O
orange_man
Guest
Not for me … IMO it’s the result of bad theology & juxtaposing Mary in the role of Christ (in other words it represents a poor rendition of Christology).
Protestants: how do you know that your interpretation of the Bible is the right one?
- Status
R
rinnie
Guest
Why would the dogma of the RCC bother you so much. Would you WHAT rather have people go by what you say or what? Jesus left the Church to Peter and Peter was the First Pope. Our present Pope is still who runs the Church. SOrry it upsets you.
O
orange_man
Guest
No Peter wasn’t the first Pope. The only bishop we can be fairly certain that Peter anointed was Ignatius (bishop or presbyter of Antioch). There is no evidence of any kind that Peter anointed Linus (it’s a post hoc claim). The Catholic Church will say Peter was pope for over 30 years (essentially from around the date of the resurrection). This is an internal claim of the RCC, which is absolutely baseless.
Christ anointed Peter as head of the apostles in His stead. Paul was then anointed apostles to the gentiles. Peter fulfilled his role by settling disputes within the church (such as in the council of Jerusalem) and affirming the apostleship of Paul (and immortalizing his letters as divinely inspired). Peter’s role was a temporal one, with Christ being the eternal head of the church. The RCC simply invented the entire mythology of papal rule in order to bolster its own control over Christendom. You buy into it … I don’t.
E
elvisman
Guest
WRONG.
**The New Testament is peppered with the words “episkopos” and “prebuteros” (Bishops and priests/elders). They were governed by the central institution. **
They were told to, "Stand firm and hold fast to the Traditions you were taught, whether by an ORAL STATEMENT or by a letter from us" (2 Thess 2:15).
Oh . . . here are a few more passages that show the traditions - oral and written - that showed ALL of the churches (dioces/parshes) were under the AUTHORITY of the Apostles:
Phil 4:9 - “Keep on doing what you have learned and received and HEARD and SEEN IN ME. Then the God of peace will be with you.”
1 Corinth 11:2* - “I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold fast to the Traditions, just as I handed them on to you.”*
2 Thess 3:6* - “We instruct you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, to shun any brother who conducts himself in a disorderly way and not according to the TRADITION they received from us”*
2 Ti. 1:13-14 - "Take as a model of sound teaching what you have heard me say, in faith and love in Christ Jesus. Guard the RICH DEPOSIT OF FAITH with the help of the Holy Spirit who dwells within us"
You have no idea what you’re talking about.
**We call upon the intercessory prayers of the Saints in heaven - just as we’re instructed to (Ephes. 6:18). **
**Your problem - and the problem with many Protestants is that you believe these saints in heaven to be on a lesser plain than those of us here on earth. **On the contrary, my friend - they are MUCH more alive than we are because they have been canctified - we haven’t.
Heb. 12:1 tells us that “we are surrounded by a great cloud of wintesses”.
James 5:16 tells us, "Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The fervent prayer of a righteous person is very powerful."
How many righteous people do you know?
We are ALL one family (Eph. 3:14-15) and God is the God of the living not the dead (Matt. 22:32; Mark 12:27; Luke 20:38).
C
christian1
Guest
To Steve Gc
**you said: ** The difference is, you use your Bible to somehow validate what humans tell you, and, latching onto whatever falsely interpreted teaching that feels good to you,
Do you believe me when I tell you that this is not what I do?
I study the bible, not a mans interpretation of it. I understand the problem with all these denominations. It is easy to look into them and see where they have created doctrine not being pure of heart as students of the bible.
I will leave a denomination if they are pushing ‘mans ideas’ that are ‘contrary’ to the Bible truth ‘in it’s entirety’. Meaning, doctrine taught must line up with the entire Bible truths taught.
You have some churches who place focus on money and position and neglect the remaining important truths, repentance, and humbleness.
Basically they all have portions of the truth, and convey and teach them disproportionally.
Usually it appeals in some way to a lust of the flesh.
Blessings of God= more money
Under grace= sin more
Once saved always saved=no worries
Who we are in Christ=me me me
All in all, if one is not truly devoted to being righteous, most every scripture can be used to sin by.
But those who have ears to hear and eyes to see, can see through these things.
