What is the true church?

[bibleapologist]

Philthy,

Sounds wonderful but the Holy Spirit dwells in all believers, teaches all believers etc etc.and therefore there is nothing unique to your situation which would make your teaching any more valid than those believers who disagree with you.

Just as I cannot make a “blanket statement” that everyone that is led by the Spirit, allows the Holy Spirit to control every aspect of their life and teaching, you also cannot base your acceptance of truth on the writings of Ignatius, Augustine, Clement, Origen etc., these men may have been led by the Spirit in certain areas, but their teachings are obviously contrary to scripture in others. The scripture is the buffer which keeps us right concerning the truth.

So you believe the true church is supposed to be everyone independently proclaiming the truth that they believe the Holy Spirit has revealed to them while at the same time they are to do it recognizing that they have no authority to do so? Im sorry but that is just seriously lacking in reason, Scriptural support and practicality.

I never said that I or anyone else does not have the authority to preach the truth… I simply said that I have no authority of my own… neither did the Apostles. The authority to teach and preach the truth comes from God, in fact He commands it. And no, I also did not say that “everyone” in church is to proclaim the truth as they see it. There are certain people (ie. Bishops, teachers, preachers) who are set apart for teaching and preaching, and it is those people who have “shown themselves approved” for that purpose, and have proven themselves to be led by the Spirit.

Actually, that is precisely what he did. This illogical linguistic dance of yours aimed at altering the most simple statement to mean something you personally need it to mean simply doesnt fly IMHO. Most scholars Catholic and non-Catholic, disagree with you.

I don’t care if my interpretation doesn’t fly with you, and your humble opinioin has no place in a discussion regarding truth. The only way a person will come to the knowledge of truth is by a humble examination of the scripture and through revelation of the Holy Spirit

Yeah, this idea of different churches having different beliefs seems contradictory to Scripture. Paul specifically says in 1Cor 4:17 …“Just as I teach EVERYWHERE IN EVERY CHURCH”. The entire Church; all the individual churches received a UNITY of belief.

How can you honestly say that without viewing that verse with pre-concieved notions of “church government” Paul was alluding to a “universal church”. You are not humbly investigating scripture, you are arrogantly superimposing your ideas into scripture. In order to see the truth, you have to investigate scripture from a nuetral viewpoint.

a) More Scripture is forthcoming - ie, a NT;
b) The holy Spirit will guide each individual believer to know what that Scripture is; and
c) On the basis of individual revelation we are to be guided by Scripture apart from the Church?

One last simple question: Was Martin Luther a believer guided by the holy spirit - yes or no?

a) The Old Testament never concluded itself as the “complete canon”, The New Testament did. (Rev. 22:18,19)

b) (2 Tim. 3:16) (John 16:13) (Rom. 2:15)

c) (John 4:1) (Acts 8:35)

I believe that if Martin Luther had been guided by the Holy Spirit, he would not have tried to reform the Catholic Church problems… He would have left completely. By reading Luther’s preface in his catechism, he had no desire to change any of the teachings of the Catholic Church, or consider himself non-Catholic… He only wanted to release parishoners from the tyranny of the Papal office.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[HailMary]

I have the promise of the real thing.

…by whose authority?

 

[HailMary]

The local church, if the majority of the members are led by the Spirit, will make the correct judgement concerning one who is unrepentant.

Interesting how you turned Christianity into a pure Democracy. How do you qualify this?

The Greek word ekklesia being translated to Church only refers to a local assembly. If a unified church consisting of all Christians were intended in these verses, the Greek word “paneguris” would have been used, as it was in this verse…

I find it amusing how you need to have a doctorate in Greek to understand the bible. I wonder what all those poor people did before us when leisure to study another language was not available.

