Seventh Day Adventists say Catholics changed...

[JRKH]

What exactly is it that you think they changed. Outside of the laws concerning the sanctuary and it’s feasts that were prophetic and were done away with once Christ came.

(Very Large Snip for the sake of space)

In light of what I have just shown you from the word of God and of coarse Jesus being the creator God. **3And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it **How can you get that "The benefits of the Sabbath, rest and worship, can be just as easily, as fully and as truly achieved on Sunday as they can on Saturday."
I mean please JRKH what am I missing in Christ’s statement?

Richard,
I want to thank you for your response. It is well presented and is, I must admit, pretty convincing. - But not quite. The reason it is not convincing to me is both complicated and simple. Simple in how I understand it and complicated to try to explain it to anyone.
It has to do with authority. Please read it patiently.

We as Christians wish to follow Christ thoroughly, honestly and completely. Christ wants that too and does not want us to uselessly argue over things. He prayed in John 17:20-21:
20 "I do not pray for these only, but also for those who believe in me through their word, 21 that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
Such unity, I think you will agree, does not allow for seperate and contradictory doctrines on issues seen as necessary for salvation. Such issues need to be resolved for the sake of unity within the body of Christ.

To assure this unity Christ established a Church with sweeping authority. In only two places is the word “Church” uttered by the lips of Christ. Both times in reference to authority. The first reference is the famous passage in Mt 16:17-19:
17 Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18 "I also say to you that you are Kepha (Rock), and upon this Kepha I will build My church (Singular); and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. 19 “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.”
Here we see Christ promise A Church which Hell will not overcome. We see Him promise to give Peter the “Keys to the Kingdom of heaven”, and the authority to “Bind and Loose…Whatever”. Note carefully that Christ says whatever he binds or looses on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven. These are Christ’s own words - The words of the God/Man himself. He grants this authority knowing, as only God could, what will be done with it,

The second place where we see the term Church is in Matthew 18: 15-18,
15 "If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. 16 "But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed. 17 "If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church let him be as a tax collector. 18 "Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.
First of all I’d like to clear any misunderstanding about up the idea of what constitutes “sin” in this passage. I’m hope that you will agree that the spreading of a false doctrine, a “false Gospel” as Paul might put it, is a sin against your brothers. Therefore this passage applies to doctrinal differences as well as other, more direct and personal, sins.
Second, please note the order and approach Christ instructs us to use. First, quietly and personally, one-on-one. Secondly, bringing in just a very few others to witness and explain. Finally, assuming the other attempts fail in coming to agreement, the matter is taken to “The Church” and we are instructed to “listen…to the Church”, that is, to abide by the decision of “The Church”.

With this background, let us put ourselves back into the early unified Church. This could be either while the Apostles are still living or shortly after John’s death, I’m not knowledgable to know for sure, but most likely after the Jews expelled the Christians from the synagogues and possbly after the destruction of the temple. In The Church, the numbers of Gentile Christians vs the number of Hebrew Christians has grown exponentially to where the Gentile Christians firmly outnumber the Hebrew Christians.

Without a doubt, from the earliest days, the question of the proper day of worship must have come up. Should it be continued on the Sabbath commemorating the completion of the “Old Creation”, or should it be on the “first day” commemorating Christ’s resurrection and the birth of the “New Creation”? Christians on both sides of the matter undoubtedly discussed it at length. Thus completing the first two steps outlined by Our Dear Lord in Matthew 18, shown above. Still the two sides could not come to a complete agreement. So what did they do? Did they “split” the body of Christ over this issue? No - they did the only thing they could do. They “Told it to The Church”, just as the believers in Antioch did when they appealed to The Church in their dispute with the “Judaizers”.

It was “The Church” through the Apostles and their successors who, under the guidance and protection of the Holy Spirit as promised by Christ, determined that the proper day for Christian worship was the first day, not the last day. The body of believers accepted this and thus Christians have worshiped on Sunday, the first day of the week, from those early days until now.

(Cont)

 

[JRKH]

(Cont)

Christ being God, didn’t give Peter and the Church such authority without knowing to what use they would put it. He knew full well at the time that the day of worship would be changed in the new kingdom. He knew this just as surely as He knew that Peter would deny Him three times, or that Judas would betray Him.
Christ had no problem with this, because as He said Himself , The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.

Now we fast forward to the mid 1800’s. If the adventists at this time are right, God has already allowed the flawed teaching of Sunday worship to exist for at least 1700 years without correction. This seems hardly likely when the correction would be so simple to 1) prevent in the first place, or 2) correct early on.

Fast forward again to today and this thread. The question of Sabbath has been raised and discussed by several people. Thus fullfiling Christ’s instruction in Mt 18: 15-16. Since we cannot come to a consensus on which view is correct, the next step to be taken by a True and Loyal follower of Christ, is to “Tell it to The Church” - The Authoritative Church.
Why can’t we, like our brothers in Antioch, do this?
Because of the rejection of authority by the Protestant leaders 500 years ago.
Because today, you as a member of the SDA, cannot accept the authority of the Ancient Universal and Authoritative Church, with direct and unbroken history and lineage back to the apostles.
As a result of this rejection of authority, Christians today are split many ways. Split in far more greater number than the stripes on Christ’s back from the scourging. These seperations, these wounds to unity, are truly wounds in the Body of Christ. These wounds are far more hurtful to Christ than whether we worship on Saturday or Sunday.

The Church spake on this matter in the earliest days. The teaching has been preserved through all of the long centuries. Even after the Reformation, from the mid 1500’s to the mid1800’s, some three hundred years, every Christian denomination has worshiped on Sunday. So - Why has Christ permitted this change? Because it is good. Because it is unifying. Because He has ordained it.

