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

[sola_scriptura]

Just to add to my thoughts:

For example:

"When anyone hears the word of the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what has been sown in his heart. This is the one on whom seed was sown beside the road.(Matthew 13:19).

Contrast with:

“And the one on whom seed was sown on the good soil, this is the man who hears the word and understands it; who indeed bears fruit and brings forth, some a hundredfold, some sixty, and some thirty” (Matthew 13:23).

Of course Jesus doesn’t mean more intelligent or those of better character disposition when He says “good soil” (since that would abrogate dozens of other passages) … this is a reference to the elect. So indeed Jesus can be sown in a heart and the devil can snatch them away; because they did not understand the word. They do not understand because they are were not anointed to understand.

 

[guanophore]

The ultimate act of faith is believing Christ is the head of the church and no tradition can trump that.

You are creating a distinction or separation that is present. Sacred Tradition embodies entirely the headship of Christ. It is not a “trump” but a cooperation and expression of His Headship.
I disagree, though, I think it is a more ultimate act of faith to take the bread and the wine, and receive His Body and Blood, because He says so.

It’s funny while Anglicans accept RCC holy orders they do not accept yours (although oddly they do accept the Eastern Churches orders)? My former church, the UMC (Methodist) also felt they had valid orders. However, this seemed like a stretch to me since Wesley was only a priest and not a Bishop (and the circumstances did not seem to meet the clause allowing for an exception in exigent circumstances).

This is very perceptive of you.

Frankly, none of that ever really did matter for me (I’ve always intuitively felt the whole view of AS was faulty).

Is that too “ulitmate” an act of faith for you? Or is your concept of the HS that He is too weak to preserve what Jesus instituted?

How do you account for the fact that all the Apostles and the fathers misunderstood Him?

Once I truly began Bible study in a serious way (after finishing law school) I simply came to agree with John Calvin and to a lesser extent Luther.

The presentation of the economy of salvation by most churches frankly seems faulty. It’s not that I actually think it matters what theological perspective one holds. However, once I discovered the soundness of Calvin’s theology my view of AS logically followed.

Logically.

Error makes a good foundation for more error, without a doubt!

After all if the soteriology of a church is not uniform or in complete synthesis with Scripture then they cannot lay claim to infallible teachings, and thus the lynch pin for AS fails.

An assertion based upon a faulty premise. The Soteriology of the Catholic Church weas whole and entire before a word of the NT was ever written. The disciples committed themselves “to the Apostles Teaching”, that is how they learned about salvation.

The RCC as an example is not uniform in its soteriology (some are Thomists while others Molinists).

Well, this is an erroneous perception. You are equating the theology of individuals with the Teaching of the Church. The Teaching is not about what some people think or write, but what was taught by Jesus an the Apostles. This is completely uniform.

The bottom line is most denominations do not take the idea of predestination to its only logical end. We are saved by grace . . . not of ourselves. We were predestined by eternal decree (before the founding of the world). These two unambiguously explained truths (reverberated throughout the New Testament with ample support in the Old Testament) are poorly understood by most.

I agree.

If God chose you and I before creation; and on account of any personal merit, then ultimately our free will can have nothing to do with it. God chose all sorts of men throughout history, including killers. God chose Jacob over Esau and Jacob was hardly a saint.

you are equating things that are not equitable. Lack of basis for personal merit does not equal no free will.

An idea I hear often that I find the most objectionable is that God could not have decreed rebellion or wickedness. The devil does not act unilaterally, apart from the divine will. To say such a thing imagines a dualism that is clearly rejected by Scripture. God is good yes, in Him resides no evil. However, expressions of His good will has included destruction of cities and even the entire earth. God also acts through secondary agents (just read the book of Job).

Yes, I agree.

Think about it – if God elected us from the founding of the world, always created a world for Christ, then even the fall of man must have been by decree. God created us good. In fact badness is merely corrupted goodness (as the famous Anglican C.S. Lewis explains). However, corruption of our goodness was no cosmic accident, God is never surprised. Even the rebellion of the devil was no accident. Indeed all of this were necessary elements of the divine plan.

Well, we see it differently.

Calvin just makes too much sense to ignore.