 

[oat_soda]

Earlier in your post you stated that the only sure rule for inspiration is by the transmission of the Apostles teaching, but now you say it is also the sacred scripture… the same sacred scripture you deemed “uninspired” against which you used the transmission of Apostolic teaching as a contrast.

let me clarify: the church is necessary to proclaim which scriptures are inspired. this is because there is no biblical table of contents. it wasn’t until the late 4th century at the council of rome and carthage that we see our present bible taking form and not until the council of trent was this cannon dogmatized. for luther got his bible from the catholic church, as do all protestants.

there is no sure criteria for establishing which book is inspired. even luther took out two books from the new testament–james and hebrews. the church established what was inspired according to whether the books represent apostolic tradition handed down through the apostles successors under the Holy Spirit.

for saying a book is inspired because it says so isn’t enough. the muslims and mormons say the same of their books. this is why Jesus ordained twelve apostles who later ordained successor bishops–to be custodians of revelation because without the church All other evidences fall short of the certainty and finality necessary to compel the absolute assent of faith.

this is why the church stands on three legs: sacred tradition, sacred scripture and the magisterium. all three are so closely united with the Holy Spirit that none of them can stand alone. in other words, no tradition and magesterium, no scripture, and vice versa.

again, we are a religion of the Word and not the book, but a God incarnate and living. through him was said everything during his entire life in actions, deeds and word. this revelation was made complete to the apostles under the Holy Spirit.

this sacred deposit of faith revealed to the apostles and entrusted to their successors can’t be transmitted through the ages by scripture alone because scriptures don’t interpret themselves, nor do the self testify as to being inspired. they are that living transmission of the word of God that was written down and therefore are organic and belong to the church.

 

[alexaustralia]

bibleapologist:

… you also cannot base your acceptance of truth on the writings of Ignatius, Augustine, Clement, Origen etc., these men may have been led by the Spirit in certain areas, but their teachings are obviously contrary to scripture in others.

The Church does not look at each of these men individually but it looks at them collectively. It is their common beliefs between the ECFs that is of interest. They give us a window into the past and being that they were separated by time and/or distance, common beliefs point towards an even earlier source than themselves. The fact that they hold a common belief indicates they did not conjure the belief up in their own but rather it was taught to them by an earlier authority. And this authority had to exist before the gap (distance and/or time) was large enough to prevent the transmission of the belief. Being that these people lived in the early centuries of the Christian faith the earlier source ultimately leads to the disciples of the apostles and the apostles themselves. If one were to have a contradictory interpretation of Scripture than that hold by the majority of ECFs then we know this belief is heretical. For we can be assured that those beliefs that the ECFs held in common are apostolic in nature.
As for the ECFs beliefs opposing Scripture…you mean your interpretation of it…they do not oppose Scripture they merely see it differently than you do and being that you cannot be humble enough to admit your error well then they must be the culprits.

There are certain people (ie. Bishops, teachers, preachers) who are set apart for teaching and preaching, and it is those people who have “shown themselves approved” for that purpose, and have proven themselves to be led by the Spirit.

What criteria is used to determine that they are indeed led by the Spirit and adequate to shepherd God’s flock? One criteria I would hold is that they cannot contradict Scripture nor the interpretation intended by the Apostles, whom they themselves transmitted to their disciples and is ultimetly evident in the common faith held by the ECFs…and the CC

The only way a person will come to the knowledge of truth is by a humble examination of the scripture and through revelation of the Holy Spirit

and I would add … a humble disposition to the interpretations given to us by those “certain people who were set apart for teaching and preaching” that have “proven themselves to be led by the Spirit” in the early church…ECFs

Alex

 

[bibleapologist]

Hailmary,

Interesting how you turned Christianity into a pure Democracy. How do you qualify this?

A demo-cracy is “all the people rule”. I didn’t turn Christianity into a pure democracy, I described an assembly of God’s people making decisions collectively under direction of the Holy Spirit.

God does not impose His will on humans. But at the same time God wants to be the “supreme ruler” in a Christian’s life. The only way to connect God’s supremacy with human free-will, is for humans to submit to God’s will. This is how the true church operates as a church who’s Head is Christ.

I find it amusing how you need to have a doctorate in Greek to understand the bible. I wonder what all those poor people did before us when leisure to study another language was not available.