Peace
James

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Richard,
I want to thank you for your response. It is well presented and is, I must admit, pretty convincing. - But not quite. The reason it is not convincing to me is both complicated and simple. Simple in how I understand it and complicated to try to explain it to anyone.
It has to do with authority. Please read it patiently.

We as Christians wish to follow Christ thoroughly, honestly and completely. Christ wants that too and does not want us to uselessly argue over things. He prayed in John 17:20-21:
20 "I do not pray for these only, but also for those who believe in me through their word, 21 that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
Such unity, I think you will agree, does not allow for seperate and contradictory doctrines on issues seen as necessary for salvation. Such issues need to be resolved for the sake of unity within the body of Christ.

Agreed.

To assure this unity Christ established a Church with sweeping authority. In only two places is the word “Church” uttered by the lips of Christ. Both times in reference to authority. The first reference is the famous passage in Mt 16:17-19:
17 Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18 "I also say to you that you are Kepha (Rock), and upon this Kepha I will build My church (Singular); and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. 19 “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.”

Here is where we run into problems. You and most Catholics that I have encountered on this fourum use Matt. 16 to try to prove that Christ was bestowing on Peter some sort of infallible authority to do with God’s plan of salvation whatever this sinful man wanted to do and in order to show this they start at v. 17 or in many cases v.18. The particular exchange between Christ and His discilpes however starts back in v. 13

13When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?
14And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.
15He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
16And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

Jesus asks His disciple two questions. Who do men say that I am? and Who do you say that I am? The I am is an obvious allusion to Him being God.
Ex.3:13And Moses said unto God, Behold, when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his name? what shall I say unto them?
14And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.

So Jesus was establishing in the minds of His disciples that they were talking to the same God that sent Moses, that created the world and all that is in it, the creator God of the universe. The God whose Father gave Him to us in His plan of salvation. Jesus is clearly esablishing that He is God and in v. 16 when Peter confirms that that is indeed what they believe. He says “Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.” Now the CC teaches that after Jesus has established in the minds of His disciples that He is the one sent by His Father to carry out His plan of Salvation that in v. 18 He turns everything over to Peter a sinner. It’s interesting that you use the word kepha for Peter. This is an Aramaic word and is not the word used in the translation which is in Greek. The word used for Peter is petros which means Peter = “a rock or a stone”. Whenever you see the name Peter in the new testament it is translated from petros. Jesus when He says upon this rock I will build My church does not use petros. He uses Petra which means

1. a rock, cliff or ledge
   a) a projecting rock, crag, rocky ground
   b) a rock, a large stone
   c) metaph. a man like a rock, by reason of his firmness and strength of soul

I don’t believe Jesus was turning everything over to Peter. I believe He was establishing the fact that He was building His church firmly on Himself, the Rock of Ages.
Jesus said Luke 6
47Whosoever cometh to me, and heareth my sayings, and doeth them, I will shew you to whom he is like:
48He is like a man which built an house, and digged deep, and laid the foundation on a rock: and when the flood arose, the stream beat vehemently upon that house, and could not shake it: for it was founded upon a rock.
1 Corinthians 10:4
And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

So how do we come to this unity that you speak of. Do we follow a church that thinks to change times and laws? Dan.7:25 or do we follow the Rock upon which Christ builds His church?
Matthew 28:19-20 (King James Version)
19Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

I don’t know about you brother but I’m following the Rock of Ages. Jesus Christ.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Here we see Christ promise A Church which Hell will not overcome.

Revelation 12:17 (King James Version)
17And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.
Rev. 12:17 calls God’s church a remnant. Which means relatively few in number. In other words, not mainstream and altho it appears that at times through history that His church has disappeared. This is not the case. Because He has promised to protect it against the gates of hell (death).

We see Him promise to give Peter the “Keys to the Kingdom of heaven”

Luke 11:52Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.
Jesus here in Luke calls knowledge a key. So, it’s not to big of a stretch to think that in Matt 16:18 that He is also talking of knowledge. What knowledge? Well’ of the kingdom of heaven and where would we find the knowledge of the kingdom of heaven. This phrase occurs 54 times in the bible. 32 times in the gospels 31 times in Matt. In the gospel occurrances it is Jesus explaining some aspect of the kingdom of heaven. So one could logically deduce that the keys to the kingdom of heaven are the words of Jesus. Think about it James. Isn’t it Jesus that reveals to us through His words, life, and death what the kingdom is and what is necessay to obtain it?

and the authority to “Bind and Loose…Whatever”. Note carefully that Christ says whatever he binds or looses on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven. These are Christ’s own words - The words of the God/Man himself. He grants this authority knowing, as only God could, what will be done with it,

This from my commentary
Bind. The entire statement reads literally, “Whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.” The meaning evidently is this, that the church on earth will require only what heaven requires and will prohibit only what heaven prohibits. This seems to be the clear teaching of the Scriptures (see on Matt. 7:21–27; Mark 7:6–13). As the apostles went forth to proclaim the gospel, according to the commission entrusted to them (see Matt. 28:19, 20), they were to teach converts “to observe all things whatsoever” Christ had commanded—no more and no less.
To extend the meaning of “bind” and “loose” to the authority to dictate what members of the church may believe and what they may do, in matters of faith and practice, is to read into these words of Christ more than He meant by them, and more than the disciples understood by them. Such a claim God does not sanction. Christ’s representatives on earth have the right and the responsibility to “bind” whatever has been “bound in heaven” and to “loose” whatever has been “loosed in heaven,” that is, to require or to prohibit whatever Inspiration clearly reveals. But to go beyond this is to substitute human authority for the authority of Christ (see on Mark 7:7–9), a tendency that Heaven will not tolerate in those who have been appointed to the oversight of the citizens of the kingdom of heaven on earth.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

