Which Church??

[eazyduzit]

No, there has always been one true Church, and there have always been wannabees. And despite all the various interpretations of Scripture that has led to the formation of many, many denominations teaching conflicting and contradictory doctrines, that Church which began calling itself “Catholic” before the end of the first century teaches one consistent doctrine for almost 2,000 years.

Yes, I agree there has always been one true Church, the body of Christ, as Paul put it. In this church there is no longer Jew or gentile, male or female. It exists as surely as you and I,but it doesn’t, have a street address or a web page. Some may discount this so what do they do with the verses that refer to the “churches of Christ” (RM.16 :16) or “churches of God”(1Cor.11:16) and many other mentions of “the churches” (plural).

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Yes, I agree there has always been one true Church, the body of Christ, as Paul put it. In this church there is no longer Jew or gentile, male or female. It exists as surely as you and I,but it doesn’t, have a street address or a web page. Some may discount this so what do they do with the verses that refer to the “churches of Christ” (RM.16 :16) or “churches of God”(1Cor.11:16) and many other mentions of “the churches” (plural).

So the church community Paul wrote to and likely worshipped with wasn’t the church of Corinth or Rome? Take in mind I don’t mean church as a physical structure, but as a community which may gather at a specific building to conduct services.

 

[eazyduzit]

So the church community Paul wrote to and likely worshipped with wasn’t the church of Corinth or Rome? Take in mind I don’t mean church as a physical structure, but as a community which may gather at a specific building to conduct services.

Sorry, I didn’t mean to imply that. Only that there seem to have been many churches in the NT with some variing beliefs.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Sorry, I didn’t mean to imply that. Only that there seem to have been many churches in the NT with some variing beliefs.

Would any of them, despite their differences, dared to have question the authority of an apostle? Let me clarify that question, would any orthodox believer dare to do such a thing?

 

[eazyduzit]

Would any of them, despite their differences, dared to have question the authority of an apostle? Let me clarify that question, would any orthodox believer dare to do such a thing?

The answer is yes. See Rev.2:2. To the church of Ephesus, Jesus says “thou hast tried them which say they are apostles and are not, and hast found them liars”

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

The answer is yes. See Rev.2:2. To the church of Ephesus, Jesus says “thou hast tried them which say they are apostles and are not, and hast found them liars”

By apostle I mean the Twelve and Paul.

 

[Bayou_Catholic]

The answer is yes. See Rev.2:2. To the church of Ephesus, Jesus says “thou hast tried them which say they are apostles and are not, and hast found them liars”

Your proof text is out of context and does not answer the question. It addresses one that claims to be an apostle but is not. IgnatianPhilo’s question is clearly stated; and it speaks of one who is an apostle.

IgnatianPhilo:

Would any of them, despite their differences, dared to have question the authority of an apostle? Let me clarify that question, would any orthodox believer dare to do such a thing?

Would an orthodox Christian have challenged the authority of Paul? James? Peter? John? Thomas? The Council of Jerusalem?

Sorry to intrude! The question caught my attention. And, I am interested in your (and anyone else’s) answer.

 

[Porknpie]

Some Catholics believe in Limbo for infants, some in Hell, some say they go to Heaven. I assume this isn’t a problem for you though?

Dronald,

Curious where you believe infants go who have died and have not been baptized and what you base your belief on?

This is an area of theological speculation so no wrong answer.

 

[PRmerger]

Some Catholics believe in Limbo for infants, some in Hell, some say they go to Heaven. I assume this isn’t a problem for you though?

This Tu Quoque argument has been refuted quite eloquently by Jimmy Akin here.

He says: First, Catholicism has a functioning magisterium that can decide that these matters are not essential differences. Second, the relevant schools adhere to the teachings of the magisterium and, if their views were reprobated, would accept the results (or cease to be faithful Catholics). Third, the differences between Catholic schools of thought have nowhere near the magnitude of the difference among Protestant schools. Compared to the differences among Protestant groups, differences among orthodox Catholic groups are trivial. Finally, the fact that the Catholic Church has a magisterium means that there can be—and on the most important theological matters there is—an official Catholic position. There is no parallel standard in Protestant circles that can speak for Protestantism.

Other times, advocates of the “unity in essentials” argument will attempt to construct a parallel argument against Catholics by pointing to the existence of ostensible Catholics who refuse to acknowledge the magisterium’s teachings.

In response, it should be pointed out that the difference among Catholic dissidents is frequently far less than among individuals in the sweep of Protestant belief. Furthermore, individuals’ refusal to accept the magisterium’s teachings does not challenge the Christ-given authority of the magisterium any more than the refusal to accept some of Paul’s teachings undermines Paul’s authority as an apostle. Moreover, Protestant churches also have individuals who refuse to honor the teachings of their denominations. The difference is that for Catholicism there is a body—the bishops teaching in union with the pope—who “speak for the Church” and who can articulate what “the Catholic position” is, while in Protestantism there is nothing comparable.

 

[dronald]

Dronald,

Curious where you believe infants go who have died and have not been baptized and what you base your belief on?

This is an area of theological speculation so no wrong answer.

They go to Heaven of course. They’re innocent babies and have done nothing wrong; no one should be afraid to know that they are with God.