Of course, you know a Doctorate in Greek isn’t necessary to understand the bible. Many people (apart from the Catholic Church) have interpreted truthfully the passages we have discussed, I came to the knowledge of truths like “independent churches” without ever being taught it by any person or school, and without the aid of the Greek language. But, it becomes necessary at times to revert to the Greek to explain word meanings and tenses to convince those who find it hard to believe because they have been indoctrinated with a counterfeit.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[bibleapologist]

oatsoda,

again, we are a religion of the Word and not the book, but a God incarnate and living. through him was said everything during his entire life in actions, deeds and word. this revelation was made complete to the apostles under the Holy Spirit.

Why is it then that you blindly follow a magisterium which “claims” they have the fullness of the Apostolic teaching, but you neglect the writings of those Apostles, and the accounts of Jesus’ teachings?

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[E.E.N.S]

oatsoda,

Why is it then that you blindly follow a magisterium which “claims” they have the fullness of the Apostolic teaching, but you neglect the writings of those Apostles, and the accounts of Jesus’ teachings?

John
www.gideonsword.net

As individuals we may neglect the teachings from time to time (as we are fallen and sinful human beings), but the Church, as the Mystical Body of Chris does not, and was promised by her Lord that she would be protected from teaching error by the guidence of the Holy Spirit.

Would you blindly follow Jesus?

 

[bibleapologist]

alexaustralia,

The Church does not look at each of these men individually but it looks at them collectively. It is their common beliefs between the ECFs that is of interest.

Still, you are trusting another man’s (or men’s) interpretation of the truth. It is very possible, that those particular men (Ignatius and Clement) just both happened to reason spiritual matters beyond the constraints of the Apostles teachings. There were, during this time a heavy influence of Skeptic and Stoic philosophy which could have influenced these ECF’s.

What you are referring to is the “theosophical wisdom” of the school of Alexandria. Yes, many of these theosophers did agree on many of the teachings that Catholics agree on today. But, for illustrative purposes consider Plato, his theory of forms had alot in common with Plotinus philosophy (Neo-platonism), which also was influential in Hegel’s metaphysical idealism, which gave rise to Marx’ philosophy and communism. How is the ECF’s philosophy any different, and can you prove the Alexandrian school of thought was any different than the philosophies I just mentioned?

Being that these people lived in the early centuries of the Christian faith the earlier source ultimately leads to the disciples of the apostles and the apostles themselves. If one were to have a contradictory interpretation of Scripture than that hold by the majority of ECFs then we know this belief is heretical. For we can be assured that those beliefs that the ECFs held in common are apostolic in nature.

That is a very naive statement. You have not proven in any way that the ECF’s were asserting an incorrupt interpretation of the Apostles’ teaching. You have only stated that you believe them… how can you undoubtedly be assured their interpretations or teachings were not corrupt?

What criteria is used to determine that they are indeed led by the Spirit and adequate to shepherd God’s flock? One criteria I would hold is that they cannot contradict Scripture nor the interpretation intended by the Apostles, whom they themselves transmitted to their disciples and is ultimetly evident in the common faith held by the ECFs…and the CC

Again, you are ASSUMING that the ECF’s recieved and interpreted the Apostolic teaching the way it was intended… and even if it was received incorrupt, you are assuming that it didn’t become corrupt by philosophy (Alexandria).

To accept the ECF’s collective interpretation of Apostolic teaching, is like examining a book; the construction of it, the type of paper, the nature of the ink used to print it… and so on to find out who published it. When a much easier method, and a more sure method would be to just look on the inside cover at the copyright. We have the Apostles writing, and the teachings of Jesus right in front of us… why won’t you use it, and find the truth for yourself?

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[bibleapologist]

EENS,

As individuals we may neglect the teachings from time to time (as we are fallen and sinful human beings), but the Church, as the Mystical Body of Chris does not, and was promised by her Lord that she would be protected from teaching error by the guidence of the Holy Spirit.

Unless you are claiming to be the Church of Philadelphia, I don’t see any scriptural allusion to a Church immune to false teaching.

In fact, just the opposite. There are many warnings throughout the New Testament to guard against false teaching, philosophy and vain deceit. If a church were immune to this “leavening” there would be no need for a warning…

Mat 24:11 And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.

