THe proverbial Protestant "Silver Bullet"

[Catholic_Dude]

**There is one flock and one shepherd. The one flock is the church and the one shepherd is Jesus Christ. Each flock is a part of the one flock and each shepherd is under the one shepherd, Jesus Christ.
**The concept I am trying to explain to you is that there is no definitive leadership outside the CC. The shepherds you refer to have no authority outside their church doors. I have said this before that there are good conservative pastors out there, but at the end of the day they dont agree on what the Truth is among themselves. The CC has authority from the top down, it hold each rank of shepherd to a certain standard. This way there is order and consistency. When the CC speaks it speaks for Christ so that countries and even the whole world listen and take Him seriously.

---

Can you point to any thing in the world with the same level of authority other that the CC?

Not sure what you are asking here. The best way to confuse and mislead the sheep is for the shepherds to be divided. They dont want to be deep down, but that is the nature of the mindset. If protestants could stand with one voice then they could be listened to, but they dont even agree with eachother. I dont know how else to say this, calling eachother “denominations” is self defeating.

---

**Never said the church is an invisible white castle in the clouds. A supreme congregation, don’t think so. If it was passed on through the years, someone forgot to tell the ECFs. Jesus is the truth. Are you saying that non catholics don’t have Jesus?
**I know you never said that the church was an invisible castle, but that is how you unknowingly refer to it, as if it exists only in your hear and mind, not as a real life physical structure that shines its light to real people. I used the term supreme congregation to describe the one true Church that Jesus entrusted to the Apostles and to future generations, I dindnt know how else to explain it to you. The CC thrives off of what the ECF’s wrote and did.They were Bishops, Priests, Monks, etc, that were given those positions of authority precisely because they proclaimed one Church, passed down from generation to generation. There is more to leading the Church than simply saying those three words, “Jesus is the truth”, yes that is at the very heart of the matter, but the truth is something that isnt relative to what each individual wants.
I never said that non Catholics dont have Jesus. If you reread what I said it says “Non Catholic believers dont have the full truth.” They are believers in Jesus which is very good and in facing the right direction. However they lack the power to have the fullness of what Christ passed on to his Apostles, and in turn dont have the fullness of Christ. “He who hears you hears Me”.

---

• ***Protestant bad…Catholic good.
  Thats what these talks always boil down to. They are not bad/evil they are misled. I will say this again, when someone decides to start their own church because they dont like something about their present church that is wrong and needs to be condemned. Authority to decide anything means nothing at that point.
  One recent example why are there people putting out politically correct versions of the Bible like the zondervan TNIV. I see Catholics and Protestants screaming about this, but once you get the ball rolling it is hard to stop. *

---

(cont)

---

 

[Darrel]

There is one flock and one shepherd. The one flock is the church and the one shepherd is Jesus Christ. Each flock is a part of the one flock and each shepherd is under the one shepherd, Jesus Christ.

The question was “what happens when two Shepard’s violently disagree” Your answer seems evasive to me, are you saying that all churches are right? What if I want to go and drink some rattlesnake venom does Jesus want me to? I think that’s a protestant a church. I will re-phrase the question. What happens when two Protestants disagree violently about what Christ is teaching in scripture and how a church is run by its leadership?

Does our Lord and savior Jesus Christ condone a splinter church as a result of dissention times 20,000? (Please do not say that there is one shepherd and one flock)

-D

 

[Catholic_Dude]

---

… The fact that these books were placed alongside the scriptures does not mean they were considered inspired or canonical. In fact, if you would look into it as I have suggested the evidence says otherwise. You ask who is the authority to decide what is inspired. This question betrays your view. It didn’t work that way. God led his church to recognize His inspired word. The pronouncements of the Council of Trent were a rash reaction to the reformation, a desperate attempt to retain power. In their haste and lust for power they ensured a split within the church…
I guess i dont see what you are saying. Why in the world would they include these books in the canon if they were not considered canonical? (I might have missed your evidece so could you repost the link or whatever) I dont see how this betrays my view, God did not drop the Bible from Heaven into the laps of the Apostles. It is a collection of separate writings that were rounded up into one book, not everything they looked over was put into the Bible a lot was rejected.
So you acknowledge the CC had the power at one time? Trent was their version of damage control, nobody dared to denounce the CC’s authority over the Bible. Even Luther did not throw out those books, he did a bad thing by putting them in the back, but even he did not throw them out the way we see it now. Im pulling my hair out trying to get you to see what the so called split really is, look around you, there are splits and splinters, most of whom popped up in the last 150 years, look into that and see the average age of any protestant church.
This conversation comes up a lot in these forums, and it can get messy, I suggest we start a new thread about it so I am not jumping all around. So if you want we can start a new thread. Just email/pm me for the time and place.

