Where is this taught in the bible?

[Dokimas]

for non Catholics, Irenaeus gives them big problems.

"2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions ofall the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating thattradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul;as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, inasmuch as the apostolic tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere. "

This is the Word of the Lord Jesus???

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve b
for non Catholics, Irenaeus gives them big problems.

"2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions ofall the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating thattradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul;as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, inasmuch as the apostolic tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere. "

This is the Word of the Lord Jesus???

My friend no one is saying they are the Words of Jesus Christ;however,the point is many simply reject early church history and the church fathers for evident reasons.

Peace to you!

 

[joe370]

Dokimas you said:

How hard is it to understand much of the Bible?

I agree with you regarding the following:

What does it mean when it say ‘don’t lie’?

What does it mean when it say ‘don’t commit adultery’?

What does it mean when it says faith believes God is and He is a rewarder of those who dilligently seeks Him?

I had a college course called Philosophy of Education. At the end of the course, I realized my young children understood Truth far better than this prof.

Doesn’t the Bible tell us that out of the mouth of children comes truth?

God loves us so much that it’s not hard to understand. What makes it hard is our own wisdom and our own pride. By us, this includes whole churches too.

According to you private interpretation is a no - no. Correct???

I ask again:

Obediently following what the Bible teaches via whose interpretation when it comes to the stuff in the bible that apparently is too hard to understand for the simple fact that people have opposing beliefs regarding said stuff in the bible, like you and me, for example, when we disagree? It is not private interpretation** by your own admission.**

My question is:

When those who don’t follow Jesus, but have a change of heart and desire to follow Jesus, are presented with 2 conflicting truths, doctrinally speaking, (from you and me for example) - to whom should he or she defer for guidance??? We both agree that it’s not the bible via private interpretation.

 

[wmscott]

Steve,

Evidently Brian ignored everything you posted and your reference showing how the Protestant source had some flaws. I guess it was to much for him to accept. Look at how he bolted out of here when I asked him to show me his vast proof how Catholic apologists tamper with primary sources? He said it is common practice among Catholic apologits? Therefore, I challenged him on it and he provided nothing but a so-called empirical evidence against you? Weak!

I guess I am not alone then, everything I asked of him went ignored and all I got was dribble instead. All he wanted to do was to show how wrong the Catholic faith is with little or no factual information to support his position. When another poster came in to defend him half way into this thread, I cited that he has done nothing but dodge and name call, I was challenged by Brian. When I posted on page ten #136 to prove my point, all I got was crickets chirping.

 

[Dokimas]

Dokimas you said:

According to you private interpretation is a no - no. Correct???

I ask again:

Obediently following what the Bible teaches via whose interpretation when it comes to the stuff in the bible that apparently is too hard to understand for the simple fact that people have opposing beliefs regarding said stuff in the bible, like you and me, for example, when we disagree? It is not private interpretation** by your own admission.**

My question is:

When those who don’t follow Jesus, but have a change of heart and desire to follow Jesus, are presented with 2 conflicting truths, doctrinally speaking, (from you and me for example) - to whom should he or she defer for guidance??? We both agree that it’s not the bible via private interpretation.

Do what the Bereans did.

 

[fbl9]

Do what the Bereans did.

Read the complete OT.

 

[ignatius777]

Was Luther partly correct if the CC changed some practices he protested against?

You must be speaking about Luther’s understanding of justification by faith that is heretical. Have you ever looked at the ‘works’ that Luther was against for justification? I’m sure Luther understood that faith in Jesus results in correct living and obedience to Him. I’m also sure that Luther saw correct living and obedience to Jesus as works. Maybe Luther disagrees with the CC as to what those resulting works are? I would tend to agree with Luther.

The church was wrong in practices not doctrine.

Luther was a heretic who decided on his own that the bible said people were saved by faith “alone”. I gave you the bible verse which he twisted. If Luther was a heretic and you agree with Luther only one conclusion can be reached. Sorry

 

[Dokimas]

Read the complete OT.

I have. Thank you for your suggestion. I’m not sure if you have a message to me that I’m not getting. If so, you’ll have to spell it out for me.

 

[Dokimas]

The church was wrong in practices not doctrine.