2Pe 2:1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.
2Pe 2:2 And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[bibleapologist]

EENS,

“When the Holy Spirit finds Mary in a soul, He flies to it. He enters therein and communicates Himself to that soul in abundance.”
~St. Louis Grignion de Montfort

I know this is off topic, but what in the world does that mean? I thought Mary was only regarded as one of the saints. If Mary is in heaven, how could she be in someone’s soul while residing in heaven unless she was deity and had the same power as God with the Holy Spirit?

just asking…

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[HailMary]

EENS,

I know this is off topic, but what in the world does that mean? I thought Mary was only regarded as one of the saints. If Mary is in heaven, how could she be in someone’s soul while residing in heaven unless she was deity and had the same power as God with the Holy Spirit?

just asking…

John
www.gideonsword.net

With God, all things are possible. Mary is not someone you learn about, she is someone you experience her. Beg her Son for this.

“When Jesus therefore had seen his mother and the disciple standing whom he loved, he said to his mother: Woman, behold thy son. After that, he said to the disciple: Behold thy mother. And from that hour, the disciple took her to his own.” John 19:26-27

In the Gospel according to St. John this disciple is unnamed is because that diciple is you.

The mere fact that it is recorded in the Holy Bible that Jesus gave us His mother, at the most powerful moment in Jesus’ triumph over the Devil, can only be something perpetual, not just some temporal thing. If it truly was just temporal, why did the Holy Spirit instruct St. John to insert it there? Do you really think that would make sense on God’s part?

 

[HailMary]

EENS,

I know this is off topic, but what in the world does that mean? I thought Mary was only regarded as one of the saints. If Mary is in heaven, how could she be in someone’s soul while residing in heaven unless she was deity and had the same power as God with the Holy Spirit?

just asking…

John
www.gideonsword.net

I believe what St. Louis had in mind is that, just as the Holy Spirit takes delight when He dwells in Our Lady, He will also take delight in a soul that is in love with Her.

 

[Philthy]

Philthy,
The scripture is the buffer which keeps us right concerning the truth.

You are too funny. The Scripture is the buffer which keeps us right? Just what exactly do you think has caused the greatest divisions and abberations of truth in the course of Christianity? It would be the belief that by Scripture alone we will know the truth. Sorry John, but I dont know what a buffer is in the context that you used it, and Scripture alone has not kept us right. Scripture needs to be upheld by a pillar and foundation which the Church functions as.
BA:

There are certain people …who are set apart for teaching and preaching, …who have “shown themselves approved” for that purpose, and have proven themselves to be led by the Spirit.

Will they be led to teach contradictory truths by the Holy Spirit John? :nope: And when they do teach contradictory truths from their interpretation of holy Scripture what will we use as the gold standard of truth? Our own interpretation of Scripture? We’re going in circles John.
ba:

I don’t care if my interpretation doesn’t fly with you, and your humble opinioin has no place in a discussion regarding truth.

This is not a particularly clever way of changing the subject that Jesus did, in fact, say that he would build his Church on Peter. nIce try though!
And for the record, my opinion absolutely has a place in the discussion - in fact it is a requirement. How else can a discussion occur without an exchange of opinions? What certainly is irrelevant is whether you “care” - I would like to think that you do, but I can address your arguments either way.
ba:

How can you honestly say that without viewing that verse with pre-concieved notions of “church government” Paul was alluding to a “universal church”.

I didnt say anything about church government nor did I comment on a universal church - I would appreciate it if you didnt use quotation marks to attribute to me something I did not say.
ba:

You are not humbly investigating scripture, you are arrogantly superimposing your ideas into scripture. In order to see the truth, you have to investigate scripture from a nuetral viewpoint.

Perhaps its time for your nap? Ad hominum is a sure sign that one has nothing of substance left to offer.
I had asked you for a Scriptural reference to indicate that
a) More Scripture is forthcoming - ie, a NT; and you responded with;
ba:

a)The Old Testament never concluded itself as the “complete canon”, The New Testament did. (Rev. 22:18,19)

You mean there is no Scripture (OT) which indicates that more Scripture (ie the NT) is forthcoming? So why do you believe that the NT is Scripture? In addition, the Rev verses you cited dont address whether there might be more NT scripture, they simply warn against adding to the book of Revelation per se.

