Question for all protestants

[believerdoc]

HF can you still stand firm to this statement after reading the following 5 passages? Especially the last one?

[BIBLEDRB]Col 1:18[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]1 Cor 12:20-27[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]Eph 5:30[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]Rom 12:4-5[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]1 Cor 6:15[/BIBLEDRB]

Here is where we must agree to disagree. You see that church as the Roman Catholic Church. We see that church as the whole body of believers. You see that church manifested in one institution, we do not believe it is contained in any one earthly institution.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Here is where we must agree to disagree. You see that church as the Roman Catholic Church. We see that church as the whole body of believers. You see that church manifested in one institution, we do not believe it is contained in any one earthly institution.

I know you’ve been asked this believerdoc, but if we are both in the church (which I believe in a mystical way we are) and this church is only invisible then;

What do we do regarding Matt 18

You and I have a dispute over this. That you sin against me by holding this view.
I confront you personally.

We make no progress.

I take you before a couple others,

You are not convinced.

So then we take it to the church.

How do we accomplish this with your view?

 

[believerdoc]

Archbishop Dolan cited the conversion story of St. Paul to illustrate the connection, noting that “Jesus did not ask, ‘Saul, why do you persecute my people?’ or ‘Why do you persecute my church?’ Jesus asked, ‘Why do you persecute me?’”

He invited his audience to consider those words carefully as he noted that, once converted, Saul/Paul “seeks out the church, the united followers of Jesus. He sought out the church in order to find Jesus, so that he could be united in the disciples’ work of evangelization.”

Yet, the archbishop said, that connection seems to be lost on many of today’s people, including many lapsed, inactive and fallen-away Catholics — some of whom have renounced and rejected the Catholic faith.

“We are living in an era where people believe in Christ, but not in his church,” said Archbishop Dolan. “They want the king, but not the kingdom; they want to believe without belonging; they want the faith, but not the faithful. But for the committed Catholic, the answer to that is, ‘no can do.’ Jesus and the church are one.”

I have the GREATEST respect for Cardinal Dolan and actually heard this on Sirius radio however it is our definition of church and kingdom where we disagree. We seek out the community of believers while you seek out an institution. To us people and church are inter-changable; the whole body that is the visible church on earth. By the way I truly believe that Cardinal Dolan may one day be the first American pope.

 

[believerdoc]

I know you’ve been asked this believerdoc, but if we are both in the church (which I believe in a mystical way we are) and this church is only invisible then;

What do we do regarding Matt 18

You and I have a dispute over this. That you sin against me by holding this view.
I confront you personally.

We make no progress.

I take you before a couple others,

You are not convinced.

So then we take it to the church.

How do we accomplish this with your view?

The church is not invisible; it is the visible body of Christ on earth. However it is not contained in one institution. We also have churches, elders, deacons, ministers, etc. So when we take it to the church we also have a visible body of believers to go to. You believe that a parish is your faith community; we believe our congregations are a faith community. Same concept; different name. Where we disagree is your belief that the entire church is contained in one manifestation of the visible church where we see it existing in the Body of Believers; the Body of Christ on earth.

 

[believerdoc]

Jesus Christ without His Body, the Church, is a Head without any means of expressing Himself.

That is why the Church is here. Without her, you are worshipping a disembodied Head.

I totally agree! Where we disagree is the concept of what the church and Body of Christ are. We see it as the entire Body of Believers while you see it as an institution.

 

[Jon_S_1]

The church is not invisible; it is the visible body of Christ on earth. However it is not contained in one institution. We also have churches, elders, deacons, ministers, etc. So when we take it to the church we also have a visible body of believers to go to. You believe that a parish is your faith community; we believe our congregations are a faith community. Same concept; different name. Where we disagree is your belief that the entire church is contained in one manifestation of the visible church where we see it existing in the Body of Believers; the Body of Christ on earth.

That doesn’t answer anything. I am not in your church, why should I give them the authority to settle this dispute?

This is a theological dispute. The sin is heresy for sake of this.

If I take it to your church I get Answer A
If I take it to mine we get B
Methodists C
Pentecostals D
Lutherans E

So does authority to settle this only lie wherever I or you says it lies?

Is that not the very definition of relativism?

 

[PRmerger]

Here is where we must agree to disagree. You see that church as the Roman Catholic Church. We see that church as the whole body of believers.

This simply cannot be true. Is it your estimation that this whole body of believers can be so confused about matters of salvation?

This whole body of believers cannot agree on these things:

-is baptism an ordinance, or a sacrament?
-does it save? or is it merely an outward sign of conversion?
-should it be done by sprinkling? or immersion? in a river? in infancy? or adulthood?