The second place where we see the term Church is in Matthew 18: 15-18,
15 "If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. 16 "But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed. 17 "If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church let him be as a tax collector. 18 "Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.
First of all I’d like to clear any misunderstanding about up the idea of what constitutes “sin” in this passage. I’m hope that you will agree that the spreading of a false doctrine, a “false Gospel” as Paul might put it, is a sin against your brothers. Therefore this passage applies to doctrinal differences as well as other, more direct and personal, sins.
Second, please note the order and approach Christ instructs us to use. First, quietly and personally, one-on-one. Secondly, bringing in just a very few others to witness and explain. Finally, assuming the other attempts fail in coming to agreement, the matter is taken to “The Church” and we are instructed to “listen…to the Church”, that is, to abide by the decision of “The Church”.

From my commentary
15. Moreover. Jesus here begins a new section of instruction, but one that is closely related in thought to that which precedes it, particularly to vs. 12–14. In the parable of the Lost Sheep, Jesus stresses the profound concern the Father feels for “one of these little ones” (v. 14) “which is gone astray” (see on v. 12). Now He proceeds to discuss (vs. 15–20) what attitude a Christian should take toward a fellow believer who has injured him.
Shall trespass. Gr. hamartanō, literally, “to miss the mark”; hence, “to err,” “to do wrong,” or “to sin.” The “brother” who “errs” is evidently the same as the “one sheep” that “went astray” (see on v. 12).
Go and tell him. See on Lev. 19:17, 18. Compare Gal. 6:1. This is more than a wise admonition; it is a command. “For evils that we might have checked, we are just as responsible as if we were guilty of the acts ourselves” (DA 441).
Thee and him alone. To circulate reports concerning what “thy brother” may have done will make it more difficult, perhaps even impossible, to reach him. Here, perhaps more than in any other aspect of personal relationships, it is our privilege to apply the Golden Rule (see on ch. 7:12). The less publicity that is given to a wrong act, the better.
Gained thy brother. Someone has said that the best way to dispose of our enemies is to make friends of them. The talent of influence is a sacred trust, one for which we will inevitably be called upon to give account in the day of judgment. “Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God” (see on ch. 5:9).
16. Will not hear. That is, if he will not admit his wrongdoing, change his course of action, and make right, as far as possible, the wrongs of the past.
One or two more. The “one or two more” are, presumably, not involved personally and are therefore in a better position to express an unbiased opinion and to counsel the offending brother. In case the offending brother neglects to heed their admonition, they can bear witness to the efforts that have been put forth on his behalf and also to the facts in the case.
Two or three witnesses. See on Deut. 17:6; 19:15. According to Hebrew law no man might be punished on the testimony of a lone witness. It is well to remember, also, that there are two sides to every disagreement, and both must have a fair hearing before a decision can be reached.
17. Church. Gr. ekklēsia, from ek, “out,” and kaleō, “to call.” Originally ekklēsia referred to an assembly of citizens summoned to consider civic matters. In the LXX the Greek words sunagōgē, “synagogue,” and ekklēsia are both commonly used with reference to the “assembly,” or “congregation,” of Israel. As sunagōgē came to refer especially to a Jewish religious assembly, it is only to be expected that the Christians might prefer to use ekklēsia to denote their assemblies. In Christian usage ekklēsia meant either the place of worship or the body of worshipers, whether or not assembled together. Here the “church” is the local body of believers acting in their corporate capacity, not the church universal as in ch. 16:18.
As an heathen man and a publican. Or, “as the Gentile and the taxgatherer.” By refusing the counsel of the church the erring member has severed himself from its fellowship (DA 441). This does not mean that he should be despised or shunned or neglected. Efforts should now be put forth for the erring member as for any nonmember. In working for a person who has thus severed himself from the church, members should beware of associating with him in such a way as to make it appear that they share his point of view or participate with him in his evil course of action.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

With this background, let us put ourselves back into the early unified Church. This could be either while the Apostles are still living or shortly after John’s death, I’m not knowledgable to know for sure, but most likely after the Jews expelled the Christians from the synagogues and possbly after the destruction of the temple. In The Church, the numbers of Gentile Christians vs the number of Hebrew Christians has grown exponentially to where the Gentile Christians firmly outnumber the Hebrew Christians.

Without a doubt, from the earliest days, the question of the proper day of worship must have come up. Should it be continued on the Sabbath commemorating the completion of the “Old Creation”, or should it be on the “first day” commemorating Christ’s resurrection and the birth of the “New Creation”? Christians on both sides of the matter undoubtedly discussed it at length. Thus completing the first two steps outlined by Our Dear Lord in Matthew 18, shown above. Still the two sides could not come to a complete agreement. So what did they do? Did they “split” the body of Christ over this issue? No - they did the only thing they could do. They “Told it to The Church”, just as the believers in Antioch did when they appealed to The Church in their dispute with the “Judaizers”.

It was “The Church” through the Apostles and their successors who, under the guidance and protection of the Holy Spirit as promised by Christ, determined that the proper day for Christian worship was the first day, not the last day. The body of believers accepted this and thus Christians have worshiped on Sunday, the first day of the week, from those early days until now.

(Cont)

As my commentary points out this power to bind and loose is the power to bind or loose people to heaven with the preaching of the words of Jesus or not. What this power is not. Is the carte blanche authority to do whatever they wanted with God’s plan of salvation and it most certainly did not give the power to change God’s law to sinners. A law that was spoken by the mouth of God and written in stone by His own finger.

 

[wmscott]

But doesn’t the Catholic version of the 10 Commandments change the command, “Keep holy the sabbath day” to “Keep holy the Lord’s Day”??? Isn’t that, in essence, switching the days?

