What is the true church?

[bibleapologist]

Philthy,

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.

I do believe you are blind to spiritual things… As I have many times on this forum, quoted scripture as it relates to spiritual things and I get responses like “those verses do nothing to prove your point”.

I could have elaborated on those particular verses, but when conversating with an unbeliever it is impossible to discuss spiritual truths. I am NOT frustrated by an inability to refute your claims… I have done that. I abhor those things that are keeping you from seeing the truth; ie, the counterfeit revelation (mass), the counterfeit communion with Christ (eucharist), the arrogance of the ECF’s, and the false security of the Catholic Church.

I realize that you have no desire to see the truth, but only to remain in the security of the Catholic Church’s claims that they are entrusted with the Apostolic truth. But, for benefit of the others who read this thread, I will explain my scriptural references to your questions…

(continued on next post)

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[bibleapologist]

(continued from last post)

Your questions were…

a) More Scripture is forthcoming - ie, a NT;

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

Your reply to my answer was:

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.

You basically replied to that statement yourself, The book of Revelation was divinely inspired, and placed at the end of the canon of scripture by that same divine power. Those verses actually do address whether there might be more NT scripture… if anyone tries to add to the scripture these plagues will be added to them.

b) The holy Spirit will guide each individual believer to know what that Scripture is; and

b) The scriptural references you asked for… and that I gave were… (2 Tim. 3:16) (John 16:13) (Rom. 2:15)

Your reply to my answer was:

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.

2 Tim 3:16, although is not a proof that the Holy Spirit would guide us to know what inspired scripture is… since it is accepted by Catholics as Apostolic teaching (from Paul) it should be an indication that all scripture is in fact inspired - John 16:13 “Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth…” I’m not sure, but I think this is EXACTLY what you were asking for. Jesus said the Spirit of truth would come and guide us in all truth (and yes, even as to what scripture is inspired). Romans 2:15 tells us that the Gentiles, who didn’t have the written law, have the works of the law written in their hearts; and their conscience also bears witness… meaning they are aware of the law (truth), and are convicted concerning it, which is an indication that they would be “persuaded” by the Holy Spirit to discern authentic inspired scripture.

c) On the basis of individual revelation we are to be guided by Scripture apart from the Church?

c) The scriptural references you asked for, that I gave were… (John 4:1) (Acts 8:35)

Your reply to my answer was…

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

Your right… I did mean 1 John 4:1, it was a typo… thank for catching that. That statement by the Apostle John was directed to individuals, not the Church as a whole, or to a magisterium. We know this because the epistle was written to the Parthian Jews who professed faith in Christ, and it was not written to Peter (your so called Apostolic predecessor). John plead with these Jews to not trust every spirit, but try every spirit…, he did not plead with the Jews to trust the magisterium as the security for truth, but again, plead with them to try the spirits for themselves… individually (that indicates they had spiritual discernment by the Holy Spirit without guidance from the church).
Acts 8:35 is the account of Philip preaching Jesus from the book of Isaiah (which is scripture). Philip, an Apostle (representative of the Church), did not proclaim the truth as it came from himself alone even with his apostolic authority and teaching… he referred to the scripture. The Catholic Church bases their “truth” as predicated by Apostolic teaching, but in Acts 8:35 Philip did not qualify his teaching of Jesus on his Apostolic authority, but he qualified his teaching by the scripture alone.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[oat_soda]

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?

this is a fair question. for if i followed blindly the catholic church, i would be no better than a mormon or muslim, not that i am.

this comes down to faith and reason. the two never contradict. the church’s teachings are all entirely reasonable with all of the evidence i have been exposed to. in fact, our faith goes beyond reason alone and expands it. the two never contradict.

this is exactly why i am not a fundamentalist: God is perfect reason. it is unreasonable to me that God would leave a book to be our only infallible source of revelation (sola scriptura) for the following reasons:

1. 
   *]the bible doesn’t teach sola scriptura
   *]the bible didn’t come with a table of contents
   *]the printing press wasn’t invented until the 16th century
   *]everyone would be required to be experts in biblical studies and well versed in ancient greek and hebrew
   *]there are as many interpretations as there are denominations
   this list excludes all of the scriptural and church father evidence which supports the catholic position.