We learn that those who believe will not be condemned, but those who do not are condemned “already” (a past tense act). Many think that God could not have created people just for condemnation; while at the same time agreeing that God elected people for salvation (while the rest will be condemned). This notion is just absurd? How can it be said that God chose one group of people for one thing to the exclusion of the other, without saying He decreed the other group to be excluded from that thing?

God created man in His own image and likeness. That means the freedom to choose. In the exercise of that freedom, man chose to sin, separating himself from God. The fact that all humans since were born into the consequence of that sin (death) is not necessarily God’s “plan”. Have you ever considered what life would be like if Adam and Eve did not sin?

Proverbs 16:4 tells us explicitly that God created even the wicked for a purpose (the day of evil). So indeed not only does God do this, He clearly tells us He does. So much of the Christian religion I hear people telling me about is the Christian religion they wish existed – not the one that truly exists.

I agree.

 

[sola_scriptura]

That is not a passage that tells us that our free will is restricted or limited. You are reaching now.

Hmmm, the Lord determines our steps. Now why would anyone think that abrogates free will in any way? Mickey you can’t be serious. What do you think “determines our steps” means? If I want to step in one direction but God, who determines where I step, does not want me to step in that direction, then He prevents me from doing so. What else does this verse mean to you?

You would have to explain to me why I shouldn’t take this verse at face value?

Because of grace. Do you not agree that we must cooperate and accept this grace by our free will?

What does grace mean to you? In other words, yes grace enables our choice, if you would like to call it that. In other words without saving grace we can make no choice for God. So much all Christians (whether Catholic, Arminian, or Calvinist) admit.

However, God also forms His elect as a potter forms his clay. Even in the womb God is forming us (see Jeremiah 1:5, Romans 9:19-26). He anoints us before birth, forms us for a specific purpose as an engineer builds a machine for one thing and not for the other.

God is not the passive onlooker you imagine, He is God, sovereign and omnipotent. He doesn’t play off of chance events, He makes history happen. In fact He decreed it from eternity.

There is no need to descend to sarcasm once again.
That is amazing to me–that there are those who believe we are completely bereft of free will.

Sorry, it was supposed to a light hearted joke (but jokes sometimes don’t come across well when we write them). Anyway, you would really have to define your idea of “free will” before I agree or disagree.

In other words, my brother is a huge proponent of free will. I would throw him a hypothetical like this. Take a boy born in Sub Saharan Africa. He’s lucky enough to live beyond age five but still he is raised in a village with virtually no water, with barely any food production, but that is in a remote dangerous location (to remote and dangerous for any missionaries or charitable organizations to reach).

There is no schools, the boy speaks a primitive language that only contains about a hundred or so words (if you want to call it that). The words are simply sounds, almost like a Morse code. He cannot read or write. As he reaches his early teen years he is inducted into manhood. He learns how to hunt game, build a tent from bamboo, but has no other useful skills.

The boy (now a man in his society) has no idea the western world even exists. He knows no God, since missionaries haven’t reached his tribe. When his people see planes in the sky from time to time they think it’s some sort of deity. They tremble in fear. They’ve built up a quasi-religion, very primitive but a religion all the same. When they hear these planes in the sky they bow in worship. They have no idea that the plane will land no more than 300 miles from there location. They’ve never even had contact with surrounding villages much less the large city that exists 300 miles away.

My brother would say the boy still has largely the same choices we have. In other words he could leave his village. He could make his way to another village or the city or perhaps even to the sea shore and jump on a ship heading to the United States. Would you agree with this? In other words why would the boy even consider doing this? He does not even believe other people or a society outside of his village exists. As far as he knows outside a certain perimeter of his village the world ends (because of the superstition of his tribe).

This is obviously an extreme example. However, it shows that all people in reality do not have an absolute level of free will. By even thinking this way we fail to understand that it is by grace we were born in America. We could have been born as that boy was born but God had different plans for us. Yet you don’t see God as working in this way?

Take the Joseph (son of Jacob) story. First his brothers sell him into slavery, then he’s accused of trying to rape his masters wife, ends up in prison, interprets two dreams, and finally winds up in the Pharaoh’s court and eventually as governor of Egypt. Do you think these were all chance events that God foresaw and used to advance His plans? Joseph disagrees with you.

