Which church is God's true church? Is it the Roman Catholic Church?

[n2thelight]

The Roman Catholic Church cannot be the true Church.

First,let’s define Church

The church is the assembly of believers wherever they are, they are the elect of God, and not some building on a corner, or the intricate system that does it’s business inside those walls. The church is the body of believers, of which there are many members, which have many different tasks to do, all within that one body of believers.

Ephesians 4:7 “But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ.”

Ephesians 4:8 "Wherefore He saith, “When He ascended up on high, He led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men.”

The Catholic Church does not hold a monopoly on these gifts.

Ephesians 4:11 “And He gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;”

Now let’s look at it’s history

For the first 280 years of Christian history, Christianity was banned by the Roman empire, and Christians were terribly persecuted. This changed after the “conversion” of the Roman Emperor Constantine. Constantine “legalized” Christianity at the Edict of Milan in A.D. 313. Later, in A.D. 325, Constantine called together the Council of Nicea, in an attempt to unify Christianity. Constantine envisioned Christianity as a religion that could unite the Roman Empire, which at that time was beginning to fragment and divide. While this may have seemed to be a positive development for the Christian church, the results were anything but positive. Just as Constantine refused to fully embrace the Christian faith, but continued many of his pagan beliefs and practices, so the Christian church that Constantine promoted was a mixture of true Christianity and Roman paganism.

This last paragraph is one of the main reasons Roman Catholisim cannot and is not founded on Christ.And that is the fact that most if not all of their teachings(traditions)are based on paganisim.

Example

The Cult of Isis, an Egyptian mother-goddess religion, was absorbed into Christianity by replacing Isis with Mary. Many of the titles that were used for Isis, such as “Queen of Heaven,” “Mother of God,” and “theotokos” (God-bearer) were attached to Mary.

Of course the Roman Catholic Church denies the pagan origin of its beliefs and practices. The Catholic Church disguises its pagan beliefs under layers of complicated theology. The Catholic Church excuses and denies its pagan origin beneath the mask of “church tradition.” Recognizing that many of its beliefs and practices are utterly foreign to Scripture, the Catholic Church is forced to deny the authority and sufficiency of Scripture.

The origin of the Catholic Church is the tragic compromise of Christianity with the pagan religions that surrounded it. Instead of proclaiming the Gospel and converting the pagans, the Catholic Church “Christianized” the pagan religions, and “paganized” Christianity. By blurring the differences and erasing the distinctions, yes, the Catholic Church made itself attractive to the people of the Roman empire. One result was the Catholic Church becoming the supreme religion in the “Roman world” for centuries. However, another result was the most dominant form of Christianity apostatizing from the true Gospel of Jesus Christ and the true proclamation of God’s Word.

2 Timothy 4:3-4 declares, “For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.”

Catholic’s tend to favor their traditions more than the Word of God which is the Scriptures.And those of us who hold to scripture are accused of being sola scripturist,which for some reason the Catholic Church deems to be wrong.

Now let me show you with scripture who will be found wanting.

Amos 8:11 “Behold, the days come, saith the Lord God, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the Lord:”

Not of hearing traditions but the Word of God which are the scriptures.

Again,there is no way that the Catholic Church can be the true Church,when they void the Word of God with the traditions of men.

 

[Mickey]

If that’s not a character assault then I don’t what is?

Wow! You have much to learn. See post # 631.

 

[MDK]

The catholic Church was a universal christian church.People followed Jesus and became Christians not Catholics The word Catholic means universal.

I see you like to fool yourself. If one desires to be truly Christian as Christ established, it means to be part of that Church and earthly visible head that Christ established and built. It is Christ’s Church, and to do as He established means to be in communion with the dynastic office established by Christ, inhabited by Peter, and subsequently each successor of Peter.

 

[cazayoux]

The catholic Church was a universal christian church.People followed Jesus and became Christians not Catholics The word Catholic means universal.

yep … the Church that Jesus founded IS the Catholic church. Yes … ‘universal’ … for everyone … with ‘unity’, meaning that the church agrees on doctrine.

Does your faith and theology match those first Christians?
How do you know?

