Were the NT churches independent or One?

[RickHolland]

Rick-

Before I jump to any conclusions, could you clarify PRECISELY what argument you wish to make concerning the Perpetual Virginity of Mary from the text of Matthew 1:18-25?

I do appreciate your time on this.

Against Helvidius.

This tract appeared about a.d. 383. The question which gave occasion to it was whether the Mother of our Lord remained a Virgin after His birth. Helvidius maintained that the mention in the Gospels of the “sisters” and “brethren” of our Lord was proof that the Blessed Virgin had subsequent issue, and he supported his opinion by the writings of Tertullian and Victorinus. The outcome of his views was that virginity was ranked below matrimony. Jerome vigorously takes the other side, and tries to prove that the “sisters” and “brethren” spoken of, were either children of Joseph by a former marriage, or first cousins, children of the sister of the Virgin. A detailed account of the controversy will be found in Farrar’s “Early Days of Christianity,” pp. 124 sq. When Jerome wrote this treatise both he and Helvidius were at Rome, and Damasus was Pope. The only contemporary notice preserved of Helvidius is that by Jerome in the following pages.

Jerome maintains against Helvidius three propositions:—

1st. That Joseph was only putatively, not really, the husband of Mary.
2d. That the “brethren” of the Lord were his cousins, not his own brethren.
3d. That virginity is better than the married state.

1. The first of these occupies ch. 3–8. It turns upon the record in Matt. i. 18–25, and especially on the words, “Before they came together” (c. 4), “knew her not till, &c.” (5–8).
2. The second (c. 9–17) turns upon the words “first-born son” (9, 10), which, Jerome argues, are applicable not only to the eldest of several, but also to an only son: and the mention of brothers and sisters, whom Jerome asserts to have been children of Mary the wife of Cleophas or Clopas (11–16); he appeals to many Church writers in support of this view (17). LOL LOL LOl
3. In support of his preference of virginity to marriage, Jerome argues that not only Mary but Joseph also remained in the virgin state (19); that, though marriage may sometimes be a holy estate, it presents great hindrances to prayer (20), and the teaching of Scripture is that the states of virginity and continency are more accordant with God’s will than that of marriage (21, 22).

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf206.vi.v.html

**Randy - I did not separate the article from my remarks as I should have. Above are the remarks from the article. You may need to read more of it to equate the Scripture to what Jerome was trying to rebut. Jerome used a theory, just as you all have about the James being one of the original 12, which he was not a theory that was really put to rest centuries ago, but there are still those that hold on to it.

We have the advantage of having everything written before us and the other available resources as well. Nothing makes a bit of difference if it is not being lead by the Holy Spirit, you will fall into error almost everytime, but like the clock that is right twice a day; sometimes the unregenerate get something right in regards to scripture.

Jerome tries to show that Joseph was married before; old nonsense, which makes him lose all credibility. Then, tries to argue with the meaning of bethroth, dispite the Jewish tradions on that and the angel told Joseph to take Mary as his wife; it proves his total neglect for scripture based on an obsession. Anyway; I’m not feeling up to par, I believe I have the flu…oh joy!**.

 

[RickHolland]

How poetic. I’m moved. Deeply. :coffeeread:

What a straw-man. Catholics hold that Jesus is the head of the ENTIRE Church. We also hold that He left Peter in charge of the Church on earth, but I have to tell you something…come closer…I want to whisper…we believe this because the Bible teaches it.

You can believe what you want and you will because you have no other choice. Your teacher is the Catholic Church, which is equivilent to a group of men. The believer is lead and guided on a personal basis by the Holy Spirit, just as God said and promised. Since your faith lies in men and not God, by your own choice, you will never see nor understand the Truth; but there is that Hope called Christ.

You cannot show papal authority, Catholic priesthood, Maryiology, nor Catholic salvation, nor a universal physical visible church from Scripture. You can impose, contradict, twist and turn as much as you want, but the Truth is the immovable Rock which many hammers have beaten on the anvil of the Word without success. Jesus said in no uncertain terms that most religious people will be in hell. Do you believe that?

 

[RickHolland]

This is incorrect, and here’s why:

Peter, James and the Council of Jerusalem

Many non-Catholics claim that Peter could not have been the head of the earthly Church or “pope” because they believe that it was James, not Peter, who gave the final decision concerning circumcision of the Gentiles at the Council of Jerusalem recorded in Acts 15. This position indicates a complete misunderstanding of the dynamics of the council. Mark Bonocore, a noted Catholic apologist, addressed this misunderstanding in his debate with Jason Engwer in 1999.

