To Protestants, a discussion of Eph 3:10 and 1 Tim 3:15

[Cachonga]

< cont … >

You are like the atheists who look at Christ and see only the human nature. Therefore they deny the Divine. When you look at the Church, you see only the human side. And you deny the Divine. But when you deny the Divine nature of the Church, you deny Christ who is the Divine nature of the Church.

Again, it is amazing that you can tell me what I think. Again, pardon me for strongly disagreeing with your assumptions!

You are arguing on the basis of worldly men’s documents. I am arguing on the basis of Scripture. Have you not read in Scripture:.

How is pointing out that the Catholic Church used forgeries for its own benefit indicate that I’m the one using “worldly men’s documents”? And are you using Rom 8:28 to justify the use of forgeries by the church? That, I would say, is a gross misuse of Scripture!

God worked it out. The Donatists were forgeries. SO WHAT! The Catholic Church didn’t forge them. God brings good out of evil:

Proverbs 13:22

You are abusing and twisting Scripture to justify the lies and deceptions of the church!

So, keep on bringing up all your worldly support. I will continue to rely upon the Word of God.

The way you twist and abuse the Scriptures, I really see no need to continue further discussion with you.

 

[Cachonga]

JRKH:

To the last point - in parenthesis…I agree that the Church (ekklesia) is made up of believers - but is that all that there is too it? Is that all that is said in the NT about the Church - that it is made up of believers?
Earlier in a discussion with kmcarl56 - I presented a number of Scriptural texts related to how the believers were to function and what was expected of them. You can find this exchange in posts number 14, 47 and 52. I invite you to read these and comment on the matter of, not only what the Church IS but how it is to function - Based on what Scripture says.

I did address this (to a point) in my comments on “taking it to the church”. I do not deny that the church has authority (most people I know agree that the pastor/priest is the “shepherd of our souls”), and I certainly do not have a problem submitting to my pastor on matters of faith and morals. As far as a “central authority” (my understanding of what was said in the posts you referred to), Paul wrote to Timothy, giving him instructions on how to function in the Church. I didn’t see Paul direct Timothy to any such authority (certainly not the Bishop of Rome), nor any mention of having a council with other churches to settle matters (though that does not mean the churches couldn’t do that – after all, the council in Jerusalem concerning Gentile believers is a good precedent). My understanding is this – take matters to your local church. If the pastor and elders cannot settle it, then a council may be in order (this, I think, was what led to some early councils dealing with specific heresies that were creeping into the Church).

Would you agree that Christ is the foundation of the Church?

Of His Church, yes!

If so then Christ holds up the Church and the Church holds up the Truth…Remember here that Christ gave His Church the authority to bind and loose “whatever”

Jesus certainly upholds His Church. Binding and loosing “whatever”, I have a real issue with. As I recall, the binding and loosing was tied to forgiveness of sin (John 20:23), or is this a different “binding and loosing”?

If Christ is at the root of this…holding it all up…then is it really accurate to say that the (Christ guided) Church is NOT truth?

Of course Jesus holds up His Church (as already stated). The question is – is the Catholic Church the Church of Jesus Christ. Again, when I look at the forgeries used to promote power, authority and possessions of the church, I don’t see Jesus involved in that at all! Will you also twist Scripture to support the Catholic Church’s use of forgeries?

I think you will find that there are many Catholics who ask this same question.
Part of the issue is that we do not know the hearts of these people. We do not know what is said between them and their confessors etc. We do know that there have been private meetings between some of these politicians and their bishops etc. We do not know what has been said. But some of them have been publicly censured by the Church - though not excommunicated.
So - I can only say that many devout, practicing Catholics also find this to be frustrating.

So even though they openly support things like murder of the unborn, the profanation of marriage and the perversion of homosexuality, as long as they go to confession on Saturday afternoon, they’re OK with the church, at least until Monday when they start promoting these things again. I can agree that we don’t know their heart, but at least my Church won’t allow anyone to partake of communion that is not a member in good standing, and we would not allow anyone to remain a member if they supported any of these things. My Church protects the sacrament, yours doesn’t. Which one do you think is founded on Jesus?

You say above that such a person will not remain a member of your church community. Yet - what prevents them from finding, or even starting, another, self proclaimed, “bible believing”, “Christian” Church that embraces the very view that got them kicked out of your church. The answer is - nothing - nothing at all.

This is a straw man arguement. What would prevent someone from leaving the Catholic Church and starting a church, claiming to adhere to Scripture alone (whether true or not)? The point isn’t to prevent someone from leaving and doing something else, but to protect the “flock” and the sacrament (communion).

< cont … >

 

[Cachonga]

< cont … >

You and I may agree on the matter of abortion and homosexual behavior. But do we agree on other matters of salvific import? Do you agree with every other christian communion on all matters of salvific import?

To be sure, there are many churches that I would not consider Christian, even though they pay lip service to Jesus Christ. However, there are others that agree on important mattersm such as salvation, the deity of Christ and the Trinity, and I can freely call them “brothers in Christ”, regardless of their denomination. We can have disagreements with other Christians and still serve Jesus (look at the falling out of Paul and Barnabas in Acts 15:35-40).

