Protestants: How Do You Know That Your Interpretation of the Bible is the Right one? Part II

[Always_For_Him]

Yet, when it comes to debating the Word of God, there are churches who challenge the CC bases soley on the Word of God, the bible and the CC will politely decline since their bible lies within the volumes of interpretations of the bible.

In other words, they cannot stand on the Word alone.

I really don’t know if this is a positive or negative statement. Those churches that you are referring to shouldn’t be debating the Catholic Church on the meaning of the Word of God. The Catholic Church not only orally taught the Word of God before there ever was a Bible, they protected it from heresy entering into teaching, painstakingly determined the canon of the Bible (comparing it to Oral and Sacred Tradition), and continued to orally teach and safeguard Jesus’ Deposit of Faith as very few ever owned a Bible even through the Reformation through today. These other churches are taking a Catholic book, written by Catholics for Catholics in the context of Catholic teaching and then have the mind to tell us what it means, which of course is what THEY think it means.

They are debating context based on their own private interpretation of meaning. There are thousands of them. They are all wrong. They are also all less than 500 years old, are using our Bible and every bit of information that they know came from the Catholic Church. The parts that they kept from the Catholic Church are acurate. The parts that they changed are error, created by man.

 

[Always_For_Him]

James, it is easy for you to say what has been given me is contradiction or not of God, but yet you have not posted one iota of proof. ?

Since the teachings of Christ have been provided by the Catholic Church to the world, it is up to those who have separated from the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church to “prove” why their beliefs are correct over Christ’s Church.

So tell me, is it water baptism that saves a man? Or is a man saved by faith?

It is not an either/or. It is not water baptism alone that saves you. It is not faith alone that saves you. It is being obedient to EVERYTHING that Christ says we must do to be saved.

When a man is to be baptized in water, is it done in the name of Jesus as it says in scripture or is it done in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit as the CC teaches?

It is not an either/or. Scripture says baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. I think I remember learning that some Protestant Bibles changed that to Jesus.

If a baby is baptized in the CC, is he saved for life?

He/she is saved if he/she remains in Christ and does not sin. That would mean that if he/she lived a long life, there would be a lot of obedience and hard choices for him/her to stay in grace and not in sin.

Does being baptized into the CC save a man?

Being baptized with a Trinitarian baptism is just the intial step. You have to work out your salvation your whole life by being obedient to Christ’s commands of us. There is just too much in Scripture that tells us to persevere to the end, not give up the fight, etc… Belief only in God is a dead faith. You have to live your life in a way that your faith is alive!!!

 

[Always_For_Him]

My first confession…on my knees and trying hard to be exhaustive in recounting my sin and telling another person…a man like me but with Holy Orders and who I knew empathized with my temporary agony. When I received absolution with tears in my eyes…I felt as light as a feather and for once clean in spirit and renewed…like a child with a new pair of shoes.
I declare that even if confession were not a Sacrament…I would still do it…what a wonderful experience I have Christ and his Church to thank for this and it is there for the asking…wow.

Very refreshing and heartfelt. Thank you for sharing. It really is a beautiful feeling. Jesus knew what He was doing when He instituted THIS particular sacrament didn’t He? His gives massive amounts of grace for doing this. But, we benefit in the end because of how we feel cleansed and open and IN CHRIST!!!

 

[po18guy]

So tell me, is it water baptism that saves a man? Or is a man saved by faith?

Pardon my intrusion. Jesus told us to be baptized and to have faith. So, the Word made Flesh tells us both are needed, in a normal situation. There are exceptions, since such is the nature of God’s grace. Jesus said in John 3:5 that one must be born of water and the Spirit. This is not the amniotic fluid nonsense that leads the faithful astray. If such were the case, He would not have us baptized, nor would he have needed to say this to Nicodemus.

When a man is to be baptized in water, is it done in the name of Jesus as it says in scripture or is it done in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit as the CC teaches?

Again, our Lord taught the trinitarian formula in Matthew 28. And that is exactly what the CC teaches and practices. The Church follows Christ, our perfect example.

If a baby is baptized in the CC, is he saved for life?

No one, child or adult, is “saved for life”. This concept of OSAS is a recent heresy, and absolutely against the weight of scriptural teaching.

Does being baptized into the CC save a man?