The catholic church is full of hypocrites just like every other church. This I’m sure your aware of. But how people receive the word of God, the truth, is an individual issue. It is explained in the parable of the sower, our hearts being the ground in which the seed of God is planted.
That is why God is able to reach the unreachable in any religion. Because if they are sincere in their search, they will find.
I have no care one way or another in religion titles. I would be more than happy to be a Catholic once more if it were not for these genuine concerns of doctrine that contradict scripture.
I didn’t step out of the church because I found an ‘easier’ church. In my experience, the Catholic Church was by far the easiest religion to conform to compared to others.
I stepped out of the church because in my study of the Word of God it became clear that doctrines of the church were contradicting scripture.
I have quoted the scripture that plainly shows this contradiction concerning Mary’s evervirginity and nobody has any direct help in discussing it honestly. The most I get is ‘the church has decided’. Friend, it shouldn’t matter how many men agreed upon something, if there is strict contradiction to a doctrine created by men, then it should deserve our strictest attention.
I have been misinformed about alot of things concerning the Catholic religion and I am glad to clear some of these matters up.
And I would ask that you explain to me the doctrine on Saints, because I’m pretty sure, I have no doubt been mislead on this matter also. I would like to give fair opportunity for you to present to me the true teaching on the matter. Perhaps I have been falsly informed on this as well or at least half informed.
**you said: ** The difference is, you use your Bible to somehow validate what humans tell you, and, latching onto whatever falsely interpreted teaching that feels good to you,
Do you believe me when I tell you that this is not what I do?
I study the bible, not a mans interpretation of it. I understand the problem with all these denominations. It is easy to look into them and see where they have created doctrine not being pure of heart as students of the bible.
I will leave a denomination if they are pushing ‘mans ideas’ that are ‘contrary’ to the Bible truth ‘in it’s entirety’. Meaning, doctrine taught must line up with the entire Bible truths taught.
You have some churches who place focus on money and position and neglect the remaining important truths, repentance, and humbleness.
Basically they all have portions of the truth, and convey and teach them disproportionally.
Usually it appeals in some way to a lust of the flesh.
Blessings of God= more money
Under grace= sin more
Once saved always saved=no worries
Who we are in Christ=me me me
All in all, if one is not truly devoted to being righteous, most every scripture can be used to sin by.
But those who have ears to hear and eyes to see, can see through these things.
The catholic church is full of hypocrites just like every other church. This I’m sure your aware of. But how people receive the word of God, the truth, is an individual issue. It is explained in the parable of the sower, our hearts being the ground in which the seed of God is planted.
That is why God is able to reach the unreachable in any religion. Because if they are sincere in their search, they will find.
I have no care one way or another in religion titles. I would be more than happy to be a Catholic once more if it were not for these genuine concerns of doctrine that contradict scripture.
I didn’t step out of the church because I found an ‘easier’ church. In my experience, the Catholic Church was by far the easiest religion to conform to compared to others.
I stepped out of the church because in my study of the Word of God it became clear that doctrines of the church were contradicting scripture.
I have quoted the scripture that plainly shows this contradiction concerning Mary’s evervirginity and nobody has any direct help in discussing it honestly. The most I get is ‘the church has decided’. Friend, it shouldn’t matter how many men agreed upon something, if there is strict contradiction to a doctrine created by men, then it should deserve our strictest attention.
I have been misinformed about alot of things concerning the Catholic religion and I am glad to clear some of these matters up.
And I would ask that you explain to me the doctrine on Saints, because I’m pretty sure, I have no doubt been mislead on this matter also. I would like to give fair opportunity for you to present to me the true teaching on the matter. Perhaps I have been falsly informed on this as well or at least half informed.
O
orange_man
Guest
you have still yet to even attempt to prove doctrines such as intercessory prayer to saints or marian veneration was practiced or endorsed by any apostle. There is no record that Paul, for example, led prayers to Mary or endorsed the use of icons (in fact the tenor of his epistles, actions, and sermons run strongly contrary to such practices). The only true and reliable record we have of Paul’s ministry is the record of Luke as recorded in Acts (and of course Paul’s letters).
In Acts we learn about what Paul taught, what he preached, the tenor of his message where he said things like God does not dwell in temples, reject idolatry, and so on. It’s hard to fathom Paul would say such things out of one side of his mouth, and yet endorse a form of semi-paganism from the other. In fact Paul never endorsed such things (nor did any other apostle).
