enemy an army needs to hear the trumpet sound. It also needs to be organized into units with leaders that can defeat the enemy. These leaders must be invested with real authority or the army will disintegrate into chaos. In order that the Church stand and endure against the powers of sin, death, and hell there needs to be a hierarchy with real teaching authority, going back in unbroken succession to the age of the Apostles. A church or community which cannot trace it’s lineage back to the Apostles has no way of knowing if in fact the doctrine preached is that which was preached in the beginning. Anyone can claim to be a pastor or elder, but how does one know that the Gospel they preach is that of Christ? This is the essential question to answer.

I think you have raised a very good point here that seems to be passed over. “Anyone can claim to be a pastor or elder, but how does one know that the Gospel they preach is that of Christ.” You asked this in direct reference to someone who does not have “unbroken succession to the age of the Apostles.” A very good question! If we have no way of knowing then indeed we are in trouble!

I am going to expand your thought which I feel is a very good one. Anyone can become a priest. If one becomes a Catholic priest he is placed in direct succession with the Apostles. So he has the hierarchy of the Church above him with “real teaching authority” and because we can trace the lineage of the Church back to the Apostles we know that what is preached by this priest is that which was preached in the beginning.

I know even in my own community there have been priests who have proven to be wolves in sheep’s clothing. Many times I have been told by parishioners how they detest their priest and look forward to the day when he leaves. The whole sexual scandal regarding priests has brought to light a whole other dimension. Even on caf we see Catholic members suggesting people search out a new parish when they have an unsatisfactory priest. Having a hierarchy does not seem to address and solve or eliminate the problem. So to ask your question again: “how does one know that the gospel they preach is that of Christ?”

 

[steve_b]

According to two pastors who talked to me recently in a non-denominational, protestant church:

“The Protestant Church has come out of the Catholic Church.”

Since we are asking “on what basis does your Church claim…” then one would, and should ask, those pastors for their “proof”, for their answer(s) properly referenced,… agreed?

Taking this in steps

Questions one should ask them,

1. What came first

• the NT scriptures,
• or the Church Jesus established and gave all His promises to?

The answer is the Church. There were no NT writings at the time of the institution of the Church. Those writings came much later. Those who wrote, were by definition, already in the Church they were writing to and for. An official canon of scripture (list of inspired books) wasn’t available till 382 a.d. Therefore, no official canon no official bible. So what was the pillar and foundation of truth for 382 years? The bible? 1 Timothy 3:15 ,

The Church

• wrote the NT,
• collected only the books the Church deemed inspired,
• and canonized only those books.

The bible came from the Church, the Church didn’t come from the bible. The bible was written in, by, and for the Church.

2. what Church would that be?

• It is THE Church that only Jesus said He will build on Peter. THAT Church by definition is still here today and will be here forever! If it ever failed, then Jesus would have failed.
• one can see “IN WRITING” the Church is consistently there from the 1st century.
• It’s** The Catholic Church** #34 ,
• that link is a short condensed 400 year history, the proof that is required to answer the question, all properly referenced

3. Where / when in history do we see the notion of a " non-denominational, protestant church"

• Truth is, scripture and Tradition condemns divisions, schisms, sects, heresies as well as those who do that. And there is no expiration date to those condemnations. It’s always going to be condemned. Great Heresies
• AND Scripture directly says those who do and cause others to do it, they don’t serve Our Lord Jesus but Satan. And if they die in that state, they won’t inherit heaven (see link #34 , and particularly the explanation of Rom 16:15… & Gal 5:19…)

Do you think they know where those condemnations are in scripture? Do you think they know where to find it in (T)radition either. I’d say that If they did find it, they would have to come to the same conclusion Cardinal John Henry Newman came to when he converted to Catholicism. “To be deep in history is to cease being a Protestant” . Maybe you take this back to them and show them this information yourself

If you open up that link #34 , and open up all the internal links inside that link you’ll see the answers to Scripture + Tradition that prove the Catholic Church is the Church Jesus established, & division from this Church is condemned.
C:

and

“Now it’s the Protestant Church…and the actual Catholic
Church that stays behind now.”

[snip for space]

Just some of the exact quotes from their talk with me as they tried to convince me not to convert to Catholicism and find out why I wanted to convert to Catholicism.

Those quotes show how misled they are. They don’t know history and they don’t know the scriptures they claim to preach from.

The consequence for those who mislead, is dire Matthew 18:6

 

[steve_b]

Hi PJM,

Well, He will judge us by the light He has given us and our reaction to it. So we will be judged by how we believe and as you say, according to the light He has provided.

Yes, the CC attitude and **teaching about those believers outside of Rome is a bit “complicated”. **Part due to the faithfulness to their tradition (sectarian), and part due to desire to face the reality of there effective existence, and therefore ecumenism.

Blessings

It’s actually clear. Church documents are clear.