Being baptized into the Body of Christ is necessary, under normal circumstances. Faith is also required. This has been dumbed down in recent centuries, at great risk to those who do not follow the Word of God made Flesh.

Further explanation as needed.

 

[heiscominginthe]

I really don’t know if this is a positive or negative statement. Those churches that you are referring to shouldn’t be debating the Catholic Church on the meaning of the Word of God.

They most certainly should challenge if they believe the interpretations of the CC are contrary to the Word of God. That is the duty of all believers. We are to prove and reprove all things, that includes those over us.

Do you remember Jim Jones and others like him? These people took every word he said as gospel and it cost them their lives.

By you saying thest churches do not have the right to debate the CC is to do that which is contrary to the Word of God.

 

[heiscominginthe]

Quote:
When a man is to be baptized in water, is it done in the name of Jesus as it says in scripture or is it done in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit as the CC teaches?

Again, our Lord taught the trinitarian formula in Matthew 28. And that is exactly what the CC teaches and practices. The Church follows Christ, our perfect example.

That explains why the apostles baptized in water in the name of Jesus. Yet, the CC changed it from how the apostles established it in the Word of God. So whom should I believe, the apostles of God or the CC? I will stick with the apostles.

Being baptized into the Body of Christ is necessary, under normal circumstances. Faith is also required.

Without faith, there is not baptism. PERIOD. IT is faith that saves a man. He believes the Word of God, repents, asking Jesus to forgive him of his sins, having his heart circumcised, being baptized into Christ, Romans 6, through his blood.

Salvation is the gift from God and to say water baptism is required for salvation is contrary to the Word of God and steals the glory from God. Yet, when a man is born again, he comes by way of faith. It is Christ who does the work, baptizing a man into himself.

 

[Always_For_Him]

They most certainly should challenge if they believe the interpretations of the CC are contrary to the Word of God. That is the duty of all believers. We are to prove and reprove all things, that includes those over us. .

No they shouldn’t!. They have different beliefs that were taught to them by modern man in the last 500 years that NEVER existed in Christianity, in Christ’s Church for over 1500 years before man came along and pridefully believed that he knew better.

Do you remember Jim Jones and others like him? These people took every word he said as gospel and it cost them their lives. .

No

By you saying thest churches do not have the right to debate the CC is to do that which is contrary to the Word of God.

It is those churches that have sprung up in the last 500 years as a result of the Reformation that are NOT PART of Christ’s Church, but established by man outside of it by that man’s/those men’s own authority and pride to teach their own gospels. They have no authority or first-hand knowledge to take OUR SCRIPTURE, the WE WROTE, say it means something else than what it always meant, then use that errant teaching to refute Catholic contextual teaching.

 

[Always_For_Him]

That explains why the apostles baptized in water in the name of Jesus. Yet, the CC changed it from how the apostles established it in the Word of God. So whom should I believe, the apostles of God or the CC? I will stick with the apostles.

Based on what information? Something that someone who wasn’t around then teaches as truth? You are buying into man’s errant teaching.

Without faith, there is not baptism. PERIOD. IT is faith that saves a man. He believes the Word of God, repents, asking Jesus to forgive him of his sins, having his heart circumcised, being baptized into Christ, Romans 6, through his blood.

Salvation is the gift from God and to say water baptism is required for salvation is contrary to the Word of God and steals the glory from God. Yet, when a man is born again, he comes by way of faith. It is Christ who does the work, baptizing a man into himself.

Part of this is VERY wrong. This is your interpretation of our teachings written down. Yours is less than 500 years old and did not exist in Christianity until man created that errant teaching and then taught it as truth.

 

[guanophore]

That explains why the apostles baptized in water in the name of Jesus. Yet, the CC changed it from how the apostles established it in the Word of God. So whom should I believe, the apostles of God or the CC? I will stick with the apostles.

The Catholic Church embodies the teachings of the Apostles, heiscoming. There is no distinction between the two. Catholics wrote the NT, and it it’s entirety, it represents what the Catholic Church believes and teaches. that is why we read:

Matt 28:19-20
19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age."

This is what we mean by trinitarian formula. This is what the Apostles believed, and taught. How do we know this? We have preserved the traditions that have been handed down to us, and we have the writings of the early Christians that confirm this. Ever read the Didache?