Do you think Sodom could have been a Godly city if they just tried hard enough? Or do you think God decreed events as they happened so He could show His power to His vessels of mercy? Do you think the Pharaoh raised himself to power and God took advantage of this chance event? Or did God raise him up? Do you think the pharaoh could have capitulated before all the plagues were wrought on Egypt, or do you think God ensured he would disobey until just the right time, free the Jews and then lay chase on them, just so God could show His power to the Jewish people by drowning the Egyptian army?

 

[cazayoux]

Saved by grace through faith. Our good works are the fruit of this faith.

I like the analogy given in James 2:26.
[26] For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith apart from works is dead.

body = faith
spirit = works

michel

 

[sola_scriptura]

I like the analogy given in James 2:26.
[26] For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith apart from works is dead.

body = faith
spirit = works

michel

I agree faith apart from expressions of faith (works) will die, but I’m not sure about the body = faith and spirit = works formula?

God gives us faith (see Romans 12:3) so faith itself is also a work of the Spirit. It’s more like the flesh (body) = sin, while the spirit = faith (and everything that flows from it, like works).

Anyway, I agree with the premise so I guess the rest is quibbling over semantics?

 

[Mickey]

Hmmm, the Lord determines our steps.

Yes. But He does not restrict our free will. Do not interpolate.

If I want to step in one direction but God, who determines where I step, does not want me to step in that direction, then He prevents me from doing so. What else does this verse mean to you?

If you do not accept and cooperate with the grace that God freely offers to you— you will not step in the direction that He wants for you.

You would have to explain to me why I shouldn’t take this verse at face value

By all means, take it at face value. But it does not mean that God squashes our free will.

An evil man does evil things with arrogance,
But those who know themselves are wise
(Pr 13:11)

You will seek wisdom in the company of evil men, and you will not find it;
But perception is easily found with discerning
(Pr 14:6)

In other words without saving grace we can make no choice for God.

Correct.

However, God also forms His elect as a potter forms his clay. Even in the womb God is forming us (see Jeremiah 1:5, Romans 9:19-26).

Yes. in Jeremiah 1:5, God’s foreknowledge and His calling are woven together.

He anoints us before birth, forms us for a specific purpose as an engineer builds a machine for one thing and not for the other.

But He does not squash our free will.

God is not the passive onlooker you imagine

Please do not put words in my mouth.

My brother would say the boy still has largely the same choices we have.

Your brother should tell you that you are not a mind and heart reader. You do not know what goes on in the mind and heart of this young man–nor do you know if God has in fact touched him in some profound way. With God ALL things are possible.

Or perhaps he should tell you to stop playing “what if” games.

However, it shows that all people in reality do not have an absolute level of free will.

Everyone has complete free will.

By even thinking this way we fail to understand that it is by grace we were born in America. We could have been born as that boy was born but God had different plans for us.

I do not try do blow circuits in my mind by trying to “figure out” the ways of God using some elaborate scholastic calvinistic philosophical theology of double predestination and absence of free will. God’s ways are not our ways. God is omniscient and this is a glorious mystery. I know that each human being has free will and the ability to accept or reject God’s grace. And so I keep my eye on the Pearl of Great Price striving for virtues and battling against the passions–fighting the good fight–working out my salvation with fear and trembling.

Take the Joseph (son of Jacob) story. First his brothers sell him into slavery, then he’s accused of trying to rape his masters wife, ends up in prison, interprets two dreams, and finally winds up in the Pharaoh’s court and eventually as governor of Egypt. Do you think these were all chance events that God foresaw and used to advance His plans?

Joseph had complete free will. He was a type of Christ. Adam and Eve also had free will–they chose to eat the apple.

Joseph disagrees with you.

Really???

Do you think the Pharaoh raised himself to power and God took advantage of this chance event? Or did God raise him up? Do you think the pharaoh could have capitulated before all the plagues were wrought on Egypt, or do you think God ensured he would disobey until just the right time, free the Jews and then lay chase on them, just so God could show His power to the Jewish people by drowning the Egyptian army?

These events happened—so of course God ordained that these events should happen the way they did–but He does not squash the free will of humanity.

Mk 14:21
The Son of Man indeed goes just as it is written of Him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been good for that man if he had never been born.

Divine foreknowledge of the betrayal takes away neither Judas’ moral freedom nor his accountability. For God, all things are a present reality; He foresees all human actions, but does not cause them.

