Who was the Rock in Matthew 16:18?

[CentralFLJames]

How exactly does one do this “with an assumed authority”? What kinds of words and phrases appear on your computer screen that let you know that’s what they’re doing?

Aside from the things written by you, of course.

Useless rhetoric.

I didn’t say anything about “tradition.” This is all about history. Check this out. books.google.com/books?id=aVMyddU3z1wC&pg=PA472&sig=KqX-ts6vtIHI-mxIcgC0Jm2ScRs&hl=en#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Obfuscation (or assuming the best - an incompetent link reference) - the link to a middle age accounting of sacraments that seems light with respect to the sacrament of repentance (a weak polemic attempt?) only strengthens the case by giving more historical evidence of a continuous apostolic priesthood. We we can do much better than that from much earlier documents.

So you interpret this passage in such a way that you must conclude that if any Magisterium has ever taught anything that is in error, the gates of hell have indeed prevailed against Christ’s Church; therefore, considering Christ’s guarantee and the apparent reality of a church against which the gates of hell have not prevailed, the Magisterium has never taught anything that is in error. Is that something akin to the size and shape of your argument?

How else can you interpret it? If the Church is the body of Christ with Christ at its head and if through the instrument of its spokesperson (Chris’s Vicar) it teaches error then clearly hell has prevailed against both Christ’s Church and Christ. Do you think that Jesus was being merely rhetorical with this statement? Or do you think that Christ has no Vicar or spokesperson and that the body of Christ is a disordered mob rule that is already prevailed against by disorder? There can be only one objective truth not a legion of private and contradictory opinions.

The Magisterium has never changed an official teaching. Therefor there is certainly no historical evidence of an admission to error through an issuance of errata. Nor has there been any error taught that anyone can point to and prevail through private opinion.

If so, I think you know where I’m going with it: This passage does not force you to conclude that the gates of hell prevail against the church if and when it does teach something that is in error. You’ll be looking a long time before you find any Christians outside the CC and EOC that claim infallibility like you do, and these people constitute the clear majority of Christ’s Body, the Church.

So may I take as the essence of your rebuttal that “majority rule” and large numbers defines objective truth? And you need to get facts straight - the Catholic Church has at least 400 million more Christians than are held in the corpus of the Protestant ecclesial faith communities. Christians and one sixth of the world’s population. So much for your cloudy view of clarity.

Unless you’re suggesting that non-Catholics aren’t actually a part of the Church- and I don’t think you do. What is the official position at this time…These groups of Christians (and they are Christians) are a part of the Body of Christ but are in various levels of imperfect communion with it? I think that sounds about right.

Correct. Personally I would not presume of course to judge the interior state of any, much less every, person’s soul who imagines he is “saved” merely by the power of his own conviction in his personal views of Christianity. I can certainly extend “the benefit of the hope” for all who are baptised (by Trinitarian formula) that they somehow without benefit of Catholic sacraments never fall into grave post-baptismal sin nor gain severe culpability or not becoming formal Catholics and actually manage to remain in “The Church” (Catholic) to escape hell.

The official position at “this time” is the same as it has always been. Namely those who are baptised by Trinitarian formula are by baptism members of the Catholic Church. But those who estrange themselves by breaking or never entering into full communion are in gravely disordered circumstances which puts a Christian soul at grave risk of disgrace and damnation by ones own fault and choice. As you no doubt know there is a Catholic principal of “invincible ignorance” that may mitigate some culpability for personal fault but this principal conveys no grace and ignorance never saves in and of itself and is most often accompanied by vices and other depravities as occasioned by sin.

We trust such to God’s Mercy but never presume upon it. We pray that the good graces of Christ that flow from Him through the Catholic Church will be gained by those who through ignorance of necessity to be formal Catholics and who deny themselves the sacraments through ignorance may nonetheless receive grace through the visible sacrament of The Church itself.

[continued]
James

 

[CentralFLJames]

Now here’s my question: Why is it that you draw the line at “fallible Magisterium” and say that constitutes the Gates of Hell Prevailing and It’s All Over, Jesus Must Have Lied, but you look at things like the Great Schism, the Protestant Reformation, and a situation where most of Christ’s Church is not (according to Catholics) in “full communion” with the Body and say “Meh, that’s not what Jesus was talking about”?

The line is drawn at surviving truth not at what departs from truth. Just as Christ was left alone by His disciples who denied him or departed from Him in his hour of need the Truth still existed and suffered to suspend itself for all to see on the cross. Save a few faithful (Mary, young John the apostle and some of the women) most abandoned Christ but later came back. So we can draw the line with Christ and his promise that His Church will not be prevailed against and in his conveyance of His apostolic authority.