 Without faith, there is not baptism. PERIOD. IT is faith that saves a man. He believes the Word of God, repents, asking Jesus to forgive him of his sins, having his heart circumcised, being baptized into Christ, Romans 6, through his blood.

This is true. Many make the mistake of thinking that the baptism of infants does not include a profession of faith, but this is not the case.

Salvation is the gift from God and to say water baptism is required for salvation is contrary to the Word of God and steals the glory from God.

I understand that it must seem that way to you, since you have a deficient understanding of baptism. However, it is a great and glorious event to be baptized, and to be born again of water, and spirit.

Yet, when a man is born again, he comes by way of faith. It is Christ who does the work, baptizing a man into himself.

Indeed! This process was never separated from the water until modern evangelical fundamentalism.

 

[SteveGC]

That explains why the apostles baptized in water in the name of Jesus. Yet, the CC changed it from how the apostles established it in the Word of God. So whom should I believe, the apostles of God or the CC? I will stick with the apostles.

Which version of the apostles are you going to “stick with”? There are three of them…“in the name of Jesus”…“in the name of Lord Jesus”…“in the name of the Lord”. This is a weak argument against the authenticity of The Church, especially when you don’t even believe that baptism effects grace to begin with. Does it not matter that The Church does it the way Christ Himself said to do it? This article might help you.

Without faith, there is not baptism. PERIOD. IT is faith that saves a man. He believes the Word of God, repents, asking Jesus to forgive him of his sins, having his heart circumcised, being baptized into Christ, Romans 6, through his blood.

I’ll assume you meant that “it is GRACE that saves a man”, and that “faith” is our response to Grace which allows us to enter into that gift of salvation.

You also added “repents”. And I agree. Would you agree that faith and repentance are our responses to Grace which allow us to enter into salvation? Would you also agree that obedience is required? If so, do you realize that being baptized is a form of our obedience? Did you also know that God’s signs of the covenants He makes with His people, like all other OT laws, were not abolished, but fulfilled (by Christ), in the New Testament? If so, why is it hard to imagine that baptism (instructed by Christ) is the new circumcision?

Salvation is the gift from God and to say water baptism is required for salvation is contrary to the Word of God and steals the glory from God. How about Yet, when a man is born again, he comes by way of faith. It is Christ who does the work, baptizing a man into himself.

Contrary to the Word of God?
*1 Peter 3:18-22
18For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit;
19in which also He went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison,
20who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water.
21Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you–not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience–through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
22who is at the right hand of God, having gone into heaven, after angels and authorities and powers had been subjected to Him. *

Note the entire bold print. Why would the clarification of “not the removal of dirt from the flesh” need to be added if it was clear that baptism was merely spiritual, accomplished through the means of faith only? It was needed because people needed to understand that the physical act of running water on the flesh was salvific, based on the new sign of the covenant God makes with all the world, and was not just a symbolic cleansing (removing “dirt”). Indeed, the salvific necessity of baptism is quite biblical.

 

[Radical]

I hope you can understand that the source of the information came from the Catholic Church.

the source is but a few members of the early church that have had their writings preserved…they were part of a body that was unified around the deposit of faith described by Irenaeus (that I previously posted) and that summary by Irenaeus does not present a view of the Eucharist. The writings that have managed to be preserved display various views wrt the Eucharist…so it seems that the original catholic church incorporated a variety of views.

You have not been taught the fullness of Christ’s Deposit of Faith.

I respectfully disagree

Just because you have never been taught it by your church or don’t agree with what the Catholics on this thread are beautifully and painstakingly trying to teach you, does not make what the Catholic Church has always taught about the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist not true.

Obviously…the reason why the RCC is in error wrt what it teaches about the Eucharist is that it has added to what was originally taught.

Why has man changed the teachings and dropped it in the last 500 years?

probably has a lot to do with the fact that one can easily observe that the bread is still present and that no body is really present…and to resort the philosophical terms of “accidents” and “substance” in an attempt to salvage the situation does not ring true for most people…and if one looks to the earliest church fathers one can find a symbolic understanding which means that it is by no means necessary to believe that a “real” presence was taught at the very start.

Read the ECF’s…Just reading the ECF’s WILL convince you of what the early Church believed. I know it will. I pray that it will.

I’ve done a bit of that and have stated my views wrt Augustine, Ignatius and Tertullian in these forums

Non-Catholics say all kind of things that “they believe” that Catholics believe. They are wrong most of the time. They have been “taught” this error by someone else.