Jeremiah 31:29 In those days they shall no longer say: "'The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge. ’

30 But everyone shall die for his own sin. Each man who eats sour grapes, his teeth shall be set on edge.

The rest of that chapter by the way is about Jesus; and quoted in Hebrews at large.

Also Ezekiel 18:19 "Yet you say, 'Why should not the son suffer for the iniquity of the father? ’ When the son has done what is just and right, and has been careful to observe all my statutes, he shall surely live.

20 The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.

 

[dronald]

This Tu Quoque argument has been refuted quite eloquently by Jimmy Akin here.

He says: First, Catholicism has a functioning magisterium that can decide that these matters are not essential differences. Second, the relevant schools adhere to the teachings of the magisterium and, if their views were reprobated, would accept the results (or cease to be faithful Catholics). Third, the differences between Catholic schools of thought have nowhere near the magnitude of the difference among Protestant schools. Compared to the differences among Protestant groups, differences among orthodox Catholic groups are trivial. Finally, the fact that the Catholic Church has a magisterium means that there can be—and on the most important theological matters there is—an official Catholic position. There is no parallel standard in Protestant circles that can speak for Protestantism.

Other times, advocates of the “unity in essentials” argument will attempt to construct a parallel argument against Catholics by pointing to the existence of ostensible Catholics who refuse to acknowledge the magisterium’s teachings.

In response, it should be pointed out that the difference among Catholic dissidents is frequently far less than among individuals in the sweep of Protestant belief. Furthermore, individuals’ refusal to accept the magisterium’s teachings does not challenge the Christ-given authority of the magisterium any more than the refusal to accept some of Paul’s teachings undermines Paul’s authority as an apostle. Moreover, Protestant churches also have individuals who refuse to honor the teachings of their denominations. The difference is that for Catholicism there is a body—the bishops teaching in union with the pope—who “speak for the Church” and who can articulate what “the Catholic position” is, while in Protestantism there is nothing comparable.

The reason that I see this as ridiculous is that the lack of any true teaching on this subject brings the chance that helpless babies may be denied Heaven and go to Limbo or Hell.

So I would consider this important.

 

[PRmerger]

They go to Heaven of course. They’re innocent babies and have done nothing wrong; no one should be afraid to know that they are with God.

What about the stain of original sin? What cleanses them of that?

Or do you reject original sin? If so, how do you explain our obviously flawed human natures?

 

[dronald]

What about the stain of original sin? What cleanses them of that?

Or do you reject original sin? If so, how do you explain our obviously flawed human natures?

You’re speaking of babies? What do you mean, that they cry to much or…?

Or are you speaking of when they grow up? I just quoted two passages that say children will no longer be condemned because of their parents; so it’s Biblical.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Do not even Protestants do the same?

I’m sure they do. One less reason why you will have problems converting.

 

[PRmerger]

The reason that I see this as ridiculous is that the lack of any true teaching on this subject brings the chance that helpless babies may be denied Heaven and go to Limbo or Hell.

What is your church’s true teaching on this? And where is it articulated? (Please note: Scripture cannot be your reference, for it is the same reference we Catholics are using).

IOW: where has your pastor definitively defined where babies go after dying before baptism?

So I would consider this important.

And yet the Scriptures do not tell us where unbaptized babies go.

Man may think something’s important. God obviously views otherwise.

 

[dronald]

What is your church’s true teaching on this? And where is it articulated? (Please note: Scripture cannot be your reference, for it is the same reference we Catholics are using).

IOW: where has your pastor definitively defined where babies go after dying before baptism?

Of course I can use Scripture.

“Let the infants come to me, and do not hinder them; for such belongs the Kingdom of Heaven.”

To say that infants will not go is unbiblical.

Also, 2 passages up there ^^

 

[benjohnson]

This Tu Quoque argument has been refuted quite eloquently by Jimmy Akin here.

Jimmy Akin’s argument is ultimately unsatisfying as his answer is basically “We’re not quite as bad.” His conclusion is however true if given the premise that Protestants are some sort of unified whole.

The difficulty for Jimmy’s argument is that it reduces - in that we LCMS Lutherans could use Jimmy Akin’s argument to show we’re more correct - in that we few LCMS Lutherans are more united more in doctrine than the billion or so Catholics of this world.

…

My thoughts are this: We (even us wayward Lutherans) should be glad for the Magisterium’s teaching authority, but it doesn’t solve the problem we as individuals have of binding our will to Christ.

 

[PRmerger]

You’re speaking of babies? What do you mean, that they cry to much or…?

Or are you speaking of when they grow up? I just quoted two passages that say children will no longer be condemned because of their parents; so it’s Biblical.

I am asking if you reject Original Sin? Yes, or no?

 

[dronald]

I’m sure they do. One less reason why you will have problems converting.

But we don’t leave open the possibility that infants can burn in hell. There’s my gripe.

 

[PRmerger]

Jimmy Akin’s argument is ultimately unsatisfying as his answer is basically “We’re not quite as bad.”

Well, yeah. That’s his argument because the objection is: you’re just as bad.

If the objection is…lame, then that makes the response necessarily…lame.