 

[Church_Militant]

I do believe you are blind to spiritual things

… As I have many times on this forum, quoted scripture as it relates to spiritual things and I get responses like “those verses do nothing to prove your point”.And we could make that same assertion concerning you John.

The fact is that you offer verses and passages of the Bible and then tell us what they mean as if you are correct, and frankly that has never been proved. You may feel that your opinions are correct, but that does not make it so by any means. Many other people of various “Christian” groups say something similar about their own teachings, and we Catholics reject them as well for the very same reasons that we have given you.

To assert that we are “blind to spiritual things” is (IMO) a tactless way of expressing your frustration that perhaps your theological arguments are less persuasive than you seem to think they are. Sorry about that, but as you see, we are none of us the Biblically ignorant Catholics, blindly following the magisterium of the church that you seem to have expected to find here.

I could have elaborated on those particular verses, **but when conversating with an unbeliever it is impossible to discuss spiritual truths. **

I am NOT frustrated by an inability to refute your claims… I have done that.And so now you resort to an allegation that we are unbelievers, i.e. non-Christians? That’s pretty weak. Every aspect of our most holy faith rests upon our faith in the sacrifice of Christ and our following Him. Fortunately for us Catholics, you are not the Almighty and so, I for one, feel no fear from your opinion. I disagree with you on many things, but I am not prepared to make such an assertion concerning you. I am not your judge.

I abhor those things that are keeping you from seeing the truth;

John, were you born without tact or concern for the feelings of other human beings or is this something that your religious training has bred into you? If I had said something like this to you, would you not have taken offense? (I do!)

None of the things that you mention are impediments to my seeing the truth. What is doing the same to you?

ie, the counterfeit revelation (mass),

The Mass is not a revelation to begin with and so your thinking on that is in error right off the top. Frankly, our liturgy is more scripture based than yours is, which you would know if you had ever darkened the door of a Mass to objectively observe it.

the counterfeit communion with Christ (eucharist),

There is no “counterfeit communion” and I have already shown you the scriptural basis for the Eucharist and the fact that it is based on the plain sense of the New Testament. If you disagree, fine, but you cannot validly assert that you base your own “order of service” on anything that is older than 500 years ago, and no matter how hard you try to, you cannot provide examples of anything similar prior to that. In fact, the reformer’s services were liturgically similar to our own and many still are.

the arrogance of the ECF’s,

This is weird…the ECF were arrogant? I wonder how you would have the gall to assert that to the face of Polycarp, Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, as they each walked forward to lay down their lives for the faith that you now say that you “abhor”. Who smacks of arrogance then John?

and the false security of the Catholic Church.

This is laughable. On the one hand you will tell us that we cannot profess eternal security, and then on this hand you assert that we are relying upon the Catholic Church for some security…

There is greater assurance of belief in my Catholic faith than I ever had before in any n-C church where every person could offer their personal interpretations of the Word of God, no matter how far fetched, and at the same time assert that theirs was Holy Spirit inspired. To me that is like a theological wandering in the desert.
(Cont’d)

 

[Church_Militant]

I realize that you have no desire to see the truth, but only to remain in the security of the Catholic Church’s claims that they are entrusted with the Apostolic truth.

Again…do you feel that being offensive serves to glorify Our Lord whom you tell us you are a minister of? This kind of rhetoric is precisely why so many Catholics cop an attitude with n-Cs who try to “witness” to us. Is this how you were trained to share your faith? Is this how you train others to share theirs?

It is because of my “desire to see the truth” that I am Catholic, John. If I have as diligently searched the scriptures as any Berean and discovered that the Catholic Church is precisely what it claims to be and my walk with Our Lord is more effective and blessed than ever before, then just how can you attempt to idict me as non-Christian?

You have totally misunderstood the faith of Catholics here. PLEASE…for the love of God, don’t go out and try to tell your congregation and others that you know what Catholics believe, because John, it just ain’t so.

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

You basically replied to that statement yourself, The book of Revelation was divinely inspired, and placed at the end of the canon of scripture by that same divine power. Those verses actually do address whether there might be more NT scripture… if anyone tries to add to the scripture these plagues will be added to them.

