Positive proof the Invisible, non-Catholic Christian Church is right?

[AshleyBelle]

Romans 8:14 For whosoever are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

  Sure, I agree with that passage, thank you for posting it:)

I don't think there's any question whether non Catholic Christians are just as much sons of God as  Catholic Christians... Nor does simply "belonging" to one group or the other make one a believer.

But I’m looking for support of your belief that there is only the invisible Church. I think we can agree from this passage and others that an invisible church exists, but we cannot disprove that it is meant to be both visibly and invisibly unified.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Rightlydivide,

Here’s a couple more thoughts I wanted to share.

**Mat 22:29 And Jesus answering, said to them: You err, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God.

Mar 12:24 And Jesus answering, saith to them: Do ye not therefore err, because you know not the scriptures nor the power of God? **

Christ used examples of misinterpretations of scriptures against the Sadducees.

Joh 5:39 Search the scriptures: for you think in them to have life everlasting. And the same are they that give testimony of me.

He criticized people for thinking the scriptures to have everlasting life, when the scriptures pointed at Him and they still couldn’t recognize Him as the Messiah. Clearly, they didn’t understand what they read.

2Pe 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.

God inspired St. Peter to write about the dangers of misinterpreting scriptures.

I may not be able to respond until later this evening…(exams)

God Bless,

 

[jmcrae]

Of course. Everyone must decide. Of course we have disputes. That goes for anything the Bible teaches. You have to decide what church teaches the truth.

I have to decide? How is it up to me? Where and when did Jesus establish me as the Rock of the Church?

What is to prevent me from saying, “In this dispute that I am having with you, I’ve decided that I’m right, so I will use as my authority the ecclesial organization that happens to agree with me. I’ll contact an elder of that organization to come and be the arbiter in this dispute of ours.”

What is to prevent you from doing the same thing?

How is our dispute solved, then, if we both do that?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Evidently you do not hold to Apostolic succession in the Church, so I am sharing a few verses that I feel support this point.

**Joh 15:16 You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide; so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you.

Joh 20:21 Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.”

Luk 22:29 and I assign to you, as my Father assigned to me, a kingdom,
Luk 22:30 that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Mat 16:18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Joh 10:16 And other sheep I have that are not of this fold: them also I must bring. And they shall hear my voice: And there shall be one fold and one shepherd.

Luk 22:32 But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren.

Joh 21:17 He said to him the third time: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he had said to him the third time: Lovest thou me? And he said to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee. He said to him: Feed my sheep.**

The next verses are quite clear about offices of the Church. We have an understanding how they apply to the Catholic Church and feel they support a succession that took place from the time of the Apostles until present day, including the early Church fathers whose writings can be important because they demonstrate how early Christians practiced Christianity. How do these verses apply to your Church?

**Eph 4:11 And he gave some apostles, and some prophets, and other some evangelists, and other some pastors and doctors:

1Ti 3:1 A faithful saying: If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth good work.
1Ti 3:8 Deacons in like manner: chaste, not double tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre:
1Ti 5:17 Let the priests that rule well be esteemed worthy of double honour: especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.

Tit 1:5 For this cause I left thee in Crete: that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting and shouldest ordain priests in every city, as I also appointed thee: **

God Bless,

 

[Rightlydivide]

Prodigal Son1;4560438]Ok, let me rephrase my question. Where does the Bible say it’s the only source to achieve the truth of Christ, excluding other ordinances, doctrines or traditions.

The phrase is not familiar with me and I have never stated that. One thing about me, I believe what the Bible teaches. I do not believe you can prove any traditions that come from Christ.

Well, personally, I find it a shame to disregard all writings of the early Church fathers, many who verify how early Christians practiced their faith. St. Ignatius specifically comes to mind, as he was a disciple of St. John and appointed by St. Peter.

I have stated Ignatius never states that “Jesus also taught this” or “Peter said”

Mat 23:1 Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to his disciples,
Mat 23:2 Saying: The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses.
Mat 23:3 All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not. For they say, and do not.