Not trying to be difficult. The Sabbath/Lord’s Day issue is one that I have pondered for some time.

RSV-CE
Exodus 20:8 LINK

8* "Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.

RSV-CE
Deuteronomy 5:12 LINK

12 "'Observe the sabbath day, to keep it holy, as the LORD your God commanded you.

CCC LINK

Part 2, Section 1, Chapter 2, Article 1, SubSection 3, Heading 2

1166 "By a tradition handed down from the apostles which took its origin from the very day of Christ’s Resurrection, the Church celebrates the Paschal mystery every seventh day, which day is appropriately called the Lord’s Day or Sunday."The day of Christ’s Resurrection is both the first day of the week, the memorial of the first day of creation, and the “eighth day,” on which Christ after his “rest” on the great sabbath inaugurates the “day that the Lord has made,” the "day that knows no evening."The Lord’s Supper is its center, for there the whole community of the faithful encounters the risen Lord who invites them to his banquet:

The Lord’s day, the day of Resurrection, the day of Christians, is our day. It is called the Lord’s day because on it the Lord rose victorious to the Father. If pagans call it the “day of the sun,” we willingly agree, for today the light of the world is raised, today is revealed the sun of justice with healing in his rays.

Footnote References

36 SC 106.
CITED TEXT:
Sacrosanctum concilium 106

By a tradition handed down from the apostles which took its origin from the very day of Christ’s resurrection, the Church celebrates the paschal mystery every eighth day; with good reason this, then, bears the name of the Lord’s day or Sunday. For on this day Christ’s faithful are bound to come together into one place so that; by hearing the word of God and taking part in the eucharist, they may call to mind the passion, the resurrection and the glorification of the Lord Jesus, and may thank God who “has begotten them again, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, unto a living hope” (1 Pet. 1:3). Hence the Lord’s day is the original feast day, and it should be proposed to the piety of the faithful and taught to them so that it may become in fact a day of joy and of freedom from work. Other celebrations, unless they be truly of greatest importance, shall not have precedence over the Sunday which is the foundation and kernel of the whole liturgical year.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

(Cont)

Christ being God, didn’t give Peter and the Church such authority without knowing to what use they would put it. He knew full well at the time that the day of worship would be changed in the new kingdom. He knew this just as surely as He knew that Peter would deny Him three times, or that Judas would betray Him.
Christ had no problem with this, because as He said Himself , The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.

Now we fast forward to the mid 1800’s. If the adventists at this time are right, God has already allowed the flawed teaching of Sunday worship to exist for at least 1700 years without correction. This seems hardly likely when the correction would be so simple to 1) prevent in the first place, or 2) correct early on.

So, you are saying that God would impose His will on man in this matter. Kinda hard to call it free will then isn’t it.

Fast forward again to today and this thread. The question of Sabbath has been raised and discussed by several people. Thus fullfiling Christ’s instruction in Mt 18: 15-16. Since we cannot come to a consensus on which view is correct, the next step to be taken by a True and Loyal follower of Christ, is to “Tell it to The Church” - The Authoritative Church.

A couple things here. I think we need to back up to your definition of sin. You seem to think that what Matt.18:14 calls sin in your tanslation and tresspass in mine is a matter of doctrinal disputs. I don’t believe this is what it is talking about at all. I believe it is talking about sin period. 1Jn.3: 4Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law. The function of the ecclesia (church body) is to bring all sinners to Christ. If we see one fallig away (sinning) we need to follow the steps outlined in Matt18

Why can’t we, like our brothers in Antioch, do this?
Because of the rejection of authority by the Protestant leaders 500 years ago.

See here is the fundamental difference between your view and mine. You believe that Christ has relinquished His authority to the CC. I’m sorry James but I find this view to say the least blasphemous.

Because today, you as a member of the SDA, cannot accept the authority of the Ancient Universal and Authoritative Church, with direct and unbroken history and lineage back to the apostles.
As a result of this rejection of authority, Christians today are split many ways. Split in far more greater number than the stripes on Christ’s back from the scourging. These seperations, these wounds to unity, are truly wounds in the Body of Christ. These wounds are far more hurtful to Christ than whether we worship on Saturday or Sunday.

The Church spake on this matter in the earliest days. The teaching has been preserved through all of the long centuries. Even after the Reformation, from the mid 1500’s to the mid1800’s, some three hundred years, every Christian denomination has worshiped on Sunday. So - Why has Christ permitted this change? Because it is good. Because it is unifying. Because He has ordained it.

Peace
James

Christ has permitted this apostacy for the same reason He permitted the Jews to follow false gods in the OT. He gives us the power to follow whoever we wish. It’s called free will. He has shown us in The Word the way, the truth, and the life. But He will never force us. He wants us to love Him and a forced love is no love at all. But know this James like the Jews in the OT judgement is comming. The question is which side will you be on the right or the left.

 

[JRKH]

Richard,
I hope you don’t mind but I will not comment on all the commentaries regarding Mt 16 They are matters long discussed on this forum and I’ve pretty much heard them all.
Suffice it to say that I have found the alternate interpretations unconvincing when compared to most ancient and logical interpretation.

So, you are saying that God would impose His will on man in this matter. Kinda hard to call it free will then isn’t it.

So - If the Holy Spirit guides you in some matter or another , is God “imposing His will” on you? In you view, Has God imposed His Will on you by providing you with a Bible, or the writings of your church’s founders? Of course not. In these things you view it as the Spirit’s guidance, not imposition.
I’m saying that in this matter Christ, our King would have corrected it through the offices of the Paraclete, sent to the Apostles and their successors. This is not “imposing” his will on any individual - It is making sure that the proper teachings are available so that the individuals of His Church from 100 AD to 1800 AD would be able to properly form their conscience.