It has nothing to do with making comparisons between saints in heaven or the saints here on earth. Saintly intercession is an invented doctrine & it did not come out of the mouth or pen of any apostle … period!
C
christian1
Guest
To SteveGC: you said: Whereas, Catholics don’t try to validate anything from the Bible. We connect ourselves to authentic Christ-appointed human teaching. The Bible is consistent with all the teachings because the Bible is a unified element of Christ’s deposit of faith entrusted to The Church He established.
Steve, I assure you I’m not arguing with you for arguements sake. If you have a valid point I concede. And often times I do and have. But you tell me that you connect yourself to authentic Christ-appointed human teaching, and I understand your position completely. And I guess if I point out those scriptures that tell us to ‘be certain’ that what we are learning from those appointed ‘is in keeping’ with the original gospel that our first fathers taught, you will say what???
I feel, that your church, would encourage and embrace such to the flock. Is not the purpose of the church to teach us so that we are no longer babes in Christ but mature and ableminded as well as likeminded?
If there are contentions Steve in the Church doctrine with our first fathers doctrine, don’t you think these are worthy of addressing?
You keep saying that ‘this is not possible’ error ‘is not possible’
And yet, scripture after scripture tells us plainly that error IS possible and that we are to ‘take care to not be deceived’
I know that you think this refers to all outside the catholic religion but Christ and Paul and Peter never said, you will know them by their position in the Church, or their Church title, He said, you will know them by their fruit.
What I am judging here is the doctrine, not the pope, nor the priests, for that is for God to judge. What I am commanded by God and the first fathers to judge is fruit. Is it in keeping with the answer keys??? You do agree that they Holy Word could be at least considered the backbone of your church correct? Then certainly the church body should be in complete alignment with its backbone should it not?
Why then am I condemned for questioning the doctrines that I have?
Steve, I assure you I’m not arguing with you for arguements sake. If you have a valid point I concede. And often times I do and have. But you tell me that you connect yourself to authentic Christ-appointed human teaching, and I understand your position completely. And I guess if I point out those scriptures that tell us to ‘be certain’ that what we are learning from those appointed ‘is in keeping’ with the original gospel that our first fathers taught, you will say what???
I feel, that your church, would encourage and embrace such to the flock. Is not the purpose of the church to teach us so that we are no longer babes in Christ but mature and ableminded as well as likeminded?
If there are contentions Steve in the Church doctrine with our first fathers doctrine, don’t you think these are worthy of addressing?
You keep saying that ‘this is not possible’ error ‘is not possible’
And yet, scripture after scripture tells us plainly that error IS possible and that we are to ‘take care to not be deceived’
I know that you think this refers to all outside the catholic religion but Christ and Paul and Peter never said, you will know them by their position in the Church, or their Church title, He said, you will know them by their fruit.
What I am judging here is the doctrine, not the pope, nor the priests, for that is for God to judge. What I am commanded by God and the first fathers to judge is fruit. Is it in keeping with the answer keys??? You do agree that they Holy Word could be at least considered the backbone of your church correct? Then certainly the church body should be in complete alignment with its backbone should it not?
Why then am I condemned for questioning the doctrines that I have?
E
elvisman
Guest
1 Cor. 11:27-29:
"Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord.
***A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. ***
For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself.
That is why many among you are ill and infirm, and a considerable number are dying. If we discerned ourselves, we would not be under judgment."
Pretty harsh words for a few crackers and grape juice, don’t you think?
Ignatius was a student of John the Apostle - who wrote the “Bread of Life Discourse” (John 6:25-71).
**Oh, and by the way - the Early Church Fathers were unanimous on their belief in the Real Presence. **Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Hippolytus, Aphraahat, Cyril of Jerusalem, Theodore, Ambrose of Milan, Augustine and others all made clear statements on their belief if this doctrine.
Prove to me that the Apostles DIDN’T believe in the Real Presence.
C
christian1
Guest
SteveGC
So, continue on with your “clear and obvious” translations and interpretations of your sole-authoritative Bible if you must. But don’t expect any knowledgable Catholic to buy into the idea that you, outside The Church, have some divine interpretive and faith-morals teaching authority. It’s all we can do but completely discredit you with that waste of our time.