Boy… I wouldn’t tell any of my Hasidic Jewish friends that. They’ll “go off” on you.

As for the book of Revelation…that verse reads as follows,
18: I warn every one who hears** the words of the prophecy of this book: if any one adds to them**, God will add to him the plagues described in this book,
19: and if any one takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.

It plainly says that it applies only to the book of that prophecy. To assert that it applies to the entire Bible or even just the New Testament is to go beyond what is written. (1st Corinthians 4:6)

The rest of your 2nd post is more directed to just Philthy and I’ll let him deal with that. I just wanted to point out these things that I have because I feel that though you are sincere, you are now becoming frustrated and thoughtless in your responses to us here.

Just like the thread that you opened on the Blessed Virgin is a good example. You chose a title that has offended many Catholics. I choose to give you the benefit of the doubt and hope that you were just thoughtless and did not intend do offend the way you have.
Pax tecum,

 

[alexaustralia]

(Rev. 22:18-19)
Let us assume that (Rev 22:18,19) apply to the whole Bible. But even then you cannot claim we are disobeying Scripture when Scripture itself attests to authoritative Tradition (2 Thess 2:15, 2 Tim 1:13-2:2). Rev 22:18,19 is only claiming that outside oral or written authoritative instruction nothing else by man should be regarded as inspired.

**(2 Tim. 3:16) **
Looking back at Timothy we read in
2 Tim 1:13 “Hold the pattern of sound words which thou hast heard from me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.”
Here Paul is indicating, even though Scripture is at his disposal, to hold the pattern of sound words. 2 Tim. 3:16-17 reads
“All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work”.
So the goal is to be an equipped/fit/approved man of God. This language is very similar to 2Tim 2:15 were we read
“Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth”.
Here we see Paul exhorting Timothy to accurately handle “the word of truth”. One cannot limit this to mean Scripture as Paul uses this term for oral instruction. In Eph 1:13
“In him you also, who have heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and have believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory”.
Hence one can be a equipped/fit/approved man of God by holding to the oral “word of truth”. Which will lead to “believe(d) in him” and be “sealed with … the Holy Spirit”.
Ultimately Paul in 2 Tim 3:16-17 is not limiting Timothy to written Scripture but he is limiting him to Apostolic teaching both written and verbal.

(John 16:13)
"But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come.”
The Holy Spirit indeed guides us into all the truth. This however does not mean that by our own affirmation we can state that we possess the truth. Please invite 2 “Sola Scriptura” Christians, one holds to infant baptism and the other does not. Their belief is solely based on Sola Scriptura, and both hold that the Holy Spirit has guided them to their respective “truths”. Whom will you call a liar both in their interpretation and in their declaration that it was the Holy Spirit that guided the person? and by what standard did you come to that conclusion?
Please also read 1 Cor 11:34 Eph 3:3 2John 12 3John13 2Thess 2:15

(Rom. 2:14-15)
“For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, 15in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them,”
Here Jesus is telling his listeners that even Gentiles, though deprived of the gospel, have inscribed in their hearts the moral law (good and evil) And their conscience will bring witness as to where their actions stand. And if we look at verse 13 it says “… but the doers of the Law will be justified”. Meaning that those that, by no fault of their own, have not heard the gospel but are “doers of the Law will be justified” as dictated by their hearts as their conscience dictates.
(Rom 2:14-15) has nothing to do with the guidance of the Holy Spirit to understand or properly interpret divine revelation.

cont…

 

[alexaustralia]

cont…

**(1John 4:1-2) **
*“Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God;” *
Indeed each individual must test if a man preaching is from God. What standard can be used, well Scripture is one, but then there are also scripture verses like 1Cor 11:2 “Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you.”that state to hold firmly to tradition and we also have Luke 1:3-4
“it seemed fitting …, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.”
Here again we see unison in the importance of written instruction and what has “been taught” verbally. Ultimately what one has to ask in ‘testing the spirits’ is not “is it written?” but rather “is it apostolic?”