This passage shows several things. Number one, how did the people know what Christ was talking about when he spoke of the “chair of Moses”? It was not written anywhere else in the Bible, including the Old Testament. He did not have to explain what he was talking about, because they knew of the chair of Moses through oral tradition.

I am not sure what you are saying. Are you saying that I have advocated not reading commentaries, books, or talking to others about things to better understand the Bible?
I have also never stated that there was no such thing as oral tradition. I am not sure what you are trying to do. Its…I dont know what it is!

Number two, he was telling people to observe and do whatsoever they tell you, because He knew He was about to build His Church and it could be protected in matters of faith and morals through His Holy Spirit. He did not tell them to find themselves a Bible and that’s all they needed.

I do not accept the premise because you are using words and phrases I do not accept. So to be clear…you are using the Bible as your guide to prove not to use the Bible? Or you are using the Bible to prove you should use something more than the Bible? I love it!!

**1Co 10:4 And all drank the same spiritual drink: (And they drank of the spiritual rock that followed them: and the rock was Christ.) **

How did St. Paul know about the rock that followed the Israelites through the desert? It was not written about anywhere else in scriptures, including the Old Testament! St. Paul could have only learned that through, oral tradition.

Sure, thats fine. There are lots of phrases and passages that speak of this.

2Ti 3:8 Now as Jannes and Mambres resisted Moses, so these also resist the truth, men corrupted in mind, reprobate concerning the faith.

Remember the story of Pharoah’s magicians? You know they turned their staffs into snakes and Moses staff/snake ate them both. How did St. Paul know their names? They are not named anywhere else in the Bible! St. Paul could have only learned this through, oral tradtion.

Sure.

Are the tradition, ordinances and doctrines St. Paul wrote about, as listed above talking “doctrines of the devil”?

If you have some questions about foods or marriage as it applies to Catholic beliefs, I’d be glad to try and address them, or others here will.

I dont know. I am just glad we never restrict food or marriage

 

[Rightlydivide]

]

I have to decide? How is it up to me? Where and when did Jesus establish me as the Rock of the Church?

You decided to accept the Catholic Church as this church. That is the truth. You did not accept the Coptic Orthodox Church as this church. You did not accept the Polish National Catholic Church as this church.

What is to prevent me from saying, “In this dispute that I am having with you, I’ve decided that I’m right, so I will use as my authority the ecclesial organization that happens to agree with me. I’ll contact an elder of that organization to come and be the arbiter in this dispute of ours.”

I tried to keep up on that one…
Nothing prevents you. Its a free country. It is up to you to decide if you believe that is what the Bible or tradition teaches.

What is to prevent you from doing the same thing?

Nothing

How is our dispute solved, then, if we both do that? :shrug

Once again, this is not foolproof. The Catholic Church is not the only show in town. You know that. You have accepted their authority. I do not. That was your choice.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Prodigal Son1;4560516]Evidently you do not hold to Apostolic succession in the Church, so I am sharing a few verses that I feel support this point.

**Joh 15:16 You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide; so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you.

Joh 20:21 Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.”

Luk 22:29 and I assign to you, as my Father assigned to me, a kingdom,
Luk 22:30 that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Mat 16:18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Joh 10:16 And other sheep I have that are not of this fold: them also I must bring. And they shall hear my voice: And there shall be one fold and one shepherd.

Luk 22:32 But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren.

Joh 21:17 He said to him the third time: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he had said to him the third time: Lovest thou me? And he said to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee. He said to him: Feed my sheep.**

The next verses are quite clear about offices of the Church. We have an understanding how they apply to the Catholic Church and feel they support a succession that took place from the time of the Apostles until present day, including the early Church fathers whose writings can be important because they demonstrate how early Christians practiced Christianity. How do these verses apply to your Church?