 

[mikeledes]

I want to add to my earlier post. I see a relation between John 15 and the Parable of the Sower. In fact I think it sends the exact same message:

Jesus tells the “parable of the sower” (v. 18) in verses 3-9; in verses 18-23 he provides the interpretation, in which only one who “hears the word and understands it”! perseveres to eternal life (v. 23).

Link to commentary here.

So in retrospect I see no deviance from the Reformed position.

The problem with using the Parable of the Sower is that the spiritual status of those who do not persevere - excluding the first group (unbelievers) - is not absolutely clear. If you believe that the just will persevere, then you will read that into the text. If you don’t believe that all of the just will persevere - such as Catholics, Lutherans and Classic Arminians - then you will read that into the text. However, in John 15 the spiritual status of the branches is very clear:

**2"Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit, He takes away; and every branch that bears fruit, He [a]prunes it so that it may bear more fruit. **

The “branch” or person is in Christ. Can anyone point to a passage in Scripture where “in Christ”, “in Him”, or “in the Son,” is ever used as a reference to mere membership in a Christian congregation? No. It is always a reference to a spiritual state before God and a reference to being saved. Moreover, Christ Himself reveals what the Vine and the branches signify:

5"I am the vine, you are the branches;

The Vine represents the person of Christ and the branches represents regenerate Christians. Why regenerate Christians? Because Christ specifically identifies the apostles - whom all accept that by this time they were truly regenerate - as the branches. Hence, he cannot have false Christians in view in verse 2. Secondly, John 15:6 Christ talks about those who do not remain in Him. Again, the Greek word used means to continue or stay in the condition, state, or place one is already in. This definition of “abide” is reaffirmed by John 15:4:

**"Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself unless it abides in the vine, so neither can you unless you abide in Me. **

So just as a branch must remain attached to the vine in order to bear fruit - otherwise it will wither - the Christian must remain attached to Christ. So when He says …

**6"If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire and they are burned. **

… He is stating that a Christian can cease being in Christ. You cannot cease to stay in something you were not in the first place. So this cannot refer to false professors who were never incorporated into Christ. That’s why many Calvinists have rejected the false professor argument. However, the alternative argument - as I pointed out - also has serious problems. In John 15:6, Jesus is saying that anyone who does not continue/stay in Him will be cast forth, dry up, be gathered up and cast into the fire. Note that the drying up occurs after being cut off. That makes sense because just as a branch cut off from a vine - it’s source of life - withers/ dies, a person cut off from Christ - our source of spiritual life - dies and his end is hell, for there is no life or salvation outside of Christ. So that’s why I believe the Catholic view of predestination is correct. The number of the just is not coextensive with the number of the elect. This was the view upheld by Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, and even Martin Luther. Besides, there are other passages that point to the fact that a Christian can forfeit his/her inheritance:

Revelation 22:19

**19and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book. **

You cannot take away something you never had, you cannot have a part in an inheritance unless you are an heir, you cannot be an heir unless you are a child of God, and you cannot be a child of God if you are not a genuine Christian. And if your inheritance can never be taken away, then what is the purpose of this warning? A warning in which no real danger is involved is pointless and accomplishes nothing. If you warn me that if I don’t study I will fail the test and fail the class and then say “I will make sure you never fail the class”, then what was the purpose of that warning?

God Bless,
Michael

 

[sola_scriptura]

The problem with using the Parable of the Sower is that the spiritual status of those who do not persevere - excluding the first group (unbelievers) - is not absolutely clear. If you believe that the just will persevere, then you will read that into the text. If you don’t believe that all of the just will persevere - such as Catholics, Lutherans and Classic Arminians - then you will read that into the text. However, in John 15 the spiritual status of the branches is very clear:

Again, I feel strongly that the confidence Paul had regarding his own election and that of the believers in the churches he planted can be had by all the faithful. I quote:

For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord (Romans 8:38-39).

Moreover, the language in John 15 cannot abrogate other passages, such as:

John 6:37-39, “All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.”

Phil. 1:6, “Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ:”

1 Thess. 5:23-24, “And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. Faithful is he that calleth you, who also will do it.”

2 Tim. 4:18, “And the Lord shall deliver me from every evil work, and will preserve me unto his heavenly kingdom: to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.”

1 Peter 1:23, “Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.”

Romans 8:29, “For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.”

Ephesians 2:10, “For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.”