(Acts 8:35)
“Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning from this Scripture he preached Jesus to him.”
Here from Philip’s actions you attest the authority of Scripture alone. However let us look just a couple of verses back in Acts 8:30-31
“**Philip ran up and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and said, “Do you understand what you are reading?” 31And he said, “Well, how could I, unless someone guides me?” And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.”
So here we see that the Ethiopian could not rely solely on his own interpretation of Scripture by himself. Rather the Ethiopian admits that he cannot properly interpret Scripture unless someone guides him. The guide was not the Holy Spirit affirming internally his interpretations. Rather it was a man, Philip, who had to teach the Ethiopian how to read Scripture properly. Now you may want to state that only after he was baptised would the Holy Spirit be able to guide the Ethiopian, however would he be allowed to contradict what Philip had taught him? Absolutely not! So again here we see the importance of a physical authority to instruct new believers into the faith both by oral and written tradition.

 

[Philthy]

Philthy,
I do believe you are blind to spiritual things… As I have many times on this forum, quoted scripture as it relates to spiritual things and I get responses like “those verses do nothing to prove your point”.

I could have elaborated on those particular verses, but when conversating with an unbeliever it is impossible to discuss spiritual truths.

I am NOT frustrated by an inability to refute your claims… I have done that. I abhor those things that are keeping you from seeing the truth; ie, the counterfeit revelation (mass), the counterfeit communion with Christ (eucharist), the arrogance of the ECF’s, and the false security of the Catholic Church.

I realize that you have no desire to see the truth, but only to remain in the security of the Catholic Church’s claims that they are entrusted with the Apostolic truth.

John
www.gideonsword.net

IMHO I think you rely too much on the excuse that others are spiritually blind and that is what prevents them from seeing the spiritual truth which you see.
In addition, you seem to lump your opinions in with your “spiritual truths”. Continuing to assault my integrity by claiming that I :

• am “spiritually blind”,
• am an “unbeliever” and that
• I “have no desire to see the truth”
  simply because I engaged in a debate with you is a very poor witness of your own faith journey IMHO. I will thank you in advance for attempting to address the issues which I touched upon in my last two posts but I will leave it to others to respond to them as Church Militant has already done. I dont see the point in continuing an exchange with you when you think so poorly of me. So I will bow out and thank you again for trying to help me.

 

[Odell]

Ordained Leaders Share in Jesus’ Ministry and Authority
Matt. 10:1,40 - Jesus declares to His apostles, “he who receives you, receives Me, and he who rejects you, rejects Me and the One who sent Me.” Jesus freely gives His authority to the apostles in order for them to effectively convert the world.

Matt. 16:19; 18:18 - the apostles are given Christ’s authority to make visible decisions on earth that will be ratified in heaven. God raises up humanity in Christ by exalting his chosen leaders and endowing them with the authority and grace they need to bring about the conversion of all. Without a central authority in the Church, there would be chaos (as there is in Protestantism).

Luke 9:1; 10:19 - Jesus gives the apostles authority over the natural and the supernatural (diseases, demons, serpents, and scorpions).

Luke 10:16 - Jesus tells His apostles, “he who hears you, hears Me.” When we hear the bishops’ teaching on the faith, we hear Christ Himself.

Luke 22:29 - the Father gives the kingdom to the Son, and the Son gives the kingdom to the apostles. The gift is transferred from the Father to the Son to the apostles.

Num 16:28 - the Father’s authority is transferred to Moses. Moses does not speak on his own. This is a real transfer of authority.

John 5:30 - similarly, Jesus as man does nothing of His own authority, but He acts under the authority of the Father.

John 7:16-17 - Jesus as man states that His authority is not His own, but from God. He will transfer this authority to other men.

John 8:28 - Jesus says He does nothing on His own authority. Similarly, the apostles will do nothing on their own authority. Their authority comes from God.

John 12:49 - The father’s authority is transferred to the Son. The Son does not speak on his own. This is a transfer of divine authority.

John 13:20 - Jesus says, “he who receives anyone who I send, receives Me.” He who receives the apostles, receives Christ Himself. He who rejects the apostles and their successors, rejects Christ.

John 14:10 - Jesus says the Word He speaks is not His own authority, but from the Father. The gift is from the Father to Jesus to the apostles.