**Eph 4:11 And he gave some apostles, and some prophets, and other some evangelists, and other some pastors and doctors:

1Ti 3:1 A faithful saying: If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth good work.
1Ti 3:8 Deacons in like manner: chaste, not double tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre:
1Ti 5:17 Let the priests that rule well be esteemed worthy of double honour: especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.

Tit 1:5 For this cause I left thee in Crete: that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting and shouldest ordain priests in every city, as I also appointed thee: **

Apostolic Succession is meaningless IMO.
How many groups, even according to the Catholics, have VALID apostolic succession?
I can think of around 10 I believe.
Do they all agree? Of course not.
Oh, and there are thousands of others claiming to have it. If you believe that your particular group has the right line of apostolic succession to make you right, that is your interpretation of history and so be it. I dont buy it.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I have also never stated that there was no such thing as oral tradition. I am not sure what you are trying to do. Its…I dont know what it is!

I am just showing there were others ways to learn the Gospel than only the written word. Christ created a Church and appointed men to positions and granted authority.

I do not accept the premise because you are using words and phrases I do not accept. So to be clear…you are using the Bible as your guide to prove not to use the Bible? Or you are using the Bible to prove you should use something more than the Bible? I love it!!

There are other sources to learn truth. One, I feel certain you will agree with, is prayer. The others could be explained, using the Bible.

Sure, thats fine. There are lots of phrases and passages that speak of this.

Please share them with us. What other passages speak about the rock that followed the Israelites?

If Christ Himself, who never wrote anything or had anything scribed, taught through oral tradition, what’s wrong with listening to oral tradition from the men of the Church Christ created?

I dont know. I am just glad we never restrict food or marriage

You keep throwing this out as an apparent negative of some kind. Can you please articulate exactly what your point is on these subjects?

God Bless,

 

[Rightlydivide]

This is the problem when you use isolated verses and stop in Matthew. If I told the Bible teaches that some of the churches early on had doctrines that God hated, but they were still part of his church…would you believe it?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Apostolic Succession is meaningless IMO.
How many groups, even according to the Catholics, have VALID apostolic succession?
I can think of around 10 I believe.
Do they all agree? Of course not.
Oh, and there are thousands of others claiming to have it. If you believe that your particular group has the right line of apostolic succession to make you right, that is your interpretation of history and so be it. I dont buy it.

According to Catholics, there is one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

You don’t buy it…how about selling me on the authority of your Church then?

You didn’t address how your Church applies the instructions on clergy of the Church according to the verses I provided.

Somehow this has become a “Catholics need to prove” discussion. I was, as charitable as I can, trying to explain it to you, using scriptures. You disregard anything I provide without discussion or scriptures, yet somehow your interpretation of scriptures is right over anyone else? What makes your interpretation of scriptures correct over anyone else?

The topic of this thread is proving the non-Catholic Christian Church is right. So far you’ve only used IMO and what you belief or are willing to “buy”. Please share sources to validate your Church is the right Church.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Lets do it like this if you are ok with it. I have the Ante-Nicene Fathers on the shelf. Its a BIG set of books. It is filled with traditions from the first 225 years after the last book of the Bible was written.
Now tell me, what parts or writings are infallible traditions. Which are not?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

This is the problem when you use isolated verses and stop in Matthew. If I told the Bible teaches that some of the churches early on had doctrines that God hated, but they were still part of his church…would you believe it?

I’d be glad to review any sources you have. Then it becomes subject to a correct interpretation. Then I would consider your points.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Lets do it like this if you are ok with it. I have the Ante-Nicene Fathers on the shelf. Its a BIG set of books. It is filled with traditions from the first 225 years after the last book of the Bible was written.
Now tell me, what parts or writings are infallible traditions. Which are not?

Those fathers selected the books of the new Testament. The new Testament Canon is a product of the Catholic Church.

The value of the early fathers is that they can shed light on the understanding of Christ’s teachings, especially those that are less than explicit in scripture.

 

[jim1130]

I am not sure what I would contribute. The phrase “invisible church” does not appear in scripture and as such I could not support it.
I believe the church is composed of all who are saved. What else I believe could be such a vast subject Ashley.