Note that Jesus’ church was on its 4th pope by the time all of the new testament writings were complete around 95 A.D. It was on its 37th pope by the time the new testament was canonized.

michel

 

[guanophore]

Does this mean the church at this time was not Roman Catholic and did not have a pope as its leader?

The Church is still, at this time, not “Roman Catholic”. The Latin, or Roman Rite happens to be the largest, and the most common here in the West. The Church is Catholic, and is comprised of 23 Sui Juris different cultural components, only one of them Latin.

The term "pope’ is a Latin word for “papa” or as we call him “holy father”. There has been this office ever since Jesus gave to Peter the Keys, and told him that He would build His church upon this Rock. the Petrine gift to feed and shepherd the flock has been passed on through the Apostolic Succession.

However ,the Head of the Church is Christ. the Pope is a 'stand in" (Vicar).

 

[guanophore]

What was the first “rite”?

It was Hebrew. All the first Christians were Hebrew Christians, comprised of the Apostles and the disciples who followed Jesus. Immediately after His death, they began to celebrate Eucharist as he showed them during the Last Supper. The words that comprise the Mass today are those same words that have been kept to this day. This is the same Mass that is currently used in Jerusalem, and the Patriarchate in that area. As the Church spread, the Mass was adapted to various areas and cultures, and other Rites developed, the next one in Syria (Antoich), where they were first called “Christians”. The Syrian Rite exists today just as it did 2000 years ago. The Latin Rite is actually one of the later Rites, but happened to spread to the West, and happens to be the one that most often comes into contact with anti-Catholic persons who are narrow minded, ignorant of history, and erroneously believe that Catholicism is “Roman”. It is not.

 

[MDK]

…

A moderate wind may blow the weak and dead branches from a tree. However, the branches that are alive and strong, getting nourishment from the trunk will remain. I remain a live branch becoming ever stronger, nourished by Christ through His Catholic Church, His Body.
Holy Spirit inspired author and Catholic St. John 15:5:

I am the vine: you the branches: he that abideth in me, and I in him, the same beareth much fruit…"

 

[sola_scriptura]

A moderate wind may blow the weak and dead branches from a tree. However, the branches that are alive and strong, getting nourishment from the trunk will remain. I remain a live branch becoming ever stronger, nourished by Christ through His Catholic Church, His Body.

All the branches are weak and depraved to start with. It’s only when the branches think they’re not weak and they can sustain their self that problems begin. If they always rely on the root for nourishment then they will never be put to shame.

In fact Jesus came for the weak, the sinner, not the self-righteous pharisaic types. Those who humble themselves before God & know they are nothing without Him.

 

[MDK]

All the branches are weak and depraved to start with. It’s only when the branches think they’re not weak and they can sustain their self that problems begin. If they always rely on the root for nourishment then they will never be put to shame.

In fact Jesus came for the weak, the sinner, not the self-righteous pharisaic types. Those who humble themselves before God & know they are nothing without Him.

A pretty good statement, and I commend you for it. Can you walk the talk? I don’t see how a baby would be called depraved, as I think the term may be inappropriate. The truly arrogant are those who think they can interpret God’s word any way they like, rather than how it was intended. The idea here is that one must realize that the once saved, always saved mantra is in error, in that we can also remove ourselves from Him or be removed because we are a dead branch. It’s not due to Christ that we become weak, but our lack of cooperation with Him that we either remain weak, or once having a little strength in Him, wither away due to our own devices such as pride and arrogance. One can fall away from the true teachings, true doctrine and dogma through their own devices.
Holy Spirit inspired author and Catholic St. John 15:1-2::

1 I am the true vine; and my Father is the husbandman. 2 Every branch in me, that beareth not fruit, he will take away: and every one that beareth fruit, he will purge it, that it may bring forth more fruit.

It’s the truly humble that will seek Him, and cooperate with the way He set things up. One can be strong due to Christ, while recognizing the strength comes from Him and does not originate from ourselves without Him. One can also become stronger due to Him by our cooperation with Him in the Sacraments of His one, holy, universal and apostolic Church, the Catholic Church.

