The Reformation

[JRKH]

Originally Posted by JRKH
Allow me to pose 2 scenerios here regarding the highlighted portion.

I’m not sure what you are saying here as it relates to my comments.

If the congregation is that seriously divided, it is probably evidence that the congregation as a whole has not yet heard clearly from the Holy Spirit on this matter, and that we should bear with one another in love until consensus is reached.
However, I also believe in offices of leadership within the Church, and that holders of those offices derive their authority from the apostles. So I am not proposing a democratic model necessarily.

The first part of your response can clearly be applied to the Holy Father and the Magisterium of the Church. This is often the reason it takes some time for teachings and doctrines to be defined, and/or clarified.

Mosaic Law wasn’t much of an issue at Corinth. You maybe thinking of Galatians, but Paul didn’t take the Galatian controversy to Jerusalem. On the contrary, he informed the Galatians in no uncertain terms that his authority did *not *derive from the Jerusalem church, although he claimed to have their backing anyway. I think you’ve conflated the Galatian controversy with the controversy at Antioch (after Paul’s first missionary journey) recorded in Acts 15, and in a somewhat different version in Galatians 1-2. And this does make a case for referring intractable controversies to the “mother church.” I agree with this approach, but I don’t agree that Matthew 18 is directly referring to this issue. It is talking about personal controversies within a local congregation.

Thank you for the correction. I’m afraid I’m not sufficiently up on my Bible when I post sometimes. However, I was indeed refering to the Council at Jerusalem recorded in Acts.
Clearly they were dealing with an issue that had arisen in a local community and had not been able to be resolved there. Thus it was brought to the attention of “The Church” leaders at Jerusalem. The third step in Jesus instruction for dealing with such things.

Could you name some respected Catholic exegetes of the last 50 years who agree with your interpretation of Matt. 18?

Edwin

Nope, not a one, because I have never looked. However, if one reads the Gospels and sees how Jesus established His Church and the promises and Authority He gave it, then Matthew 18 fits nicely into this. I laid this all out in post number 43 on page three of this thread. In addition I started a Thread last week HERE on the biblical authority of the Church which you might find interesting. You are an interesting person to converse with and I would welcome your comments on what has been written there.

Peace
James

 

[Tantum_ergo]

P

.S. Framing it in a more general way, I think that Roman Catholics engage in way, way too much “bait-and-switch”.

Really, Peter?

I wonder then that you are interested in ‘dialogue’ with us, considering that you can come ‘out of the blue’ with a slur on the motives of ‘Roman Catholics’. If you don’t think the accusation is all that offensive, may I ask how you would respond if you were in a retail business and people accused your business of the same? I don’t think you would just ‘let it go by’, now would you?

If you want to accuse us of something, you could at least back it up with “examples” to show us what you’re complaining of, instead of making accusations of Roman Catholics doing **so much **in the ‘bait and switch’ line.

 

[Peter_J]

P

Really, Peter?

I wonder then that you are interested in ‘dialogue’ with us,

Oh. I thought you were Catholic. My bad I guess.

But, whatever denomination you are, yes I am interested in dialogue with you.

 

[Cinette]

FOR SIA

On page two of this thread RAPHINAL posted:

***Re: The Reformation
SIA,
Where did Jesus say you could disagree with His Church?

Ralph ***

I have searched thru all the subsequent pages and SIA has not replied.

Has he gone fishing? (just like another poster on this thread who said he was going fishing and challenged other Calvinists to respond when I asked him to respond to a question someone else posted and which he avoided!!)

This is unfair. One cannot duck awkward questions - face them and admit if you are stumped:thumbsup:

 

[Peter_J]

^^ I take you don’t really like SIA?

 

[JRKH]

FOR SIA

This question is irrelevant to the question posed to SIA. However the question of obedience to the Churchis a valid one.
I have also asked this question on page 12 and have recieved no response.
I will post it again:

The Protestant Reformation was spawned on the idea that The Church that existed in 1500 was so completely corrupt that it had lost any legitimate claim to Being the One Holy and True Church.
It is built upon the Idea that Everything we need to know is contained in the Bible. (Sola Scriptura) From this is built all of the various theologies and denominations we know today.
Luther and others felt that they were justified in their “Reformation” due to the problems in the Church at the time and based their Reformed Church on The Bible Alone. Which leads me to this question for the panel.

**Where in the Bible does it teach that it is all right to rebel against the Authority of the Church Which Christ established? **
I see many instances where the Authority of the Church is affirmed, (Bind and Loose, Keys to Kingdom, hell will not prevail, pillar and foundation etc.) but none that say it is OK to dissent or deny or foment rebellion in the Church.
Christ Even told the Jews and His disciples to obey the Scribes and Pharasees while in the same breath calling those Scribes and Pharasees sinners. (Matthew 23:2-3)
Why would Jesus tell His Disciples to Obey their legitimate but sinful Church Leaders and then sanction the disobedience of Luther and others to their legitimate Church leaders?
Where is the Scriptural Foundation for this?

Peace
JAmes

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Why Peter, I am Catholic.

Does your signature not say that you are interested in dialogue 'between Catholics and other Christians, especially Orthodox, Lutherans, and Anglicans?"

If you’re interested in ‘dialogue’, that means between at least two groups, and I’m a member of one of those groups–the Catholics.

 

[Cinette]

^^ I take you don’t really like SIA?

Not at all. I just want to *understand *SIA:yup:

 

[Peter_J]

Not at all.

Ah.

I just want to *understand *SIA:yup:

Don’t we all.