Regarding the Jerusalem council in Acts 15, I pointed out in my [opening statement] how Peter gives the definitive teachings and how, after he speaks, all debate comes to an end. However, Engwer rejects this, citing the amendments given by James, and says how James is the only one to render “judgment.” Well, first of all, it must be noted that James bases his remarks on Peter’s teaching:

“Brothers, listen to me. Symeon (i.e., Peter) has described how …” (Acts 15:13-14).
Secondly, look at what James actually says in relation to his “judgment”:
​

“It is my judgment, therefore, that we ought to stop troubling the Gentiles” (Acts 15:19).
Well, who is this “we”? Who was “troubling the Gentiles”? Certainly not Peter (Acts 10:44-49, 11:1-18, 15:7-10). Certainly not Paul or Barnabas. So, who? Acts 15:1 tells us:
​

“Some who had come down from Judea were instructing the brothers, ‘Unless you are circumcised …, you cannot be saved.”
It was the Jewish faction under James (bishop of Jerusalem) that was troubling the Gentiles (Acts 15:5, Gal 2:12). Thus, James is speaking for them, not for the whole council. Indeed, that’s why his remarks are recorded at all—to show that the leader of the Jewish faction subscribed to the decisions of the council, and so silence the Judaizers who Paul will encounter later (Titus 1:10-11).*
​

To Bonocore’s reference from Titus, I would add this passage from Paul’s Letter to the Galatians:
Galatians 2:11-14
11When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. 12Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group.
Clearly, James headed up the group who thought that Gentiles must become Jews through circumcision in order to become Christians. However, after hearing Peter’s doctrinal pronouncement, James accepted Peter’s teaching and added his own pastoral comments for the benefit of the pro-circumcision group present and for those who might be tempted to doubt that the leader of the “Judaizers” really had accepted the decision of the full ecumenical council that circumcision was unnecessary for Gentiles.

*Taken from: Mark Bonocore v. Jason Engwer: Was the Papacy Established by Christ?
bringyou.to/apologetics/debate13.htm

He couldn’t have been pope; that was invented several centuries later.

 

[wisdomseeker]

He couldn’t have been pope; that was invented several centuries later.

The sad part about arguing with non Catholics is the fact that they only say: no, it is not. but can never show proof of any kind to what they say is believable.

please argue but also show some proof. you know like historical proof of what you believe is what all Christians believed in the first, second, and third Century and so forth.

telling us only what you say it is. is no good here. Catholics argue and show historical proofs. Can you do the same?

 

[JRKH]

Yankee is still posting in the other thread so I am moving and replying here.

James,

Your church believes that Scripture alone is false based on the claim that sola scriptura is not found in the Bible. As I’m sure you know, not every doctrine taught in Scripture is taught explicitly by book, chapter and verse. Many doctrines are taught by way of logical and necessary deduction. For instance the word ‘Trinity’ is not used in the Bible. Few would argue that the Trinity is not more implicitly taught than explicitly.The same may be said of the righteousness of Christ imputed to the believer for justification. This doctrine surfaces in light of the overwhelming implicit evidence. Even Roman Catholicism admits that the Bible is at least one part of the inspired Word of God.This admission, that the Bible is at least one part of the divinely inspired Word of God, then places the burden of proof upon Rome, to show there are other sources of equal weight.

Please provide evidence that Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the Magisterium are so closely connected that one cannot stand without the others. Prove if you can, that Scripture,Tradition and Magisterium must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments. Show me the evidence that the RCC Magisterium has Divine Authority to produce Divinely inspired tradition which is equal to the Scripture. I am referring to more than Apostolic Succession. I’m talking about an actual passing down of the gift of inspiration itself.

In Rom.3:2 it says that the Jews were entrusted with the “Oracles of God”. However, the nation of Israel was not infallible (and never claimed to be). Yet, God used a fallible people to establish and preserve the entire canon of the OT.

My point is that if God can give to His very fallible nation an infallible Word preserved in writing, why should it be demanded that He do something different in preserving the NT? The point is that it is absolutely unnecessary to stipulate an infallible Church to produce an infallible Word. In the case of the OT it is just the opposite. We find God’s infallible Word in the midst of a most visible and excruciatingly imperfect nation.

God gave us an Infallible Person, the Holy Spirit, which teaches, interprets and reveals God’s will.

.

You have answered your own question and just don’t know it.

God uses fallible peole to provide infallible teachings. The entire OT is the summation of God’s teachings, delivered over many centuries to the Jews. Of course as these teachings were being received they were not part of the OT canon, rather they were taught, and then written down and accepted as inspired teachings and preserved by the Jewish nation. That imperfect nation.

God has done the same thing in the NT. except instead of estabishing a nation, he established a Church. A Church comprosed of believers who received inspiration from God, taught these things and then wrote some/most down. Within that Church there is established a method for preserving and protecting these truths so that the SAME truths may be taught universally. Not at all unlike the way the Jewish nation, that fallible nation, preserved, copied and distributed the teachings to the various synagogues in different cities in Palestine and elsewhere.