 

[justasking4]

The Church is still, at this time, not “Roman Catholic”. The Latin, or Roman Rite happens to be the largest, and the most common here in the West. The Church is Catholic, and is comprised of 23 Sui Juris different cultural components, only one of them Latin.

The term "pope’ is a Latin word for “papa” or as we call him “holy father”. There has been this office ever since Jesus gave to Peter the Keys, and told him that He would build His church upon this Rock. the Petrine gift to feed and shepherd the flock has been passed on through the Apostolic Succession.

However ,the Head of the Church is Christ. the Pope is a 'stand in" (Vicar).

Does this as hold true of the Eastern church? Do they recogize the pope as the Vicar?

 

[PerryJ]

The catholic Church was a universal christian church.People followed Jesus and became Christians not Catholics The word Catholic means universal.

When I was Protestant I used this same exact logic “the early Church was not Catholic and there was no succession from Peter.” This is not true. Understand that people died for the Eucharist. During two brutal persecutions during the early Church people were brutally tortured and killed for Christ. They died so that today we could know the truth. The early Church wasn’t just Christians it was Catholic. The other Christian churches died out because they were not built upon Peter. It is sad that people do not understand that so many faithful died for the Catholic Church and the Eucharist. If someone chooses not to be Catholic so be it; however, we should not rewrite history and pretend that these early martyr died for some generic Christian religion. Read their accounts. They died for Christ, the Catholic Faith and the Eucharist. To state anything else is just not historically accurate.

 

[justasking4]

When I was Protestant I used this same exact logic “the early Church was not Catholic and there was no succession from Peter.” This is not true. Understand that people died for the Eucharist. During two brutal persecutions during the early Church people were brutally tortured and killed for Christ. They died so that today we could know the truth. The early Church wasn’t just Christians it was Catholic. The other Christian churches died out because they were not built upon Peter. It is sad that people do not understand that so many faithful died for the Catholic Church and the Eucharist. If someone chooses not to be Catholic so be it; however, we should not rewrite history and pretend that these early martyr died for some generic Christian religion. Read their accounts. They died for Christ, the Catholic Faith and the Eucharist. To state anything else is just not historically accurate.

Who did die for the Eucharist in the early church? Do you have some names?

 

[MDK]

PerryJ;4081238:

When I was Protestant I used this same exact logic “the early Church was not Catholic and there was no succession from Peter.” This is not true. Understand that people died for the Eucharist. During two brutal persecutions during the early Church people were brutally tortured and killed for Christ. They died so that today we could know the truth. The early Church wasn’t just Christians it was Catholic. The other Christian churches died out because they were not built upon Peter. It is sad that people do not understand that so many faithful died for the Catholic Church and the Eucharist. If someone chooses not to be Catholic so be it; however, we should not rewrite history and pretend that these early martyr died for some generic Christian religion. Read their accounts. They died for Christ, the Catholic Faith and the Eucharist. To state anything else is just not historically accurate.

Who did die for the Eucharist in the early church? Do you have some names?

Staying with the original point, do you understand any of what was said by PerryJ’s post, and what it means regarding the idea of one true Church with the rock of the Church established by Christ?

 

[sola_scriptura]

A pretty good statement, and I commend you for it. Can you walk the talk? I don’t see how a baby would be called depraved, as I think the term may be inappropriate. The truly arrogant are those who think they can interpret God’s word any way they like, rather than how it was intended. The idea here is that one must realize that the once saved, always saved mantra is in error, in that we can also remove ourselves from Him or be removed because we are a dead branch. It’s not due to Christ that we become weak, but our lack of cooperation with Him that we either remain weak, or once having a little strength in Him, wither away due to our own devices such as pride and arrogance. One can fall away from the true teachings, true doctrine and dogma through their own devices.

I sense assent but yet a certain amount of hostility toward the idea of depravity? I’m not sure why the tension.

Is an infant depraved? That sort of question is semantical and harps on platitudes. We are all sinners – including infants. That an infant cannot form the intent required for culpability doesn’t mean he or she is not a sinner.

In fact under Catholic theology an infant is considered guilty of sin – and the sacrament of baptism is considered regenerative is it not? Or do I misunderstand the concept of “original sin”?