John 16:14-15 - what the Father has, the Son has, and the Son gives it to the apostles. The authority is not lessened or mitigated.

John 17:18; 20:21 - as the Father sends the Son, the Son sends the apostles. The apostles have divinely appointed authority.

Acts 20:28 - the apostles are shepherds and guardians appointed by the Holy Spirit / 1 Peter 2:25 - Jesus is the Shepherd and Guardian. The apostles, by the power of the Spirit, share Christ’s ministry and authority.

Jer. 23:1-8; Ezek. 34:1-10 - the shepherds must shepherd the sheep, or they will be held accountable by God.

Eph. 2:20 - the Christian faith is built upon the foundation of the apostles. The word “foundation” proves that it does not die with apostles, but carries on through succession.

Eph. 2:20; Rev. 21:9,14 - the words “household,” “Bride of the Lamb,” the “new Jerusalem” are all metaphors for the Church whose foundation is the apostles.

Jesus founded his Church on the apostles and gave them AUTHORITY! it is plane as day. just read scripture for your self.

By the way I desire the truth. And have prayed over it. I have read scripture. and your post John. But you have no argument. and I am glad you post this on your web page. because hopfully your guest will be guided by the holy spirt right into the authority that he founded his church on, the apostles who have passed this athority on.

I want them to know they are welcome any day right here on the forums.

 

[bibleapologist]

Odell,

You have certainly given many scriptural references to the Apostles as ordained men who share in Jesus ministry… but most everyone who comes to these forums already agree with your (and the Catholic) position regarding Apostolic authority…

There has been another thread on Apostolic succession, and the Catholic Church has no basis whatsoever for (by their own will) continuing the Apostolic office. Maybe that is what you should have spent all that time looking up scriptures to prove.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[bibleapologist]

alexaustralia,

I appreciate your resolve to prove me wrong, but I think you are being over zealous by refuting “every” scripture reference I gave. By attempting to refute every aspect of my answers to the questions that were submitted to me, you have effectually proven my point even further.

These were the original questions submitted by Philthy, (which by the way, he did not attempt to argue my answers)…

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?

I have shown scriptural evidence for each of these topics.

In your post, you only managed to prove that there are other means of transferring truth… which by the way, I never denied… in fact, by using those same references I proved that scripture is not the only source of truth or revelation, but as the infallible Word of God it will not contradict any other revelation (revealing) of truth, or guidance by the Holy Spirit.

I think you may have missed my point… I was not attempting to prove “sola scriptura”

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[bibleapologist]

Church Militant,

It seems lately the tone of your posts have been that of one who is offended. I don’t intend to offend anyone, and I am not here to make anyone angry. But, I do think that because I have reasonably contradicted that which you hold dear, I have effectually threatened the security you find in the Catholic Church and it’s teachings. I completely understand your defensive position.

I understand you trust…

1. The teaching mantle you believe has been handed down through Apostolic succession.
2. The eucharist as the method to receive Christ.
3. The Early Church Father’s writings.

You also said…

This is weird…the ECF were arrogant? I wonder how you would have the gall to assert that to the face of Polycarp, Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, as they each walked forward to lay down their lives for the faith that you now say that you “abhor”.

The ECF’s you have been quoting have apostacized, and yes… apostacy is arrogant. Apostacy is a decision to trust your own wisdom while disregarding the widom of God. I know, (and I didn’t claim) all of the Early Church fathers were not heretics or arrogant, but some of them were. Because they were martyred for their faith doesn’t mean they weren’t heretics though.

The Waldensians were according to the Catholic Church heretics, and thousands of them were slaughtered for their faith, would you claim they were arrogantly denying the teaching of the Catholic Church? Many Catholics on these forums have said just that.

