P
PRmerger
Guest
While it is nice to have responses and dialogue, even if an “audience” member has retreated, there are still thousands of lurkers who will benefit from seeing the discussion and wrong ideas refuted.
- Status
P
PRmerger
Guest
Thank you.Post # 432
The fruit of the reformation is error cut out of the church , the truth of the gospel being preached to the nations and 965 million more people following Christ , if you would stop screaming schism for a second you would realize that.( not insulting you , just being honest ok )
Just amending the above post, PMmerger didn’t post this, Starwarsfan2 did, quoting system made a mistake.
A
Arizona_Samson
Guest
Back as promised, my apologies for the delay.
As stated in a previous JMM, I assent to the biblical definition of “church”, which the word of God describes as an ἐκκλησία which literally means "an “assembly of people called out from the world and to God.” Thus the “church” consists of all those who belong to its head, Jesus Christ (1 Cor 1:13, Gal 3:28, Col 3:11).
“Body of Christ” is a popular NT metaphor for “church.” This is affirmed by many Scriptures, which include Rom 12:5,; I Cor 10:17, 12:27; Col 1:24; Eph 4:15-16, 5:23, and Heb 13:3, just to name a few.
Consequently I believe that which is God-breathed clearly defines the church, aka Body of Christ, as every single person who belongs to Christ through a transformation of their hearts of stone into a heart of flesh by a quickening of the Holy Spirit. Thus the true church of Christ consists of Believers everywhere and is not restricted to any particular organized religious institution.
Have a wonderful weekend!
P
PRmerger
Guest
Very Catholic, this!
R
rcwitness
Guest
All good accept this true Church was instituted and is organized.Very Catholic, this!
P
PRmerger
Guest
Yes. And that’s what makes Catholicism so formidable to refute.All good accept this true Church was instituted and is organized.
There are so many Both/Ands, instead of the Either/Ors.
So when a Protestant asserts “Truth A”, we Catholics can agree with that. We just don’t have to say it’s ONLY Truth A. It can also be Truth B, and C, and D.
R
rcwitness
Guest
Sure, and I also try to be agreeable when I can.
Nevertheless, the attempt by Arizona Samson was to diminish the visible Church because on the grounds that there exists a body of believers outside of full communion with the Catholic Church.
This reality, of the Church having members divided within the faith, should not be used as a means to justify rejecting the Church’s authority and leaders. It’s an unfortunate evidence of wounds to the body of Christ! So the practice Jesus put forth in order to resolve accusation among Christian brothers can NOT be fulfilled between separate communions.
Yet there was an actual point in time, which the visible Church Confirmed and fixed the Canon of Scripture! And this was not as early as most Christians are aware. In fact, the oldest copy of a bible we have (Codex Sinaiticus) actually contains a couple books in the New Testament which we do not have in our Bible today. And this was in the 4th century!
So in order to believe the Bible is all of Scripture and no more, we must put trust that God used His Church to exercise an infallible judgment concerning Scripture itself. And we know that many factors went into the discernment process of these Church leaders. But in the end, it was the Church who made the decision on the Canon and we all believe it is from God.
Once we accept this, a lot of the beliefs of the Church can be approached in this similar fashion. And it certainly isn’t to say our beliefs can or do contradict Scripture, but Tradition must be relied on for the Church to know and officially Teach and Confirm what is to be accepted by the whole Church.
J
JMM1957
Guest
Scripture is pretty clear about maintaining unity of the one faith, “They went out from us, but they were not really of our number; if they had been, they would have remained with us. Their desertion shows that none of them was of our number.” 1 John 2:19.
D
Duane1966
Guest
Yes!!! Got into a discussion with a friend about this particular passage. He thought that John was saying that they went back to whatever they were before being baptized. That is reading something into the passage that may or may not be there. John does not go into detail here. There is nothing in that passage to determine that those that left stopped considering themselves “Christian.” For all we know they deserted and set up their own “church of Christ,” preaching what they thought Christ taught. Yet John clearly says they are not of our number.
R
rcwitness
Guest
Most likely they were still members undermining their authority.
John 3
“I have written something to the church; but Diot′rephes, who likes to put himself first, does not acknowledge my authority.10*So if I come, I will bring up what he is doing, prating against me with evil words. And not content with that, he refuses himself to welcome the brethren, and also stops those who want to welcome them and puts them out of the church.”
J
JMM1957
Guest
If you look at the context of the passage, John is referring to anti-Christs being present in the community, and when it says "many anti-Christs(verse 18) it is thought to refer to false teachers in general.
- Status