That every man is a sinner is well settled; I don’t often hear objection to this idea. Perhaps you object to the word “depraved” for some reason – thinking it implies something more than being a sinner and spiritually discerned?

We are born with this sin nature – that it doesn’t manifest itself until adulthood isn’t cause for trying to refute the doctrine of depravity with emotive statements. I can see the slippery slope of this line of reasoning already – my God … protestants think my poor little Johnny is a depraved being.

However, Jesus and the scriptures confirm that all have sinned and none are righteous. It refutes the idea that sin is a matter of degree, insofar as our worthiness before God. We are all equally unworthy before God, even infants.

I’m not trying to be argumentative; I am merely “walking the talk” as you say.

It’s the truly humble that will seek Him, and cooperate with the way He set things up. One can be strong due to Christ, while recognizing the strength comes from Him and does not originate from ourselves without Him. One can also become stronger due to Him by our cooperation with Him in the Sacraments of His one, holy, universal and apostolic Church, the Catholic Church.

The idea of “cooperating with grace” is self defeating. How can we be said to cooperate with something that is freely given through no merit of our own?

 

[steve_b]

When I was Protestant I used this same exact logic “the early Church was not Catholic and there was no succession from Peter.” This is not true. Understand that people died for the Eucharist. During two brutal persecutions during the early Church people were brutally tortured and killed for Christ. They died so that today we could know the truth. The early Church wasn’t just Christians it was Catholic. The other Christian churches died out because they were not built upon Peter. It is sad that people do not understand that so many faithful died for the Catholic Church and the Eucharist. If someone chooses not to be Catholic so be it; however, we should not rewrite history and pretend that these early martyrs died for some generic Christian religion. Read their accounts. They died for Christ, the Catholic Faith and the Eucharist. To state anything else is just not historically accurate.

Amen brother!!!

 

[MDK]

I sense assent but yet a certain amount of hostility toward the idea of depravity? I’m not sure why the tension.

Is an infant depraved? That sort of question is semantical and harps on platitudes. We are all sinners – including infants. That an infant cannot form the intent required for culpability doesn’t mean he or she is not a sinner.

In fact under Catholic theology an infant is considered guilty of sin – and the sacrament of baptism is considered regenerative is it not? Or do I misunderstand the concept of “original sin”?

That every man is a sinner is well settled; I don’t often hear objection to this idea. Perhaps you object to the word “depraved” for some reason – thinking it implies something more than being a sinner and spiritually discerned?

We are born with this sin nature – that it doesn’t manifest itself until adulthood isn’t cause for trying to refute the doctrine of depravity with emotive statements. I can see the slippery slope of this line of reasoning already – my God … protestants think my poor little Johnny is a depraved being.

However, Jesus and the scriptures confirm that all have sinned and none are righteous. It refutes the idea that sin is a matter of degree, insofar as our worthiness before God. We are all equally unworthy before God, even infants.

I’m not trying to be argumentative; I am merely “walking the talk” as you say.

The idea of “cooperating with grace” is self defeating. How can we be said to cooperate with something that is freely given through no merit of our own?

You certainly are walking the talk you profess, as you illustrate very well the arrogance I was speaking of. I don’t know that you will ever understand, though. There is no ascent, because your interpretations are typically false. I was being nice, and recognizing that you almost came up to a decent level. In your reply, your arrogance shows itself once again. I remain very comfortable about what I spoke of, which includes that those who misinterpret God’s word, believing they can interpret on their own without any outside help have gone astray. Not that it would matter to you, but St. Peter told us all that this was wrong. I think you feel the truth is at variance with the beliefs you hold, like Sola Scriptura, which is unscriptural. Only the arrogant believe in it. The humble prefer the way Christ set up.

There’s no hostility toward a certain word…, however, a misuse of the word is correctly pointed out by me. Your discussion about infants and sin is meandering off topic, as there are other threads including this one. Since you posted off topic, I don’t want to continue other than to simply tell you that you’re wrong, but please go to the appropriate thread to see why.

As you falsify interpretation of Sacred Scriptures, it’s no surprise that you also falsify what I said. Please go back and understand what my post actually means. Salvation by faith alone is another myth, which you seem to profess. Cooperating doesn’t mean we earn anything. We just do what Christ said we need to do.