 

[PJM]

Thanks Abu, you have at least attempted to give me answers, at least to one of my questions.

**Hi, I’m the OP of this string.

I’ve been SWAMPED with all the POST.

Please let me know your questions and I will be sure to respond to ALL of them.

If I get waylaid, PLEASE send me a private message.

You’re questions ARE very important, and I will make sure you get answers to them.

TRULY sorry for missing them in the 1st place,

Patrick [PJM]**

 

[PJM]

Originally Posted by rcwitness View Post
What constitutes a heretical position? Who determines this?

THE REPLY

In the beginning it was apostolic tradition/faith/teaching and their writ that was the source for normative revelation. This is what congregations/churches/councils used as benchmarks. As you know we now have varied church structures/orthodoxies and varied councils dealing with heresy.

MY COMMENTS

In a Word: TRUTH!

Now retired Pope Benedict XVI had this to share on the very day that he became Pope:

"There cannot be your truth and my truth, or there would be NO truth"… to which the RCC adds a great AMEN!

Heresies can pertain Doctrine; Dogma and sacred Tradition onmatters of faith beliefs and morals.

READ paying CLOSE attention to the singular tense words the God Inspired Authors choose to use. This is a point of CRITICAL understanding [2nd Tim. 3:16-17 & Mt 4:4]

Mt 10:1-8
Mt 16:18-19
John 17: 17-20
Mt 28:19-20

To get the biblical support for the Catholic magisterium to have not only the authority, BUT also the direct and exclusive command to do so.

Thanks for asking

God Bless,

Patrick

 

[PJM]

Wannano #87
The challenge in saying he was the first pope and that Jesus called his church "the Catholic Church " is hard for me to substantiate. Maybe you can give me scripture that teach that and also verses that indicate the apostles recognized Peter as the Pope and that the churches were Catholic heiriarchal structures.

THE GREAT REPLY:thumbsup:

Where do you find that “Jesus called his church ‘the Catholic Church’ ”?

1. Catholic means universal as first used by St Ignatius of Antioch who pointed out (A.D. 35-107, Letter to the Smyrneans, 8, 2): “Where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.”
2. The Apostles recognised St Peter as the first Pope because they obeyed Jesus when He specifically put Peter in charge and no one else:

All four promises to Peter alone:
“You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18)
“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
“I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven." ( Mt 16:19)
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19)
**
Sole authority to Peter alone:**
“Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).

Later to the twelve also:
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.”

1. Already, Peter had exercised his supreme authority in the upper room before Pentecost to have Judas’ place filled. At the first Apostolic Council of Jerusalem Peter settled the heated discussion over circumcising the gentiles and “the whole assembly fell silent” (Acts 15:7-12). Paul made sure that his ministry to the gentiles was recognised by, Peter (Gal 1:I8).

The third successor of St Peter, Pope Clement, wrote to the Catholics of Corinth in A.D. 95: “If any man should be disobedient unto the words spoken by God through us, let them understand that they will entangle themselves in no slight transgression and danger… Render obedience to the things written by us through the Holy Spirit.” (I Clem. ad Cor. 59,1). This Is The Faith, Francis J Ripley, Fowler Wright Books, 1971, p 151; 139-141].

Christ’s Catholic Church teaches that other Christians are linked to the Catholic Church through baptism though not having the fullness of truth.

MY COMMENTS ADDED LATER

Actually Jesus Didn’t

The first name for the NOW RCC was "The Way"

Acts 16:7 “This same following Paul and us, cried out, saying: These men are the servants of the most high G od, who preach unto you the way of salvation.”

Acts 19:23 “Now at that time there arose no small disturbance about the way of the Lord”

Acts 24: 14 "But this I confess to thee, that according to the way, which they call a heresy, so do I serve the Father and my God, believing all things which are written in the law and the prophets:

Later the Church was called "Christians"

Acts 11:26 “And they conversed there in the church a whole year; and they taught a great multitude, so that at Antioch the disciples were first named Christians.”

And not too long after that, the Church was first called CATHOLICS, a term that has remained to the present day:

CATHOLIC. Its original meaning of “general” or “universal” has taken on a variety of applications in the course of Christian history. **First used by St. Ignatius of Antioch (A.D. 35-107) (Letter to the Smyrneans, 8, 2), it is now mainly used in five recognized senses: **1. the Catholic Church as distinct from Christian ecclesiastical bodies that do not recognize the papal primacy; 2. the Catholic faith as the belief of the universal body of the faithful, namely that which is believed “everywhere, always, and by all” (Vincentian Canon); 3. orthodoxy as distinguished from what is heretical or schismatical; 4. the undivided Church before the Eastern Schism of 1054; thereafter the Eastern Church has called itself orthodox, in contrast with those Christian bodies which did not accept the definitions of Ephesus and Chalcedon on the divinity of Christ.