In the NT when this occurred - the Church came together in council to resolve the matter.
So - Where are the interdenominational councils among “Bible believing Christians” assembled to resolve these important differences among themselves?

We only have one example of a council in Scripture, and that was concerned with the Judaizers wanting Gentile believers to be circumcised. How is this a “matter of salvation”?

If the reformation was intended to get things back to a more biblicaly based Church - where were the early biblically based meetings, conferences, and councils among the reformers and/or their immediate successors, to settle disagreements among themselves?

My first thought is the London Baptist Confession of 1689 (which my church uses, not as an authority, but as a guide). This came out of a council of several Baptist Churches. I believe the Westminster Confession of Faith was also developed in a council.

I willingly grant that the Catholic Church has it’s problems…but when I look at what the NT says and look at the principles, structures and teachings of the RC/EO and compare them to the principles, structures and teachings of the WNCC, I cannot help but see that it is the RC/EO who are far more biblical than the WNCC groups.

I would suggest you’re looking at the worst the WNCC has to offer. (I’m not really sure what churches make up the WNCC, but I know there are a lot of churches out there that have abandoned sound teaching and prefer to make their people feel comfortable in their sin.)

Of course - as always - I stand ready to be corrected by equally comprehensive and compelling evidence from Scripture supporting the view that the Church is simply the “body of believers” holding various and sometimes contradictory beliefs and that this state is somehow acceptable to Christ.

I don’t believe you can honestly view Scripture in an objective manner. As I mentioned to De Maria, as long as you can look at Matt 13:54-56 and not allow that “brother” and “sister” could actually mean siblings, children of Joseph and Mary, then you have no real basis to examine Scripture fairly.

 

[YADA]

When we speak of the Pope being infallible, what we mean is this: The Pope, the Bishop of Rome, when he authoritatively teaches on faith and morals to the universal Church, is protected by the chrism of the Holy Spirit, and is infallible. That is, the doctrines and teachings he propagates are free from error. Likewise, when the college of bishops and the pope are assembled together in an ecumenical council, such as Trent, or Vatican II, when the Church speaks together in a definite way, it is infallible also.

We do not mean by this that the Pope or any Bishop is free from Sin. That is not the question. The question is does God protect and preserve his Church, guiding them into all truth, just as he promised? Is the Church the Pillar and Foundation of the truth like Paul said it was? The answer is yes.

God knows how to draw straight with crooked lines. He is able to preserve his Church from doctrinal confusion and error, guiding them into all truth. This does not mean the Pope will be sinless or even a nice man. It does mean he is protected by the Holy Spirit and cannot lead the Church into error.

Now, if the Church is conceived outside of Christ, well then of course it sounds absurd. “No man can do that!”. Well of course, outside of God, man can do nothing. But the Church is the body of Christ, and it’s soul is the Holy Spirit. Christ gave his Church a share in his authority, to declare and teach all that he commanded.

And if God cannot or does not render men infallible occasionally, then not even the Bible is infallible, as it was written by men.

 

[JRKH]

I did address this (to a point) in my comments on “taking it to the church”. I do not deny that the church has authority (most people I know agree that the pastor/priest is the “shepherd of our souls”), and I certainly do not have a problem submitting to my pastor on matters of faith and morals. As far as a “central authority” (my understanding of what was said in the posts you referred to), Paul wrote to Timothy, giving him instructions on how to function in the Church. I didn’t see Paul direct Timothy to any such authority (certainly not the Bishop of Rome), nor any mention of having a council with other churches to settle matters (though that does not mean the churches couldn’t do that – after all, the council in Jerusalem concerning Gentile believers is a good precedent). My understanding is this – take matters to your local church. If the pastor and elders cannot settle it, then a council may be in order (this, I think, was what led to some early councils dealing with specific heresies that were creeping into the Church).

Actually this sounds very Catholic.
Matters were and are discussed locally - various authorities, writings etc are consulted and hopefully a resolution - a consensus is reached in humility and prayer.

Now - consider this. Your are having lunch with a friend who attends a different denomination from you. you’re discussing spiritual matters - faith and morals - and you discover that you and he disagree on an issue. Later you meet with friends and still can’t come to a meeting of the minds. You are both able to argue from Scripture in support of your position…So now what - you’ve completed the first two steps in Mt 18:15-18…Now - if you follow the instructions given by Christ, you need to tell it the church…So you each talk the matter over with your respective pastors and find that the pastors don’t agree. your pastor says you are right and his pastor says he is right…
Now what…? The views are (at least to one of you) salvific. The two positions are contradictory. What does Scripture say to do?

Jesus certainly upholds His Church. Binding and loosing “whatever”, I have a real issue with. As I recall, the binding and loosing was tied to forgiveness of sin (John 20:23), or is this a different “binding and loosing”?

I have heard this too but I don’t see this in the text. In Mt 16 Sin is not mentioned at all…and in Mt 18 the exact same words are used as in Mt 16 right after Jesus says that whoever will not listen to the Church should be removed. Two places - exact same wording.
In John - the words used are different and more specific.
IN addition to this - even if we are to limit this to “sin”…Is it not a sin to teach a false gospel? If so then Mt 18 applies to doctrinal disagreements.