-is Sunday the day of worship? Or is it Saturday?

-is God’s Holy Name Jehovah?

-is Jesus the brother of the archangel Michael?

-is divorce and re-marriage adultery? Or is it a second chance?

-should women be ordained? Or should women be veiled and kept silent? Or should women pray separately in another part of the church? Or should women stay at home and bear children and not be educated?

And this is only the tip of the iceberg in which this “whole body of believers” cannot profess any agreement on any single doctrine.

 

[Jon_S_1]

I totally agree! Where we disagree is the concept of what the church and Body of Christ are. We see it as the entire Body of Believers while you see it as an institution.

That’s not true at all, and in fact I bet you believe the church is an institution, just not our institution.

You just told me you had a hierarchy to settle Matt 18 that does not encompass the entire body of believers.

Further, I am sure you would not be thrilled if the church down the road of the same denomination came in and replaced your elders and teachers, nor would you much appreciate fellow believer Joe Shmoe deciding how the church was run and what was preached.

You do however accept the AUTHORITY of the visible elder board and pastors of your church.

This really begs the question, why??

Do you believe your group is one of the only groups of true Christians? If not why do you not consult with the “entire body of believers” to enforce Matt 18 and make decisions of your parish.

 

[adf417]

This simply cannot be true. Is it your estimation that this whole body of believers can be so confused about matters of salvation?

This whole body of believers cannot agree on these things:

-is baptism an ordinance, or a sacrament?
-does it save? or is it merely an outward sign of conversion?
-should it be done by sprinkling? or immersion? in a river? in infancy? or adulthood?

-is Sunday the day of worship? Or is it Saturday?

-is God’s Holy Name Jehovah?

-is Jesus the brother of the archangel Michael?

-is divorce and re-marriage adultery? Or is it a second chance?

-should women be ordained? Or should women be veiled and kept silent? Or should women pray separately in another part of the church? Or should women stay at home and bear children and not be educated?

And this is only the tip of the iceberg in which this “whole body of believers” cannot profess any agreement on any single doctrine.

These are the pointed questions the OP brings out and I’m sure you, PR, would not mind if ANYBODY would be so bold as to answer them, not just believerdoc.

I would like to mention the point that these are also the questions that separate not only the “whole body of believers” but also families like mine in a real way not a mystical way. So, from a totally personal perspective, if ANYONE could please answer these questions it would help bring my family back together again and I’m sure in turn it would go along way to bring the “whole body of believers” together also.

It is truly mind boggling how these things can be considered as “ok in a mystical way” when so many families are so deeply effected in a negative way not to mention the body of Christ in which He sees it.

 

[PRmerger]

These are the pointed questions the OP brings out and I’m sure you, PR, would not mind if ANYBODY would be so bold as to answer them, not just believerdoc.

I would like to mention the point that these are also the questions that separate not only the “whole body of believers” but also families like mine in a real way not a mystical way. So, from a totally personal perspective, if ANYONE could please answer these questions it would help bring my family back together again and I’m sure in turn it would go along way to bring the “whole body of believers” together also.

It is truly mind boggling how these things can be considered as “ok in a mystical way” when so many families are so deeply effected in a negative way not to mention the body of Christ in which He sees it.

Indeed. :sad_yes:

 

[rinnie]

Of course it matters but it does not prevent these Protestants from being in union with the mystical Body of Christ, though in an imperfect and incomplete way. This is an infallible teaching of our Church.

I used the Apostles Creed because many Protestants and even evangelicals profess it as do Catholics of course.

But where in the teachings of Christ were we called to be united in Christ in an (name removed by moderator)efect and incomplete way?

Just because the truth is they are united to Christ in an (name removed by moderator)erfect way, does it make it what Christ taught?

And who is to blame the RCC? Do you feel it failed to do its job?

 

[Randy_Carson]

And it’s not like Protestants don’t believe there is one true Church.

I have a question concerning the one, true Church as you understand it.

Would you say that:

1. Jesus established one church, but it is an invisible, abstract, “spiritual” church in which all true believers, regardless of denomination, are members. In this church, either:
   (a) Doctrine does not matter, or
   (b) Conflicting and contradictory doctrines are acceptable.
2. Jesus established one, visible church in which doctrine matters and does not conflict. This church contains the fullness of truth as revealed by God; all others have partial truth, at best.

Thanks.

 

[believerdoc]

That doesn’t answer anything. I am not in your church, why should I give them the authority to settle this dispute?

This is a theological dispute. The sin is heresy for sake of this.