Luther was a heretic who decided on his own that the bible said people were saved by faith “alone”. I gave you the bible verse which he twisted. If Luther was a heretic and you agree with Luther only one conclusion can be reached. Sorry

I’m sure Luther is glad that God is his judge and not you. My guess is that when you get to Heaven you’ll be embarassed when God shows you your judgemental attitudes that belittles your brothers and sisters in Christ.

 

[JonNC]

The church was wrong in practices not doctrine.

Luther was a heretic who decided on his own that the bible said people were saved by faith “alone”. I gave you the bible verse which he twisted. If Luther was a heretic and you agree with Luther only one conclusion can be reached. Sorry

This is not the teaching of the Catholic Church!

“**However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities **[that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church.” - Catholic Catechism 818

Jon

 

[adrift]

Are you saying that those children of God who are protestants are not part of the church Jesus was speaking about?

Is the CC the ONLY Christian church?

The people that were the church are in there grave waiting to be raised to be with Jesus for eternity or they are already in Heaven. I’m sure they don’t care as long as the spend eternity with Him.

There’s always been Christians since Act 1. Some ended up in the CC and many in other churches as it is now.

I have no clue what kind of timeline you are asking for.

You have stated that the Church is those who believe in Christ and it wasn’t the Catholic church. I am saying that it is the Catholic Church. That the Catholic Church began with Pentecost and continues today. I am asking you where is the Church from Pentecost to today?

 

[Dokimas]

You have stated that the Church is those who believe in Christ and it wasn’t the Catholic church. I am saying that it is the Catholic Church. That the Catholic Church began with Pentecost and continues today. I am asking you where is the Church from Pentecost to today?

Jesus said where two or more are gathered in His Name, there He’d be. How about there for starters.

Let me clarify something for you: the church Jesus founded, IMO, is people who trust Jesus to save them. There are many catholics that fall into that catagory as well as many non-catholic Christians, thus is much bigger and more universal than the CC.

 

[joe370]

Hey Dokimas…

Jesus said where two or more are gathered in His Name, there He’d be. How about there for starters.

Let me clarify something for you: the church Jesus founded, IMO, is people who trust Jesus to save them. There are many catholics that fall into that catagory as well as many non-catholic Christians, thus is much bigger and more universal than the CC.

Dok, adrift is asking you: where is the historical Church founded by Christ circa AD 33, on Pentecost, as opposed to the church founded by such men as Martin Luther or Calvin, or Zwingli or Joseph Smith or John Smyth, etc. etc…ad nauseam.

Two or more are gathered in many churches but only one of these churches, where 2 or more are gathered, was founded by Jesus Christ circa AD 33, on Pentecost. Which one Dok??? This is my last attempt to secure a simple and direct answer from you.

If you choose the circuitous and ambivalent response, which is what you usually do when I ask you very specific questions, well, that in and of itself, really answers our question! It was responses such as yours that really pushed me towards the Catholic church so long ago. I would ask my protestant friends specific questions and they would respond with wavering irresolute answers, just as you do. That sort of response speaks volumes…

 

[JonNC]

Hey Dokimas…

Dok, adrift is asking you: where is the historical Church founded by Christ circa AD 33, on Pentecost, as opposed to the church founded by such men as Martin Luther or Calvin, or Zwingli or Joseph Smith or John Smyth, etc. etc…ad nauseam.

Two or more are gathered in many churches but only one of these churches, where 2 or more are gathered, was founded by Jesus Christ circa AD 33, on Pentecost. Which one Dok??? This is my last attempt to secure a simple and direct answer from you.

If you choose the circuitous and ambivalent response, which is what you usually do when I ask you very specific questions, well, that in and of itself, really answers our question! It was responses such as yours that really pushed me towards the Catholic church so long ago. I would ask my protestant friends specific questions and they would respond with wavering irresolute answers, just as you do. That sort of response speaks volumes…

Joe, it may seem wavering and irresolute to you, as Catholics tend to have a finite, and sometimes exclusionary view of the Church, but for many they are giving you a specific definition: where two or more…, etc. It is irrelevent to many whether or not they are Baptist or Calvinist, they are Christian. For Lutherans and, from what I discern in the CCC, for Catholics, when one is marked forever with the cross of Christ in Baptism, they become part of that one true Church founded by Christ at Pentecost. Now, Catholics may view my union with The Church as imperfect, but it is there, nonetheless, and I take no offense by the notion (I just consider it wrong).
The Church, IOW, is not any one institutional organization, or if it is, it is currently in schism and division, not by a failing of the Holy Spirit to defend it, but because of human sin. Thank God for His mercy to forgive our sins. As the confessions say. it is the congregation of believers, where the word is preached and the sacraments administered.