Of course Jesus holds up His Church (as already stated). The question is – is the Catholic Church the Church of Jesus Christ.

Actually this is not the question in my mind. I am perfectly willing to set the Catholic Church aside and simply ask - what does Scripture say? What sort of Church model is described in the Bible?
To be frank, I can see valid arguments for the RCC model AND for the EO model but I don’t see a valid argument from Scripture for the model used by many WNCC communions.

So even though they openly support things like murder of the unborn, the profanation of marriage and the perversion of homosexuality, as long as they go to confession on Saturday afternoon, they’re OK with the church, at least until Monday when they start promoting these things again.

I never said anything about confession or the Church being OK with these things. I said it is a problem and it is frustrating for some / many Catholics. But that we don’t know all of the details etc.

I can agree that we don’t know their heart, but at least my Church won’t allow anyone to partake of communion that is not a member in good standing, and we would not allow anyone to remain a member if they supported any of these things. My Church protects the sacrament, yours doesn’t. Which one do you think is founded on Jesus?

Christ founded the Church that is today Called the Catholic…And in this I include the EO Churches.
As far as protecting the Sacrament…I don’t know what your church is…and from a Catholic standpoint - I don’t even know if you have a sacrament to protect.

This is a straw man arguement. What would prevent someone from leaving the Catholic Church and starting a church, claiming to adhere to Scripture alone (whether true or not)? The point isn’t to prevent someone from leaving and doing something else, but to protect the “flock” and the sacrament (communion).

You are quite right - there is nothing that can be done…
However - It would be a lot easier to prevent if the Protestant communion would get together settle their many differences - get on the same page - then it would be much more difficult for such people / churches to gain any sort of acceptance or foothold. - Just saying…

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

< cont … >
To be sure, there are many churches that I would not consider Christian, even though they pay lip service to Jesus Christ. However, there are others that agree on important mattersm such as salvation, the deity of Christ and the Trinity, and I can freely call them “brothers in Christ”, regardless of their denomination. We can have disagreements with other Christians and still serve Jesus (look at the falling out of Paul and Barnabas in Acts 15:35-40).

I agree with this. Yet I still maintain that if the WNCC communions who claim Sola Scriptura as a basic principle want to truly create a “bible church”, then they need to get together and work out their differences.
Otherwise - it leaves them broken and scattered and compromised.

We only have one example of a council in Scripture, and that was concerned with the Judaizers wanting Gentile believers to be circumcised. How is this a “matter of salvation”?

How many examples of something does the Holy Spirit need to include in Scripture for it to be seen as important enough to be emulated?
As to the specific matter addressed, it was not simply circumcision but included the whole of the Mosaic Law. The Judaizers considered the matter of such importance to salvation that they would not submit even to the intervention of Paul at Antioch. The matter obviously threatened to split the Church and therefore it needed to be settled universally.
Otherwise there could have been a “Hebrew” Christian Church and a “Gentile” Christian Church in Antioch and elsewhere - each saying the other is wrong…Not unlike what we see today…

My first thought is the London Baptist Confession of 1689 (which my church uses, not as an authority, but as a guide). This came out of a council of several Baptist Churches. I believe the Westminster Confession of Faith was also developed in a council.

A good place to start - now the Baptists need to get together with the Presbyterians and the Methodists and the Lutherans and the Assemblies of God etc…
This would have all been so much easier if the early reformers had gotten together…but they chose not only to reject Rome - but each other…in direct violation of Scripture…

I would suggest you’re looking at the worst the WNCC has to offer. (I’m not really sure what churches make up the WNCC, but I know there are a lot of churches out there that have abandoned sound teaching and prefer to make their people feel comfortable in their sin.)

Actually I think that the WNCC has a lot of positive to offer the RCC.
I’m not really trying to attack anyone…though It might feel that way…
The intent is to get my WNCC friends to recognize what Scripture actually says about unity - not a sloppy unity - but a profound, close, deep unity. Then recognizing that, working within their communions and with other communions to overcome divisions.
One phrase that I hear from time to time in these discussions is “agree to disagree”…Yet this idea is not found in Scripture…

I don’t believe you can honestly view Scripture in an objective manner. As I mentioned to De Maria, as long as you can look at Matt 13:54-56 and not allow that “brother” and “sister” could actually mean siblings, children of Joseph and Mary, then you have no real basis to examine Scripture fairly.

Well - you can choose to believe I am unable to honestly view Scripture…I can say the same about you. Which only further supports my contention that there needs to be an authoritative Church to tell us which one of us is wrong.
And Jesus seems to agree since it was He who said “Tell it to” and "listen to"the Church.

Peace
James

 

[mackbrislawn]

I don’t believe you can honestly view Scripture in an objective manner. As I mentioned to De Maria, as long as you can look at Matt 13:54-56 and not allow that “brother” and “sister” could actually mean siblings, children of Joseph and Mary, then you have no real basis to examine Scripture fairly.