Please tell us, where did Christ or any inspired author teach Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, or once saved, always saved… the garbage anti-Catholic doctrines? None of those is scriptural. They are all false claims born of false interpretations. We know what the Bible includes, and the proper interpretations. That comes from the true Church that Christ built and protects to this day, and will be with until the end of time.
**
Please tell us, do you believe you can interpret God’s word infallibly? **

It’s becoming clear that you’re not here to seek truth, but to promote an agenda… and please let me offer some advice (not that I’ve seen you heed wise advice) pandering your false doctrine here won’t work.

 

[runandsew]

Mat 16:18
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

The word Church in the Greek is ekklēsia

ekklēsia
1) a gathering of citizens called out from their homes into some public place, an assembly
a) an assembly of the people convened at the public place of the council for the purpose of deliberating
b) the assembly of the Israelites
c) any gathering or throng of men assembled by chance, tumultuously
d) in a Christian sense

1) an assembly of Christians gathered for worship in a religious meeting
2) a company of Christian, or of those who, hoping for eternal salvation through Jesus Christ, observe their own religious rites, hold their own religious meetings, and manage their own affairs, according to regulations prescribed for the body for order’s sake
3) those who anywhere, in a city, village, constitute such a company and are united into one body
4) the whole body of Christians scattered throughout the earth
5) the assembly of faithful Christians already dead and received into heaven

So with the definitions by themselves, I can see how some non-Catholics view the church as an invisible church, or as just an ecclesial community of believers.

But when you combine it with the actions of Paul and the Apostles in the book of Acts like meeting in council and Paul presenting his Gospel to Peter so that he “might not have run in vain”, and the writings of the very early Christians, such as the Didache and the early church fathers, we see that the Church was more than that. Yes it does have an invisible aspect to it, but it also had a hierarchy with Deacons, Priests and Bishops who had their roles in this church, and the members of this church were told to submit to the authority of these leaders. We see that the church continued to meet in councils to settle disputes and errors which were creeping into the church.

We see that Jesus say that he would establish his church, not his churches. We see that he said that he would be with his church until the end of the age, and that he would send them the Holy Spirit so they would not be left orphans. We see talk of an apostasy, but it states that many would be led astray, not that the hold church would fall away.
We see that this in fact did occur, with the arian heresy, many were in fact led astray, but the Church met to correct this and many other errors which crept into the church. It wasn’t until the Protestant reformation, that a very large group apostatized from the church not to return, and began to teach a different Gospel which was passed down from Jesus and the Apostles.

 

[MDK]

Mat 16:18
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

The word Church in the Greek is ekklēsia

ekklēsia
1) a gathering of citizens called out from their homes into some public place, an assembly
a) an assembly of the people convened at the public place of the council for the purpose of deliberating
b) the assembly of the Israelites
c) any gathering or throng of men assembled by chance, tumultuously
d) in a Christian sense

1) an assembly of Christians gathered for worship in a religious meeting
2) a company of Christian, or of those who, hoping for eternal salvation through Jesus Christ, observe their own religious rites, hold their own religious meetings, and manage their own affairs, according to regulations prescribed for the body for order’s sake
3) those who anywhere, in a city, village, constitute such a company and are united into one body
4) the whole body of Christians scattered throughout the earth
5) the assembly of faithful Christians already dead and received into heaven

So with the definitions by themselves, I can see how some non-Catholics view the church as an invisible church, or as just an ecclesial community of believers.

But when you combine it with the actions of Paul and the Apostles in the book of Acts like meeting in council and Paul presenting his Gospel to Peter so that he “might not have run in vain”, and the writings of the very early Christians, such as the Didache and the early church fathers, we see that the Church was more than that. Yes it does have an invisible aspect to it, but it also had a hierarchy with Deacons, Priests and Bishops who had their roles in this church, and the members of this church were told to submit to the authority of these leaders. We see that the church continued to meet in councils to settle disputes and errors which were creeping into the church.

