First of all the only authority that we need is the word of God. The concept of a remnant runs all through the word of God. This concept is expressed in the bible at first as the difference between the “children of God” descendants of Seth who took the place of Able. These have two overriding characteristics. They keep the commandments of God and have the testamony of Jesus. Rev. 12:17 and the “children of men” Genesis 11:5
Of course the problem with that is Protestants have thousands of leaders interpreting the word of God in many different ways. That’s why there’s a church on every corner.
It also pre-supposes a pretty inept god-a god who sends his only begotten son to suffer great pain and die for our sins and after a 100 years his Church is gone only be to re-dicsovered some 1,500 to 2010 years later(a i am sure there are new denominations being created as speak). Basically if you unlucky enough to live in the 1500 plus years unitl god found someone who got it you were toast.
But there is only one remnant.
Please explain…
A remnant by definition is small. For instance, at the end of a bolt of fabric there is usually a small piece left that cannot be sold. This is called a remnant. So, in the end times and I believe that we are living in the time just before Christ’s return. There will be one church, that keep the commandments **of God ** and have the testimony of Jesus Rev. 12:
I wouldn’t think of saying that you are not correct in the above quotes. The Catholic Church is not apposed to what you have stated above. (Except the KJV only part
) But I’m not sure how you are connecting it to the whole of the NT world through the one quote from Matthew. This Passage is not speaking of a remnant but rather of the final judgment. Furthermore, you have not given me any evidence that for the Church this has been the case either in scripture or via history. You should be able to provide me with very accurate historical data backing up your claims. You should also be able to prove that this group, seeing that you are an KJV only person, has carried to our present day from the day of the autograph copies of the entire cannon of at least the NT. Can you provide these things? Because the logical progressions of thought from, it happened in the OT therefore it must have happened to the Church also and now magically we are to deduce that your brand of protestant Christianity is the One True Church and contains the only valid Cannon and Translation of Scripture is not valid. Please provide some real proofs not just evidence that the OT cannon has evidence of a remnant. As I stated above the Catholic Church knows and believes that.1 Date of Apostasy? The Council of Trent 1545/64!
)” I was only referring to the fact that the concept of remnant is present in the OT. and that the CC I my opinion would not have a problem with this. I was not saying that the CC supports Richard’s statements like, “the only authority that we need is the word of God.” Sorry for any confusion.I would think that if those two groups were the remnant of the Church they would acknowledge that of each other. Good luck getting the Orthodox Church to agree with you on this one…at least the part that you’re in and not out!!!
1 Date of Apostasy? The Council of Trent 1545/64!
You just posted that exact same thing just a few posts back, do you have a reply to my reply?
To be honest so would I.
Tell me does the Anglican Church recite the Nicene Creed with or without the Filioque? My point is that the Orthodox Church and Anglicans do not agree on several very important doctrinal issues. (Of which I can provide) Can you explain these differences if you are both the one true Church. How would I go about knowing which of you two is correct? Maybe we could hold and ecumenical council, but then again the Orthodox can’t do that unless Rome is present which is why they haven’t had one in about a thousand years or so. Do you see my issue here? And there shouldn’t be any issues between your two groups of Church hierarchy because they at least should know that you are the same Church…but that just isn’t so.
Great point and well said!!A remnant is not necessarily small.
One example of a remnant in the Bible is Jesus and his Apostles following certain scandals or scandalous affairs.
Judas betraying Jesus created a scandal for the Apostles. The persecution and death of Jesus scandalized the Apostles, until his ressurection. Some abandoned him (perhaps too strong of a word?) while he slept in the grave. The “remnant”, thanks to our Lord, was ultimately very significant: all except Judas were recovered. How many of his disciples left him during this same time, and how many were recovered at Pentecost, is a matter of debate.
God is not feeble. The Catholic Church, by definition as the Mystical Body of Christ, true, and faithful to Our Lord’s teachings, is always “the remnant.” Following each sweep of heresy or schism those who persisted and remained Catholic are the remnant.
Traditional Protestant arguments regarding the remnant would have made a Jew in the 1st century question whether or not he should remain loyal to the Temple worship in Jerusalem or join the schismatical/heretical sect of Samaritans who worshipped God on a hill. This doubting Jew may have wondered if the corruption of the Sadducees, Jewish leaders or perhaps misconduct or scandals of Levitical Priests, the High Priest, etc., meant God had abondoned the Jews or the Jews in Judaea could not be the true People of God. Maybe our 1st century Jew would have concluded the Samaritan’s were the true “remnant.” Thankfully, Our Lord reassured us (and them) that the Jerusalem Temple was the proper form and obedience of God’s People. The Jews, who greatly outnumbered the Samaritans, were the “remnant,” though this did not exclude others (such as the Samaritans) from God’s plan of salvation.
Anyways, that’s how I feel