Saul was also very offended by the early Christians in Damascus. It’s time for you to stop “kicking against the pricks” Church Militant.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[alexaustralia]

John,

Basically you are saying that the previous Scripture references show forth the following

a) More Scripture is forthcoming - ie, a NT;

I don’t see how any of the Scripture passages you provided show forth this. You had previously used Rev 22:18-19 to illustrate that the cannon ends with the book of Revelation however I showed that the cannon ends with Apostolic Tradition (verbal and written)

b) The holy Spirit will guide each individual believer to know what that Scripture is; and

None of the passages attest to what Scripture is or make reference that the Holy Spirit will indicate to an individual what is Scripture. The only point that if misinterpreted can attest to this is John16:13. But as I stated before

(John 16:13)
*…*This however does not mean that by our own affirmation we can state that we possess the truth.

The passage never attests how the Holy Spirit will guide us to the truth. He could do it by leading a person to the CC and Apostolic Tradition rather than individualistic interpretation.

c) On the basis of individual revelation we are to be guided by Scripture apart from the Church

By using the same Scripture and by adding context to others this is what I previously had to say.

(Rev. 22:18-19)
… Scripture itself attests to authoritative Tradition (2 Thess 2:15, 2 Tim 1:13-2:2)…

**(2 Tim. 3:16) **
…Ultimately Paul in 2 Tim 3:16-17 is not limiting Timothy to written Scripture but he is limiting him to Apostolic teaching both written and verbal.

(Rom. 2:14-15)
… has nothing to do with the guidance of the Holy Spirit to understand or properly interpret divine revelation.

*(1John 4:1-2) **
…1Cor 11:2 “… and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you.”
… Luke 1:3-4“… that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.*”
… Ultimately what one has to ask in ‘testing the spirits’ is not “is it written?” but rather “is it apostolic?”

(Acts 8:35)
… Rather it was a man, Philip, who had to teach the Ethiopian how to read Scripture properly… So again here we see the importance of a physical authority to instruct new believers into the faith both by oral and written tradition.

I believe you missed the point. All these passages attest to holding fast to Written and Verbal Apostolic Tradition and that as seen in Acts8 individuals should consult the visible Church hierarchy to obtain proper interpretation of Scripture.

Apostolic Tradition is seen perfectly in the teachings of the Catholic Church and in an imperfect form within the early writings of the ECFs. The consistency of belief shows that the CC has obeyed Paul and held to the Traditions they were given and passed down to the next generation what they were taught. And as stated before we do not ignore Scripture but merely continue to interpret it as the Apostles and then their successors originally taught us.

 

[alexaustralia]

… Apostacy is a decision to trust your own wisdom while disregarding the widom of God.

If you were honest you would see that this is exactly what you are doing. You narrow the fullness of the Scriptures to the limits of your own wisdom and understanding. You reject anything that contradicts your wisdom as though Scripture could be grasped in its fullness by an individual. In order to justify your wisdom and elevate it from its limitations you declare that the Holy Spirit revealed the truths to you. But by what measure can you discern what is fancy and what is real?

The CC does not follow the ECFs . The CC follow Apostolic Tradition and history attests that we have been doing this as the Apostolic Tradition that the ECFs held with such esteem is still preserved in the CC; hence no contradiction in doctrine. You make the erroneous assumption that the ECFs followed your convictions that they could ignore the authority of the Church and go interpret Scripture at their liking and declare that the Holy Spirit is guiding them. This was an unkown concept to the early Church.

 

[Odell]

alexaustralia,

In your post, you only managed to prove that there are other means of transferring truth… which by the way, I never denied… in fact, by using those same references I proved that scripture is not the only source of truth or revelation, but as the infallible Word of God it will not contradict any other revelation (revealing) of truth, or guidance by the Holy Spirit.

John
www.gideonsword.net

You have not told us anything in our faith that contradicts the bible. We agree with you on that one.

Odell,

You have certainly given many scriptural references to the Apostles as ordained men who share in Jesus ministry… but most everyone who comes to these forums already agree with your (and the Catholic) position regarding Apostolic authority…

There has been another thread on Apostolic succession, and the Catholic Church has no basis whatsoever for (by their own will) continuing the Apostolic office. Maybe that is what you should have spent all that time looking up scriptures to prove.
John
www.gideonsword.net

Ok you agree with the authority. So do you believe that the authority died with the apostles? I dont get what you are saying.
Do you not think that the True Church would claim to have Apostolic succession?