This does happen and I am grateful that RCs such as Pneuma07 have been so gracious and patient in explaining the RC position to me in this forum.

The dc books were part of the Alexandrian Septuagint which WAS used by Jesus and the Apostles.

Are you sure that he didn’t use the Palestinian canon?..after all they were in Palestine. Josephus, writing just after Jesus didn’t seem to think that the dc books counted as Jewish scripture

This brings me to want to discuss the reasons for the Reformation. Please read the history of Why the Reformation happened.

I have

If you give a man an inch, he will make it a mile - especially in the realm of Christianity where Christ’s Way for us is hard to live by.

or is that if you give a certain man a bishopric he’ll make it a papacy?

We were never supposed to be our own interpreters of Scripture.

so says the body that had established and now hopes to regain a monopoly on the interpretation of scripture…such a monopoly could be inspired or it could be a self-serving error.

Man was never supposed to just teach what he thinks it means.

Paul addresses teaching in the first churches…I don’t see teaching as being exclusive to the office of overseer. When they came together to worship, everyone was to have a revelation, hymn, word, tongue and/or interpretation. ** All** could prophesy in turn and each prophesy was to be weighed carefully by the others. Seems that under Paul’s guidance Christians were “teaching what they thought” and that the rest of the local body would evaluate it. What Paul doesn’t describe is a monarchical bishop running the show and setting doctrine…nor does he describe a collection of bishops determining doctrine.

The Bible was never supposed to be separated from the authority that wrote it.

I hope you understand that authority to be God…

We have to unite, …

we should unite around truth and if I thought what the RCC claimed about itself was truth, I’d join

Most protestants say that the Church had “fallen into such error that protesting was required”. Really, this can only be because this is the non-Catholic churches way of justifying their existence and for the members of those churches to have something to believe as a valid reason to be a part of a church that is not the Apostolic Church founded by Christ. Why else would anyone be part of churches that are separated from Christ’s Church as a result of the Reformation?

well the obvious reason would be that us protestants believe that the RCC is not really the Church founded by Christ, but that the RCC must claim that it is as a way of justifying its continued existence.

 

[SteveGC]

the source is but a few members of the early church that have had their writings preserved they were part of a body that was unified around the deposit of faith described by Irenaeus (that I previously posted) and that summary by Irenaeus does not present a view of the Eucharist. The writings that have managed to be preserved display various views wrt the Eucharist…so it seems that the original catholic church incorporated a variety of views.
I respectfully disagree
Obviously…the reason why the RCC is in error wrt what it teaches about the Eucharist is that it has added to what was originally taught.
probably has a lot to do with the fact that one can easily observe that the bread is still present and that no body is really present…and to resort the philosophical terms of “accidents” and “substance” in an attempt to salvage the situation does not ring true for most people…and if one looks to the earliest church fathers one can find a symbolic understanding which means that it is by no means necessary to believe that a “real” presence was taught at the very start.
I’ve done a bit of that and have stated my views wrt Augustine, Ignatius and Tertullian in these forums

Could you weigh in on the data presented in this article, unless you already have (in which case can you refer me to the post where you have). Are the quotes of these ECFs (in the article) included in your refutation of the adherence of the Real Presence by the early Church? If not, do you refute this in another way? Perhaps with quotes from these men that reveal they were actually unsure about the doctrine?

so says the body that had established and now hopes to regain a monopoly on the interpretation of scripture…such a monopoly could be inspired or it could be a self-serving error.

So you are leaving room open for the fact that The Church is authentic?

Paul addresses teaching in the first churches…I don’t see teaching as being exclusive to the office of overseer. When they came together to worship, everyone was to have a revelation, hymn, word, tongue and/or interpretation. ** All** could prophesy in turn and each prophesy was to be weighed carefully by the others. Seems that under Paul’s guidance Christians were “teaching what they thought” and that the rest of the local body would evaluate it. What Paul doesn’t describe is a monarchical bishop running the show and setting doctrine…nor does he describe a collection of bishops determining doctrine.

Could you point me to Scripture you are using to make these assumptions? Thanks.