Of course, maybe you aren’t supposed to view Scripture objectively. Maybe you are supposed to view it from the viewpoint of apostolic tradition. In fact, it’s impossible to view Scripture objectively, because we all wear our colored glasses when looking at Scripture. These glasses cannot be avoided. The trick is to wear apostolic colored glasses. How do you get these colored glasses? The only way is to inherit them. Unfortunately, some people reject this inheritance.

 

[Cachonga]

JRKH:

Now - consider this. Your are having lunch with a friend who attends a different denomination from you. you’re discussing spiritual matters - faith and morals - and you discover that you and he disagree on an issue. Later you meet with friends and still can’t come to a meeting of the minds. You are both able to argue from Scripture in support of your position…So now what - you’ve completed the first two steps in Mt 18:15-18…Now - if you follow the instructions given by Christ, you need to tell it the church…So you each talk the matter over with your respective pastors and find that the pastors don’t agree. your pastor says you are right and his pastor says he is right…

How about an actual story? I have had discussions with one of my brothers (coming from a Catholic background, I have many brothers and sisters). I do not believe there is salvation in the Catholic Church, he disagrees (and is constantly trying to get me to come back and be an apologist for the church – very annoying!). Since we do not belong to the same church, we have no church to take the dispute to. If Paul had a disagreement with a Jew (not a Christian), who would he take his dispute to? Since they don’t believe the same thing, it’s a moot point. Obviously, this is only applicable to members of the same church/denomination.

Now what…? The views are (at least to one of you) salvific. The two positions are contradictory. What does Scripture say to do?

I should (and do) consider my brother an unbeliever. I pray for him and his family (as I do for all my siblings and their families), but since he doesn’t recognize the authority of my church, and I don’t acknowledge the authority of his church, there is nothing more to be done (other than prayer). It’s entirely in God’s hands.

I have heard this too but I don’t see this in the text. In Mt 16 Sin is not mentioned at all…and in Mt 18 the exact same words are used as in Mt 16 right after Jesus says that whoever will not listen to the Church should be removed. Two places - exact same wording.
In John - the words used are different and more specific.

Appears to me that the context of Matt 18:18 is in regard to sin (verses 15-17 deal with the “take it to the church” discussion). To just say that the pope can bind and loose “whatever” makes it sound like he could bind heavy loads on believers (like the hypocrites that Jesus dealt with).

IN addition to this - even if we are to limit this to “sin”…Is it not a sin to teach a false gospel? If so then Mt 18 applies to doctrinal disagreements.

Of course it’s a sin to teach a false gospel. If you look closely at Matt 18:15, it’s talking about your “brother” (considering who this was written to, it seems appropriate to believe it is referring to those we would consider to be brothers in the Lord).

. Actually this is not the question in my mind. I am perfectly willing to set the Catholic Church aside and simply ask - what does Scripture say? What sort of Church model is described in the Bible?
To be frank, I can see valid arguments for the RCC model AND for the EO model but I don’t see a valid argument from Scripture for the model used by many WNCC communions.

Paul wrote a good deal on how the church should be run, and gave specific instructions for how to select elders/bishops and deacons. Why no mention of priests, cardinals or popes?

I never said anything about confession or the Church being OK with these things. I said it is a problem and it is frustrating for some / many Catholics. But that we don’t know all of the details etc.

I know it wasn’t said, but my experience (I was a Catholic for over 30 years) leads me to believe this could be what’s going on. You did say “We do not know what is said between them and their confessors” (certainly implies confession is involved). A public censure doesn’t seem to work very well. When I look in Scripture for an example, I see Paul excommunicating a man for living in open sin (1 Cor 5). Later, after the man repents, Paul tells the Corinthians to accept him back (2 Cor 2:1-11).

As far as protecting the Sacrament…I don’t know what your church is…and from a Catholic standpoint - I don’t even know if you have a sacrament to protect.

We don’t view it the same way catholics do, however, we do recognize that Jesus instituted a sacrament at the last supper with the bread and wine.

However - It would be a lot easier to prevent if the Protestant communion would get together settle their many differences - get on the same page - then it would be much more difficult for such people / churches to gain any sort of acceptance or foothold. - Just saying…

Wishful thinking. As long as sin is in the world, there will always be people doing things in the name of God that God has nothing to do with (not just with those who call themselves Christian).

< cont … >

 

[Cachonga]

< cont … >

I agree with this. Yet I still maintain that if the WNCC communions who claim Sola Scriptura as a basic principle want to truly create a “bible church”, then they need to get together and work out their differences.
Otherwise - it leaves them broken and scattered and compromised.

Same answer as above.

How many examples of something does the Holy Spirit need to include in Scripture for it to be seen as important enough to be emulated?

I never said councils were against Scripture.

As to the specific matter addressed, it was not simply circumcision but included the whole of the Mosaic Law. The Judaizers considered the matter of such importance to salvation that they would not submit even to the intervention of Paul at Antioch. The matter obviously threatened to split the Church and therefore it needed to be settled universally.

Could you please give the reference to Paul in Antioch? As I recall, he had a problem with the Jews (non-Christians), not Jewish converts.