The Great Schism was not a breaking away from the true apostolic faith rather more of a political alienation. The Church though wounded never changed its teachings - the faith was not corrupted (reconciliation with the Orthodox is easily foreseeable since they are true apostolic Christians).

The Protestant Reformation was an all out revolt against ecclesial authority and a complete break with the faith that was handed down through the Church ecclesial authority. All new doctrines never before heard of in Christendom (Sola Fide, Sola Scriptura etc.) were invented out of thin air to develop a new “easier” Christianity that made each man accountable only to his own conscience (no matter how well formed). It was “every man with a bible his own pope” (irrespective if he could read it - and 90% could not). Even so, this rebellion as bloody and as far reaching as it was never changed the handed down faith still held by the Catholic faithful and who never departed from it. Satan wounded The Church and no doubt took a multitude of souls for himself (and nodubt still does). But evil has only prevailed against unfaithful men who foolishly heeded Satan’s call to leave the safety of The Church. That is prevailing against disobedient individuals but not The Church itself.

I trust you are not suggesting that Jesus failed as Messiah by letting Judah betray him or for letting Satan nail him to the cross? Jesus never changed His teachings and only became more glorified by suffering the betrayals and the persecutions that he choose to suffer at the hand of those who made Him their enemy.

It seems like you’ve taken this reference to “The gates of hell prevailing against it” and established a rather arbitrary set of circumstances under which the gates of hell would prevail, and it just so happens to be perfectly tailored to whatever you’re arguing against. I know you think it’s an awesome argument that really stumps Protestants and makes them feel intellectually inadequate, but I think it’s a rather transparent example of eisegesis that doesn’t even attempt to find out the original intent of the person saying those words.

You suggest a convenient interpretation and even a judgement of an insincere motive but offer no substitute. I think this be nothing more than a sign of insecurity and the well known Protestant proclivity for mistrust, suspicion and corporate paranoia of The Catholic Church…

I can just easily say that you pull the only convenient counter-argument available to you by grasping at the single artifact available from a narrow-minded sola scriptura mindset to claim “eisegesis”. This is a poor apologetic approach. You eventually have to claim that you are endowed with a personal episodic or transient infallabilty and figuratively ordain yourself as a secular pope.

Here I will complain that this is the hypocrisy of sola scriptura. This “infallable” Protestant dogma pacifies each individual to the assurance to cling to his own private interpretation as “exegesis” – as long as the same does not get off his private reservation to walk his dogma on the other man’s eisegesis to impose his religion on anyone else. You’re off the reservation my friend and gathering your wind to pontificate. Let’s hope it comes out the right end.

This was the contradiction of Luther who became the spokesperson for the conscience of the new faith where every plow-boy had his own bible (even if he could not read it). Luther while attacking the authority of the pope made himself a secular pope. The very doctrine of sola scripture in practice can’t help but to undermines a notion of objective truth and harm Christian credibility in a progressively hedonistic and material world. To the outsider taking it all in Protestant Christianity looks like a legion of tinkerers operating under the “big tent” of Protestantism. Within, all endlessly at work patching their tin pots (thin theology) to make it hold water then reselling to each other; more like the clamor of a flea market than as the serenity and peace of Christ’s one voice.

See Sola Scriptura for what it is. It’s a wrecking ball that can only bust up its subscribers – first into course groups, then eventually into fine dust - each man becoming his own church. Eventually there remains only dust in the wind (to be specs in our eyes ). What remains in evidence is the dead weight of sola sriptura swinging with the same rusty squeak of a child’s swing in an empty playground. Look around. Protestantism is dieing and being remade into a sort of secular-patriotism with a “gentleman’s moral code”. It’s being divided against itself as it is being politically and socially marginalized. Christianity is under assault both from within and from the outside and the only stability is The Catholic Church.

At the bottom here. What else can we imagine that Christ meant by HIS words when we know he prayed for unity of faith?

[continued]
James

 

[CentralFLJames]

I’m curious about something. Would you call me a heretic? Remember that heresy’s characteristic is pertinacia, the obstinacy of him who persists in his own private way. Would you say this is an appropriate description of my spiritual situation? What about that of the average Protestant Christian today? What, if anything, does my separation from the Catholic affirmation have to do with the pertinacia characteristic of heresy?