I hope you understand that authority to be God…

Catholics would say ‘yes, God’s authority, which He (as Christ) shared with humans to represent His authority during His earthly absence.’

we should unite around truth and if I thought what the RCC claimed about itself was truth, I’d join

That’s good to hear

well the obvious reason would be that us protestants believe that the RCC is not really the Church founded by Christ, but that the RCC must claim that it is as a way of justifying its continued existence.

What do you make of the fact that for 2000 years, the Catholic Church has been claiming this authenticity? Has it duped everyone for that long? Does history reveal that false religious proclamations live more than a few centuries, at best?

 

[guanophore]

They most certainly should challenge if they believe the interpretations of the CC are contrary to the Word of God. That is the duty of all believers. We are to prove and reprove all things, that includes those over us.

Do you remember Jim Jones and others like him? These people took every word he said as gospel and it cost them their lives.

By you saying thest churches do not have the right to debate the CC is to do that which is contrary to the Word of God.

It is a fruitless exercise, since there is no contradiction between the Word of God in the the Holy Scripture and the Word of God in the Church. They both come from the same Source.

The best way to approach an apparent contradiction is with humility, realizing that, if something appears contrary, it is because one does not understand either the Scripture, the Apostolic Teaching, or both. After reading your posts, I gather it is the latter.

 

[Always_For_Him]

the source is but a few members of the early church that have had their writings preserved…they were part of a body that was unified around the deposit of faith described by Irenaeus (that I previously posted) and that summary by Irenaeus does not present a view of the Eucharist.

Do you have information that would support your ideas here? The Catholic Church has maintained it’s teaching on the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist from the very beginning.

I respectfully disagree.

I understand. I have a lot of protestant influence on me, was away from the Church for a while learning from churches that had NO authority to teach and not apostolic succession. It doesn’t change the fact that you will only find the fullness of Christ’s teaching and Deposit of Faith in the Catholic Church because it is Christ’s Church. You won’t find the fullness of Christ’s teachings in Churches founded over 1500 years after His death.

Obviously…the reason why the RCC is in error wrt what it teaches about the Eucharist is it has added to what was originally taught. .

Do you have proof that the CC is in error? What is your proof that it added any teaching that would have changed the original teaching and understanding of the Eucharist? Have you read the Didache? It was written less than 100 years after the death of Christ. Have you read the first successors to the Apostles? What about the Apostles themselves. The Catholic Church teaches what the Apostles taught. You ain’t gonna get any closer than that. Certainly not in any church that was founded by man 1500 years later to further his own gospel.

probably has a lot to do with the fact that one can easily observe that the bread is still present and that no body is really present…

The Catholic Church, the ECF’s, the Apostles have never taught that the Eucharist is symbolic. I just pray that you open your heart to what Christ wanted, the way He wanted it, the way He instituted this beautiful sacrament!!! He can do anything He wants. If He wanted to turn it into diamonds that would not damage our teeth when we ate it, He could do that. He chose everyday bread in wine just as was used in the OT.

Are you sure that he didn’t use the Palestinian canon?.

They were teaching outside of Palestine to the Gentiles where the Greek Septuagint was what was common. There are dozens of quotes from these dc books in the NT. Someone has posted them. I will try to find them, not tonight though.

or is that if you give a certain man a bishopric he’ll make it a papacy?.

No one in the early Church questioned Peter’s primacy. Those separated from this authority question it though. I could see where non-Catholics wouldn’t like it.

so says the body that had established and now hopes to regain a monopoly on the interpretation of scripture.

No, regain? We have had the same One mind and contextual understanding of Scripture for 2000 years because we produced the Book from our own Oral and Sacred Tradition. Black print on white paper can, when comprehended by one’s own interpretation, can mean (and does mean) whatever someone interprets it to mean. Jesus put the authority in place in His Church to keep us ONE. When man separated, look what happened. Besides, you think that the man made churches aren’t self serving? These are started by men who have no authority.

Paul addresses teaching in the first churches…I don’t see teaching as being exclusive to the office of overseer. Seems that under Paul’s guidance Christians were “teaching what they thought” and that the rest of the local body would evaluate it. What Paul doesn’t describe is a monarchical bishop running the show and setting doctrine…nor does he describe a collection of bishops determining doctrine…

When it was just the apostles, they taught not to interpret for yourself. They taught to follow the teachings and traditions as they have given them, and nothing else. They warned not to twist scripture to your own destruction. As the Church grew and outgrew the successors, it became organized in a way to grow while teaching and protecting Jesus’ Deposit of Faith. As heresies arose, it was imperative that these doctrines be set. 2,000 years later, the Church is not going to be some little 12 guy operation. There was a heirarcy and an organized and business side of things in the OT. Jesus knew what He was doing. We need to trust Him.