That’s fine. I wish I would have known from the beginning that you would not have regarded the Holy Scriptures as reliable evidence to be considered in doctrine examination. For truly, I would not have wasted your time, or mine for that matter.
So, continue on with your “clear and obvious” translations and interpretations of your sole-authoritative Bible if you must. But don’t expect any knowledgable Catholic to buy into the idea that you, outside The Church, have some divine interpretive and faith-morals teaching authority. It’s all we can do but completely discredit you with that waste of our time.
That’s fine. I wish I would have known from the beginning that you would not have regarded the Holy Scriptures as reliable evidence to be considered in doctrine examination. For truly, I would not have wasted your time, or mine for that matter.
E
elvisman
Guest
This has EVERYTHING to do with the comparison. YOU are a flawed human being - a sinner - and so am I. Yet, we are sometimes asked to offer intercessory prayers for others.
Just because YOU don’t consider those in heaven to be part pof the Body of christ doesn’t mean that they aren’t.
The next time somebody asks you to pray for them - or you are called upon to join a prayer chain for intentions of others - tell them you refuse to do this because it’s wrong.
UnbeLIEVABLE!
O
orange_man
Guest
Of course now you’re resorting to misrepresenting my position (unless this was an honest oversight on your part). I embrace, affirm, and defend real presence. We simply disagree on what real presence means. I do not view the Eucharist as a mere representation of Christ or solely a rememberance (though it is also a rememberance).
Moreover, John didn’t author the bread of life discourse, he simply recorded the words of Christ. You mention Ignatius, who wrote one sentence on the Eucharist (affirming real presence, or that it is the flesh of our Lord). However, he never elaborated beyond that (as I said before).
Anyway … tell me what does it mean to you to say that the bread retains the appearance of bread, but in substance it is the flesh of Christ? Is this a spiritual or physical reality? In other words if we did an MRI on a real die hard 100% faithful Catholic while he or she was ingesting the Eucharist … would we see the bread transform into flesh or would it continue to retain the “appearance” of bread (yet in substance be flesh)? If it’s the latter (which I suspect it is) then how can you say it’s an objective physical reality? Isn’t that a bizarre proposition.
Isn’t it more correct to say real presence means a pneumatic presence?
*Reformed theology has also historically taught that when the Holy Communion is received, not only the spirit, but also the true body and blood of Jesus Christ (hence “real”) are received through the Spirit, but these are only received by those partakers who eat worthily (i.e., repentantly) with faith. * (link here)
The above statement represents the doctrine of my denomination (Presbyterian), which I embrace whole heartedly.
S
SteveGC
Guest
I must admit that I still don’t know what you believe. Your comments seem quite ambiguous.
But let me see if I follow your logic…
You don’t believe the Bible is the only authority.
…because you believe anyone who “subjects” themselves to it, is authoritative.
This says one thing to me. You believe the Bible is the sole authority.
Because you are designating anyone who subjects themselves to the Bible, as having the authority to teach faith and morals from it. That could be you, my sister, your uncle, the postman, the butcher, everyone. So everyone basically can have this authority? If not, who? How do we know that even if they “subject” themselves to it, that they teach what it contains properly? You can never know, because you are granting authority to anyone who simply claims that they go to the Bible as their sole source. Or are you saying, that anyone who subjects themselves to the Bible (as their sole authority) AND who teaches the faith according to YOUR interpretation, is also in authority themselves? In other words, authority is a subjective thing. There is no universal authority? We all have our own private authorities in our life…and they’re the ones who are granted our trust in what they teach us - because, hey, they go by the Bible alone?
Please clarify in no uncertain terms who besides your Bible is authoritative?
S
SteveGC
Guest
No no.
Don’t get me wrong. Sacred Scripture is absolutely, 100% reliable evidence for examination. But YOU don’t have the authority to examine it outside of apostolic teaching authority, granted by Christ.