*-----
The one faith is faith in Jesus. I see pastors all over the place. I don’t need to give you a name. If you want to look them up on the internet or go down to a church in your area and meet them. My leaders are my pastor, my deacon, my bible study group leader and those in charge of various ministries which I work with.
*If you dont want to give a name for privacy sake or whatever then dont bother. Could you give me a name of at least a church. What church do you attend? I have met pastors of all levels of education and ideology. Like I said some are conservative people, one who was a Baptist gave a sermon on how he and his wife found it best for their family if they threw out the TV because it was so trashy and gave the nod of encouragement for for others to follow throughout his message…you think those people liked what they heard? About pastors, most are God fearing, Christ loving men, but they still dont agree on what is the truth and even get divided over issues between eachother. Im not attacking your pastor, but who gave him the authority to lead? If you are going to say a college, I have news for you. I know one pastor who is close friends with my dad. This pastor came over here from a different country, you know what floored him? He found out that a man couldnt lead a church unless he held a piece of paper known as a degree from a college. He had to sit through a few politically correct classes and had to pass them and say what the profs wanted to hear in order to get the degree. This guy was pulling his hair out, he would go up all the time and point out in the Bible some of the topics the “school” was teaching/accepting was outright condemned in the Bible, but who was he to say anything. One guy just sits in the city park blocks with his KJV and preaches out loud even if people dont want to hear it. (I live in one of the most unchurched states and one of the most hostile to Christians.) This guy in the city park is a good guy, I talk to him all the time, he lives a low key, humble life. all he asks is a donation for his work and I give to him all the time. Just imagine if these guys were Catholic, they would be backed up on everything they said, but sadly and at the end of the day do their own thing.
*​

**
Well…
If your done, or want to have the last say in your next post thats fine, just say so. Your brave for even coming into what you might see as the Lions Den… We dont have to hate eachother, as you know this stuff hits home and passions fly. Good times. We believe in Jn 316 at least.
God bless,
**Stingray *

 

[pnewton]

Stingray:

What if 2 shepherds violently disagree?

There is one flock and one shepherd. The one flock is the church and the one shepherd is Jesus Christ. Each flock is a part of the one flock and each shepherd is under the one shepherd, Jesus Christ.

---

***The one faith is faith in Jesus. **** *

Without the presence of a physical shepherd, there is not one faith. Denominations divide along critical areas.

One does not believe in the trinitarian nature of God and baptizes in the name of Jesus only.

Not even all Baptists believe once saved, always saved,much less other protestants.

Infant baptism is practiced by some not others. Baptism is symbolic for some and a sacrament that washes original sin for others.

The nature of communion or the Lord’s Supper differs from a presence of Jesus to the purely symbolic.

To define “one faith” or “one church” as something based on the barest of essentials in docrine allows cults to be included that are far from Christian. I know of no one Protestantism can claim one of anything.

 

[mercygate]

Stingray:

**The church as a whole never considered the books you have in mind as canonical or inspired. ** So the fourth century Councils of Carthage and Hippo were chopped liver?

Check it out. ** Good advice. I recommend that you do just that.

God led his church to recognize His inspired word.

** Catholics agree.

The pronouncements of the Council of Trent were a rash reaction to the reformation, a desperate attempt to retain power. In their haste and lust for power they ensured a split within the church that may well last until the Lord returns.

Let me see if I understand you. The Reformation created a rift in the body of Christ by attacking central doctrines of the faith and the Council of Trent is responsible for ensuring the split? :whacky:

---

Logic like this forced me to become Catholic.

 

[Ozzie]

Ani Ibi:

So both you and Ozzie use the term ‘church’ in a way which can be pluralized. ‘A church,’ for you, is one of many visible churches all of which comprise visible groups of Christians. ‘The church’, for you, does not refer to one visible group of Christians. It refers to an invisible theoretical set of which the many churches are visible subsets.