The people that made up the Jewish nation were VERY fallible. The teachings were not, and Christ even told his disciples to obey the teachings of the pharisees (fallible men)because they sit on the seat of Moses.
The People who make up the Catholic Church are also VERY fallible. The teachings are not and Christ’s admonision for us to obey is just as applicable now as it was then.

Since you bring up the OT Church structure, let me ask you a question on this. Since the Jews were spread all through the Roman Empire, and had communities in every major city would you contend that each of these was a totally independent “church”? Or were they different communities of the same faith?

As to the matters of “Proof”, I am probably too uniformed to do an adequate job, but I will speak what has been shown to me by prayerful research.

1. The Canon of the Bible is the accepted written “Word of God” by Christians.
2. We accept this based upon the Authority of the Church which brought the canon together and not by any "proofs contained therein because…
3. The Koran and the B.O.M. are both self authenticating as well. Self authentification means nothing.
4. The Jews used a three legged stool as well comprised of the Written Word, the teaching office of the Chair of Moses and his successors, and Oral Tradition.
5. Christ Gave the keys and the the power to Bind and loose to Peter and to the Apostles.
6. Christ told us when we had disputes to “Tell it To The Church”. Thus Christ has infused the Church with the same power as was contained in the “Seat of Moses”.

You will undoubtedly reject my reasons above, which only reenforces the need for an authoritative Church to discern which of us is correct.

Peace
James

 

[Rightlydivide]

=

Randy Carson;5792492]This is incorrect, and here’s why:

Peter, James and the Council of Jerusalem

Many non-Catholics claim that Peter could not have been the head of the earthly Church or “pope” because they believe that it was James, not Peter, who gave the final decision concerning circumcision of the Gentiles at the Council of Jerusalem recorded in Acts 15. This position indicates a complete misunderstanding of the dynamics of the council. Mark Bonocore, a noted Catholic apologist, addressed this misunderstanding in his debate with Jason Engwer in 1999
James does give the final decision. Let’s try it this way…why does James speak last and state

Act 15:19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:
Act 15:20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and [from] fornication, and [from] things strangled, and [from] blood.

Why does James get to speak last and state it was his sentence?

]Regarding the Jerusalem council in Acts 15, I pointed out in my [opening statement] how Peter gives the definitive teachings and how, after he speaks, all debate comes to an end. However, Engwer rejects this, citing the amendments given by James, and says how James is the only one to render “judgment.” Well, first of all, it must be noted that James bases his remarks on Peter’s teaching:

[/INDENT]

“Brothers, listen to me. Symeon (i.e., Peter) has described how …” (Acts 15:13-14).
Peter does not answer the question. Peter states a general principle about his work with the Gentiles and his view. Then Paul and Barnabas add to the message

Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them.

Then everyone keeps their silence to hear James. He states that Peter is correct. He states why he is correct; the scriptural support his view has as Acts 15:16-17 cite scriptural support.
Then James gives the specific decision. James states what Gentiles are to be held to

Act 15:20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and [from] fornication, and [from] things strangled, and [from] blood.

]“Mark Bonocore quoted by Randy Carson. It is my judgment, therefore, that we ought to stop troubling the Gentiles” (Acts 15:19
Well, who is this “we”? Who was “troubling the Gentiles”? Certainly not Peter Acts 10:44-49, 11:1-18, 15:7-10). Certainly not Paul or Barnabas. So, who? Acts 15:1tells us “Some who had come down from Judea were instructing the brothers, ‘Unless you are circumcised …, you cannot be saved.”
It was theJewish factionunder James (bishop of Jerusalem) that was troubling the Gentiles (Acts 15:5, Gal 2:12). Thus, James is speaking for ***them

---

So JAMES was the leader of this group?
Lets examine this

Act 15:5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command [them] to keep the law of Moses.Act 15:6 And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter.

So James is actually the leader of the sect of Pharisees of Acts 15:5 and NOT part of the group of apostles and elders in Acts 15:6? …because he said “we”

Interesting…
except Peter is using the same language to refer to Jews and not Gentiles. So “we” means Jews and Gentiles when Peter uses it but when James does it means Judaizers versus other Christians…I see a problem with being consistent here. Here is Peter speaking again, using the same language as James.

ct 15:9 And put no difference between us and them

, purifying their hearts by faith.

Act 15:10 	Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?
Act 15:11 	But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.