A couple things here. I think we need to back up to your definition of sin. You seem to think that what Matt.18:14 calls sin in your tanslation and tresspass in mine is a matter of doctrinal disputes. I don’t believe this is what it is talking about at all. I believe it is talking about sin period. 1Jn.3: 4Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law. The function of the ecclesia (church body) is to bring all sinners to Christ. If we see one fallig away (sinning) we need to follow the steps outlined in Matt18

Unless you want to say clearly and unequivicably that the deliberate spreading of a false doctrine is NOT a sin, then my definition stands. We don’t need any Bible refernces on this one. It should be an easy answer. Is the spreading of a “False Doctrine” offensive to God or not? If it is, then it is sinful.
Sorry to be so firm here, but I’ve had people try to dodge this before. The fact is that you can see this acted out even in your own community.
If you were to find someone, a friend, in your community holding and spreading doctrinal beliefs contrary to the fundemental, or even less than fundemental, doctrines of the SDA faith, how would you handle it?
Would you not first talk with this person privately? Then, if necessary, have others, your minister and other well educated friends etc. speak to him? Then if he failed to “come around”, or even worse, if he seemed to be gathering support for his views, would you not seek to have the matter settled by the church itself, by letter from “The top” or by vote in your local community, or whatever method your community uses? Finally, if this person, or persons STILL refused to accept the church’s teaching on the matter, refused to stop speaking and writing on the matter, would you not ask them to leave the community??

You might want to restrict Mt 18, but Christ knew full well that disputes would come up and He planned for it and Acts 15 demonstrates it perfectly.

See here is the fundamental difference between your view and mine. You believe that Christ has relinquished His authority to the CC. I’m sorry James but I find this view to say the least blasphemous.

You mis-understand me my friend. I think no such thing. I believe Christ uses the Catholic Church and the Authority He Himself gave her to prevent what has happened to those who have rejected that authority. Just think about this for a bit.
The One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church has, along with our Orthodox brothers, been the repository, teacher and source of Christian history and doctrine for 2000 years. One Church, One teaching, One docterinal set of beliefs. Even non-catholic scholars seek entrance to the Vatican archives to study and understand the faith from ancient times to now.
Christ relinquished nothing of His authority. He remains King. Christ granted Authority To His Church, His vicar and His administration, just as any King would do when He has to be physically absent for a time.

Christ has permitted this apostacy for the same reason He permitted the Jews to follow false gods in the OT. He gives us the power to follow whoever we wish. It’s called free will. He has shown us in The Word the way, the truth, and the life. But He will never force us. He wants us to love Him and a forced love is no love at all. But know this James like the Jews in the OT judgement is comming. The question is which side will you be on the right or the left.

Know this my friend. I follow Christ and the ancient Church that:
Christ - personally - founded upon Peter and the apostles.
The one who Christ used to settle the canon of scripture we today call the Bible.
The same bible (at least in the NT) that you hold in your hand.
The Same Church that has held together the faith through crisis after crisis, inside and out, from the time of the dispute between Antioch and the Judaizers, down to today.
I pray for the reunification of His Church.

I do not go seeking around among the thousands of “johnny come lately”, so called “bible churches” looking for one that fits me. I conform myself to Christ, as much as I can given my sinful nature. I do not ask Christ to conform to me.
As for being on the right or left. God will judge us. I hope that I will see you in Heaven.

You and I are not the makers of doctrine. We have studied and made our choice. We each believe the other is wrong. We have discussed it with each other and with others here as CAF. We could do the same thing at a SDA forum, but the result would be the same - deadlock.
In order to follow Christ’s call for unity and His instructions in Mt 18, we should take this to “The Church” for resolution. Any Ideas how to proceed??

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

Peter,
Have a blessed Sabbath.

The funny thing about all of this is that, if a person, a catholic, wishes to follow the custom of worshipping on th sabbath, they are free to do so. In the Catholic Church, Mass is offered daily in most parishes. A person would be free to go to mass on Saturday, rest on Saturday, follow the dietary laws as they (or as the SDA) outlines them for themselves. They could od all of this freely within the Catholic Church. There is no reason why they would need to leave Catholicism and join another Church. That is how big and loving and encompassing the Catholic Church is. Just one more Reason why I love being Catholic.

Peace
James

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Here’s your original post.

Christ being God, didn’t give Peter and the Church such authority without knowing to what use they would put it. He knew full well at the time that the day of worship would be changed in the new kingdom. He knew this just as surely as He knew that Peter would deny Him three times, or that Judas would betray Him.

There’s one problem here James. Jesus never gave Peter and the Catholic church the power you say He did and the Sabbath HAS NOT BEEN CHANGED.
Dan.7:24And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise: and another shall rise after them; and he shall be diverse from the first, and he shall subdue three kings.

25And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.

Dan 7:24-25 talks about a little horn power that arises out of the powers of Europe and THINKS to change times and laws. In other words. The laws concerning times have not been changed, but this power has thought that it changed them. What power do you think this is talking about James?

Christ had no problem with this, because as He said Himself , The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.

And the Sabbath was made for man. Gen.2:3And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made. But the Sabbath DOES NOT BELONG TO MAN. Ex.20:10But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God:

Now we fast forward to the mid 1800’s. If the adventists at this time are right, God has already allowed the flawed teaching of Sunday worship to exist for at least 1700 years without correction. This seems hardly likely when the correction would be so simple to 1) prevent in the first place, or 2) correct early on.

To which I replied. Now I was replying specifically to the emboldened comment.