Otherwise there could have been a “Hebrew” Christian Church and a “Gentile” Christian Church in Antioch and elsewhere - each saying the other is wrong…Not unlike what we see today…

Same thing could have happened if Paul had not withstood Peter to his face (is this the incident in Antioch you’re referring to? Gal 2). Seems to me that Peter was leading this schism.

A good place to start - now the Baptists need to get together with the Presbyterians and the Methodists and the Lutherans and the Assemblies of God etc…

Sure, then we could all be BaptiPresydotistserans of God!

This would have all been so much easier if the early reformers had gotten together…but they chose not only to reject Rome - but each other…in direct violation of Scripture…

It would have been so much easier if the pope had been willing to be corrected for errors and allow the church to be reformed (we could all still be Catholic). But what can you do?

Actually I think that the WNCC has a lot of positive to offer the RCC.
I’m not really trying to attack anyone…though It might feel that way…
The intent is to get my WNCC friends to recognize what Scripture actually says about unity - not a sloppy unity - but a profound, close, deep unity. Then recognizing that, working within their communions and with other communions to overcome divisions.

Of course, for the Catholic Church, that means we must all come back to Rome. Been there! Received 6 of the 7 sacraments (never went for holy orders).

One phrase that I hear from time to time in these discussions is “agree to disagree”…Yet this idea is not found in Scripture…

Paul and Barnabas didn’t disagree?

Well - you can choose to believe I am unable to honestly view Scripture…I can say the same about you. Which only further supports my contention that there needs to be an authoritative Church to tell us which one of us is wrong.

The difference is, I gave a specific example to illustrate my assertion. Your only response is, “I can say the same about you”. Seriously, what kind of response is that? I recognize that I may have presuppositions that might cloud my understanding, but I can look for them and work on them. For example, I have changed my opinion on the rapture because of further studies in the Scriptures. You, on the other hand, cannot even consider that the brothers and sisters of Jesus mentioned in Scripture are really children of Joseph and Mary, not because of anything in Scripture, but because of the dogma of the perpetual virginity. If you allow that these brothers and sisters could be children of Joseph and Mary, you are also allowing that your “infallible” church made an error when they “infallibly” made the perpetual virginity a dogma of the church, and you cannot allow that and remain in right standing with your church (though I doubt you would be refused communion or any other sacrament).

And Jesus seems to agree since it was He who said “Tell it to” and "listen to"the Church.

Again, I don’t have a problem with submitting to the authority of the church, just not the Catholic Church.

 

[Cachonga]

mackbrislawn:

Of course, maybe you aren’t supposed to view Scripture objectively. Maybe you are supposed to view it from the viewpoint of apostolic tradition. In fact, it’s impossible to view Scripture objectively, because we all wear our colored glasses when looking at Scripture. These glasses cannot be avoided. The trick is to wear apostolic colored glasses. How do you get these colored glasses? The only way is to inherit them. Unfortunately, some people reject this inheritance.

There are a lot of “apostolic traditions” taught by the church that cannot be traced back to the apostles. To believe these “apostolic traditions” is to have Rome-colored glasses firmly planted over your eyes.

 

[JRKH]

How about an actual story? I have had discussions with one of my brothers (coming from a Catholic background, I have many brothers and sisters). I do not believe there is salvation in the Catholic Church, he disagrees (and is constantly trying to get me to come back and be an apologist for the church – very annoying!). Since we do not belong to the same church, we have no church to take the dispute to. If Paul had a disagreement with a Jew (not a Christian), who would he take his dispute to? Since they don’t believe the same thing, it’s a moot point. Obviously, this is only applicable to members of the same church/denomination.

Precisely - and when you say that the church is comprised of all believers…this makes us all, as you say, “members of the same church” and so - we should know who to tke our disputes to…That is if we are going to go by Scripture…If we DON’T know who to take our disputes to…then there is a problem…

Appears to me that the context of Matt 18:18 is in regard to sin (verses 15-17 deal with the “take it to the church” discussion). To just say that the pope can bind and loose “whatever” makes it sound like he could bind heavy loads on believers (like the hypocrites that Jesus dealt with).

Yes - the context is dealing with sin…but as you agree with me below…teaching false doctrine IS a sin…and when there is disagreement - we are to take it to the pillar and ground of truth… the Church and we are to listen to the Church.

Of course it’s a sin to teach a false gospel. If you look closely at Matt 18:15, it’s talking about your “brother” (considering who this was written to, it seems appropriate to believe it is referring to those we would consider to be brothers in the Lord).

Agree completely…You are my brother in the Lord and we have a disagreement. Christ says take it to the Church…Since our two local Church leaders will disagree - I guess we need to try to get them together to hash things out…Sounds like time for a council…

Paul wrote a good deal on how the church should be run, and gave specific instructions for how to select elders/bishops and deacons. Why no mention of priests, cardinals or popes?

Well - here we simply run into matters of language and semantics and the organic growth to the Church etc…Not things that should bar one from accepting one Church over another. After all “:trinity” is not mentioned either. Nor for that matter does Scripture anywhere contain a list of the books to be contained in Scripture…

Wishful thinking. As long as sin is in the world, there will always be people doing things in the name of God that God has nothing to do with (not just with those who call themselves Christian).