But how do we know who is saved and who is not saved?

I cannot see into anyone’s heart and life. I cannot tell who is a hypocrite. People deceive people all the time. God knows who will be saved.

So, theoretically, people can THINK they are saved as part of OSAS, thereby joining this “invisible church,” but are actually not saved at all. I have a hard time understanding that.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Lets do it like this if you are ok with it. I have the Ante-Nicene Fathers on the shelf. Its a BIG set of books. It is filled with traditions from the first 225 years after the last book of the Bible was written.
Now tell me, what parts or writings are infallible traditions. Which are not?

They are not scriptures, to totally reject or refuse to even discuss anything they have to say seems to indicate that you, 2000 years later, have a greater insight than they have to share with us.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Those fathers selected the books of the new Testament. The new Testament Canon is a product of the Catholic Church.

The value of the early fathers is that they can shed light on the understanding of Christ’s teachings, especially those that are less than explicit in scripture.

Thanks Chestertonrules, Rightlydivide asked for an infallible decision from early Church fathers and you provide the best example there is since they only want to rely on scriptures to support their position (even though I haven’t seen any scriptures produced, other than by Catholics. )

 

[Rightlydivide]

According to Catholics, there is one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

You don’t buy it…how about selling me on the authority of your Church then?

You didn’t address how your Church applies the instructions on clergy of the Church according to the verses I provided.

Somehow this has become a “Catholics need to prove” discussion. I was, as charitable as I can, trying to explain it to you, using scriptures. You disregard anything I provide without discussion or scriptures, yet somehow your interpretation of scriptures is right over anyone else? What makes your interpretation of scriptures correct over anyone else?

The topic of this thread is proving the non-Catholic Christian Church is right. So far you’ve only used IMO and what you belief or are willing to “buy”. Please share sources to validate your Church is the right Church.

My church follows the Bible. I am not sure why you using 'charitable" now. I am too. Now yes, you are right, it is ultimately up to each persons interpretation to determine which church to belong to.
I believe that my church is correct because we follow the Bible. I originally was just addressing this silly invisible church notion that I assume some people believe.
My church understand that the manual for church government comes from the apostle to the Gentiles-Paul. We do have the church government found in the NT. But once again, yes I do not buy it. Apostolic succession…means nothing. Even those that you guys say have valid apostolic succession do not agree.
What were we talking about???

 

[Rightlydivide]

Those fathers selected the books of the new Testament. The new Testament Canon is a product of the Catholic Church.

The value of the early fathers is that they can shed light on the understanding of Christ’s teachings, especially those that are less than explicit in scripture.

They absolutely did not select them. In the NT, the writers speak authoratively about the OT and quote them as scripture and they never said a council or a human being selected them. The premise of a person selecting what is to be scripture is not biblical. IF you said that God revealed his canon to man, I would think we could start to have common ground.

 

[jmcrae]

]
You decided to accept the Catholic Church as this church. That is the truth. You did not accept the Coptic Orthodox Church as this church. You did not accept the Polish National Catholic Church as this church.

True. Not because it fitted my beliefs, though. (I was a feminist liberal.) But because the overwhelming weight of historical and biblical evidence points to the Catholic Church being the only Church that Jesus established, with authority. Nothing else even comes close.

To reject the authority of the Catholic Church entails rejecting the very concept of authority itself. It is not possible, without either just ignoring the evidence, or deliberately deceiving yourself, to substitute something else in authority, in the place of the Catholic Church, because there is absolutely no basis for doing so.

I can’t even set myself up in authority, without tearing up the essential meaning of the word “authority.”

The only sane and reasonable alternative to the authority of the Catholic Church is total anarchy.

 

[Rightlydivide]

So, theoretically, people can THINK they are saved as part of OSAS, thereby joining this “invisible church,” but are actually not saved at all. I have a hard time understanding that.

I dont see why. Mormons think they are saved. Muslims think they are saved. Buddhists as well…or you know what I mean. Why just OSAS?