In general, today the term “Catholic” refers to those Christians who profess a continued tradition of faith and worship and who hold to the Apostolic succession of bishops and priests since the time of Christ. (Etym. Latin catholicus, universal; Greek katholikos, universal.)

Fr. Hardon’s Catholic Dictionary

God Bless,
Patrick

 

[PJM]

PJM, you seem to miss the point that we all believe there is only one Church. Again, the word Church in English can be misleading. Ekklesia = congregation, community, gathering, a meeting of the “out-called ones.” If one is “out-called” and follows The Shepherd’s call to faith in Him, and meet together, that is the Church.

Jesus walking through the streets of a city, He calls out for any and all to come walk with Him. Those that answer His call and follow Him are the Church.

No Actually I Do understand your point.

It’s the fact that your understanding is at best limited and contrived that I disagree with.

HERE"S WHY [before you kill me]

Theologically and Morally it is impossible to separate the Faith of a particular church from the term CHURCH itself.

The Catholic Church exist both
FOR GOD & BY GOD; those elements are inseparable. without who the CC would habe no mandate, no authority, and no mission…

READ. paying particular attention the singular tense of the WORD,

Mt 16: 18-19; wherein Jesus [God] chooses Peter to be his "Primeminister/ Visar. and to who Christ gives ALL of the Key’s to heaven Gate; and the commits infallibly to SUPPORT Her {Mother CC], in ALL of Her teachings on all Faith and Moral Matters that are to be accepted by ALL

The do the same with Mt. 28: 19-20 where again Jesus [GOD} uses singular tense WORDs** to directy and exclusively command Peter and The Church:

Cf. YOU! Go! & Teach the WORLD ALL that I [GOD[ have taught to **YOU!

Overlooking singular tense WORDS {Mt 4: 4…“Who answered and said: It is written, Not in bread alone doth man live, but in every word that proceedeth from the mouth of God”

is the MOST problematic issue leading to the ever-increasing proliferation of Protestant churches, and differing understanding of what can only be: SINGULAR Truts:shrug:

God Bless you

Patrick

 

[PJM]

Yes Patrick, you are right, the Protestant division from the CC is a consequence of the Gospel.

#3 above: Catholics here at caf constantly keep insisting the Bible was written by Catholics for Catholics and that it is a Catholic book. Why would you even think it would contain evidence that God abandoned the CC? Maybe it happened after the Bible was put together?

Teh SATIRE I GET

So on WHAT basis then does Protestantism [quite often with 'BIBLE"churches"] use as a justification; as evidence of doing so aligned with GOD"S WILL:shrug: Or is that not important?

God Bless you!

Patick.

 

[PJM]

Re: one’s ignorance, and if ignorance is innocent or not

Unless someone has absolutely no access to technology, then given the ease and access to information today, it’s never been easier in all history than it is today, to access any and all information one needs on any subject, if they put a modicum of effort into researching any subject.

Therefore

#**14 **, ignorance isn’t always what it seems.

1791 ignorance isn’t always innocent

then there is Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart. That does not diminish, but rather increases, the voluntary character of a sin.

Completely AGREE, which is why In ahve for a very long time prayerd for the NC’s on this FORUM.

**we ask the question:

ARE BEING FAIR AND JUST GOOD THINGS? Yes of course

Then point out a reasonable definition Of GOD

GOD IS ALL GOOD THINGS PERFECTED

and ask: So then we CAN know absolutely that God in an absolute sense HAS TO BE both fair and good.

THEREFORE:

GOD WILL, BECAUSE GOD MUST MAKE OUR FINAL JUDGEMENT NOT ON WHAT WE CHOOSE TO BELIEVE AND PRACTICE; RATHER I ORDER TO BE GOD; THAT JUDGMENT MUST [AND CERTAINLY WILL BE] BASED UPON WHAT GOD HIMSELF MAKES POSSIBLE FOR ONE TO KNOW. Amen!**

God Bless, Patrick

 

[Kliska]

No Actually I Do understand your point.

I appreciate the reply, but let me try to clarify…

It’s the fact that your understanding is at best limited and contrived that I disagree with.

I would definitely disagree here, surprise. I don’t think it is limited when we examine the Greek used as opposed to the English. It certainly isn’t “contrived.”

Theologically and Morally it is impossible to separate the Faith of a particular church from the term CHURCH itself.

It’s the term church itself that is what we are talking about, not the faith of a “particular” church. There is only one ekklesia, by definition; the out-called ones of God.

… the ever-increasing proliferation of Protestant churches, and differing understanding of what can only be: SINGULAR Truts:shrug:

Again, this is why there is a problem in translating “ekklesia” as “church.” God’s got a congregation, He has one congregation of out-called ones. Only one, as that is how we are grouped. The body of Christ, singular. Who makes up that congregation is what is really being debated. The reason why this must go into semantics is because of the way you ask your question in the OP. I don’t have a “church.” God has His out-called ones. His Congregation.

God Bless you

And you as well.