I hope you understand that authority to be God…

I do… But, I also believe, if I am going to believe in anything relating to Christianity, and any Word in the Bible, that Jesus meant what He said, established a Church, gave it His authority, instituted sacraments to give grace, IS present in our Eucharist because HE said it was Him, and IS protecting His Church until the end of time because HE said He would. The Bible came from the Catholic Church as a result of centuries of Oral Teaching and Sacred Tradtion. Jesus IS protecting His Church, otherwise, He is not the Son of God and none of this matters anyway.

I certainly don’t believe that thousands of men who have started their own churches 1500 to 2000 years after the death of Christ, whether it be Baptist, Methodist, Presbytarian, etc… have ANY authority from Christ to be founding Churches at all, much less changing the 1500 year-old protected teachings to mean something else. That is error. If the Catholic Church doesn’t have the authority that is spoken of in the Bible, and it has been around for 2000 years, no church that began as a result of the Reformation 1500 years after the death of Christ is going to have any either.

we should unite around truth and if I thought what the RCC claimed about itself was truth, I’d join .

Keep studying. I pray that you open your heart to the Truth, whatever it might be and wherever it might lead you. It was hard for me to realize that I had believed error and didn’t know there was so much more to Christ’s Deposit of Faith. Read some of the conversion stories. If you are truly open, you will see what everyone is trying to explain and teach you.

protestants believe that the RCC is not really the Church founded by Christ, but that the RCC must claim that it is as a way of justifying its continued existence.

It was around for over 1500 years before the Reformation. The Catholic Church is not justifying anything. We just ARE the Church founded by Chris that He has protected and will continue to guide and protect until the end of time.

 

[po18guy]

That explains why the apostles baptized in water in the name of Jesus. Yet, the CC changed it from how the apostles established it in the Word of God. So whom should I believe, the apostles of God or the CC? I will stick with the apostles.

Look again! Our Lord Jesus taught both the Apostles and all succeeding generations how to make apostles:

Matthew 28:19 “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,”

These are the words of the Word made Flesh! So, one must follow either Christ, or men. The CC follows and teaches Christ.

Without faith, there is not baptism. PERIOD. IT is faith that saves a man. He believes the Word of God, repents, asking Jesus to forgive him of his sins, having his heart circumcised, being baptized into Christ, Romans 6, through his blood.

Please understand: one is saved by grace through faith. However, becoming a disciple of Christ is not a simple declaration made at a single point in time. Far from it. Baptism, if you believe Jesus Christ, is absolutely necessary to become part of His sacred Body (His Church). Why did Saint Paul ask to be baptized by Ananias? He knew, by Divine revelation, that Baptism was the door to the Body of Christ. Once you enter, there is more to do in order to “remain in My love”

John 15:10 If you obey my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have obeyed my Father’s commands and remain in his love.

Jesus said that you must obey His commands - even after having faith!

Romans 13:8 “Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for he who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law.”

This is Paul saying that you must pay an on-going debt of love - even after you have faith. Being Christian does not end with faith - it begins with faith.

Salvation is the gift from God and to say water baptism is required for salvation is contrary to the Word of God and steals the glory from God.

Again, please read the Words of Jesus in Matthew 28. The heresy is not that the CC baptizes, but that other churches DO NOT baptize.

Yet, when a man is born again, he comes by way of faith. It is Christ who does the work, baptizing a man into himself.

Can you show me the scripture that supports the second sentence? Frankly, this sounds like a very new idea.

 

[Radical]

My Lady is having a hard time so…

I hope that resolves quickly and positively

Based upon what you have said here you seem t have a low opinion of Jesus Promise to be with His Church until the end of the Age.

On the contrary, I would say that mine is a very high view. Christ will be with his church by his power and by his grace and it will be united by the presence of the Holy Spirit despite its many sins and actions of resistance. I don’t see his presence and guidance as being somehow only truly effective wrt the preservation of doctrine (and of being of a lesser quality everywhere else).