Originally Posted by Richard Kastner
So, you are saying that God would impose His will on man in this matter. Kinda hard to call it free will then isn’t it.

The assumption being that God would through His church impose His will on mankind to
“1)prevent in the first place, or 2) correct early on”. To which you now reply

So - If the Holy Spirit guides you in some matter or another , is God “imposing His will” on you? In you view, Has God imposed His Will on you by providing you with a Bible, or the writings of your church’s founders? Of course not. In these things you view it as the Spirit’s guidance, not imposition.
I’m saying that in this matter Christ, our King would have corrected it through the offices of the Paraclete, sent to the Apostles and their successors. This is not “imposing” his will on any individual - It is making sure that the proper teachings are available so that the individuals of His Church from 100 AD to 1800 AD would be able to properly form their conscience.

Ok, check out Isaiah 66: 18 it shall come, that I will gather all nations and tongues; and they shall come, and see my glory.

19And I will set a sign among them, and I will send those that escape of them unto the nations, to Tarshish, Pul, and Lud, that draw the bow, to Tubal, and Javan, to the isles afar off, that have not heard my fame, neither have seen my glory; and they shall declare my glory among the Gentiles.

20And they shall bring all your brethren for an offering unto the LORD out of all nations upon horses, and in chariots, and in litters, and upon mules, and upon swift beasts, to my holy mountain Jerusalem, saith the LORD, as the children of Israel bring an offering in a clean vessel into the house of the LORD.

21And I will also take of them for priests and for Levites, saith the LORD.

Vs. 18-21 talk about God’s end time remnant church. How they shall proclaim the glory of the Lord to the world. In v. 19 it talks about a sign that God will place in them. Ok, let’s stop here and go to Jeremiah 31: 33But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

This says that God will place in the minds and hearts of His people His LAW
Ok, back to Isaiah

22For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the LORD, so shall your seed and your name remain.

Now, Isaiah talks about the new heavens and the new earth. Which is the earth made new that God’s righteous people will live in and just as these heavens and earth shall remain before the Lord, so shall His people, righteous Christians, remain before Him.

As in Jeremiah we see that God places His laws in His people’s minds and hearts we now see what the sign of His righteous people is. Of coarse it is one of His laws.

23And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the LORD.

The Sabbath is the sign of God’s end time righteos people and this people will keep God’s holy day throughout eternity. Ok, now we come to a very forboding v.

24And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcases of the men that have transgressed against me: for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh.

The righteous will veiw the carcasses of those that have transgressed, sinned, not kept His holy day. They did not have His law written in thier minds and in thier hearts. Let me ask James. Are you going to be one that is in the presence of the Lord keeping His Sabbath or is your carcass going to be veiwed by them?

 

[TriuneUnity]

Here’s your original post.

There’s one problem here James. Jesus never gave Peter and the Catholic church the power you say He did and the Sabbath HAS NOT BEEN CHANGED.
Dan.7:24And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise: and another shall rise after them; and he shall be diverse from the first, and he shall subdue three kings.

25And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.

Dan 7:24-25 talks about a little horn power that arises out of the powers of Europe and THINKS to change times and laws. In other words. The laws concerning times have not been changed, but this power has thought that it changed them. What power do you think this is talking about James?

The Roman Empire.

 

[JRKH]

Here’s your original post.

Christ being God, didn’t give Peter and the Church such authority without knowing to what use they would put it. He knew full well at the time that the day of worship would be changed in the new kingdom. He knew this just as surely as He knew that Peter would deny Him three times, or that Judas would betray Him.

Says you…

The fact is that we can go round and round about this issue of authority. Each expressing his own view. We can even call in learned men and women from both camps and go round and round about this. Each side confirming or disputing the view of the other. Each side can qoute from the Bible to support their position and STILL not reach agreement.

It amazes me that otherwise smart people cannot see the wisdom of Christ, as King and ruler, to appoint an earthly, authoritative Church to assure and build up His Kingdom.
How can otherwise intelligent people, who readily see the wisdom of government, of heirarchy and of courts in every other facet of life, fail to see the wisdom of it in matters of faith.

Ahh Well…

Dan.7:24 And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise: and another shall rise after them; and he shall be diverse from the first, and he shall subdue three kings.

25And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.

Dan 7:24-25 talks about a little horn power that arises out of the powers of Europe and THINKS to change times and laws. In other words. The laws concerning times have not been changed, but this power has thought that it changed them. What power do you think this is talking about James?

Gee - I dunno but I’ll bet your ready to tell me that it is the Catholic Church.
I do know one thing that I find very interesting about your interpretation.
I don’t see the following letters strung together anywhere in the above or in the verses preceding or following the voesres you have quoted.
The Letters I refer to are E-U-R-O-P-E
I also don’t see Holy Mother Church fitting the first of the criteria that is clearly mentioned in Dan 7:25. The Catholic Church does not speak, and has never spoken, words, “against the most High” so that eliminates the Catholic Church from the running right there. She doesn’t fit the criteria mentioned in Daniel.

The righteous will veiw the carcasses of those that have transgressed, sinned, not kept His holy day. They did not have His law written in thier minds and in thier hearts. Let me ask James. Are you going to be one that is in the presence of the Lord keeping His Sabbath or is your carcass going to be veiwed by them?

God will determine my fate.
In that I do not fear.