“Church” is plural when you’re talking in the context of local churches. Spiritually speaking there is only one Church which is made up of all true believers down through the centuries since Pentecost, but there have been many local churches since Apostolic days.

ACT 15:41 “And he was traveling through Syria and Cilicia, strengthening the churches.”

ACT 16:5 “So the churches were being strengthened in the faith, and were increasing in number daily.”

ROM 16:16 “Greet one another with a holy kiss. All the churches of Christ greet you.”

1COR 16:1 “Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I directed the churches of Galatia, so do you also.”

2COR 8:1 “Now, brethren, we wish to make known to you the grace of God which has been given in the churches of Macedonia,”

2COR 8:18 “And we have sent along with him the brother whose fame in the things of the gospel has spread through all the churches;”

2COR 11:28 “Apart from such external things, there is the daily pressure upon me of concern for all the churches.”

GAL 1:2 “to the churches of Galatia:”

GAL 1:22 "the churches of Judea which were in Christ;

1THES 2:14 For you, brethren, became imitators of the churches of God in Christ Jesus that are* in Judea*,

2THES 1:4 therefore, we ourselves speak proudly of you among the churches of God"

And John in the Book of Revelation wrote to the seven churches of Asia Minor.

 

[Ozzie]

Ignatius:

I corrected your mis-quote above.

It wasn’t a misquote. You’re using another translation than I. You might want to do a Greek word study.

May the Holy Spirit lead you to the foundation and foundation of Truth. God Bless you.

He led me to Himself: “I am the way, and the truth, and the life, no one comes to the Father but through Me” (Jn. 14:6). The Truth is a Person and I have, by faith, come to Him, and have found rest.

May you do the same one day.

 

[teresas1979]

Originally posted by mercygate:
Let me see if I understand you. The Reformation created a rift in the body of Christ by attacking central doctrines of the faith and the Council of Trent is responsible for ensuring the split?

Like it or not this is essentially true even from a Catholic perspective. Luther wished to reform the Church, not split it up. And instead of having his and other reformers views considered, they were just shot down. Trent then issued anathemas against even the smallest hint of dissent against Catholic authority.

Now the way I see it is that the reformers should at least have been able to discuss their objections to certain aspects of the faith. If Catholicism is 100% right, why such fear of the reformers? Why not simply refute their claims instead of denying their voice? Their voice carried anyway and the Council of Trent existed purely to stop it in its tracks.

If they had used techniques similar to ones I see modern Catholics use, they may have agreed their differences and the split may not have happened. The Council of Trent ensured they could not be reconciled which is a shame as Luther disagreed with very little compared to many non Catholic christians today.

 

[Ozzie]

pnewton:

He didn’t. That’s one of the things he delegated.

Proof???

Can you show where he taught faith alone?

JOH 5:24 "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and *believes *Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.

JOH 3:14 "And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up;

JOH 3:15 that whoever believes may in Him have eternal life.

JOH 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life.

JOH 3:17 "For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world should be saved through Him.

JOH 3:18 "He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

There are far too many for me to paste. How about you? Will you believe in Him alone for eternal life? Jesus said, “I am the way, and the truth, and the LIFE…”

 

[Mickey]

Ozzie:

Proof???JOH 5:24 "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and *believes *Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.

JOH 3:14 "And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up;

JOH 3:15 that whoever believes may in Him have eternal life.

JOH 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life.

JOH 3:17 "For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world should be saved through Him.

JOH 3:18 "*He who believes *in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

There are far too many for me to paste. How about you? Will you believe in Him alone for eternal life? Jesus said, “I am the way, and the truth, and the LIFE…”

We are saved through grace. Our good works are the fruit of our faith. I don’t see in any of these pasted verses anything about being saved by faith alone?

 

[Church_Militant]

Hey Ozzie…what about James 2:24 " Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only?"

The whole context is even more enlightening…
James 2:14-26
"14 What shall it profit, my brethren, if a man say he hath faith, but hath not works? Shall faith be able to save him? 15 And if a brother or sister be naked, and want daily food:

16 And one of you say to them: Go in peace, be ye warmed and filled; yet give them not those things that are necessary for the body, what shall it profit? 17 So faith also, if it have not works, is dead in itself. 18 But some man will say: Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without works; and I will shew thee, by works, my faith. 19 Thou believest that there is one God. Thou dost well: the devils also believe and tremble. 20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, offering up Isaac his son upon the altar? 22 Seest thou, that faith did co-operate with his works; and by works faith was made perfect? 23 And the scripture was fulfilled, saying: Abraham believed God, and it was reputed to him to justice, and he was called the friend of God. 24 Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only? 25 And in like manner also Rahab the harlot, was not she justified by works, receiving the messengers, and sending them out another way?