I don’t like to be compelled to judge others – especially those I do not know well. Technically I’d say “no” - since you are not Catholic and apparently never where. You never had the fullness of the faith and are in an alienated relationship to the Body of Christ by being outside of the formal membership in the Catholic Church by right of baptism (I presume). You are a “seperated brother” who may or may not be in a state of grace. Without the sacraments except by other signal grace or divine revelation not even you can personally know with reasonable certainty which is the case since ONLY the sacraments and sacramental (or clear signs of charity that transdend mere social politeness) are an outward sign of grace (one receives grace ex opere operato and in accord with their interior disposition receive it CC1131).

If you were a formal Catholic and tried to teach your private views to other Catholics then you would be a heretic. You many only be “invincibly ignorant”. If not then unless you repent and come into the Catholic Church we might call you “toast”.

That passage involving “binding and loosing”…would you mind telling me exactly what that says and how it is that you conclude that Jesus is authorizing His disciples to “judge a soul into hell”?

I used awkward words. The Church can not judge a soul into hell and I regret expressing it in the way I did. I misspoke. But the Church can and does judge when to loose or bind sin. The conditions for loosing are very generous - repentance with a sincere intention of avoiding sin but first coming to the confessional to confess the fault. Most refusal to loose sin is by a failure of the sinner to avail himself of that authority and decline to admit the sin and seek apostolic absolution. But there are a few cases where the Church apostolic authority will hold sin bound by refusing to loose it. An example might be denying absolution to a person who refused to repent of a sin while seeking absolution - continuing to live in an adulterous union. God does not judge absolved sins but will judge those “bound” by refusal to repent. We also have the binding authority of the Catholic anathemas.

Bet you didn’t see this coming.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=130038

Are you challenging that the translation is inadequate since it used an abbreviated form of the translation to convey the essense of what applies to this discussion?

The way you talk to Protestants could use a little work. If you happen to find that Protestants consistently hate talking to you, this might not be a credit to your skills as an apologist (or at times, as a polemicist). It might just mean you’re unpleasant to talk to and you need to work on it a little.

I take your dodge of the question to mean “no” - you have no pedigree you desire to claim as superior to the Catholic Church. So are we just in idle social exchange here - a mere hobby or passing of time? Or do you want to teach Catholics how wrong they are using mere personal opinions about what our 2,000 year old Church really believed?

Can I also assume that your current dialog with me here is indicative you don’t hate to talk to me or are willing to suffer what I say irrespective of any held interior hatred and contempt.

Jesus was hated for bringing the truth so it concerns me little if some people do not like my style. Personally, I like to cut to the chase and not spend a lot of time using the slower but more congenial “teaspoon” approach to laying siege to error. I say bring in the siege engines and lets start busting down walls.

Besides, in general I think it more genuine to not pander and to get people to reveal their beliefs right up front. People need to know the severity of what it means to reject the truth that Christ and the apostles actually taught. People need to know that there was nothing special in the “totally depraved” intellects of the reformers to give any rational hope that their neo-Christian academic theories were superior to what we had for 1500 years prior. Just how does a “totally depraved” mind come up with the bright idea that it can escape its own corruption to perfectly “reform” The Christian Church and escape its own defective image? Just brilliant.

People are never changed by congeniality and endless banter. Evangelizing is not a matter of tea and crumpets but rather boldly causing a person to reexamine everything they believe from an apostolic teaching tradition and by credibility. I see no miracles or signs that a single Protestant ever made it to heaven. Has anyone proven that he’s collected on Luther’s guarantee that its all “sola fide” or got his soul back to try again? I don’t think so.

To those non-Catholics who call themselves “Christian” I voice Paul’s sentiments on the matter:

Galatians 1:9 As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed

What was handed down to us from the apostles is NOT Protestant.

This is Christian Unity Week - we pray for unity this week.

James

 

[Bill_Pick]

Why is it not possible, for there to be two rocks ?

Peace,onenow1

Just why can you say Two Rock .Jesus said I will build my Church.
Jesus was speaking greek in matt 16. and He would not say is it possible for there to be two rocks,Did Jesus need two rocks to build His Church

 

[vz71]

Protestants are not missing out on anything,

Except Mass, the Eucharist, Confirmation, Holy Orders, A Priesthood, a direct line of succession to the apostles, A church actually founded by God…

There are a number of things our Protestant brothers and sisters are missing out on.
And the truly unfortunate thing is that many cannot even relate to these in any meaningful way…so they do not even realize there is something missing.

 

[PRmerger]

That too is only your opinion

Interestingly, I just read this by my favorite philosopher, Peter Kreeft. Source here; (bold mine)

Such people are usually surprised and pleased to find out that Saint Thomas Aquinas, of all people, agrees with them to such an extent that he says if a Catholic comes to believe the Church is in error in some essential, officially defined doctrine,** it is a mortal sin against conscience, a sin of hypocrisy, for him to remain in the Church and call himself a Catholic,** but only a venial sin against knowledge for him to leave the Church in honest but partly culpable error.