 

[JRKH]

RD,
Not to interfere with your conversation with Randy, but in your reference to Acts 15:19 the word “sentence” caught my eye because I had never seen that translation before.
I checked on Bible Study light and found that the KJV is the ONLY one of those I have in my multi translation base to use that term. All the others, including two “litteral translations” use “Judge”

Here are the various translations:

Acts 15:19
The Holy Bible, New International Version®"It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God.

The King James Version (Authorized)
Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:

The New King James Version
Therefore I judge that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God,

The New Revised Standard Version
Therefore I have reached the decision that we should not trouble those Gentiles who are turning to God,

The Douay-Rheims Bible
For which cause, judge that they who from among the Gentiles are converted to God are not to be disquieted:

The NAS Strong’s Version
"Therefore it is my judgment that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles,

Young’s Literal Translation
wherefore I judge: not to trouble those who from the nations do turn back to God,

J.P. Green’s Literal Translation
For this reason I judge not to trouble those from the nations turning to God,

Interesting I thought.

Peace
James

 

[Rightlydivide]

What do the Ante Nicene Fathers say about James? Hegesippus…perhaps the earliest historian we have. Does it agree with what Randy is stating?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Against Helvidius.

This tract appeared about a.d. 383. The question which gave occasion to it was whether the Mother of our Lord remained a Virgin after His birth. Helvidius maintained that the mention in the Gospels of the “sisters” and “brethren” of our Lord was proof that the Blessed Virgin had subsequent issue, and he supported his opinion by the writings of Tertullian and Victorinus. The outcome of his views was that virginity was ranked below matrimony. Jerome vigorously takes the other side, and tries to prove that the “sisters” and “brethren” spoken of, were either children of Joseph by a former marriage, or first cousins, children of the sister of the Virgin. A detailed account of the controversy will be found in Farrar’s “Early Days of Christianity,” pp. 124 sq. When Jerome wrote this treatise both he and Helvidius were at Rome, and Damasus was Pope. The only contemporary notice preserved of Helvidius is that by Jerome in the following pages.

Jerome maintains against Helvidius three propositions:—

1st. That Joseph was only putatively, not really, the husband of Mary.
2d. That the “brethren” of the Lord were his cousins, not his own brethren.
3d. That virginity is better than the married state.

1. The first of these occupies ch. 3–8. It turns upon the record in Matt. i. 18–25, and especially on the words, “Before they came together” (c. 4), “knew her not till, &c.” (5–8).
2. The second (c. 9–17) turns upon the words “first-born son” (9, 10), which, Jerome argues, are applicable not only to the eldest of several, but also to an only son: and the mention of brothers and sisters, whom Jerome asserts to have been children of Mary the wife of Cleophas or Clopas (11–16); he appeals to many Church writers in support of this view (17). LOL LOL LOl
3. In support of his preference of virginity to marriage, Jerome argues that not only Mary but Joseph also remained in the virgin state (19); that, though marriage may sometimes be a holy estate, it presents great hindrances to prayer (20), and the teaching of Scripture is that the states of virginity and continency are more accordant with God’s will than that of marriage (21, 22).

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf206.vi.v.html

**Randy - I did not separate the article from my remarks as I should have. Above are the remarks from the article. You may need to read more of it to equate the Scripture to what Jerome was trying to rebut. Jerome used a theory, just as you all have about the James being one of the original 12, which he was not a theory that was really put to rest centuries ago, but there are still those that hold on to it. **

We have the advantage of having everything written before us and the other available resources as well. Nothing makes a bit of difference if it is not being lead by the Holy Spirit, you will fall into error almost everytime, but like the clock that is right twice a day; sometimes the unregenerate get something right in regards to scripture.

Jerome tries to show that Joseph was married before; old nonsense, which makes him lose all credibility. Then, tries to argue with the meaning of bethroth, dispite the Jewish tradions on that and the angel told Joseph to take Mary as his wife; it proves his total neglect for scripture based on an obsession. Anyway; I’m not feeling up to par, I believe I have the flu…oh joy!.

I’m sorry you’re not feeling well.

I personally do not know with certainty whether Joseph was married previously or not. Do you? If you have something definitive, I would love to see it. It may be the evidence we need to prove the Perpetual Virginity of Joseph. Seriously, though, if you have something compelling, please share it.

I’d also like to ask again, however, what argument you personally would like to make against the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. Was I wrong to assume that Matthew 1:18-25 is your primary text? Do you have others that you want to bring into the discussion? If so, which would you like to discuss first?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Does it strike anyone else as curious that the first dust-up concerning the Perpetual Virginity occured NOT when someone first proposed it bringing scorn, derision and cries of “Novelty!” upon himself but rather when someone first had the audacity to DENY that Mary was Ever Virgin?

Only then did Jerome rise to defend what had been accepted by the universal Church from the beginning.

If Jerome was defending a false proposition, why did Helvidius sink into obscurity while Jerome is regarded highly by all?