I have one question that is you have not told us who is the true Church and why? We have at least claimed to be and have giving reasons why. so what is your opinion on this who is the true Church? John.

 

[valient_Lucy]

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

Catholics neglect the Bible? That’s news to me.
Can you provide evidence of that claim?

 

[valient_Lucy]

The ECF’s you have been quoting have apostacized, and yes… apostacy is arrogant. Apostacy is a decision to trust your own wisdom while disregarding the widom of God. I know, (and I didn’t claim) all of the Early Church fathers were not heretics or arrogant, but some of them were. Because they were martyred for their faith doesn’t mean they weren’t heretics though.

John
www.gideonsword.net

You say that even dying for Christ is no assurance that a person has not fallen into heresy or apostacy. If that is the case, what assurance can you possibly have that you have not done the same? You say you are being led by the Holy Spirit, yet it doesn’t seem to occur to you that men such as Polycarp or Ignatius likely felt the same way. So, if men such as Polycarp and Ignatius could be mistaken in regards to being led by the Holy Spirit, how can you be sure that you are not mistaken too?

 

[Ignatius]

since we didnt get into to much detail of who is the true church and why bibleapologist believes he is the true church. in the thread he got started for fearing that we was geting off topic.

I thought it would be nice to start the thred he said he would be happy to respond too.

Now I want be able to respond much. I only do one or two threads a day. But I deffently will stop in and see what bibleapologist has to say on this issue. And how Catholics will respond to him.

thanks

Discerning the Church which Christ founded.

There are a few things we know about this true church:

1. It was built by Jesus Christ himself (Matt 16:18) which means that the “true church” must be about 2000 years old.
2. Jesus only built ONE church (Matt 16:18).
3. This church is the God -ordained upholder, protector and defender of the truth (1 Tim 3:15).
4. This church is the fullness of Christ (Eph 1:22-23) which means that it is also the fullness of truth (John 14:6).
5. The unity of this church will be proof to the world that Jesus was sent by God (John 17:21,23). In order for this unity to be seen by the world this church must be a visible church.
6. The unity of this church must be a unity like that which exists between Jesus and the Father (John 17:21-23), therefore there can be no contradictions in doctrine. The Father and the Son do not disagree on doctrine therefore neither can the “true church”.
7. This church can never change what it proclaims to be true. Jesus is the same yesterday, today and forever (Heb 13:8) therefore truth is the same yesterday, today and forever (John 14:6).
8. The Church which Jesus Christ founded is the one which declared which writings are to be in His New Testament of the Bible.

May the grace of Jesus Christ, the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be withyou always.

Your brother in Christ.

 

[bibleapologist]

Ignatius,

I partly agree with your statements about the Church that Jesus Christ founded, but I feel that you have misused the word “church”, and confused the term by mixing the definition that is intended with the current definition of “church”.

Discerning the Church which Christ founded.

There are a few things we know about this true church:

1. It was built by Jesus Christ himself (Matt 16:18) which means that the “true church” must be about 2000 years old.

I can go along with that, it makes perfect sense.

1. Jesus only built ONE church (Matt 16:18).

I’ll go along with that too. Although I understand you are referring to the Catholic Church, Christ’s church will not come into unity of faith until we are all present with Him in heaven… (Eph. 4:13, Heb. 12:23)

1. This church is the God -ordained upholder, protector and defender of the truth (1 Tim 3:15).

Yes, absolutely. But, since we are not come together in unity of faith yet, we operate as individual assemblies with Christ as each assembly’s head.

1. This church is the fullness of Christ (Eph 1:22-23) which means that it is also the fullness of truth (John 14:6).

Like the verse you quoted in Ephesians, and in agreement with my previous statement, Christ is the head of the Church, and the church is the fullness of Him. I do however disagree with you that the church is the fulness of truth… it is not beyond the realm of possibility that any church could apostacize… if that should be the case, what would happen to the truth? The truth would not change because the church is not the source of truth, Christ is the source of truth, who is the head of the Church… and if that church keeps Christ as their head, they will remain the fulness of Christ.

1. The unity of this church will be proof to the world that Jesus was sent by God (John 17:21,23). In order for this unity to be seen by the world this church must be a visible church.