I might consider Calvinists and Baptists heterodox, and that carries its own set of dangers, but I do consider them Christian, and members of Christ’s Church.

Jon
Jon

 

[Janet1983]

The church was wrong in practices not doctrine.

I am pretty sure that this was where Luther’s first doubts arose. Do you really think he was out to divide or maybe even destroy the Church? He was raised in the Church and there was none other. The Church was all that he knew and he even became a monk and then a priest and then a professor for Theology. Do you really think that his efforts and his intentions were anything further than trying to cleanse the Church?
Who are we to try and define his motives? I cannot define your motives, even though I could ask you an abundance of questions. I cannot see into your heart and that is why I will always assume the best.

Luther was a heretic who decided on his own that the bible said people were saved by faith “alone”. I gave you the bible verse which he twisted. If Luther was a heretic and you agree with Luther only one conclusion can be reached. Sorry

What conclusion are you hinting at? I agree with Luther on a couple of issues, though certainly not all. If I did agree to a greater extend I would probably be Lutheran. I also admit that I have a lot in common with Luther, starting with a Catholic upbringing and ending with my turning away from the Catholic Church.
I would not tell you that you are a heretic for believing what you do believe. I cannot see into your heart. I know that I live the Lord my God with all my heart, mind and soul and I don’t believe myself to be a heretic, even though you might declare me one. You wouldn’t be the first one to do so and I am not offended by the term anymore. I have been called many names, many of which I do not agree with. I am however not offended by that position or these terms.
Funny. If I had lived around the time of Martin Luther, I would probably have shared more than just a name with my patron saint, but also her sentence…

 

[Janet1983]

Jesus said where two or more are gathered in His Name, there He’d be. How about there for starters.

Matthew 18:15-20
15 “If your brother sins against you, go and rebuke him in private. If he listens to you, you have won your brother.
16 But if he won’t listen, take one or two more with you, so that by the testimony of two or three witnesses every fact may be established.
17 If he pays no attention to them, tell the church. But if he doesn’t pay attention even to the church, let him be like an unbeliever and a tax collector to you.
18 I assure you: Whatever you bind on earth is already bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth is already loosed in heaven.
19 Again, I assure you: If two of you on earth agree about any matter that you pray for, it will be done for you by My Father in heaven.
20 For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there among them.”

 

[fbl9]

I have. Thank you for your suggestion. I’m not sure if you have a message to me that I’m not getting. If so, you’ll have to spell it out for me.

1. there was no set writing that consisted of the NT at that time so all there was for scripture was the OT.
   2)the whole of the OT not just what some non-chrisitains considered to be the OT.

 

[adrift]

Joe, it may seem wavering and irresolute to you, as Catholics tend to have a finite, and sometimes exclusionary view of the Church, but for many they are giving you a specific definition: where two or more…, etc. It is irrelevent to many whether or not they are Baptist or Calvinist, they are Christian. For Lutherans and, from what I discern in the CCC, for Catholics, when one is marked forever with the cross of Christ in Baptism, they become part of that one true Church founded by Christ at Pentecost. Now, Catholics may view my union with The Church as imperfect, but it is there, nonetheless, and I take no offense by the notion (I just consider it wrong).
The Church, IOW, is not any one institutional organization, or if it is, it is currently in schism and division, not by a failing of the Holy Spirit to defend it, but because of human sin. Thank God for His mercy to forgive our sins. As the confessions say. it is the congregation of believers, where the word is preached and the sacraments administered.

I might consider Calvinists and Baptists heterodox, and that carries its own set of dangers, but I do consider them Christian, and members of Christ’s Church.

Jon
Jon

Your are absolutely right Baptism is the entrance into the Church. As far as the two or more gathered, it does not refer to membership in a Church but to prayers. Dokimas says specifically that the Church Jesus refers to is not the Catholic Church. It isn’t so much an exculsionary look but asking for a more indepth explantaion than a hit and run

Joe correctly expressed what I was asking. A question that Dokimas skirts. He gives us a sound bite but it has no substance.