No argument here…
However - it remains my great hope that the various WNCC Church groups will reverse the trend of splintering and begin the work of coming together…Of truly seeking to answer Jesus prayer that they be one as He and the Father are one…
Surely the Father and Jesus do not disagree on anything…this should be our goal too as disciples of Christ.

Peace
James

 

[De_Maria]

We are not judging angels yet, are we?

But we are walking with the Saints. That is the reason why we believe we can pray to them for intercession. And that is why I posted Heb 12:22-24.

Also, the context of 1 Cor 6:3 is that Paul was rebuking the people for taking claims to the pagan courts rather than bringing it to their elders.

Precisely because the pagan courts are in the world. But we are in the Heavenly Jerusalem.

Interesting that you can tell me what I think. Pardon me if I disagree with your speculation. I agree that the true Church is here on Earth and in Heaven. I believe it is those in Heaven who are with the innumerable company of angels, and may be experiencing all the things recorded here (though the judging of angels may not take place until the end).

Let us look at the verse again. It says we are with the Saints and with the Angels, right now. It says, "
22** But ye are come unto** (Hebrews 12:22-24 King James Version). It doesn’t say that we are on earth and they are in heaven. It says we are on Mount Sion together in the heavenly Jerusalem.

So you’re saying that the church is infallible because it says it’s infallible?

Because the Word of God, Scripture, says its infallible.

If I don’t believe the church when it says it’s infallible, then I don’t believe Jesus?

That is correct (Luke 10:16).

I know the Catholic Church claims to be infallible in its teaching office, but I haven’t seen anything in Scripture to support this claim.

You’ve seen it, you simply deny it.

Supposedly, when the pope speaks ex cathedra, then what he says is infallible. Can you document for me a few “infallible” ex cathedra statements from any pope since Peter? There have been more than 200 popes, surely you can document a dozen or more such examples.

Let’s go one a time:

Immaculate Conception

Where does Jesus teach the immaculate conception or perpetual virginity?

The Immaculate Conception is taught in the use of the word, Kecharitomen in Luke 1:28 and the fact that God put enmity between Satan and the Woman in Gen 3:15.

The perpetual virginity is taught in the fact that St. Paul understood that Mary was the Spouse of the Holy Spirit and being a righteous man, would not touch her:

Matthew 1:20
But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.

Obviously, He couldn’t teach the assumption of Mary (though He certainly could have told them in advance), yet we don’t have this information recorded for us anywhere in Scripture.

Yes, we do. You simply don’t recognize it:

Revelation 11:19
And the temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ark of his testament: and there were lightnings, and voices, and thunderings, and an earthquake, and great hail.

Revelation 12:1
And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars:

Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant, the Woman which St. John saw in heaven. This was the prophecy of her assumption which St. John saw in His Vision.

Jesus doesn’t even affirm the primacy of Peter when a dispute arose over who would be the greatest (and this was after the “giving of the keys”).

Giving him the name Peter or Rock which was formerly reserved for God (Matt 16:18), giving him the keys which bind on earth and in heaven (Matt 16:19), appointing him the shepherd of His flock (John 21:17) are enough to assert the primacy of Peter.

When I follow what Jesus did in testing if a tradition was from man or God (remember the Corban rule?), I find many man made traditions being taught by the Catholic Church.

Name one. And let’s also compare the idea of Scripture alone to Scripture. Please produce the doctrine of Scripture alone from Scripture.

I notice this has a whether/or construct. What was taught? Traditions. How was it taught? By word AND espistle (or letter in some translations). I think Paul made it very clear that if we couldn’t hear him speak directly, we could get the instructions we needed by reading what was given to us by God.

You’re talking about 2 Thess 2:15. So, the questions you’re asking are answered in the Acts of the Epistles.

Let’s see what happened there.

1. Paul and the Apostles went to Thessalonia and were teaching the Thessalonians about Jesus.
2. That would be the Church, represented by St. Paul and the Apostles, Teaching about Jesus, that would be Sacred Tradition because the New Testament wasn’t written yet.
3. And showing the Thessalonians where to find this in the Old Testament, because again the New wasn’t written yet.

THAT isn’t Scripture alone. That is precisely what St. Paul said. Tradition by word and epistle.

We are saved by the grace of God, through faith (Eph 2:8). Once saved, we keep our faith alive by doing the works that God calls us to do (Eph 2:10).

That’s new. You agree that works are necessary for salvation then. Because if works don’t keep faith alive, then one can’t be saved. Isn’t that correct?

cont’d

 

[De_Maria]

cont’d

Bodily assumption. Even your own Catholic scholar, Ludwig Ott, admits there is no scriptural basis for this dogma, and that it first appears in literature from the 5th or 6th century that was declared heretical by Pope Gelasius (was this an excathedra declaration?).

1. Do you have a quote from Ludwig Ott. Because he seems to be a knowledgeable Catholic and he probably said there are no EXPLICIT statements in the Bible. But I doubt that he would deny that Rev 11:19 and Rev 12:1 are implied teachings of the Assumption.
2. Read the writing of Pope Gelasius carefully. He doesn’t declare it heretical. He declares it APOCRYPHAL. In other words, we don’t know the name of the author.