I also asked for a Scriptural reference to indicate that
b) The holy Spirit will guide each individual believer to know what that Scripture is; and you supplied
ba:

b) (2 Tim. 3:16)

Nope, this one doesnt speak to guiding to a knowledge of what writings are Scripture

(John 16:13)

There is no mention of Scripture in this verse John, nor is it clear who the “you” is.

(Rom. 2:15)

I dont see how this has anything to do with the topic other than having the term “gospel” in it. I appreciate the fact that you bothered to answer the question, but these verses simply dont construct the truth you are professing.
Lastly I was looking for a Scriptural reference to indicate that
c) On the basis of individual revelation we are to be guided by Scripture apart from the Church.You supplied
ba:

c) (John 4:1)

I’ll presume you meant 1John 4:1. Lets look at it and see how it applies to the above: “Beloved, do not trust every spirit but test the spirits to see whether they belong to God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world” All I can say is Baffling…lets try your last chance here…

(Acts 8:35)

I think this is your best effort! I dont really think that it addresses the issue, however, and you seem to ignore that Philip was one of the Apostles - that was an “office” in the Church.Right?
Thank you for taking the time to reply to my posts

 

[bibleapologist]

Hailmary,

I believe what St. Louis had in mind is that, just as the Holy Spirit takes delight when He dwells in Our Lady, He will also take delight in a soul that is in love with Her.

I was so appalled with your response to my question, I started a new thread because I think this topic needs some serious discussion, and since it is off topic we shouldn’t do it here.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[bibleapologist]

Philthy,

my opinion absolutely has a place in the discussion - in fact it is a requirement. How else can a discussion occur without an exchange of opinions? What certainly is irrelevant is whether you “care” - I would like to think that you do, but I can address your arguments either way.

This is precisely why our conversation keeps going in circles… I present the truth and give scriptural references to those spiritual truths… and you can’t see them because your blind to spiritual things. So, in order to defend your intellect you mock me (or the truth that I speak) and give me your opinions.

Like I said, if we are going to conversate over the TRUTH, we cannot interject our opinions or personal philosophies… you’re right, I don’t care about your opinions as they don’t add anything to truth.

Do you have any spiritual truth to add to the conversation, or can you only scoff at the truth?

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[StFrancissaveus]

Looking at that page I personally found this to be interesting.

Q Don’t these people have to repent to be forgiven?

A The answer is no. This idea that a person must repent of thier sins to be forgiven is intellectually satisfying (it makes us feel like we have done something to “make up” for what we have done wrong). This idea is really only man’s philosophy though, it is not an idea that is derived from the Bible.

HAHAHAHAHA!!! That is so unBiblical that it doesn’t even merit discussion. But I am going to say this. what would be the point of Jesus’ “saving death” if we didn’t need to repent of sin? But in any case, this has probably been belabored to death but I like it. Matt 16:18-21 is where we receive the gospel of Christ’s Church. He tells Peter that he will head Christ’s Church on Earth. Not Christ’s churches, but CHURCH. he gave Peter (and his descendants) the power to “bind and loose” in both Earth and Heaven. He also says in Matthew 28:19 “I will be with MY CHURCH always.”

 

[alexaustralia]

We have the Apostles writing, and the teachings of Jesus right in front of us… why won’t you use it, and find the truth for yourself?

I read it, study it, analyse it, pray about it and at the end I get a different interpretation than you plus I have the bonus that it is pretty much identical to the faith of early believers reassuring me I have not gone into a tangent. The only way you can assert that Catholicism is in error is if you have an independent criteria to measure it against…a standard that one can compare it against. In your case you measure it against your own beliefs as though your beliefs were the norm by which others faith has to measure up. You cannot state “It has to measure up with Scripture” because then there is no disagreement. We use Scripture as interpreted for 2000 years in the Catholic faith and we see Scripture attests that our beliefs are correct. The only objection then is between 2000 years of constant interpretation with the interpretation of an individual…

Also regarding trusting the ECFs and the early Church in general…the major problems you had were.

