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

[De_Maria]

You don’t have time.

Correct.

Why would you take time to look at what you requested.

What did I request of you which I have to look up in another thread? Do you know what you want to communicate? Then simply write it down right here.

Quoting scriptures is less proof and more self confirmation.

Sounds like you’re objecting to my quoting Scripture. That’s probably because Scripture does not agree with your doctrines and you can’t quote Scripture in your defense. If you could, you would.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[chero23]

That is not what i was saying. I was not saying the church actually was doing anything wrong. For instance when they transititioned into a new era after Vatican II, was it wrong that the churches in different countries had not been permitted to do it in the local language? No, just updating but at the time someone had decided that the language should not have changed which would be called a mistake. I never said they sinned it is just the church decided that mass should be in a specific language and later was changed it had been in one language for a while so status quo.

I was only attempting to point out, evidently ineffectively, that the church itself has made mistakes and will again in the future like any other group.

If I may, I know some Catholics here will disagree with me here, but I was born in 1984, so I was not around the pre-Vatican II changes. I for 1 think that having the mass in our native languages is great bc your able to understand better. Once again, I know several of my Catholic brothers and sisters will disagree, but I think what they were trying to do was get people involved. Nothing changed, the mass still had the same order, the Eucharist is still the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, that is still there.
Look if that is bothering you so much about the Catholic Church, you really have a small problem. Look, the Catholic Church says that it has the fullness of the Gospel, from every aspect, from the Divinity of Jesus, to purgatory, to the Eucharist, to infant baptism, to salvation, and the Pope. Every aspect the Church teaches it’s right on.

Don’t get me wrong, Im not trying to sound modest or a know it all. Trust me, I have been a Catholic all my life, and their is not a day that passes that I don’t learn something new. Does that make me a bad Catholic? I don’t think so, on the contrary, I think it makes me a better Catholic bc I want to learn.

 

[De_Maria]

That is not what i was saying. I was not saying the church actually was doing anything wrong. For instance when they transititioned into a new era after Vatican II, was it wrong that the churches in different countries had not been permitted to do it in the local language? No, just updating but at the time someone had decided that the language should not have changed which would be called a mistake. I never said they sinned it is just the church decided that mass should be in a specific language and later was changed it had been in one language for a while so status quo.

I was only attempting to point out, evidently ineffectively, that the church itself has made mistakes and will again in the future like any other group.

Well, going by the example you gave, you count the changes in human language to be mistakes. Whereas we see them as growth in knowledge and understanding.

For instance. There used to be a language called, Celtic. Now, that language is gone. Those people now speak English. Was it a mistake for the Celts to speak Celtic because they didn’t know that in the future it would be replaced by English?

Apparently, you count that as a mistake. Because you claim that the Catholic Church made a mistake to teach the Doctrines and to perform the Mass in the universal language of Latin. They chose to do this because it was the most used language in the world and they could train their priests in one language rather than 300 languages. And the priests could take their the Latin to any country and communicate effectively because Latin was the universal language.

But the world changed and Latin fell out of use. Methods of communication improved and it was now feasible for the Church to train priests in any language while maintaining the Latin only for official use. And that is what She has done. But you count this an error?

By what stretch of the imagination?

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[sealoch]

Well, going by the example you gave, you count the changes in human language to be mistakes. Whereas we see them as growth in knowledge and understanding.

For instance. There used to be a language called, Celtic. Now, that language is gone. Those people now speak English. Was it a mistake for the Celts to speak Celtic because they didn’t know that in the future it would be replaced by English?

Apparently, you count that as a mistake. Because you claim that the Catholic Church made a mistake to teach the Doctrines and to perform the Mass in the universal language of Latin. They chose to do this because it was the most used language in the world and they could train their priests in one language rather than 300 languages. And the priests could take their the Latin to any country and communicate effectively because Latin was the universal language.

But the world changed and Latin fell out of use. Methods of communication improved and it was now feasible for the Church to train priests in any language while maintaining the Latin only for official use. And that is what She has done. But you count this an error?

By what stretch of the imagination?

Sincerely,

De Maria

Again you have it backwards and then construe something entirely different. Of course it isn’t wrong for the Celts to speak their language don’t be absurd.