 

[Randy_Carson]

If your brother **sins, **go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother.

Mat 18:16 "But if he does not listen {to you,} take one or two more with you, so that BY THE MOUTH OF TWO OR THREE WITNESSES EVERY FACT MAY BE CONFIRMED.
Mat 18:17 "If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.
Mat 18:18 "Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.
Mat 18:19 "Again I say to you, that if two of you agree on earth about anything that they may ask, it shall be done for them by My Father who is in heaven.
Mat 18:20 “For where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst.”

Is it your contention that wherever two or three are gathered, there is the Church?

I apologize for not following you better here, but I’m uncertain as to what point you are making.

Thanks.

 

[Randy_Carson]

You can believe what you want and you will because you have no other choice.

Of course I have a choice (as do you). I chose to become a Catholic after being raised Methodist, and I could choose to leave the Catholic Church at any time should I become convinced that it is not everything it claims to be.

Your teacher is the Catholic Church, which is equivilent to a group of men. The believer is lead and guided on a personal basis by the Holy Spirit, just as God said and promised. Since your faith lies in men and not God, by your own choice, you will never see nor understand the Truth; but there is that Hope called Christ.

Do you claim to be lead by the Holy Spirit infallibly into all truth? This promise was made by Christ to the men who formed the leadership, the proto-magisterium, of the Catholic Church. Jesus did not promise to send the Holy Spirit to lead you personally into all truth.

You cannot show papal authority, Catholic priesthood, Maryiology, nor Catholic salvation, nor a universal physical visible church from Scripture.

Of course I can. The problem is that unless the Holy Spirit open your eyes, you won’t admit or accept the evidence that I present. Your flesh (that is, your human reasoning) counts for nothing.

You can impose, contradict, twist and turn as much as you want, but the Truth is the immovable Rock which many hammers have beaten on the anvil of the Word without success.

Like YankeeDrifter, you type a lot of rhetoric. Get specific if you expect to gain any traction.

 

[Randy_Carson]

He couldn’t have been pope; that was invented several centuries later.

No, Rick. The term was invented later. The office existed from the moment Jesus left His flock in the hands of His vicar on earth. And that can be demonstrated from the pages of your own KJV.

 

[Randy_Carson]

=
James does give the final decision. Let’s try it this way…why does James speak last and state

Why does James get to speak last and state it was his sentence?

James speaks to his brothers who supported circumcision to show that he was accepting Peter’s decision. He also adds some administrative suggestions.

Peter does not answer the question. Peter states a general principle about his work with the Gentiles and his view. Then Paul and Barnabas add to the message

Peter declares the decision which God had already revealed to him. The matter was settled. Paul and Barnabas simply gave a slide show…er…PowerPoint presentation about some of their missionary journey.

Then everyone keeps their silence to hear James. He states that Peter is correct. He states why he is correct; the scriptural support his view has as Acts 15:16-17 cite scriptural support. Then James gives the specific decision. James states what Gentiles are to be held to

No, and this has been covered already. Everyone may have gotten quiet to see how James would react to Peter’s pronouncement (maybe they were expecting more of a brouhaha?), but the matter was already settled.

So JAMES was the leader of this group?
Lets examine this

So James is actually the leader of the sect of Pharisees of Acts 15:5 and NOT part of the group of apostles and elders in Acts 15:6? …because he said “we”

Uh, no…James is not the leader of the sect of Pharisees, James was an Apostle and the leader of the Church in Jerusalem which counted among its members many priests and Pharisees who still held to their Jewish roots. I refer you to the followng:
Acts 4:36-37
36Joseph, a Levite from Cyprus, whom the apostles called Barnabas (which means Son of Encouragement), 37sold a field he owned and brought the money and put it at the apostles’ feet.
Acts 6:7
7So the word of God spread. The number of disciples in Jerusalem increased rapidly, and a large number of priests became obedient to the faith.
James had a large contingent of Judaizers in his local church, and these were the ones who had gone to Galatia and upset the Gentile believers there. As I showed previously,
Galatians 2:11-14
11When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. 12Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group.

When James rises to speak, he is addressing those whom he knew would have the hardest time accepting Peter’s decision. Whether or not James sympathized with them I cannot say; he may have simply used the word “we” for pastoral reasons. At any rate, Peter’s decision had been rendered and James’ acquiesence on behalf of the Jewish wing of the Church was salve in the wound.

 

[Randy_Carson]

It is important to keep in mind that the Council of Jerusalem was divided into two camps: those who believed that the Gentile converts should be circumcised and those who did not.

Peter addresses the former with these words: 10Now then, why do **you [Judaizers] **try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear? 11No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are."