So the real issue here is not whether or not the “saints will persevere” but rather how can we know whether we’re a “saint”?

At Acts 13:48 it states:

When the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and honored the word of the Lord; and all who were appointed for eternal life believed.

At Romans 10:9 it states:

That if you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

The Parable of the Sower (relevant part) explains:

When anyone hears the message about the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what was sown in his heart (Matt. 13:19).

I think when He uses the words “sown in his heart” he is saying the same thing as Paul in Rom. 10:9 (“believe in your heart”) and that He said in John 15:1-6. In other words these are people who had a sincere faith for a short time but it withered.

So I agree with your line of reasoning to a degree – but what gave Paul such confidence in not only his own election (which was merited because he was appointed by Jesus after all) but also in the election of the faithful in the churches he planted?

Why does Luke feel this confidence regarding those who believed (Acts 13:48)?

Either I’m being overly literal, which is possible. Or we need to reconcile these passages.

But the one who received the seed that fell on good soil is the man who hears the word and understands it. He produces a crop, yielding a hundred, sixty or thirty times what was sown" (Matt. 13:23).

Jesus draws a distinction between those who receive the word and understand it and those who heard the word, didn’t understand it, but yet something of Jesus was still sown in their hearts.

Obviously those who hear the word & understand it are given this understanding by God. They are the elect. However, what of those others? Jesus said because of their lack of understanding they will lose “what was sown in their heart.”

What did He mean by sown in their heart? Is this a deposit of the Holy Spirit? Is it psychological delusion? Or is it something entirely different? In other words how can we know we are one of the elect? This is why on a practical level Calvinists do not claim to know who are predestined and who is not.

The following passages also reflect the confidence of Paul:

Ephesians 4:30: “And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.”

Philippians 1:6: “And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ.”

1 Peter 1:5: “[The elect] by God’s power are being guarded through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.”

Paul describes the Holy Spirit of God as a “seal” and expressed certainty that the good work began in us will bring us to completion. Peter said the elect are guarded by God’s power – for salvation.

These ideas have clear tension with other revelations, such as: names can be blotted out of the book of life, make our calling and election sure, etc. How can we make our calling and election sure if we’re saved by grace apart from works – or if the elect are predestined by eternal decree? The caveat seems to be that only the elect will understand these things. In other words only the elect will understand their affirmative duties. Only the elect are “sealed” with the Holy Spirit, even though the Spirit is omnipotent in the sense that He resides everywhere as a universal force for good (i.e. common grace). People can actually believe they’re saved without actually being saved. This much is confirmed by our common experiences.

It seems like God has always had a sort of secret providence. Giving commands He knew would not be obeyed (see Deuteronomy 31:16), choosing a people yet putting up a stone of offense they would stumble over, etc. However, the common thread has always been faith-based salvation. By faith Abraham was justified – by obedience his faith was perfected. Paul had certainty that the faithful he converted during his ministry would endure. He didn’t only frame this as a high level of confidence – but as a certainty.

Still Calvinists do not buy into the idea of OSAS (eternal assurance); and practically speaking we do not claim to know who the elect are. Our doctrine of Perseverance merely reflects the confidence and certainty of Paul. The doctrine is supported by other passages outside of the Pauline epistles, but again the passages where Paul expresses his certainty regarding election do not lend themselves to alternate readings, as do other verses – such as the ones you mentioned. There is also something to be said here about the mysteries of the Trinity & the working of the Holy Spirit in relation to the workings of God and Christ. All are manifestations of God and all work for one common purpose. However, there does seem to be a degree of universality to the workings of the Spirit even in the non-elect. There are ideas at tension with one another that must be simply accepted as mystery. It is clear, however, that we are saved by grace, chosen before the founding of the world, and we may have the confidence and certainty in our own election that Paul expressed so fervently. It is also clear that Paul wanted us to have this certainty and therefore it must be a good thing to posses. It is faith in not just the existence of God and Christ and His sacrifice and resurrection, but also in the righteousness of God; a trust that God will keep His promise to us. It seems that this level of trust in and reliance on God and a high view of His sovereignty and providence really gives us the fortitude to endure.

Apologies for the long post (I had to shorten it a couple times to get under the 10,000 character limit). It seems it is difficult for me to discuss this topic with a semblance of brevity

 

[Jimmy_B]

sola_scriptura,

I have read many of your posts here and I have three questions for you.