26 For even as the body without the spirit is dead; so also faith without works is dead. "

Don’t all our beliefs have to be formed from the total context of ALL Bible verses that touch on the same topic? And doesn’t Sacred Tradition also give us consistent insight into the meanings that teh early church fathers found in these passages?
Pax vobiscum,

 

[Church_Militant]

14 What shall it profit, my brethren, if a man say he hath faith, but hath not works? Shall faith be able to save him? 15 And if a brother or sister be naked, and want daily food:

16 And one of you say to them: Go in peace, be ye warmed and filled; yet give them not those things that are necessary for the body, what shall it profit? 17 So faith also, if it have not works, is dead in itself. 18 But some man will say: Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without works; and I will shew thee, by works, my faith. 19 Thou believest that there is one God. Thou dost well: the devils also believe and tremble. 20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, offering up Isaac his son upon the altar? 22 Seest thou, that faith did co-operate with his works; and by works faith was made perfect? 23 And the scripture was fulfilled, saying: Abraham believed God, and it was reputed to him to justice, and he was called the friend of God. 24 Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only? 25 And in like manner also Rahab the harlot, was not she justified by works, receiving the messengers, and sending them out another way?

26 For even as the body without the spirit is dead; so also faith without works is dead.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Ozzie:

Proof???JOH 5:24 "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and *believes *Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.

JOH 3:14 "And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up;

JOH 3:15 that whoever believes may in Him have eternal life.

JOH 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life.

JOH 3:17 "For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world should be saved through Him.

JOH 3:18 "*He who believes *in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

There are far too many for me to paste. How about you? Will you believe in Him alone for eternal life? Jesus said, “I am the way, and the truth, and the LIFE…”

There is too much to paste??
All those quotes are from the same chapters. What about Matt, Mark, Luke, Other parts of John. You protestants are pick and choose Christians, you only accept what you want. The day you get that in your head you will see the Bible open up before your eyes. The two Books that Protestants live on are John and Romans, its like nothing else matters.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Ozzie:

Proof???JOH 5:24 "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and *believes *Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.

JOH 3:14 "And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up;

JOH 3:15 that whoever believes may in Him have eternal life.

JOH 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life.

JOH 3:17 "For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world should be saved through Him.

JOH 3:18 "*He who believes *in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

There are far too many for me to paste. How about you? Will you believe in Him alone for eternal life? Jesus said, “I am the way, and the truth, and the LIFE…”

There is too much to paste??
All those quotes are from the same chapters. What about Matt, Mark, Luke, Other parts of John. You protestants are pick and choose Christians, you only accept what you want. The day you get that in your head you will see the Bible open up before your eyes. The two Books that Protestants live on are John and Romans, its like nothing else matters.

 

[mercygate]

Stingray:

That’s okay. I do see your point, but I think you misunderstand Sola Scriptura. While it does claim the scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith, it doesn’t deny that God works through His church. It’s at the point once received that the scriptures become the sole infallible rule of faith. As God reveals to His church what scripture is, His infallible word, that is when that word becomes the rule of faith. Basically, you are asking where was Sola Scriptura before Scriptura, at least with regards to the NT. However, SS does not deny that there was a process whereby God made known to the church the full extent of His word.

God bless,
Stingray

Here’s where I break down on this (and I once believed it myself): The rationale I used to go by was that since the church couldn’t be infallible – but the Bible was infallible and inerrant – then as far as we knew, the canon was only a *fallible *collection of infallible books. I was OK with that until I fully realized the implications: i.e., that for the Bible to be the sole and sufficient rule of faith, the Church would have to have been “infallible” up until it closed the canon in about 398. Nothing else makes sense. To believe that she loses her charism once the book is written didn’t fit Christ’s promise to build a Church against which the gates of hell would not prevail. If God is the God of history, then I needed to identify the Church of history that matched the promises. There was only one.

I heard somewhere that Calvin said that he had no reason at all for believing in the Bible. He believed in it, of course. He just could not give a reason for it.