James addresses them, also: “Brothers, listen to me. 14Simon (note that James even used Peter’s Hebrew name when speaking to the Judaizers) has described to us (James must be speaking here to the believers from Jerusalem since those from Galatia would already have been familiar with God’s work in that province!) how God at first showed his concern by taking from the Gentiles a people for himself…19"It is my judgment, therefore, that we (the Jewish Christians of Jerusalem) should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20Instead we should write to them…”

Do you see it now? James is quietly talking his homeboys out of going to the mats over this.

Hope this helps.

 

[yankee_drifter]

If the apostle Paul considered that the addition of works to faith invalidated the Gospel, what is the biblical verdict on the message of the RCC? The “gospel” of Rome is faith plus works, grace plus merit, Christ plus the church, baptismal regeneration, penance, the sacrifice of the Mass, the rosary, indulgences, Mary, the pains of Purgatory, and so on. The apostle warns those who, in addition to faith in the Lord, seek to be justified by ritual or works, that they are alienated from Christ, and that he could be of no avail to them. (Gal 5:2-4)

There is no historical proof that the bishop of Rome ever exercised universal jurisdiction over the catholic church. The 6th canon of the Council of Nicea indicates the opposite:

“The ancient customs of Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis shall be maintained, according to which the bishop of Alexandria has authority over all these places since a similar custom exists with reference to the bishop of Rome. Similarly in Antioch and the other provinces **the prerogatives of the churches are to be preserved.
**
The Council recognized the authority of the bishop of Alexandria over certain territories in North Africa, just as Rome and Antioch exercised similar power in their regions. By this time in church history, the bishops of important cities were ruling over the churches in their geographical areas. Rome’s authority, like Alexandria and Antioch, was regional and not universal.

There is substantial doctrinal unity among different denominations. All True Christian believers in Christ agree on the divine inspiration of the Holy Scriptures, the doctrine of the Trinity, the incarnation of the Son of God, the virgin birth, His atoning death and bodily resurrection. Born again Bible believing Christians believe in salvation by grace through faith in Christ, the resurrection, judgment, heaven and hell. We are Christians before we are Baptists, Presbyterians, Brethren, Methodists and so on, and we enjoy a spiritual sense of brotherhood. Many divisions among Christians have little or nothing to do with doctrine. Divisions between members of local churches, and between different churches, arise from our sinful nature: pride, envy, rebellion, etc.

 

[yankee_drifter]

Randy Carson, like a lot of folks on here you never once qualified any of your statements. You accuse me of rhetoric yet what you have done is merely mimic other catholics. There’s nothing to rebut as your claims fall on its own. If as you say, you can supply proof via the Scriptures, then why haven’t you done so? Its because there are no Scriptural support for your claims. I used to be catholic so I am not ignorant of the teachings of the RCC. Instead, you put words in the apostle Peter’s mouth. You claim he was “pope” because this is what your church taught you although the Scriptures do not say this. Peter referred to himself as apostle, servant and an elder. I don’t understand your flippant, sarcastic attitude. Anyway you provide no proof, just opinions and thus I see no reason to continue a dialogue with you.

Below is Randy Carson’s response to my post:

1. The church described in the NT did not have a Roman pope;
   Peter was the first pope and he was martyred in Rome. End of story.

Quote:
it did not teach purgatory;
Scripture shows otherwise. Start a thread if you wish.

Quote:
it did not venerate Mary;
Right. Mary was just another Jewish girl who got pregnant out of wedlock…an incubator really…nothing more.

Quote:
it did not teach salvation by faith and works.
That would be odd since Jesus did. What the Church did not teach is “faith alone” - a Tradition of Men started by Martin Luther. If the Bible teaches “faith alone” then why did the Holy Spirit inspire no one to use that infamous phrase except James who wrote, “not by faith alone”?

Quote:
… If you read Peter’s first letter, you will see that he did not teach a Roman hierarchy, but that *all Christians are royal priests"
Peter didn’t have to teach something that was obvious to all who LIVED the life of the Church instead of merely reading about it 2000 years later. Jesus established the NT priesthood: Bishops, priests and deacons are the natural extension of that.

Quote:
…the same keys given to Peter in Matthew 16 are given to the whole church of believers in Matthew 18.
Right. Can I borrow your set of keys to the kingdom, Dad? In Mt. 18, Jesus was speaking to the twelve whom He had huddled-up for a teaching moment, but you personally don’t have any keys. Even Martin Luther would condemn you on the spot for this error.

Quote:
Papal infallibility was not officially proclaimed until the 19th century…
Doh! You got me there. That is not an error. The error is believing that papal infallibility did not exist or was not understood until that time. The same for your statement below. But I am proved wrong…you only erred seven times. Mea culpa.