1. Do you believe that all Catholics should abandon their faith to follow your beliefs, and that they should all agree with your own personal interpretations of the Bible?
2. Do you believe that all non-Catholic, Protestant Christians for that matter, should abandon their faiths to follow your beliefs, and that they should all agree with your own personal interpretations of the Bible?
3. Do you believe that there exists conflict in the Bible, where one Bible verse conflicts with another?

Please answer these questions with a”Yes” or “No”.

This should be an easy “Yes” or “No” answer, if you truly believe that you are correct in all things Christian.

Your answer should be “Yes” to all three questions, if you are truly correct in your comments here, should they not?

This is the problem that occurs with the errant belief in, “personal interpretation of the Bible”, isn’t it?

There are many people today, who belong to the, “religion of their own intellect” and there are those who would rather follow men, Protestant men, then follow Christ and His, One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Are you one of these people?

Thank you for your posts here.

 

[sola_scriptura]

Jimmy B.

No I do not think anyone needs to leave their denomination (unless of course they’re Mormon, Islamic, or an Atheist ).

I do believe that it is enormously helpful to hold a high view of the sovereignty and providence of God & perseverance. I am in the process of answering your questions regarding perseverance in the OSAS thread.

Regarding consistency, no I do not believe there is any inconsistency in Scripture at all. If we think it is then it’s our understanding that is faulty not God’s word, ever.

Regarding your assertions about Protestantism being a religion of men and all that baloney, I’ll bite my tongue on that one.

 

[justasking4]

Jimmy B.

No I do not think anyone needs to leave their denomination (unless of course they’re Mormon, Islamic, or an Atheist ).

I do believe that it is enormously helpful to hold a high view of the sovereignty and providence of God & perseverance. I am in the process of answering your questions regarding perseverance in the OSAS thread.

What would you do if you were an Anglican? Would stay or move on?

 

[sola_scriptura]

What would you do if you were an Anglican? Would stay or move on?

Ordaining gay clergy is a absolute deal breaker for me. I am hoping the Anglican Church will kick the Episcopalians out of their communion, or at least force them to reverse this heresy, but that’s not going to happen.

Answer, since I’m American for me the Anglican Church is the episcopalian church … I would have left years ago, the minute they had a gay pastor (let alone a bishop).

My view of a right church is contained right in the Pauline pastoral epistles. Nothing else will do for me. I certainly respect divergent views, but these are mine.

However, do I think others should flee that church. You caught me on something I didn’t consider when I answered your previous question. I would have to say yes in that case.

 

[Jimmy_B]

Ordaining gay clergy is a absolute deal breaker for me. I am hoping the Anglican Church will kick the Episcopalians out of their communion, or at least force them to reverse this heresy, but that’s not going to happen.

Answer, since I’m American for me the Anglican Church is the episcopalian church … I would have left years ago, the minute they had a gay pastor (let alone a bishop).

My view of a right church is contained right in the Pauline pastoral epistles. Nothing else will do for me. I certainly respect divergent views, but these are mine.

However, do I think others should flee that church. You caught me on something I didn’t consider when I answered your previous question. I would have to say yes in that case.

Hello again sola_scriptura,

Do you believe that the Pauline Letters supersede the Gospels?

Additionally, isn’t it true that much of what Saint Paul wrote was intended for a specific audience, based on specific events of that time?

Moreover, do you believe that other books of the Bible, such as the Gospels and the Catholic Epistles conflict with what Saint Paul preached?

Finally, in your opinion, if Saint Paul were alive today, what religion or denomination would he agree with?

Thank you for your post, I look forward to your response.

Peace.