The fact is that the canon was set at at Hippo and Carthage and ratified by (I think) seven other councils ALL before the Reformation. NONE of the councils made any changes to the canon.

So? You speak as if we agree that councils cannot err and so it is unnecessary to revisit what they did. We don’t so agree. Further, what would a council in the sixth century have that we don’t have and that would put it in a better position to determine the question?

As to those within the Church who expressed other opinions, (NC’s always bring up Jerome) you will note that they all were obedient to the “Tell it to the Church” instruction and submitted their personal will to the will of the Holy Spirit as expressed through the Church in council.

You keep returning to this idea. You have mentioned a couple of passages, but I am not sure which is your “Tell it to the Church” passage(s). You have mentioned Matt 18, but that relates to a personal sin and not doctrine. If the brother refuses to repent one takes that matter to the local church (where that brother fellowships and where he would be held accountable) and the local church administers discipline. I don’t think that relates to the establishment of the canon.

You also mention Acts 19, but that is a case where certain members of one local church were trying to impose their understanding upon other local churches. That wasn’t close to being a full ecumenical council either by way of the number churches or by way of the number of apostles involved. One of those local churches sent two representatives to the local church that was responsible for the people causing the problem. The first local church realized the error of its members and stopped trying to impose its ways upon the other local churches. A ruling was made that was seen as reasonable by both sides to the dispute. For Acts 19 to be of use as a precedent for the Reformation era, the RCC would have to have acted in the same fashion as the church of Jerusalem. For Luther to meet with the representatives of the RCC, Luther had to take a very real chance that he would be burnt at the stake by the RCC (as per Huss)…contrast that with the situation in Acts 19 where Paul and Barnabas did not need to fear possible death from the church at Jerusalem. In order for a “tell it to the church” mechanism to work, the church has to actually conduct itself in a Christian fashion and not kill/imprison those coming to it. Second, Jerusalem could readily admit its representatives were wrong…it hadn’t declared itself to be infallible. The RCC (both at the time of the Reformation and now) could not dream of admitting that it had made an error on an official teaching b/c that would open everything (including papal primacy) up to question. If the RCC were to admit that it erred, the bishopric of Rome would risk losing most of its authority. In order for a “tell it to the church” mechanism to work, the person taking it to the church must believe that the church in question would actually listen to the voice of God even if it meant giving up the power and position that it has attained. No protestant is so optimistic as to think that the RCC would admit error wrt any official teaching.

Finally, while I am on this topic, allow me to make some observations about ecumenical councils. It seems to me that if ecumenical councils were the divinely mandated tool for infallibly settling matters of doctrine, then somewhere God should have expressly stated such to be the case. Further, one can only wonder why it took almost 300 years to hold such a divinely mandated tool and then why it was held only b/c of the insistence of an emperor rather than being instigated from within the church.

I’ll try to answer the balance of your post by tomorrow. Peace

 

[po18guy]

the personal opinions of few ECFs (both of those who accept the apocrypha and those who didn’t like Jerome)

Ah, but you forget that Jerome, after much reflection, decided that denying himself and becoming obedient was more important to unity than his personal opinion. He subsequently did agree, and later renounced his disagreement. Keep reading. And, your slur of the Deuterocanon “Apochrypha” is telling. The same authority which gave you the bible also gave you the Deuterocanon. So, you pick one and reject the other? If you reject the authority behind the Deuterocanon, you then question the entire bible. You cannot have it both ways. That is a very dangerous path to tread.

In any event, what you call the conclusion of The One and Fully United Christian Church at the time was merely the unified opinion of a small body of men and that opinion happened to differ with the unified opinion(s) of other small bodies of men.

Whom Paul said to “get rid of” since they were dividing the Church. Certainly, you cannot support dividing the Body of Christ?

I am saying that the early church did a good job with its determination wrt the apostolic authority of the various writings that it possessed.

Except for that wascally wabbit the Deuterocanon…

(To be very candid with you, the inclusion/exclusion of a book such as Revelation is not that important to me…

The inspired word of God is not important to you? Really? You are perpetuating the flawed DNA of Protestantism - rejection of church authority and the cherry picking scripture, no?

Now I accept Revelation as part of the Word of God, but I also recognize that some ECFs didn’t and I do take that fact into account.)