 

[pnewton]

Ozzie:

Proof???JOH 5:24 "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and *believes *Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.

JOH 3:14 "And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up;

JOH 3:15 that whoever believes may in Him have eternal life.

JOH 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life.

JOH 3:17 "For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world should be saved through Him.

JOH 3:18 "*He who believes *in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

So do you not believe repentance is necessary along with faith?

Even in the very conversation with Nicodemus you quoted Jesus said in verse 5 that one must be born of water and the spirit. That’s two things.

I suggested you look at all that Jesus taught on salvation, not just your favorite, “ye must be born again” passage.

John 6:54 " woever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life." No word about belief here.

Matthew 25:31-46 “…depart from me into everlasting fire prepered for the devil and his angels, for I was hungry and you gave me no food…” No wonder James was so adament that faith (belief) without works is dead.

Also, poverty in spirit (as per the beatitudes).

It is good to read the whole scripture chunks at a time as to avoid focus where focus wasn’t intended.

To answer your last question, I do believe in him and no one else for my salvation. Now will you look at the rest of the gospel. It mandates action, not just faith. And James is quite clear about faith alone.

In answer to your first question, I do not have proof that the delegation of authority to Peter occured at Caesarea Philipi, that is just the traditional, most logical and most grammatically correct interpretation of the the passage. Obviously many do not hold to this, but then they would be Catholic if they did.

 

[pnewton]

By the way-

I noticed several of you responded to that last post by Ozzie. Thanks.

I wish I could convince those who see all Catholics as lost and going to hell that we Catholics really are a people of the Bible. I think we would make a world of headway with them.

A far as us needing to be saved? There is nothing that the fundamentalist say is critical to salvation that we do not do. The one’s who through some narrow focus exclude Catholics will also exclude most other protestants.

 

[Stingray]

teresas1979:

Like it or not this is essentially true even from a Catholic perspective. Luther wished to reform the Church, not split it up. And instead of having his and other reformers views considered, they were just shot down. Trent then issued anathemas against even the smallest hint of dissent against Catholic authority.

Now the way I see it is that the reformers should at least have been able to discuss their objections to certain aspects of the faith. If Catholicism is 100% right, why such fear of the reformers? Why not simply refute their claims instead of denying their voice? Their voice carried anyway and the Council of Trent existed purely to stop it in its tracks.

If they had used techniques similar to ones I see modern Catholics use, they may have agreed their differences and the split may not have happened. The Council of Trent ensured they could not be reconciled which is a shame as Luther disagreed with very little compared to many non Catholic christians today.

Good job. Some excellent insight.

God bless,
Stingray

 

[Stingray]

mercygate:

Here’s where I break down on this (and I once believed it myself): The rationale I used to go by was that since the church couldn’t be infallible – but the Bible was infallible and inerrant – then as far as we knew, the canon was only a *fallible *collection of infallible books. I was OK with that until I fully realized the implications: i.e., that for the Bible to be the sole and sufficient rule of faith, the Church would have to have been “infallible” up until it closed the canon in about 398. Nothing else makes sense. To believe that she loses her charism once the book is written didn’t fit Christ’s promise to build a Church against which the gates of hell would not prevail. If God is the God of history, then I needed to identify the Church of history that matched the promises. There was only one.

I heard somewhere that Calvin said that he had no reason at all for believing in the Bible. He believed in it, of course. He just could not give a reason for it.

I disagree. God led His church to recognize His word. That in no way suggests the church is infallible anymore than it would suggest you are infallible since God has led you to His truth, Jesus Christ. God is the one who is infallible and not men. Why glorify the instrument through which God carries out a task? Give the glory to God alone. God does not require an infallible church in order to keep His promise of protection.

God bless,
Stingray

 

[Stingray]

pnewton:

Without the presence of a physical shepherd, there is not one faith. Denominations divide along critical areas.

The one (The Chief) shepherd is Jesus Christ. He has appointed several shepherds under himself through the Holy Spirit. The one faith is in Jesus Christ. Despite division, Christ remains the Cheif Shepherd and He is the one faith.

pnewton:

To define “one faith” or “one church” as something based on the barest of essentials in docrine allows cults to be included that are far from Christian. I know of no one Protestantism can claim one of anything.

I disagree. We are one in Christ.

God bless,
Stingray