This unity of faith described by Jesus in His prayer to the Father is not in regard to a physical unity (catholics can’t even claim that), but this unity is in regard to the conversion experience, and the indwelling Holy Spirit of each believer.

1. The unity of this church must be a unity like that which exists between Jesus and the Father (John 17:21-23), therefore there can be no contradictions in doctrine. The Father and the Son do not disagree on doctrine therefore neither can the “true church”.

But there are differences in doctrine between parishes… you just choose to ignore that. Although the CC demands conformity from the parishes, they still believe however they choose. I agree the ideal situation would be that all believers be in perfect doctrinal harmony with no contradictions… but since we are all imperfect beings, struggling with sin, and growing in faith in Christ; the only time we will all be in complete harmony is the moment we put off this sinful flesh and can stand before God and see the truth clearly.

1. This church can never change what it proclaims to be true. Jesus is the same yesterday, today and forever (Heb 13:8) therefore truth is the same yesterday, today and forever (John 14:6).

I agree with your description of the truth, but you should have said… This church “should” never change what it proclaims to be true.

1. The Church which Jesus Christ founded is the one which declared which writings are to be in His New Testament of the Bible.

Well, according to your statement #8, the Catholic Church would not be the Church which Jesus Christ founded. The Catholic Church was not founded until the 4th century. The New Testament was compiled and being copied as early as the middle of the 2nd century… two translations preceded the Latin Vulgate; the “Itala Biblia”, and the “Peshito”. This can be verified by reading your “Early Church Fathers”.

Eusebius says, (H. E. iv. 22,) that Hegesippus, (who lived and wrote about A. D. 188,) "made some quotations from the Gospel according to the Hebrews, and from the Syriac Gospel. (This would be proof of the existence of a syriac version… the Peshito , or Peshitta)

Augustine says, in his (de Doctrina Christ. 1. ii. c. 11) “One can easily enumerate those who translated the holy Scriptures from Hebrew into Greek; but not so, the Latin translators. For, in those early times of Christianity, whoever got hold of a Greek MS., and thought he possessed some knowledge of both languages, at once undertook to translate it.” (This would be proof of the existence of Latin version… Itala Biblia)

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[Odell]

Ignatius

Like the verse you quoted in Ephesians, and in agreement with my previous statement, Christ is the head of the Church, and the church is the fullness of Him. I do however disagree with you that the church is the fulness of truth… it is not beyond the realm of possibility that any church could apostacize… if that should be the case, what would happen to the truth? The truth would not change because the church is not the source of truth, Christ is the source of truth, who is the head of the Church… and if that church keeps Christ as their head, they will remain the fulness of Christ.

makes no sence at all each individual Church cant have the fullness of truth, but they can have partial truths.

But there are differences in doctrine between parishes… you just choose to ignore that. Although the CC demands conformity from the parishes, they still believe however they choose. I agree the ideal situation would be that all believers be in perfect doctrinal harmony with no contradictions… but since we are all imperfect beings, struggling with sin, and growing in faith in Christ; the only time we will all be in complete harmony is the moment we put off this sinful flesh and can stand before God and see the truth clearly.

regardless of how some choose to beleive dosnt change anything.
they know what the Church teaches we cant force them to believe all the truth. Jesus wanted all his deciples to believe what his Apostles tought even though that is what he wanted it didnt stop some from not believing it all. If anyone wants to know what the Church teaches and feels the preist is teaching aginst the Church all they have to do is pick up the catechism its all there.

I agree with your description of the truth, but you should have said… This church “should” never change what it proclaims to be true.

But all Churches even the baptist tought that contiception is a sin. Why has it changed in your Church. Why is the Catholic Church the only one who still teaches aginst it. obviousley you cant be the Church because you have changed what you have proclaimed to be true. No ways around it.

Well, according to your statement #8, the Catholic Church would not be the Church which Jesus Christ founded. The Catholic Church was not founded until the 4th century.

That is false I bet you cant give any historical evidince of this. From someone who dosnt have an ax to grind with the Church. Most Historians Jewish, Aithest, whatever will tell you we are the first.

also I asked you who is the true Church? I would still like to know your answer for this.

God bless