Quote:
Mary’s immaculate conception and bodily assumption were not officially and definitively proclaimed until the 19th and 20th century.
See above.

Quote:
It seems that most of the folks on here defending Catholicism never qualify their claims. They use no Scriptural references. Instead of checking the Scriptures, you use personal attacks.

 

[Randy_Carson]

If the apostle Paul considered that the addition of works to faith invalidated the Gospel, what is the biblical verdict on the message of the RCC?

Excuse me?

Where does Paul teach that works are not an essential part of salvation?

Now, be careful here…we know that Paul says that “works of the Law” cannot save, but that is not the same thing as the works which Christians must perform, is it? :nope:

There is no historical proof that the bishop of Rome ever exercised universal jurisdiction over the catholic church.

Of course there is. Peter, Linus, Cletus, Clement and every pope since has exercised leadership over the entire Church.

There is substantial doctrinal unity among different denominations. All True Christian believers in Christ agree on the divine inspiration of the Holy Scriptures, the doctrine of the Trinity, the incarnation of the Son of God, the virgin birth, His atoning death and bodily resurrection. Born again Bible believing Christians believe in salvation by grace through faith in Christ, the resurrection, judgment, heaven and hell. We are Christians before we are Baptists, Presbyterians, Brethren, Methodists and so on, and we enjoy a spiritual sense of brotherhood. Many divisions among Christians have little or nothing to do with doctrine. Divisions between members of local churches, and between different churches, arise from our sinful nature: pride, envy, rebellion, etc.

Of course there is substantial agreement. You are Christians.

The problem is that substantial agreement is not the same thing as unity.

Moreover, look at the list of denominations you just gave:

Baptists deny that baptism regenerates. Lutherans believe it does.
Baptists do not baptize infants. Methodists believe that infants should be baptized.

These are just two examples of many.

The problem is that while you want to console yourselves with the idea that your invisible “spiritual” Church composed of all true believers shares “substantial agreement”, the plain fact of the matter is that these groups are teaching conflicting and contradictory doctrines.

Yet, they all claim to be studying the Word of God as approved workmen, they all claim to go by the Bible Alone, and they all claim to be led by the Spirit into all truth.

Tell me, Yankee, does the Holy Spirit have one truth for Baptists and another truth for Methodists? Or can you imagine Jesus ever saying to the Father, “Gee, Dad, those Episcopalians are baptizing babies again…should I stop them?” “No, Son, that’s what I want them to do.”

So, you have to admit that either doctrine really doesn’t matter in the Church as you understand it or else conflicting and contradictory doctrines are acceptable in the one Body of Christ.

Either that or admit the fact that Jesus founded a single Church upon Peter the rock which still teaches the full gospel that all others only have bits and pieces of.

This is the tragedy of Protestantism: that so many good, well-intentioned people who truly love the Lord have only a subset of the fullness that God intended for them.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Randy Carson, like a lot of folks on here you never once qualified any of your statements.

Actually, I gave the qualifier at the beginning when I wrote:

Now, for the 10 errors…and no, I’m not going to attempt to provide definitive answers to all 10 at this point - I’ll just hit the highlights. Each of your assertions will require effort on my part to explain and effort on your part to understand. You don’t get that much of my time without agreeing to give me some of your time in return.

You must have skipped right over that.

You accuse me of rhetoric yet what you have done is merely mimic other catholics.

How have I done this?

There’s nothing to rebut as your claims fall on its [sic] own.

How so?

If as you say, you can supply proof via the Scriptures, then why haven’t you done so? Its because there are no Scriptural support for your claims.

I haven’t provided an in-depth response to your laundry list because I’m not going to play your game. You want to draw me into a free-wheeling point-counterpoint in which you get to spew all of your ex-Catholic venom at me while responding to nothing that I say.

Not gonna do it. :nope:

On the other hand, if you want to actually discuss any of your objections with me, I will be happy to do so provided that we agree in advance to discuss one topic at a time. If that is reasonable, then I will be happy to give you all the scriptures I can. Would you like to proceed this way?

I used to be catholic so I am not ignorant of the teachings of the RCC.

If you used to be Catholic, then I suspect that you were among that generation of souls who were poorly catechized in the wake of Vatican II and Paul VI pronouncement concerning contraception. Many in the American church were lost due to the liberal nonsense that nearly swamped the Church in the 60’s & 70’s. However, if you are younger than that, please advise.

My point is that you ARE ignorant of the teachings of the Catholic Church; that is why you are not Catholic. No one can fully understand the Catholic Church and not enter or remain therein.

Instead, you put words in the apostle Peter’s mouth. You claim he was “pope” because this is what your church taught you although the Scriptures do not say this. Peter referred to himself as apostle, servant and an elder.