The “waste of time” (which I admit apologetically was a bit harsh) was meant to tell you that when you attempt to “teach” us about faith and morals using your interpretation of Scripture, we know for certain that your teaching is erroneous…and so, although many on here will banter back and forth with you, and can successfully reveal supporting Scripture on Catholic teaching, I find no real need to prove anything from Scripture. I “know” it’s supported in Scripture, and that your views are not, not because I’m smarter…not because I’m granted any special power…but because of my full alignment and immersion into the Church Christ granted teaching authority to.
God Bless
C
christian1
Guest
**To Jlhargus: You said:**JL: You misunderstand, because you do not want to see. There is ONE, Immacuate Conception, Mary was conceived without sin. John the Baptist was sactified in the womb six months after his conception. Both were born without sin. And if you do not hold to original sin, then you believe all are conceived and born without sin.It makes you have to ask: what of the scripture that declares “all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.”? Romans 3:23
Sanctify does not mean without sin. It means set apart for God and to cleanse.
Exo 13:2 Sanctify unto me all the firstborn, whatsoever openeth the womb among the children of Israel, both of man and of beast: it is mine.
If what you are saying is true about John the Baptist, then it is true for Jeremiah.
Jer 1:5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.
The other problem with this notion is, there is no biblical evidence showing Mary was born without sin, so why even suggest such? Why would such a suggestion even come up? It has no scriptural origins?
Am I misunderstanding your entire position on this?
O
orange_man
Guest
Let’s clarify shall we. God and Christ are the sole authority in matters of faith and morality. Scripture represents the word of God, and since God is our sovereign ruler and perfect in every sense, His word is infallible. Moreover, since ONLY God can be perfect ONLY His word may be viewed as infallible.
No man or collection of men possesses the capacity to be infallible. Therefore, while certain traditions (that do not contradict the word or tenor of scripture) & historical context remain a valuable tool for obvious reasons – it is certainly not infallible.
However, the crux of this issue is whether or not one accepts the RCC as the “one true church,” OR whether we define church as a collective of all the faithful in Christ, and the visible earthly church as the sum of all Christian congregations practicing in a sufficient manner (teaching all the essentials of the Christian faith). The typical reformed response is to challenge the validity of the RC view of apostolic succession (upon which its claimed authority rests).
We simply believe the RC misrepresents the meaning of Peter’s commission, and what the proper role of apostolic succession is.
No man or collection of men possesses the capacity to be infallible. Therefore, while certain traditions (that do not contradict the word or tenor of scripture) & historical context remain a valuable tool for obvious reasons – it is certainly not infallible.
However, the crux of this issue is whether or not one accepts the RCC as the “one true church,” OR whether we define church as a collective of all the faithful in Christ, and the visible earthly church as the sum of all Christian congregations practicing in a sufficient manner (teaching all the essentials of the Christian faith). The typical reformed response is to challenge the validity of the RC view of apostolic succession (upon which its claimed authority rests).
We simply believe the RC misrepresents the meaning of Peter’s commission, and what the proper role of apostolic succession is.
J
Jerry_Marino
Guest
because you don’t understand?
J
Jerry_Marino
Guest
D
djrakowski
Guest
You have a bit of a problem here - who decides whether a particular Christian congregation is “practicing in a sufficient manner” and “teaching all the essentials of the Christian faith?” What are those essentials upon which all valid Christian bodies should agree?
S
SteveGC
Guest
Agreed. But there is nothing to suggest that God cannot and did not leave delegated authority on earth to shepherd the flock - as much as you disagree with that notion. This did not relinquish the authoritative power from God…it emboldened it…made it transferable…made it recognizable to all the world.
who told you that? Scripture? No. SomeONE told you this. The same someone(s) who have lost your trust since the time you accepted this proclamation, and the very Bible they provided.
No one of their own power, no. But the Holy Spirit provides this charism for proper authentic teaching of faith and morals. Faith and morals are NOT mysteries to be solved in any individual’s lifetime. The are revealed truths. We just have to find them. But not by first going to Scripture. We must go to human teachers…the right ones…appointed by Christ Himself.
What’s a “sufficient manner”? What ARE the essentials? You see, this leaves it subjective. My opinion about sufficiency of teaching of what is essential can be different from everyone else. Again, we don’t find the answer biblically. We find it in the authentic teachers.
J
Jerry_Marino
Guest
pardon the interruption: the Bible, Jesus Christ and God.
- Status