If I take it to your church I get Answer A
If I take it to mine we get B
Methodists C
Pentecostals D
Lutherans E

So does authority to settle this only lie wherever I or you says it lies?

Is that not the very definition of relativism?

Heresy in your opinion which is totally irrelevant. Benjamin Franklin said that treason was a way that supposed winners dreamed up to punish supposed losers. Heresy is exactly the same; a term only relevant to people that follow your beliefs. Since we do not accept that your particular church has any greater authority than any other the term is meaningless except to further the division in the earthy body of Christ. There are many beliefs your particular church holds that I would class as heresy and contrary to biblical but I still accept you a as a brother in Christ and your church in all of its good points and bad as a Christian Church striving to follow what you see as the will of Christ. When I started on the forum I understood that is was to explore various beliefs and see how were were the same and how we were different. With this quote I now find it worthless and merely a place to argue since you are not interested in exploring but in putting forth worthless post like this one. Thank everyone for their time but I have more useful and worthwhile places to discuss beliefs than one where someone is so insulting and inflexible. I do not ask you to subscribe to my beliefs but to at least try to understand them . I pray the Holy Spirit will guide you in future posts and make you as good a Christian as you profess to be a Catholic. Peace to all!

 

[rinnie]

That doesn’t answer anything. I am not in your church, why should I give them the authority to settle this dispute?

This is a theological dispute. The sin is heresy for sake of this.

If I take it to your church I get Answer A
If I take it to mine we get B
Methodists C
Pentecostals D
Lutherans E

So does authority to settle this only lie wherever I or you says it lies?

Is that not the very definition of relativism?

And the one point I would also like to make is this.

The Pope does state that he has authority given to him by God to have power to talk in his name.

Now with that said, its seems to me that statement has never been make by any other person.

Does anyone here know of anyone that states they have the power to speak in the name of Jesus Christ to teach and preach the good news.

All I have heard is yes, but we don’t see it that way, Or we are not Catholic,

To me it comes down to this. The Pope states that he has the power to speak in the name of Christ given to him ALONE to do so if he feels the need.

Granted he has not done this often, but has. He usually meets with others. But he does not have to.

Now this I am asking because I do not know. Has there been any other even in the Catholic Church not the RCC that has ever spoke by himself and claimed this power,

Now my mind takes me back to what Jesus said. He said to Peter what YOU bind or held and what YOU loose is loose. Jesus promised us the advocate would come and speak in his name.

So the way I see it, it MUST come down to 2 things.

Either Jesus lied and the Pope can trump Jesus and lie and SAY he is speaking in the name of Christ.

OR Jesus meant what he said, and he would be here until the end of age, and this power the devil could not even take over.

Because if the Pope who CAN and has Spoken alone in the name of Christ lied, then Christ did not keep his promise, he left us orphans, and the devil has taken over the RCC.

Or have to accept God kept his promise until the end of age the Pope either ALONE or with others can speak his name…

I am not preaching, I am asking, How could it be seen any other way?

 

[Randy_Carson]

I have the GREATEST respect for Cardinal Dolan and actually heard this on Sirius radio however it is our definition of church and kingdom where we disagree. We seek out the community of believers while you seek out an institution. To us people and church are inter-changable; the whole body that is the visible church on earth. By the way I truly believe that Cardinal Dolan may one day be the first American pope.

Then perhaps you will attempt to answer this question, also:

We need the church to guide us into the truth that will set us free, but we must also determine which church or churches we can rely on to teach the truth accurately. Today, there are thousands of recognized Christian denominations throughout the world. Given this situation, we realize one of the following must be true:

1. Jesus established one church, but it is an invisible, abstract, “spiritual” church in which all true believers, regardless of denomination, are members. In this church, either:
   (a) Doctrine does not matter, or
   (b) Conflicting and contradictory doctrines are acceptable.
2. Jesus established one, visible church in which doctrine matters and does not conflict. This church contains the fullness of truth as revealed by God; all others have partial truth, at best.

Which of these options is correct?

 

[rinnie]

I totally agree! Where we disagree is the concept of what the church and Body of Christ are. We see it as the entire Body of Believers while you see it as an institution.

But what did the 12 Apostles teach? Where do any of us have the right to disagree with what the Apostles taught?

Or do you reject their authority also?