Technically, this is true, but I would argue that Peter was the head of the Church, and the title is merely a technical term used to describe the underlying reality. Like the word “trinity” which is a technical term that the Church developed later to describe the interior life of God. Trinity, pope, Bible, purgatory, hypostatic union…these are concept words we use as shorthand to explain what we believe. Well, I believe all of them…you have some unresolved issues to deal with before you accept them all.

I don’t understand your flippant, sarcastic attitude.

I try to mirror the tone I find in the posts I respond to. Think that through…if you want civil discussion, then discuss civilly yourself. I will adopt whatever attitude you choose for our interaction.

Anyway you provide no proof, just opinions and thus I see no reason to continue a dialogue with you.

Now that I have repeated the reason why I gave you only the topline talking point and not the depth you seem to want, I hope you will reconsider discussing the issues that are pressing upon you.

I’ll look for and respect your decision.

 

[JRKH]

If the apostle Paul considered that the addition of works to faith invalidated the Gospel, what is the biblical verdict on the message of the RCC? The “gospel” of Rome is faith plus works, grace plus merit, Christ plus the church, baptismal regeneration, penance, the sacrifice of the Mass, the rosary, indulgences, Mary, the pains of Purgatory, and so on. The apostle warns those who, in addition to faith in the Lord, seek to be justified by ritual or works, that they are alienated from Christ, and that he could be of no avail to them. (Gal 5:2-4)

The Gospel of Rome is Christ’s own Gospel. We are saved by Grace through faith, and this being not by any merit of our own but as a free Gift from God. Works are the external evidence of a well founded and correctly formed faith, for as St James said, “Faith without works is Dead”. Christ Also, noted that we will know who is walking sith God, by their fruits. Thus are works a necessary part of our response to God’s free Gift and a demonstration of our acceptance of said gift.
As to the tohers, Christ Founded His Church and is forever with His Church, Jesus called for baptism, the Apostles Baptized after teh coming of the Holy Spirit to thenm at Pentacost. Penence is a proper response to our sins against God, but our contrition is even more important. The Mass is the Center of Worship and has been since the Apostolic times. It is God’s greatest gift to his Children that they be able to take God’s own divinity into themselves in the form of Our Lord’s Body and blood.
The Rosary is a gloriously affirming prayer that is NOT a doctrine of the Church but rather is a widespread personal devotion based firmly on the Bible. Indulgensces are simply prayers to God appealing to His mercy. Mary is My Mother and yours for Jesus is Her Son and our Brother as well as our Lord. It is good to Love our Mother. Purgatory, that place of purgation is simply that fire, spoken of in the NT wherin our “Works are tested” and the unworthy works (selfishness) burned away.

There is no historical proof that the bishop of Rome ever exercised universal jurisdiction over the catholic church. The 6th canon of the Council of Nicea indicates the opposite:

“The ancient customs of Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis shall be maintained, according to which the bishop of Alexandria has authority over all these places since a similar custom exists with reference to the bishop of Rome. Similarly in Antioch and the other provinces **the prerogatives of the churches are to be preserved.
**
The Council recognized the authority of the bishop of Alexandria over certain territories in North Africa, just as Rome and Antioch exercised similar power in their regions. By this time in church history, the bishops of important cities were ruling over the churches in their geographical areas. Rome’s authority, like Alexandria and Antioch, was regional and not universal.

Rather there is none that you will except that is.

There is substantial doctrinal unity among different denominations. All True Christian believers in Christ agree on the divine inspiration of the Holy Scriptures, the doctrine of the Trinity, the incarnation of the Son of God, the virgin birth, His atoning death and bodily resurrection. Born again Bible believing Christians believe in salvation by grace through faith in Christ, the resurrection, judgment, heaven and hell.

Quite true, but of course “substantial doctrinal unity” is NOT what Christ prayed for. He prayed that we be one as He and the Father are one. St Paul encouraged the Brothers repeatedly to “Be of One Mind”.

We are Christians before we are Baptists, Presbyterians, Brethren, Methodists and so on, and we enjoy a spiritual sense of brotherhood. Many divisions among Christians have little or nothing to do with doctrine. Divisions between members of local churches, and between different churches, arise from our sinful nature: pride, envy, rebellion, etc.

I agree that there are substantial point of agreement across all truly Christian Churches. But, as Randy has already pointed out, there are indeed serious Doctrinal issues that seperate one Church from another.
Church Groups don’t generally seperate based on trivial issues, but rather on issues of teaching and an inability to resolve the differences from Scripture. These seperations do indeed arise from the sinful natures of pride, envy, rebellion, etc. These sins and the inability to resolve these things from Scripture once again putting Christ’s Words, “…Tell it To The Church…” squarely in the forefront.

Peace
James