We see that Jesus say that he would establish his church, not his churches. We see that he said that he would be with his church until the end of the age, and that he would send them the Holy Spirit so they would not be left orphans. We see talk of an apostasy, but it states that many would be led astray, not that the hold church would fall away.
We see that this in fact did occur, with the arian heresy, many were in fact led astray, but the Church met to correct this and many other errors which crept into the church. It wasn’t until the Protestant reformation, that a very large group apostatized from the church not to return, and began to teach a different Gospel which was passed down from Jesus and the Apostles.

Thank you very much for the very nice post. Thanks also for illustrating how the non-Catholic Christians use part and not all of God’s word. Then they take that part, and twist it to mean something they want, instead of what was intended.

 

[PerryJ]

Who did die for the Eucharist in the early church? Do you have some names?

Here are excerpts from two Romans describing their mistaken beliefs concerning Christians and the Eucharist. This is just two of many. I can find many more if you wish.
Minucius Felix claim concerning Catholic Rituals:
An infant, cased in dough to deceive the unsuspecting, is placed beside the person to be initiated. The novice is thereupon induced to inflict what seems to be harmless blows upon the dough, and unintentionally the infant is killed by his unsuspecting blows; the blood – oh, horrible – they lap up greedily; the limbs they tear to pieces eagerly; and over the victim they make league and covenant, and by complicity in guilt pledge themselves to mutual silence (Octavius 9.5-6 [Loeb translation].
Roman historian Dio Cassius (writing in the early third century) describes the revolt of Judeans in Cyrene, who were “destroying both the Romans and the Greeks”: he claims that “they would eat the flesh of their victims, make belts for themselves of their entrails, anoint themselves with their blood and wear their skins for clothing” (Roman History, 68.32.1-2 [Loeb translation]).
The martyrs of Lyons were accused of “Thyestean banquets and Oedipean intercourse”, if I remember correctly over 19,000 Catholics were murdered because of this charge. This charge is directly related to the misunderstanding of the Eucharist and Agape services.

Quotes from Ignatius of Antioch: “Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2-7:1 [A.D. 110]).
. . . “and are now ready to obey your bishop and clergy with undivided minds and to share in the one common breaking of bread – the medicine of immortality, and the sovereign remedy by which we escape death and live in Jesus Christ for evermore” (Letter to the Ephesians 20 [A.D. 110]).

Trajan pronounces his sentence against Ignatius: "We command that Ignatius, who affirms that he carries about with him Him that was crucified, be bound by soldiers, and carried to the great Rome, there to be devoured by beasts”

Quote from Justin Martyr: We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration * and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these, but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).
"The Prefect Rusticus says when condemning Justin: Approach and sacrifice, all of you, to the gods. Justin says: No one in his right mind gives up piety for impiety. The Prefect Rusticus says: If you do not obey, you will be tortured without mercy. Justin replies: That is our desire, to be tortured for our Lord, Jesus Christ, and so to be saved, for that will give us salvation

Although this does not show that Justin was killed for the Eucharist alone. It shows that he had full belief in the Eucharist and died for Christ.

The early Church Father’s taught by the Apostles believed in the Eucharist and followed what today is the Catholic faith. One only has to read their writings to understand that their beliefs concerning the true presence are the same as Catholics of today.

One can go on-line and find many sources that will show that Roman’s actively believed Christians were cannibals because of their belief in the Eucharist. History shows that Christians were murdered for following Christ’s teachings and at the core of this teaching was the Eucharist.*

 

[PerryJ]

The idea of “cooperating with grace” is self defeating. How can we be said to cooperate with something that is freely given through no merit of our own?

The Bible shows that man can work with God and that there is a synergy “work with” between the two. The Bible uses this exact phrase several times.

Romans 8:28 “in everything God works for good with (sunergei eis agathon) those who love him, who are called according to his purpose.”
2 Cor 6:1 “Working together with (sunergountes) him, then, we entreat you not to accept the grace of God in vain.”

It is freely given; however, God is not looking for a puppet. (I am not stating that this is what your theology states.) God wants an individual that freely choses him. If we do not freely chose him do we truly love him? We have discussed this before, so no need to probably go into too much. We both agree our thoughts are different on this subject.