What they viewed to be the mistake was they wouldn’t let the different churches do it in their own language.

 

[TRH1292]

*First point: * That is exactly why I do not like calling myself a Protestant. I prefer a simple, “I am a Christian.” – Period.

Se**cond point: I agree; however, sometimes you can talk to another person until you are blue in the face and they will not even listen to you, let alone agree with you. That is when you pray fervently for them, and take it to the Church so that multitudes can pray for that poor lost soul.

*Third point: * The Church is here on earth, and is comprised of all of those believing and following Jesus, both Jews and Gentiles. When Jesus returns, he will reign over His kingdom of His followers.

The quote at the bottom of your post seems to say it all, don’t you think? I love it! That’s my point exactly.

kmcarl56,

What I was attempting to say earlier was, that although you stated that men can’t be infallible, that is they can’t be kept from erring on faith, you believe God rendered Peter and Paul infallible and inspired on several occasions, went they wrote Holy Scriptures.

Well the Church believes that God did not just render a few apostles infallible to write a few documents, then drop off the face of the earth. The Church is the Body of Christ, and the Holy Spirit is the soul of the Church. The Church is the great work of the Holy Spirit because he preserves it from error, through the Pope, and has guided it down to this very day. This has been shown through the Church compiling the Bible, or declaring Dogma, and it’s constant celebration of the Eucharist.

Jesus did not abandon his body, but sent them the Holy Spirit, to guide them into all truth, so that the gates of Hell would not prevail against them.That includes the gift of infallibility and authority.

 

[TRH1292]

*Even is yourself and kmcarl and others wish to set aside the Bishop of Rome as head of the universal Church and rely on Scripture, you are still left the problem or reconciling what Scripture says - and how the protestant communions have developed.
Scripture describes how issues are to be handled…and unity maintained (Elders, teachers, bishops and councils). I do not see this biblical model promoted among the various protestant groups who wish to claim that they follow the bible. *

I never said that I “set aside” the Pope as head of the Church called Catholic. I revere the Pope for his knowledge and power in overseeing his church in accordance with the Holy Bible. There has always been a hierarchy in the Church (even in Abraham’s time,) including most protestant churches, i.e., a general council, ministers, elders, deacons, and parisheners. The “Bishop Most High” is most protestant churches usually refers to Christ, and Christ alone. The only difference is in the names of different positions various denominations maintain in the church.

I hope that this explains a little better how little difference there really is in Catholicism and Protestantism. We all love the Lord Our God with all our hearts, souls and minds, and we are all marching soldiers toward the same end, that which brings people to Christ. I see no real gain in arguing over the little nit-picky things. I see a much better result in working together to bring as many people as we can to love the Lord as we do, and as we love our neighbors, as well as our enemies.

I love the Pope and I love the Catholic Church, but I love God/Christ much much more.

Karen Carlisle

(…forever trying to be faithful and true to God and His Word in all I do and say while I am still here to do something about it…)

:extrahappy:Happy, happy, happy to be a follower of Christ in fellowship with all here on this forum!

Although I rejoice in the unity that Catholic’s and Protestants have because of there common Baptism, I don’t believe that’s a quite accurate way to describe the differences.

The Catholic Church does not consider herself to be one denomination out of many, but the very body of Christ, for we believe in only One Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

Although many denominations may have hierarchy’s, in the case of Protestants, these are just people who really help organize things, not people with any real authority. In Protestantism, fundamentally, everyone is the pope because everyone is responsible for determining what they believe the Bible teaches, and to interpret it for one self.
This is not so in Catholicism, because the Church is authoritative, not one person’s subjective interpretation.

It’s hard to really say how much Catholic’s and Protestant’s agree, because there are literally thousands of versions of Protestantism, and they all believe something different. Sometimes drastically different.

 

[JRKH]

*Even is yourself and kmcarl and others wish to set aside the Bishop of Rome as head of the universal Church and rely on Scripture, you are still left the problem or reconciling what Scripture says - and how the protestant communions have developed.
Scripture describes how issues are to be handled…and unity maintained (Elders, teachers, bishops and councils). I do not see this biblical model promoted among the various protestant groups who wish to claim that they follow the bible. *

I’m sorry - I did not mean to imply that you had said this.
The reason I mentioned it is because I have had discussions in the past where there is agreement on the idea of a universal councillior authority - but disagreement on the matter of the papal office.