Please understand I am not accusing, Only asking.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Heresy in your opinion which is totally irrelevant. Benjamin Franklin said that treason was a way that supposed winners dreamed up to punish supposed losers. Heresy is exactly the same; a term only relevant to people that follow your beliefs. Since we do not accept that your particular church has any greater authority than any other the term is meaningless except to further the division in the earthy body of Christ. There are many beliefs your particular church holds that I would class as heresy and contrary to biblical but I still accept you a as a brother in Christ and your church in all of its good points and bad as a Christian Church striving to follow what you see as the will of Christ. When I started on the forum I understood that is was to explore various beliefs and see how were were the same and how we were different. With this quote I now find it worthless and merely a place to argue since you are not interested in exploring but in putting forth worthless post like this one. Thank everyone for their time but I have more useful and worthwhile places to discuss beliefs than one where someone is so insulting and inflexible. I do not ask you to subscribe to my beliefs but to at least try to understand them . I pray the Holy Spirit will guide you in future posts and make you as good a Christian as you profess to be a Catholic. Peace to all!

I am sorry believerdoc, but this is a complete cop out.

Tell you what same scenario you pick the problem.

How about using contraception

Or divorce

Or remarriage.

Those are equally worthy topics.

I am certain you know you cannot answer this essential question, but for sake of discussion it would be beneficial to all if you could explain how you biblically follow Matt 18 with this disconnected body of believers.

 

[rinnie]

I think you have just created a real problem for yourself. If you accept the fact, as you stated, that the Holy Spirit resides in non-catholic churches but does not lead them to the fullness of Truth then you say the Holy Spirit is in error. “And the Truth will set you free”. This is often misinterpreted as facts or information when it actually refers to Jesus himself (I am the Way, the Truth, and the Light). We are told that the Spirit will always bear witness to the Truth therefore the Spirit must always bear witness to Jesus Christ. Therefore the Holy Spirit, wherever it dwells, will ALWAYS bear witness to Jesus Christ be it in a Protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox church. Therefore Truth will always be found where the name of the Lord Jesus is glorified, honored, and worshiped and people of goodwill strive, to the best of their understand and ability, to follow and serve Him.

Where is it stated that if the Truth is proclaimed anywhere, it is not truth unless it comes IN the Catholic Church.

I don’t care if you are sitting on a bar stool and state a true teaching, Its a true teaching.

Jesus himself said those who are not against us are with us.

But speaking truth, does not mean fullness of the truth.

Jesus told us we are to be in the Church that has the fullness of the truth. The ONE HOLY APOSTOLIC CATHOLIC CHURCH.

 

[dronald]

. This simply cannot be true. Is it your estimation that this whole body of believers can be so confused about matters of salvation?

This whole body of believers cannot agree on these things:

-is baptism an ordinance, or a sacrament?
-does it save? or is it merely an outward sign of conversion?
-should it be done by sprinkling? or immersion? in a river? in infancy? or adulthood?

Idk, why don’t you tell me?

-is Sunday the day of worship? Or is it Saturday?

-is God’s Holy Name Jehovah?

Yes, I believe so. He has other names as well.
-is Jesus the brother of the archangel Michael?

If a cult makes a silly interpretation it doesn’t change the fact that Non-Catholic Religions are still correct.

“Muslims say Jesus was a Prophet, so Catholicism is true!”

-is divorce and re-marriage adultery? Or is it a second chance?

This one is indisputable. When the Bible says, “anyone who divorces his wife and remarry commits adultery” it’s obvious. I have a good enough skill in English to not need the CC for this one.

-should women be ordained? Or should women be veiled and kept silent? Or should women pray separately in another part of the church? Or should women stay at home and bear children and not be educated?

Ugh. This one drives me crazy. Sometimes Catholics use moral relativism other times they rely on an outdated teaching. Women DO speak up in The CC now and it used to be wrong for them as Paul said, right? But ordination still stays out of the question. I would say give it another 200 years and CAF will be defending the newest female Priest.

And this is only the tip of the iceberg in which this “whole body of believers” cannot profess any agreement on any single doctrine.

The CC doesn’t agree on all of its beliefs from the past 450 years until now as well.

 

[rinnie]

Idk, why don’t you tell me?

If a cult makes a silly interpretation it doesn’t change the fact that Non-Catholic Religions are still correct.

“Muslims say Jesus was a Prophet, so Catholicism is true!”

This one is indisputable. When the Bible says, “anyone who divorces his wife and remarry commits adultery” it’s obvious. I have a good enough skill in English to not need the CC for this one.

Ugh. This one drives me crazy. Sometimes Catholics use moral relativism other times they rely on an outdated teaching. Women DO speak up in The CC now and it used to be wrong for them as Paul said, right? But ordination still stays out of the question. I would say give it another 200 years and CAF will be defending the newest female Priest.

The CC doesn’t agree on all of its beliefs from the past 450 years until now as well.

The RCC does. Unless you can point out a official teaching they taught, and now don’t agree on.