I must admit I find it interesting that you seem to not want to answer my question about the applicability of Mt18:15-18 to Doctrinal disputes. I’ll repeat it here for clarity. If you will recall, you wished to limit the definition of sin to “transgressing the law” (using bible quotes,as usual, to back up your position). To which I responded:
Unless you want to say clearly and unequivicably that the deliberate spreading of a false doctrine is NOT a sin, then my definition stands. We don’t need any Bible references on this one. It should be an easy answer. Is the spreading of a “False Doctrine” offensive to God or not?
Your last paragraph above seems to indicate that you believe that it is offensive to God, and therefore sinful, since you believe that I, believing in a so called “false doctrine”, will be a “carcass” gazed upon by you who have believed in a “true doctrine”.
If that is so, then you have already admitted that spreading a false doctrine as a sin, something that transgresses God’s Law, and therefore something that falls under the jurisdiction of Mt 18:15-18.

So this leads me back to the other question I asked at the end of that post.
We have studied and made our choice. We each believe the other is wrong. We have discussed it with each other and with others here as CAF. We could do the same thing at a SDA forum, but the result would be the same - deadlock.
In order to follow Christ’s call for unity and His instructions in Mt 18, we should take this to “The Church” for resolution. Any Ideas how to proceed??

May God bless you.

Peace
James

 

[Holly3278]

Unfortunately, the Seventh Day Adventist church is one of the most anti-Catholic, if not the most anti-Catholic church around. I’m honestly not sure who would be considered worse: the independent fundamentalist Baptists or the Seventh Day Adventists.

 

[JRKH]

Unfortunately, the Seventh Day Adventist church is one of the most anti-Catholic, if not the most anti-Catholic church around. I’m honestly not sure who would be considered worse: the independent fundamentalist Baptists or the Seventh Day Adventists.

Well that just means we need to work extra hard to show them Christ in our Lives and in our words and in our actions.

Peace
James

 

[benidict]

Unfortunately, the Seventh Day Adventist church is one of the most anti-Catholic, if not the most anti-Catholic church around. I’m honestly not sure who would be considered worse: the independent fundamentalist Baptists or the Seventh Day Adventists.

as far as dialouge i would have to say the i.f.b. seventh day adventist literature is more anti sunday, than anti Catholic. they go after their protestant bretheren as well. i have never had a hard time having a good debate with adventist. they are very pleasant to converse with, and i will share my table with any of them. the i.f.b. on the other hand… oh and i would be happy to use one of the adventist cookbooks for our dinner some of their recipes are very good. Peace

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Ok, I think we have reached the point where we are talking to ourselves. There is one thing that bothers me though James. After this quite lenghthy exegesis on Isaiah 66

Isaiah 66: 18 it shall come, that I will gather all nations and tongues; and they shall come, and see my glory.

19And I will set a sign among them, and I will send those that escape of them unto the nations, to Tarshish, Pul, and Lud, that draw the bow, to Tubal, and Javan, to the isles afar off, that have not heard my fame, neither have seen my glory; and they shall declare my glory among the Gentiles.

20And they shall bring all your brethren for an offering unto the LORD out of all nations upon horses, and in chariots, and in litters, and upon mules, and upon swift beasts, to my holy mountain Jerusalem, saith the LORD, as the children of Israel bring an offering in a clean vessel into the house of the LORD.

21And I will also take of them for priests and for Levites, saith the LORD.

Vs. 18-21 talk about God’s end time remnant church. How they shall proclaim the glory of the Lord to the world.

22For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the LORD, so shall your seed and your name remain.

Now, Isaiah talks about the new heavens and the new earth. Which is the earth made new that God’s righteous people will live in and just as these heavens and earth shall remain before the Lord, so shall His people, righteous Christians, remain before Him.

The sign that God places on His children? Ex.31:13Speak thou also unto the children of Israel, saying, Verily my sabbaths ye shall keep: for it is a sign between me and you throughout your generations; that ye may know that I am the LORD that doth sanctify you.

23And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the LORD.

The Sabbath is the sign of God’s end time righteos people and this people will keep God’s holy day throughout eternity. Ok, now we come to a very forboding v.

24And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcases of the men that have transgressed against me: for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh.

The righteous will veiw the carcasses of those that have transgressed, sinned, not kept His holy day. They did not have His law written in thier minds and in thier hearts. Let me ask James. Are you going to be one that is in the presence of the Lord keeping His Sabbath or is your carcass going to be veiwed by them?

Your only comment on all this is.

God will determine my fate.
In that I do not fear.

Now I believe that it is quite clear from these vs. that Sabbath keeping will be the norm in heaven and Sabbath keeping is the sign of Gods end time people and that not keeping God’s Sabbath is going to have eternal consequences. Let me share a couple more vs. with you. Isaiah 24: 5The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof; because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant.

What do you think that everlasting covenant is James?

Ex.31: 16Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant.

Here’s this whole passage from Ex. 31

Ex.31
12And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,

13Speak thou also unto the children of Israel, saying, Verily my sabbaths ye shall keep: for** it is a sign between me and you throughout your generations**; that ye may know that I am the LORD that doth sanctify you.

14Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people.

15Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.

16Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant.

17It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.

18And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing with him upon mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God.

v.14 says whoever defiles God’s holy day will be put to death. Isaiah 66:24 says 24And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcases of the men that have transgressed against me: for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh.

Now I’m assumming that you are a Sunday keeper. After viewing these vs. is your answer still “God will determine my fate. In that I do not fear.” Because this statement is just not true. The fact is that you will determine your own fate. And God will simply honor your wishes.

Consider this

Isaiah 58
13If thou turn away thy foot from the sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day; and call the sabbath a delight, the holy of the LORD, honourable; and shalt honour him, not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking thine own words:

14Then shalt thou delight thyself in the LORD; and I will cause thee to ride upon the high places of the earth, and feed thee with the heritage of Jacob thy father: for the mouth of the LORD hath spoken it.

 

[JRKH]

Ok, I think we have reached the point where we are talking to ourselves.

That seems to be the case. Which does not surprise me.