I revere the Pope for his knowledge and power in overseeing his church in accordance with the Holy Bible

Here is a problem…It is not the pope’s Church. It is Christ’s Church. I’m sure that you would like to say the same thing about the church you attend…It’s not your pastor’s church - it’s Christ’s.

There has always been a hierarchy in the Church (even in Abraham’s time,) including most protestant churches, i.e., a general council, ministers, elders, deacons, and parishoners. The “Bishop Most High” is most protestant churches usually refers to Christ, and Christ alone. The only difference is in the names of different positions various denominations maintain in the church.

Agreed - now what needs to happen is that these various councils need to get together and work out their differences. That would then go a long way toward fulfilling Christ’s prayer in John 17:20-21 as well as Peter’s and Paul’s exhortations in Rom 15:5-6, 1 Cor 1:10, 2 Cor 13:11, and Php 1:27, 1 Pet 3:8.

I hope that this explains a little better how little difference there really is in Catholicism and Protestantism. We all love the Lord Our God with all our hearts, souls and minds, and we are all marching soldiers toward the same end, that which brings people to Christ. I see no real gain in arguing over the little nit-picky things. I see a much better result in working together to bring as many people as we can to love the Lord as we do, and as we love our neighbors, as well as our enemies.

I love your explanations - but - I have to draw the line at saying that the arguments are over 'nit-picky" things.
Leaving the Catholic Church aside - the WNCC groups contain communions who teach opposing views on the Real presence…Baptism…OSAS…and other issues that directly touch on one’s salvation.
To have one group say that Baptism is necessary and another group say it is not - is not a nit-picky matter.
To have one group say that the bread and wine are truly the body and blood - and is necessary for salvation - while another group teaches it is only symbolic - is not a nit-picky matter.
To have one group say that it is impossible to lose ones salvation post baptism and another group say that it is possible - is not a nit-picky matter.

Scripture calls for unity…Deep, profound…“be of one mind” unity.
Christ Himself tell us to take our problems to “the Church” and then listen to the Church. Having multiple communions holding contradictory views is not in keeping with either the instructions in Mt 18:15-18 or in keeping with the example we have in Acts 15.

That said - I do agree in working together - and think that in these days of trial in the world we need to close ranks ever more closely.

Peace
James

 

[pablope]

Yes. They were human; thus, they were sinners just like anyone else. Only after death is anyone made perfect.

Well…do you believe Peter’s words when he said this:

15 “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”

16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”

Was Peter perfect when he said these words?

 

[kmcarl56]

I’m sorry - I did not mean to imply that you had said this.
The reason I mentioned it is because I have had discussions in the past where there is agreement on the idea of a universal councillior authority - but disagreement on the matter of the papal office.

Here is a problem…It is not the pope’s Church. It is Christ’s Church. I’m sure that you would like to say the same thing about the church you attend…It’s not your pastor’s church - it’s Christ’s.

Agreed - now what needs to happen is that these various councils need to get together and work out their differences. That would then go a long way toward fulfilling Christ’s prayer in John 17:20-21 as well as Peter’s and Paul’s exhortations in Rom 15:5-6, 1 Cor 1:10, 2 Cor 13:11, and Php 1:27, 1 Pet 3:8.

I love your explanations - but - I have to draw the line at saying that the arguments are over 'nit-picky" things.
Leaving the Catholic Church aside - the WNCC groups contain communions who teach opposing views on the Real presence…Baptism…OSAS…and other issues that directly touch on one’s salvation.
To have one group say that Baptism is necessary and another group say it is not - is not a nit-picky matter.
To have one group say that the bread and wine are truly the body and blood - and is necessary for salvation - while another group teaches it is only symbolic - is not a nit-picky matter.
To have one group say that it is impossible to lose ones salvation post baptism and another group say that it is possible - is not a nit-picky matter.