 

[joe370]

Hi Jon…

Joe, it may seem wavering and irresolute to you, as Catholics tend to have a finite, and sometimes exclusionary view of the Church, but for many they are giving you a specific definition: where two or more…, etc.

Jon, please don’t get me wrong; in no way am I (or the CC) - excluding other Christians, belonging to other churches, from the Mystical Body of Christ of which Jesus is the head and savior as you know, as per the CCC. When I would ask my good protestant friends specific questions such as: which church in the world today existed in the 1st century, they would tell me: it wasn’t the CC, but that would not answer my question. That is what I mean when I say irresolute. Clearly no protestant churches existed until the 16th century reformation, so that leaves us with the EOC and the CC. I just wish that they, as well as Dokmas, would simply state the obvious just as I have done and just as you do friend.

I

t is irrelevent to many whether or not they are Baptist or Calvinist, they are Christian.

So it looks like I could start a church tomorrow and call my church the church founded by Jesus, just as the Baptist church (which also was started by another mere man like myself) - is the church founded by Jesus. I cannot wrap my brain around that concept. I just don’t think that Jesus would want me to start another church; I think He would want me to belong to the church founded by Him - yes, no, maybe?

For Lutherans and, from what I discern in the CCC, for Catholics, when one is marked forever with the cross of Christ in Baptism, they become part of that one true Church founded by Christ at Pentecost. Now, Catholics may view my union with The Church as imperfect, but it is there, nonetheless, and I take no offense by the notion (I just consider it wrong).

I respect that brother.

The Church, IOW, is not any one institutional organization, or if it is, it is currently in schism and division, not by a failing of the Holy Spirit to defend it, but because of human sin.

Here is where you and I respectfully differ. I don’t believe the sin of man has the power to knock Jesus’ church off course, so to speak. I don’t believe that the sin of man can prevent the Holy Spirit from guiding Jesus’ established church into all truth. Schism and division can tear at the Mystical Body of Christ but in the end the one church founded by God will remain in tact, doctrinally speaking. I simply believe with all my heart soul and mind that God’s will trumps the will of sinful man, which means that Jesus’ established church is still being guided by the holy spirit into all truth.

If the sin of man can cause a schism in Jesus’ established church (and it did) - that prevents people like yourself from believing that God continues to guide His one historical church into all truth, just as you believe God did prior to the east west schism, then the Holy spirit did fail to defend Jesus’ church. You believe that the holy spirit did in fact guide the CC, the church founded by God, into all truth for 1000 years, prior to the east west schism, but no longer believe that the holy spirit is still guiding the CC into all truth, and if you are right then the holy spirit, at the turn of the first millennium, failed to continue to protect the deposit of faith, which means that the sin of man trumped the will of God. Perhaps we will never see eye to eye on this matter, and that’s cool. I respect you and your right to believe what ever you want to believe. If you believe with all your heart soul and mind that the sin of man has created a rift in the Mystical Body of Christ, preventing the one church founded by God from teaching infallibly, just as that one church did for 1000 years, then who am I to question you? Nobody…Like I said before: I really respect the love and devotion that you have for the Lutheran church and would never want you to leave it, if in fact you truly believe, that is where you feel closest to Jesus Christ.

Thank God for His mercy to forgive our sins. As the confessions say. it is the congregation of believers, where the word is preached and the sacraments administered.

I might consider Calvinists and Baptists heterodox, and that carries its own set of dangers, but I do consider them Christian, and members of Christ’s Church.

If anyone can start a church and call their church the church founded by God, then there are no heterodox churches. You know what I mean Jon?

 

[JonNC]

Your are absolutely right Baptism is the entrance into the Church. As far as the two or more gathered, it does not refer to membership in a Church but to prayers. Dokimas says specifically that the Church Jesus refers to is not the Catholic Church. It isn’t so much an exculsionary look but asking for a more indepth explantaion than a hit and run

Joe correctly expressed what I was asking. A question that Dokimas skirts. He gives us a sound bite but it has no substance.

Yes, adrift, and I agree that “two or more” is not The Church, but it can be considered part of The Church.

Also, when I said exclusionary I meant it only to refer to the Catholic view that The Catholic Church, in communion with the Bishop of Rome is itself the OHCAC.

Jon