1. Trusting someone else’s word is correct
2. External sources/philosophies could have influenced their beliefs
3. Corrupt teaching could have crept in

Now my question to you is, please tell my how you know that the Bible is the word of God? Please refrain from looking back at history or what early Christians believed Scripture to be as you cannot

1. Trust someone else’s word is correct specially with something so valuable
2. External sources/philosophies could have influenced their decision as to what to include as Scripture
   3)Corrupt teachings could have lead to Scripture being re-written to fit their beliefs … perhaps the Trinity came to be for the need for polytheism?

I would like to know what steps, by yourself and without depending on any one else’s opinion, took in order to deduct that the Bible is the word of God?

BTW how do you know that in your interpretation you did not

1. Trust someone else’s word
2. External sources did not influence your decisions
3. You do not err in your interpretation

Alex

 

[Philthy]

Philthy,
This is precisely why our conversation keeps going in circles… I present the truth and give scriptural references to those spiritual truths… and you can’t see them because your blind to spiritual things. So, in order to defend your intellect you mock me (or the truth that I speak) and give me your opinions.

I mock you? That’s interesting John - I dont see it that way. I see you avoiding the direct objections I brought up - again. You gave me some Scripture verses that require a considerable amount of explaining to relate to the topic at hand. You offered no explanations whatsoever and , again, resort to ad hominum attack by insisting that the problem is me because I am spiritually blind. That type of attitude is what makes us go around in circles, not my lack of spiritual insight. I ask you a simple question like, “How do we know that any of the Gospels are Scripture apart from the authority of the Church?” And you provide verses which simply dont tell us that the Gospels are Scripture and you accuse me of being spiritually blind. Spiritual blindness is not something to ridicule, it is something worthy of compassion yet you seem angry. Anger certainly isnt a fruit of the Spirit and, as you correctly quoted Scripture saying, we are to “test” every spirit.
And while we are on the topic of Scripture verses and spiritual blindness, I cannot help but mention the crystal clear verses which have been provided in the past to you which you twist in the name of spirituality. John 6:63 and James 2:24 immediately come to mind. Somehow when the verse is very clear but you disagree with the plain understanding of it you are right but when you provide a verse which doesnt even begin to explain itself in how it relates to the topic at hand and I dont see your point you accuse me of spiritual blindness. Interesting.
ba:

Like I said, if we are going to conversate over the TRUTH, we cannot interject our opinions or personal philosophies… you’re right, I don’t care about your opinions as they don’t add anything to truth.

Do you have any spiritual truth to add to the conversation, or can you only scoff at the truth?

John
www.gideonsworld.net

I dont distinguish between spiritual and actual truth and I will humbly offer my opinion only if it is welcome. I dont believe I have scoffed at the truth, I believe I have challenged your opinions and it has aggravated you because my challenges appear to be beyond your ability to refute them. In addition, my unwillingness to accept your personal testimony as the truth seems to be a situation you are not entirely comfortable facing and which you seem to lack charity in. I am sorry that that has upset you.

 

[valient_Lucy]

Philthy,

This is precisely why our conversation keeps going in circles… I present the truth and give scriptural references to those spiritual truths… and you can’t see them because your blind to spiritual things. So, in order to defend your intellect you mock me (or the truth that I speak) and give me your opinions.

Like I said, if we are going to conversate over the TRUTH, we cannot interject our opinions or personal philosophies… you’re right, I don’t care about your opinions as they don’t add anything to truth.

Do you have any spiritual truth to add to the conversation, or can you only scoff at the truth?

John
www.gideonsword.net

“Luke, you’re going to find that many of the truths we cling to, depend greatly on our own point of view.” Return of the Jedi

This quote also applies to our interpretation of Scripture. What may be the “obvious” interpretation may be completly contrary to what another person thinks. Luther and Calvin read the same Bible, yet one believed in the Real Presence, and Calvin did not.

The reason that the conversations go in circles is that BOTH you and other posters refuse to acknowledge the possibillity that they could be wrong. Notice that this is a two way street. If the debate is to go anywhere, you will ALSO have to admit that your interpretation of the Bible may not be the truth of the Holy Spirit, but simply your own interpretation. Who knows? Maybe some other Catholic posters will be willing to do the same.