Scripture calls for unity…Deep, profound…“be of one mind” unity.
Christ Himself tell us to take our problems to “the Church” and then listen to the Church. Having multiple communions holding contradictory views is not in keeping with either the instructions in Mt 18:15-18 or in keeping with the example we have in Acts 15.

That said - I do agree in working together - and think that in these days of trial in the world we need to close ranks ever more closely.

Peace
James

And I agree with all you said here whole-heartedly. I didn’t mean to imply that there are not still some HUGE issues separating the two belief systems. I just say that there are some things that we CAN agree on.

Do you believe in prophecy? If so, do you think that the Churches will become one unified church at the end times? I’m just curious about your thoughts on this matter…

 

[De_Maria]

Again you have it backwards and then construe something entirely different. Of course it isn’t wrong for the Celts to speak their language don’t be absurd.

What they viewed to be the mistake was they wouldn’t let the different churches do it in their own language.

You’re still making the same mistake.

1. The Catholic Church is one Church throughout the world. The Catholic Church in England is the same as the Catholic Church in the USA.

When the Catholic Church imposed Latin, Latin was still the dominant language in the world.

When Latin began to disappear as the Celtic disappeared, then the Church permitted the Liturgy to be pronounced in the local language.

1. The Catholic Church does not trifle with how Lutherans and Calvinists teach their religions. No disrespect intended, but they can teach it in Chinese if they want.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[pablope]

*Even i
I love the Pope and I love the Catholic Church, but I love God/Christ much much more.

Karen Carlisle

(…forever trying to be faithful and true to God and His Word in all I do and say while I am still here to do something about it…)*

:extrahappy:Happy, happy, happy to be a follower of Christ in fellowship with all here on this forum!

I would say…if you love Christ…you should also equally love His Church…and the pope…perhaps a difference perspective:

Ecclesial Deism…calledtocommunion.com/2009/07/ecclesial-deism/

Aquinas believed that faith in Christ necessarily involves trusting the Church, because Christ cannot fail to guide and protect the development of His Church.

I came to see that I did not fully trust Christ, not because I thought Him untrustworthy, but because I had not understood that Christ founded a visible hierarchically organized Body of which He is the Head, and which He has promised to protect and preserve until He returns. I had not apprehended the ecclesial organ Christ established through which the members of His Body are to trust Him. I came to see that faith in Christ is not something to be exercised invisibly, from my heart directly to Christ’s throne, as though Christ had not appointed an enduring line of shepherds. Inward faith was to be exercised outwardly, by trusting Christ through those shepherds Christ sent and established. Jesus had said, “The one who listens to you listens to Me, and the one who rejects you rejects Me; and he who rejects Me rejects the One who sent Me.”29

This is the sacramental conception of faith, not simply belief that, but belief through. This is the sacramental conception of the Church, the basis for the priest speaking in persona Christi.

But upon coming to understand that Christ founded a visible hierarchically organized Body of which He is the Head and which He promised to preserve, I came to see that the way to trust Christ is to trust His Church of which He is the Head, just as the early Christians trusted Christ precisely by trusting the teaching of the Apostles. Trusting the Apostles did not subtract from (or compete with) their trust in Christ. On the contrary, when Jesus tells the Apostle Thomas, “Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed,”30 He implies that greater faith is required and shown in those who trust in Christ not by seeing Him, but by believing the testimony of the Apostles. Jesus refers to this way of believing when He prays, “I do not ask in behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word.”31

 

[JRKH]

And I agree with all you said here whole-heartedly. I didn’t mean to imply that there are not still some HUGE issues separating the two belief systems. I just say that there are some things that we CAN agree on.

I agree…but agreeing on some things and disagreeing on other things doesn’t really fit what Jesus prayed for in John 13:34-35. That we be one as He and the Father are one…Do you think that Jesus and the Father disagree on things?

Do you believe in prophecy? If so, do you think that the Churches will become one unified church at the end times? I’m just curious about your thoughts on this matter…

Actually I do not concern myself with prophesy. So I neither believe in it or no…
It is sufficient for me to know what Jesus told us to do about disagreements. It is sufficient for me to know how Jesus wants us to build our lives and to live from day to day (in Agape) so that the world will know we are His disciples.

It is sufficient for me to know that the NT repeatedly exhorts us to a profound unity…and not some loose “confederation” of doctrinally independent groups.