Well, you must also take into account that those who disagreed were wrong. Not a group to identify with, unless you are a rebel without a cause. Many others disagree with all of scripture. So what? They are in error, and you and I are charged with leading them to the (unedited) truth.

Some/most of them did and some of them didn’t…it seems to me that when you want me to believe in a monarchical hierarchy you will point to the obedience that Christ required wrt those sitting in the seat of Moses, but when it comes to considering how we arrived at the canon for the OT, you want to dismiss any authority possessed by those sitting in the seat of Moses.

Christ said to obey them because of their authority, but not to do what they do. Big difference. Anyway, did Christ fulfill the law and the prophets, thus becoming the new covenant? Or, do you agree with the Judaizers?

Much of your theology seems to be formulated from a snapshot taken at the exact point in time that you agree with. That is what it looks like from here.

 

[1beleevr]

Okay: Besides the eoc, and the cc, who else interprets scripture to justify compelling their members to confess to a priest, instead of God?(1John 1:9). And if water baptism washes away sins, as guanophore so eloquently put it on another thread, then was John the Baptist washing away sins? Isn’t baptism more an act of obedience, a public profession of your committment to follow Christ, and an act which seals, or solidifies your salvation? And if water baptism washes away sin, then what about the blood of Christ

 

[Always_For_Him]

Okay: Besides the eoc, and the cc, who else interprets scripture to justify compelling their members to confess to a priest, instead of God?(1John 1:9). And if water baptism washes away sins, as guanophore so eloquently put it on another thread, then was John the Baptist washing away sins? Isn’t baptism more an act of obedience, a public profession of your committment to follow Christ, and an act which seals, or solidifies your salvation? And if water baptism washes away sin, then what about the blood of Christ

The CC wrote the Scripture. The NT Scriptures ARE Catholic teaching written down. They passed it down orally in it’s context for centuries before it was ever written down for the Bible. We should not concern ourselves with teachings from those who separated from Christ’s Apostolic Church to teach a different gospel. You have the Catholic Church who brought you Christ’s teachings that He gave to the Apostles with His Authority to teach and pass it down, or you have men who through pride and self-appointed authority who brought you different teachings. These men came along over 1500 years after the death of Christ thinking they could read the Word of the Bible better than anyone else, better than the Church that wrote it and taught it for over 1500 years. Why does anyone follow these men? Jesus gave authority to His Church, not to men to separate and found their own churches. You have to learn the Truth from the only Church than can teach you the fullness of Christ’s Deposit of Faith and how it all fits together, the Catholic Church. You have not and are never going to get it from churches founded by men who have just bits and pieces of the Truth.

 

[Radical]

Could you weigh in on the data presented in this article, unless you already have (in which case can you refer me to the post where you have).

I believe that you meant to provide a link dealing with ECF quotes on the Eucharist. If so, I have dealt with some of the standard quotes in this thread regarding Tertullian et al and this thread regarding Augustine .

Are the quotes of these ECFs (in the article) included in your refutation of the adherence of the Real Presence by the early Church?

some would be

If not, do you refute this in another way? Perhaps with quotes from these men that reveal they were actually unsure about the doctrine?

I don’t believe that it is necessary to prove that all ECFs of the 4th century, for example, didn’t believe in a real bodily presence…rather I need only show that it wasn’t a universally held view nearer the very start…as that would call into question the apostolic origin of such a view and refute the claim of a consensus of all the ECFs. IMHO, Tertullian’s description of it makes it rather clear that he viewed it as a mere figure of Christ’s body (notwithstanding Pneuma07’s efforts to the contrary).

So you are leaving room open for the fact that The Church is authentic?

Very intelligent, good and informed people believe that it is….I just see it as possible, but not at all likely….it is merely a part of the true church

Could you point me to Scripture you are using to make these assumptions? Thanks.

1 Cor 14:26-33

What do you make of the fact that for 2000 years, the Catholic Church has been claiming this authenticity? Has it duped everyone for that long?

Hasn’t duped me at least At the time of Irenaeus the catholic church was saying that those who adhered to the deposit of faith described by Irenaeus constituted the visible aspect of the true church. At this point in time the criteria used by the RCC for specifying (what it thinks to be) the visible aspect of the one true church is rather different. Different criteria, different church.

Does history reveal that false religious proclamations live more than a few centuries, at best?

You mean as in non-Christian religions?