 

[catholiconce]

why the need to insult people?

this rudeness tends to prove that… as mentioned in another thread… you Protestants (the rude ones anyway) will spend more time in Purgatory than Catholics… :hypno:

Oh I see Distracted is the one that knows who is going to purgatory and for how long also My how special. Do not remark on the splinter in anothers Eye when you have a beam in your own. Oh aand that remark came from a “you Protestant” So now how much longer will I spend in purgatory ?? Should I ask God ? No I can just ask distracted

 

[Always_For_Him]

Oh I see Distracted is the one that knows who is going to purgatory and for how long also My how special. Do not remark on the splinter in anothers Eye when you have a beam in your own. Oh aand that remark came from a “you Protestant” So now how much longer will I spend in purgatory ?? Should I ask God ? No I can just ask distracted

You know, it is very difficult to take insults, then say we are giving insults when we are not. After a period of time, frustration can make you say some pretty up front things. Most likely, some people will spend more time in purgatory than others. Who on earth knows, but I am sure that distracted was not wanting it to go where you just took it. You know why distracted said what he/she said. If not, then I am guessing that you didn’t read that Protestant’s (and others) rude/mean/misleading and blatantly untrue comments. It looks as though you may have a beam in yor eye too. Maybe all of us do as we get into heated discussions, but that doesn’t call for suggesting that anyone thinks they are God. You just went right down in the pits that you are casting distracted into.

 

[anon52328184]

considering that Jesus was here on earth from around 3 b.c. to 26 a.d.
( i know they don’t use those same initials anymore) i don’t think God’s true church would have began in the mid 1500’s or after. if Jesus was here and chose his 12 apostles, their mission began immediately. what do you think everyone was doing before the protestants invented themselves in the mid 1500’s? it is pretty much common sense to me. you are making it harder than it is to see the truth in the reply to this question. the Catholic church already existed before the schisms with the eastern churches and the protestants, so how hard is it to see what the true church is?

 

[Reepicheep]

plus when you look at the original language the rock used in that scripture is petra and pedro… two different words. One meaning small rock (Peter) and the other means large immovable rock (faith in Christ)

Christ wasn’t speaking Greek when He said this to Peter.
He would have been speaking Aramaic, the usual language for first-century Isreali Jews.
In Aramaic, “rock” was “Cephas”.
“You are Cephas, and on this Cephas I will build my Church”.
When this account was committed to writing, in Greek, they had a translation problem.
The difference between “petra” and “petros” is not one of meaning. It is a point of grammar.
Petra=rock: but it’s a feminine noun. Using “Petra” as the new name for Simon the Apostle would sound like giving him a girl’s name.
So they used “petra” for “on this rock” but changed it to “Petros” (a male grammatical ending) when using it as Simon’s new name.
In English there is no problem: "“You are Rock, and on this rock I will build my church.”
In Aramaic no problem. “You are Cephas and on this cephas I will build my church.”
The problem arises only in the Greek translation.
By the way, in Greek, the word for a tiny rock or pebble is “lithos”.

 

[sola_scriptura]

Hello again sola_scriptura,

Do you believe that the Pauline Letters supersede the Gospels?

Additionally, isn’t it true that much of what Saint Paul wrote was intended for a specific audience, based on specific events of that time?

Moreover, do you believe that other books of the Bible, such as the Gospels and the Catholic Epistles conflict with what Saint Paul preached?

Finally, in your opinion, if Saint Paul were alive today, what religion or denomination would he agree with?

Thank you for your post, I look forward to your response.

Peace.

Paul was an Apostle equal in every sense to the twelve, so his epistles are of equal stature. The words of Christ obviously take precedence, but since Paul was commissioned by Christ Himself Paul never said anything inconsistent with the words of Jesus.

I’m not even sure why you would ask such a question? Do you find inconsistency between Paul & the Gospels? Moreover, why would you think Paul’s words are not eternal? Do you think only early Christians were predestined? Do you think God only decreed early history while leaving contemporary humanity to chance? Can you see why I would be baffled by what you’re implying by these questions?

I’m sure Paul would be an Orthodox Presbyterian

 

[Jimmy_B]

…I’m not even sure why you would ask such a question? Do you find inconsistency between Paul & the Gospels? Moreover, why would you think Paul’s words are not eternal? Do you think only early Christians were predestined? …

Hello sola_scriptura

Here, maybe this will help to refresh your recollection, you wrote a few posts ago (#587) -

“My view of a right church is contained right in the Pauline pastoral epistles. Nothing else will do for me.”

Additionally, early Christians belong to the early Church which was/is the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church does not share John Calvin’s errant belief in “predestination”.

“Predestination” is a false, anti-Biblical, anti-Christian, man-made, Protestant invention.

Nice try.

 

[Jimmy_B]

I’m sure Paul would be an Orthodox Presbyterian

That’s a good one, because everyone knows that he’d be a Roman Catholic….