Of course - If I’m wrong - and the NT does NOT exhort us to this…I am open to having someone point this out.

Peace
James

 

[Isaiah45_9]

*First point: * That is exactly why I do not like calling myself a Protestant. I prefer a simple, “I am a Christian.” – Period.

Second point: I agree; however, sometimes you can talk to another person until you are blue in the face and they will not even listen to you, let alone agree with you. That is when you pray fervently for them, and take it to the Church so that multitudes can pray for that poor lost soul.

*Third point: * The Church is here on earth, and is comprised of all of those believing and following Jesus, both Jews and Gentiles. When Jesus returns, he will reign over His kingdom of His followers.

The quote at the bottom of your post seems to say it all, don’t you think? I love it! That’s my point exactly.

Friend,

I need an address for this Church Christ talks about. One where I can take my brothers to resolve this problem.

And this is the main purpose of my sig line. The Church and Christ are one. The moment I start dividing it, I start to drown just like Peter did during the storm.

 

[mackbrislawn]

I hope that this explains a little better how little difference there really is in Catholicism and Protestantism. We all love the Lord Our God with all our hearts, souls and minds, and we are all marching soldiers toward the same end, that which brings people to Christ. I see no real gain in arguing over the little nit-picky things. I see a much better result in working together to bring as many people as we can to love the Lord as we do, and as we love our neighbors, as well as our enemies.
You’re right of course. But that’s why there are so many denominations today–people who want to split over nit-picky things.

 

[johnnyc176]

Originally Posted by kmcarl56 View Post
*

I hope that this explains a little better how little difference there really is in Catholicism and Protestantism. We all love the Lord Our God with all our hearts, souls and minds, and we are all marching soldiers toward the same end, that which brings people to Christ. I see no real gain in arguing over the little nit-picky things. I see a much better result in working together to bring as many people as we can to love the Lord as we do, and as we love our neighbors, as well as our enemies.*

There is only One True Church. The Catholic Church. I don’t see the Eucharist as a nit picky thing. The Eucharist is the Source and Summit of our Faith. Christ wants all to be in that Church and to partake of the Sacraments.

 

[Cachonga]

De Maria:

Ephesians 3:10
…
This says that the Church teaches the Wisdom of God.

I don’t think so! Notice that it is “unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places”. Does the church teach in heavenly places? Not that I’m aware of. On the other hand, those same principalities and powers (also translated as “rulers and authorities” in the NASB) can see God’s wisdom displayed in His true Church (which is made up of all believers).

1 Timothy 3:15
…
And this says the Church is the Pillar of Truth.

What does a pillar do? Doesn’t it hold up something? Like the true Church holds up the Truth, maybe? Ground (also translated as “foundation”) should be a solid base for a pillar. The true Church should hold up God’s truth. It is NOT the truth, but it holds up the truth. And what are the foundations of the Catholic Church? The Donations of Constantine and Pseudo-Isadorean Decreatals comes to mind. You may argue that the popes that used them to bolster their claims of authority, property and power didn’t know they were forgeries. I doubt that, but for now, let’s pretend that’s the case. Did the Catholic Church relinquish any of the power, property or authority it usurped by the use of these documents once they were proven to be forgeries? I’m not aware that they did (if so, please document this for me). Seems to me that the “pillar” of the truth of the Catholic Church is on very shakey ground!

In both instances, the infallible Scripture teaches that the Church is infallible.

Sorry. Don’t see it. Your leaps in logic might get you over the Grand Canyon, but you have failed to put forth a convincing argument.

As far as “taking it to the church”, would you take it to your local church, your local bishop, or take it straight to the pope for an infallible decision? I can tell you this, if a member of my church was found to support abortion, they would not be a member for long (until they repented). Why does the Catholic Church allow politicians that openly support and endorse abortion, homosexuality and gay marriage to continue as members? Again, the ground and pillar seems awfully shakey!

 

[De_Maria]

I don’t think so! Notice that it is “unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places”.

Have you not read in Scripture:
1 Corinthians 6:3
Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?

Does the church teach in heavenly places? Not that I’m aware of.