No, God did it! He used men to actually put pen to paper (or quill to papyrus), but all Scripture is God-breathed. It’s from God to His people, the true Church.

1. That Catholic Church teaches that the Scriptures are God breathed.
2. The God breathed Scriptures teach that Sacred Tradition is God breathed also (2 Pet 1:19-21). And you deny that.
3. The God breathed Scriptures also teach that the Church is infallible (1 Tim 3:15; Eph 3:10). And you also deny that.

Can you name a single word or phrase spoken by Jesus or any of the Apostles that is not recorded for us in Scripture?

No.

If not, what good is your tradition when compared to Scripture?

It is the basis of the New Testament. Without Sacred Tradition, you don’t know what the New Testament is saying.

Here’s the difference between Catholics and Protestants.

When a Protestant reads Scripture, he is discovering the Word of God for the first time because he doesn’t know the Will nor the Word of God.

But Catholics cut their teeth on the Word of God simply by attending the Mass. We live the Word of God in all the Traditions passed down by the Church.

Unless a person knows the Traditions of Jesus Christ, he will not understand the New Testament which was written on the basis of the Traditions of Jesus Christ.

Your tradition has you so blind that you can’t even imagine that “brother” and “sister” can actually mean siblings, children of Joseph and Mary, when you read it in your own Bible (Matt 13:54-56).

And your tradition has you so blind that you believe that a righteous man like Joseph would sleep with God’s spouse. That’s right, the Virgin Mary is the Spouse of the Third Person of the Holy Trinity.

And yet you still cannot even grant the possibility that “brother” and “sister” means exactly that in Matt 13:54-56 (and other places where the brothers of Jesus are mentioned).

And you can’t fathom that brother and sister can mean “brother in Christ”. Let’s read Scripture:

Matt 28:10 Then said Jesus unto them, Be not afraid: go tell my brethren that they go into Galilee, and there shall they see me.

What does brethren mean here? Brothers of the womb or Apostles?

brethren

g80
ἀδελφός adelphos

Do you seriously believe that all the Apostles were the children of Mary the mother of Jesus?

Oh and by the way, the “brethren of the Lord” whose names are James, Joses, Simon and Jude can all be traced to the “other” Mary, the sister of Mary the Mother of God.

Oh yea, and Mary the Mother of God was also an only child, therefore, her sister was merely her sister-in-law. She was married to St. Joseph’s uncle.

Excuse me, but it was the Catholic Church that “used” these forged documents to further their claims. Read what your own church says about the Donations of Constantine and the Psuedo-Isidoren Decretals, then tell me how this deception is in line with Scripture!

The Catholic Church did not forge the documents nor perpetrate a deception. And I have already shown you how God turns evil to good for all those who love God. If you don’t believe me, all you need to do is look at the Cross.

I follow the Truth, and I do not find it in the Catholic Church.

Then you are not following the Truth, but a deception of Satan.

How can someone claim to uphold the truth when they have used forgeries for their own benefit?

The Catholic Church was not the perpetrator of the deception. But God turned the wicked mens’ deceptions into good for His Church.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[De_Maria]

< cont … >

Again, it is amazing that you can tell me what I think. Again, pardon me for strongly disagreeing with your assumptions!

So,you see in the Church the human and Divine working together? Yet you condemn the Church?

How is pointing out that the Catholic Church used forgeries for its own benefit indicate that I’m the one using “worldly men’s documents”? And are you using Rom 8:28 to justify the use of forgeries by the church? That, I would say, is a gross misuse of Scripture!

Now you’re just being coy. You have admitted that the forgeries were perpetrated by someone else. The Church committed no sin.

You are abusing and twisting Scripture to justify the lies and deceptions of the church!

If the Church did not know about the forgeries, there is no lie or deception on the part of the Church.

The way you twist and abuse the Scriptures, I really see no need to continue further discussion with you.

Fine with me. The way you twist and abuse the truth makes it difficult to talk to you as well.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[De_Maria]

There are a lot of “apostolic traditions” taught by the church that cannot be traced back to the apostles. To believe these “apostolic traditions” is to have Rome-colored glasses firmly planted over your eyes.

Name one.

Meantime, you have never answered my challenge when I asked you to provide the tradition of Sola Scriptura from Scripture. Have you forgotten?

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[De_Maria]

< cont … >
Again, I don’t have a problem with submitting to the authority of the church, just not the Catholic Church.

Really? Then to which Church’s authority do you submit? I’d like to check out the doctrines of that Church and compare them to Scripture. Or is it some sort of gnostic secret religion whose doctrines can’t be known?

 

[JRKH]

I never said councils were against Scripture.

And I never said that you did…
What you did say was:
We only have one example of a council in Scripture, …"
So my point is this…What does it matter that there is only one example of a council? does that somehow lessen the significance of the council or the example that the council represents on dealing with disagreements?

Could you please give the reference to Paul in Antioch? As I recall, he had a problem with the Jews (non-Christians), not Jewish converts.