There is one thing that bothers me though James. After this quite lenghthy exegesis on Isaiah 66

Snip - -

Your only comment on all this is.

Originally Posted by JRKH
God will determine my fate.
In that I do not fear.

Now I believe that it is quite clear from these vs. that Sabbath keeping will be the norm in heaven and Sabbath keeping is the sign of Gods end time people and that not keeping God’s Sabbath is going to have eternal consequences. Let me share a couple more vs. with you. Isaiah 24: 5The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof; because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant.

What do you think that everlasting covenant is James?

The everlasting Covenent is Love.
Mt 22:36-40 36 “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” 37 And He said to him, " YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND.' 38 "This is the great and foremost commandment. 39 "The second is like it, YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.’ 40 “On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets.”
All else must be seen and read in the ligth of Love

Christ speaks to us of faith and of Love without regard to "Law when He says this:
Mt 8: 10 When Jesus heard him, he marveled, and said to those who followed him, “Truly, I say to you, not even in Israel have I found such faith. 11 **I tell you, many will come from east and west and sit at table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, 12 while the sons of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness; there men will weep and gnash their teeth.” **

How is it that “many will come from east and west” and be admitted to the banquet - While “The sons of the kingdom (who kept the sabbath) will be thrown inot the outer darkness”.
These people coming from east and west, have not kept the sabbath even though they may have heard of it, surely the centurian had heard of the sabbath yet, as a Roman, he did not keep it.

We will be judged on our Love, not the day of the week we worship.
Do you believe that St Francis of Assisi or Mother Theresa of Calcutta, two of the most Chrisitan and Loving people in our Christian History were not saved? Were not True followers of Christ? Were condemned to Hell because they went to mass on Sunday instead of on Saturday?

But you are right. We are not communciating because we are not getting to the core issue of determining who is right and who is wrong and how to settle this between us.
What we require is an authority, wiser than we, who can lead us to what is True and Uniting. Without that Authority that can “bind and loose”, we are left seperated on two sides of a doctrinal fence.

You are very good at presenting your sect’s postion. You don’t seem to be as good at addressing things that don’t fit cleanly into your sect’s “proof texts”, like Mt 18 and the unifying authority it points to. You cannot seem to tell me for instance whether spreading false doctrine is sinful. This you refuse to answer. Why??

Overall though - I expected this result. We have each had our say. We cannot come to terms. I rest upon the decisions of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church tracable back to The Original apostles and to Christ Himself who gave her the Authority to govern, to Bind and loose.
You rest yours upon the Bible. The same Bible (OT) writings that were available to the Earliest Christians and did not prevent them from worshiping on the first day of the week. The same bible that the Holy Catholic Church was responsible for assembling into the basic canon you hold today (expect yours is missing some OT books).

If you feel the need to worship in Saturday, I wll not condemn you for it. Why? because in the larger scheme of things based upon the Law of Love, the day is unimportant.

So - I’m gonna take my “carcass” outta here and pick up my wife.

Peace
James

 

[Joshua27]

Peter,
Have a blessed Sabbath.

The funny thing about all of this is that, if a person, a catholic, wishes to follow the custom of worshipping on th sabbath, they are free to do so. In the Catholic Church, Mass is offered daily in most parishes. A person would be free to go to mass on Saturday, rest on Saturday, follow the dietary laws as they (or as the SDA) outlines them for themselves. They could od all of this freely within the Catholic Church. There is no reason why they would need to leave Catholicism and join another Church. That is how big and loving and encompassing the Catholic Church is. Just one more Reason why I love being Catholic.

Peace
James

I just want to point out something interesting about this comment as it relates to scripture:

Matthew 7:13] "Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it.

14] But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

…now before anyone attempts to accuse me of cherry-picking, the entire teaching that Christ is sharing (starting after Matthew 5:1) that leads up to his statement is talking about ‘seeking the kingdom of God’, which we know is NOT the church (as “the church” was ordained as the mechanism to spread the Gospel [good news] of the coming kingdom). So we can take the above verses as a universal statement as it relates to “the entrance-way or pathway to the kingdom of God”.

James’ [JRKH] comment is interesting because he uses two words that are the exact synonyms of the words “Broad” and “Wide” when describing the Catholic Church: “Big” & “[all] Encompassing”.

Christ himself said that only a few find the narrow road and small gate that leads to life. The truth is a specific path that people can choose to follow (or not), and any “System” that allows people to worship God however they want (as you claim the Catholic Church would freely allow) is warned against.

---

This isn’t a shot against Catholicism, per say, but just be careful when using your description, always making sure it aligns with the word(s) of God.

 

[benidict]

I just want to point out something interesting about this comment as it relates to scripture:

Matthew 7:13] "Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it.

14] But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

…now before anyone attempts to accuse me of cherry-picking, the entire teaching that Christ is sharing (starting after Matthew 5:1) that leads up to his statement is talking about ‘seeking the kingdom of God’, which we know is NOT the church (as “the church” was ordained as the mechanism to spread the Gospel [good news] of the coming kingdom). So we can take the above verses as a universal statement as it relates to "the entrance-way or pathway to the kingdom of God".

James’ [JRKH] comment is interesting because he uses two words that are the exact synonyms of the words “Broad” and “Wide” when describing the Catholic Church: “Big” & “[all] Encompassing”.

Christ himself said that only a few find the narrow road and small gate that leads to life. The truth is a specific path that people can choose to follow (or not), and any “System” that allows people to worship God however they want (as you claim the Catholic Church would freely allow) is warned against.

---

This isn’t a shot against Catholicism, per say, but just be careful when using your description, always making sure it aligns with the word(s) of God.

sorry. thirty thousand denominations with no unity, seems like the broad and wide road to me…