Because you don’t understand the Divine nature of the Church. You think the Church is a man made institution. But the Church was made by God and exists in the heavenly realm:
Hebrews 12:22-24
King James Version (KJV)
22 But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, 23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, 24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.

On the other hand, those same principalities and powers (also translated as “rulers and authorities” in the NASB) can see God’s wisdom displayed in His true Church (which is made up of all believers).

Those who deny the authority and infallibility of the Christ’s Church are not believers in Christ:
Luke 10:16
He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me.

For it is the Church which teaches the commands of Jesus Christ:
Matthew 28:19-20
King James Version (KJV)
19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

What does a pillar do?

Hold things up.

Doesn’t it hold up something?

Exactly!

Like the true Church holds up the Truth, maybe?

Which is the true Church then? The one that teaches Scripture alone? Or the one that teaches the keeping of Scripture and Tradition? What does Scripture say on that matter?

2 Thessalonians 2:15
King James Version (KJV)
15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

Or is it the one which teaches faith alone? Or the one which teaches faith and works? What does Scripture say about that?
James 2:24
Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

Name any Protestant doctrine which contradicts the Teaching of the Catholic Church and that Protestant doctrine will also contradict Scripture. Guaranteed!

You see, Jesus did not write the New Testament. The Church did.

Jesus established a Church and commanded that Church to teach His Doctrines. It is based upon those Doctrines that the New Testament was written by the Church. It is those Doctrines which we call Sacred Tradition and it is that Sacred Tradition which the Protestants discarded.

Without that Sacred Tradition, the Protestants don’t have the context or basis to understand the New Testament. Just as a blind hog will find a nut every now and again, a Protestant will stumble unto the truth every now and again.

But the Catholic Church has the map, the table of contents and the index to the understanding of the Scriptures.

Ground (also translated as “foundation”) should be a solid base for a pillar. The true Church should hold up God’s truth. It is NOT the truth, but it holds up the truth.

That is Catholic Teaching.

cont’d

 

[De_Maria]

cont’d

And what are the foundations of the Catholic Church? The Donations of Constantine and Pseudo-Isadorean Decreatals comes to mind.

You are following the writings of man. We are following the Word of God.

The Word of God says that the Church is the Pillar of Truth. You follow those who say that the Church is something. else.

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.

You may argue that the popes that used them to bolster their claims of authority, property and power didn’t know they were forgeries. I doubt that, but for now, let’s pretend that’s the case. Did the Catholic Church relinquish any of the power, property or authority it usurped by the use of these documents once they were proven to be forgeries? I’m not aware that they did (if so, please document this for me). Seems to me that the “pillar” of the truth of the Catholic Church is on very shakey ground!

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:

Romans 8:28
King James Version (KJV)
28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.

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
King James Version (KJV)
22 A good man leaveth an inheritance to his children’s children: and the wealth of the sinner is laid up for the just.

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

Sorry. Don’t see it.

That is what the atheists argue. But we say:
2 Corinthians 5:7
(For we walk by faith, not by sight

Your leaps in logic might get you over the Grand Canyon, but you have failed to put forth a convincing argument.

I’m giving you the Scripture. The Word of God. If God can’t convince you, who can?

1 Corinthians 3:6
King James Version (KJV)
6 I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.

As far as “taking it to the church”, would you take it to your local church, your local bishop, or take it straight to the pope for an infallible decision? I can tell you this, if a member of my church was found to support abortion, they would not be a member for long (until they repented).

If that is true, it is a recent development. Protestants have been supporters of abortion until very recently.

Why does the Catholic Church allow politicians that openly support and endorse abortion, homosexuality and gay marriage to continue as members?

The Catholic Church does not. Protestants do.

The Catholic Church teaches that anyone who promotes heinous sins and takes communion is automatically condemned. Have you not read in Scripture:
1 Corinthians 11:29
For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.

But Protestants don’t believe that communion is anything but a symbol. And a mere symbol can’t condemn a man to hell.

And guess what else Protestants do? They endorse abortion, they knowingly elect homosexual ministers, they knowing perform homosexual marriages. You won’t find any of that in the Catholic Church. If a Catholic commits any sin, it is in spite of Catholic Teaching.

Again, the ground and pillar seems awfully shakey!