Well Paul is referenced as "Sailing to Antioch in Act 14:26 and in Acts 15:1 and 2 it states that,
"But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brethren, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” And when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and debate with them, Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question.
Now -If those who were doing this teaching were not Christian, the issue would have been about Jesus, and not circumcision - and there would not have been a need to send Paul and others to Jerusalem to settle the matter.
This is confirmed later when, at council:
some believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees rose up, and said, “It is necessary to circumcise them, and to charge them to keep the law of Moses.” (Acts 15:5)
Note that these are “believers” - not simply Jews, but Jewish converts.
This is further confirmed in the latter sent by the council to Antioch…
Since we have heard that some persons from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your minds, although we gave them no instructions,
Note that they came “from us” (the Church in Jerusalem)…
These are Christians who were teaching contrary to Paul and they were so adamant in their view that not even the intercession of the Great Apostle, preacher and former pharisee could convince them. So the matter was laid before the Church universal - in council.

Same thing could have happened if Paul had not withstood Peter to his face (is this the incident in Antioch you’re referring to? Gal 2). Seems to me that Peter was leading this schism.

I disagree here. This was more a matter of approach. Paul himself speaks of trying to be all things to all men in hopes of saving some. Peter may have simply been doing the same thing…we really don’t hear his side on the matter. I hardly think that this issue rises to the same level as what we see in Acts 15.

Sure, then we could all be BaptiPresydotistserans of God!

(Cont)

 

[JRKH]

(Cont)

It would have been so much easier if the pope had been willing to be corrected for errors and allow the church to be reformed (we could all still be Catholic). But what can you do?

Amen - I love how the new Catechism recognizes this. Also - while I haven’t studied it extensively it appears there was a lot of “nationalist” political maneuvering involved in a lot of this. It was a sad chapter all around.
The standout thing to me though about that time is this…If the Reformation was intended to reform the one Church and was the work of the Holy Spirit… Why did it splinter so into such contradictory groups? I guess this is why I kind of harp on the idea of councils…The reformers were united in their contempt for Rome, but it seems they were equally separated by their contempt for each other. This does not seem like the work of the Holy spirit either…

As for what we can do…We can recognize the mistakes of the past and work for unity…we can argue, but humbly and prayerfully with charity and an eye toward Truth. We can seek ways to work together. We can seek greater understanding…
This is a mission that the Catholic Church has already undertaken with some of her oldest and dearest neighbors…the EO, the Lutherans, the Anglicans…It’s a long road but a worthwhile one.

Of course, for the Catholic Church, that means we must all come back to Rome. Been there! Received 6 of the 7 sacraments (never went for holy orders).

Yes - certainly from the Catholic perspective this is true…
But I must say that for those who are not Catholic and yet hod to the Bible as their source, the desire and the thrust should still be towards unity…deep and profound unity…

Paul and Barnabas didn’t disagree?

Touche

The difference is, I gave a specific example to illustrate my assertion. Your only response is, “I can say the same about you”. Seriously, what kind of response is that?

That wasn’t my only response…Why did you just stop there?
I used the fact that we can each level the same charge against the other as further proof of the need for an authoritative Church…Just as Christ described in Mt 18:15-18.

I recognize that I may have presuppositions that might cloud my understanding, but I can look for them and work on them.

And what makes you think that I have or cannot? Allow me to share with you that I was away from the Church for 35 years before returning. In that time I did a fair amount of reading on a number of topics and worked through a number of issues. In fact I still am working through issues.
So please do not assume that I am just following blindly…or that the Catholic cannot investigate, study etc. because that is simply not true.

But - again - It is not my intent here to try to make a case for the CAtholic Church. My intent is to illustrate that the Bible describes a Church structure that is Universal, Doctrinally and Spiritually united, Visible and Authoritative. I did this in my earlier posts and the OP provides two more examples that support this model.
I’ve yet to see any WNCC person provide anything like as good biblical support for the SS, locally independent, "invisible body of believers, doctrinally diverse (and contradictory) model.
I’ve looked - it just isn’t anywhere in the NT.
So I really have to wonder how those who hold to such views can justify them…

Peace
James

 

[Cachonga]

De Maria, as I said at the end of post #61, “The way you twist and abuse the Scriptures, I really see no need to continue further discussion with you.” Your recent posts only confirm this opinion. I see no value in continuing any further discussion with you, so this will be my final post on this thread. I will just add that I am a Reformed Baptist, and we use the London Baptist Confession of 1689 as a guide.

JRKH, as this will be my last post here, I cannot respond to your recent posts. However, if you would like to continue the discussion by PM, just let me know.

 

[Novocastrian]

We do not mean by this that the Pope or any Bishop is free from Sin. That is not the question.

Interestingly, Pope Gregory VII in the Dictatus Papae, taught that all Popes are made saints by the merits of St. Peter.

The same document is one of the first explicit statements of something like Papal Infallibility (although phrased in terms of the Roman Church’s infallibility, rather than the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff himself, if I remember correctly; c.f. Irenaeus’s much-disputed comment about the indefectibility of the Roman Church), and also claims that the Pope alone may bear the imperial insignia!