To you. Because you believe man and not God.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[JRKH]

De Maria has addressed much of this with Scripture but I had a couple of thoughts that I would like to add…

I don’t think so! Notice that it is “unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places”. Does the church teach in heavenly places? Not that I’m aware of. On the other hand, those same principalities and powers (also translated as “rulers and authorities” in the NASB) can see God’s wisdom displayed in His true Church (which is made up of all believers).

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.

What does a pillar do? Doesn’t it hold up something? Like the true Church holds up the Truth, maybe? Ground (also translated as “foundation”) should be a solid base for a pillar. The true Church should hold up God’s truth. It is NOT the truth, but it holds up the truth.

I think this is a very Catholic view of the matter.
Something to consider - -
Would you agree that Christ is the foundation of the Church?
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”
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?
Just a thought…

As far as “taking it to the church”, would you take it to your local church, your local bishop, or take it straight to the pope for an infallible decision?

The approach would be in the biblical manner as outlined in Mt 18:15-18 and as demonstrated in Acts 15. Issues are discussed, often informally, among individuals and groups. A pastor might eventually become involved, various church documents looked at etc. If the matter cannot be settled locally then the Bishop gets involved…and so on up the chain.
Of course - given that Christ’s Church is nearly 2000 years old, most questions have answers already provided and available. But when new issues come up or there is need to revisit an old issue…then yes - it will certainly be addressed by the bishops worldwide and ultimately by the pope.

I can tell you this, if a member of my church was found to support abortion, they would not be a member for long (until they repented). Why does the Catholic Church allow politicians that openly support and endorse abortion, homosexuality and gay marriage to continue as members?

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.

Now - that said - Consider this.
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.
And this is something that is true, and has happened, on any number of issues.

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?
Just leaving the Catholic Church teachings aside - it is easily seen that the WNCC (Western non-Catholic Christian) churches disagree with each other on many matters seen as essential to salvation by at least one side in the issue.
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?
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?

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.

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.

Peace
James

 

[Cachonga]

De Maria:

Have you not read in Scripture:
1 Corinthians 6:3
Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?

We are not judging angels yet, are we? 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.

Because you don’t understand the Divine nature of the Church. You think the Church is a man made institution. But the Church was made by God and exists in the heavenly realm:
Hebrews 12:22-24

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).

Those who deny the authority and infallibility of the Christ’s Church are not believers in Christ:

So you’re saying that the church is infallible because it says it’s infallible? If I don’t believe the church when it says it’s infallible, then I don’t believe Jesus? 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. 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.

For it is the Church which teaches the commands of Jesus Christ:
Matthew 28:19-20

Where does Jesus teach the immaculate conception or perpetual virginity? 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. 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”). 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.

Which is the true Church then? The one that teaches Scripture alone? Or the one that teaches the keeping of Scripture and Tradition? What does Scripture say on that matter?

2 Thessalonians 2:15

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.

Or is it the one which teaches faith alone? Or the one which teaches faith and works? What does Scripture say about that?

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).

Name any Protestant doctrine which contradicts the Teaching of the Catholic Church and that Protestant doctrine will also contradict Scripture. Guaranteed!

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?).

You see, Jesus did not write the New Testament. The Church did.

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.

Jesus established a Church and commanded that Church to teach His Doctrines. It is based upon those Doctrines that the New Testament was written by the Church. It is those Doctrines which we call Sacred Tradition and it is that Sacred Tradition which the Protestants discarded.

Can you name a single word or phrase spoken by Jesus or any of the Apostles that is not recorded for us in Scripture? If not, what good is your tradition when compared to Scripture?

Without that Sacred Tradition, the Protestants don’t have the context or basis to understand the New Testament. Just as a blind hog will find a nut every now and again, a Protestant will stumble unto the truth every now and again.

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).

But the Catholic Church has the map, the table of contents and the index to the understanding of the Scriptures.

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).

You are following the writings of man. We are following the Word of God.

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 Word of God says that the Church is the Pillar of Truth. You follow those who say that the Church is something. else.

I follow the Truth, and I do not find it in the Catholic Church. How can someone claim to uphold the truth when they have used forgeries for their own benefit?

< cont … >