 

[PRmerger]

. Please tell me precisely what it means to “claim authority” and why it matters so much to you. And please tell me what the main goal of that line of discussion is.

We mean, in this context, when you “claim authority” you claim to be the “definitive interpretor” of Scripture. Yet another Christian, who may teach an entirely contrary doctrine to yours, also claims this authority for himself. Now what? Where do you turn?

[SIGN]To the pillar and bulwark of truth! [/SIGN]

 

[PRmerger]

The original writers and their students knew if they were truth and inspired.

You’re saying that the early Christians just “knew” what books were inspired? Do you have a chapter and verse that says this?

 

[PRmerger]

You are using Gnostic Scripture to argue that it was the Catholic Church that decided on the Canon?

Nope. Firstly, the Didache was not Gnostic.

Secondly, I am not using those ancient texts to argue that it was the CC that decided on the canon. I provided you with those texts to counter your claim that we had the Gospels at the time of Paul. As you can see from the (nonexhaustive) list I provided, there were a multitude of “gospels” in existence. Unless there was an infallible list of canonical Scriptures that fell down from the heavens, there was no consensus until 400 years later, as to what was canonical.

 

[PRmerger]

All Trinitarian Christians believe all the things you mention.
It is confusing to some when we say only protestant Christians which some might lump into the equation Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses and any others out there that do not at least believe the very base of what Trinitarian Christians believe.

Ok. So please give me how Trinitarian Christians agree on these–

What is original sin and its effects on humanity
Baptism
Rapture
Tongues (some believe others are not saved if they don’t speak in tongues)
Divorce
Abortion
Homosexuality
When to celebrate the Lord’s Day
Once saved, always saved
Music or no music (Singing or no singing)
Women pastors, no women pastors
Hell, or no hell
The Eucharist (Communion)
Sola scriptura/private interpretation
Ordination
Trinity vs. Unitarianism
Death/Soul Sleep
Church leadership, or no leadership
Head coverings or no head coverings
Health and wealth gospel
Drinking allowed, drinking not allowed)
Attend weekly services, don’t have to go to Church
Judge others, don’t judge others
What’s a sin, what is not a sin
Charity or no charity (help one another or let them help
themselves)
Is God‘s Holy Name Jehovah
Predestination
Is it permissible for women to teach Scripture?
Can men and women sit together during services?

 

[schaick]

Nope. Firstly, the Didache was not Gnostic.

Secondly, I am not using those ancient texts to argue that it was the CC that decided on the canon. I provided you with those texts to counter your claim that we had the Gospels at the time of Paul. (forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6191859&postcount=917) As you can see from the (nonexhaustive) list I provided, there were a multitude of “gospels” in existence. Unless there was an infallible list of canonical Scriptures that fell down from the heavens, there was no consensus until 400 years later, as to what was canonical.

OK, but the Didache is not a Gospel, but a how to live, act, worship “by the Gospel”. It is more about what the early church looked like and not a first hand account of Jesus and His actions. It is not a Gospel but in fact points to the Gospel:

earlychristianwritings.com/text/didache-roberts.html

“It bears no date itself, nor does it make reference to any datable external event, yet the picture of the Church which it presents could only be described as primitive, reaching back to the very earliest stages of the Church’s order and practice in a way which largely agrees with the picture presented by the NT, while at the same time posing questions for many traditional interpretations of this first period of the Church’s life.”

Some scholars date the Diache to around 50AD. ***“Didache, which originated about 110 CE, documents the emerging authority of the one great Gospel." ***

“Chapter 11. Concerning Teachers, Apostles, and Prophets…act according to the decree of the Gospel”

“Chapter 15. Bishops and Deacons; Christian Reproof. Appoint, therefore, for yourselves, bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord, men meek, and not lovers of money, and truthful and proved; for they also render to you the service of prophets and teachers. Therefore do not despise them, for they are your honored ones, together with the prophets and teachers. And reprove one another, not in anger, but in peace, as you have it in the Gospel.”

It is in fact because of the Gnostic Gospels that a canon was made. The official canon was a confirmation of what was already known to be true.

Ok. So please give me how Trinitarian Christians agree on these–

What is original sin and its effects on humanity
Baptism
Rapture
Tongues (some believe others are not saved if they don’t speak in tongues)
Divorce
Abortion
Homosexuality
When to celebrate the Lord’s Day
Once saved, always saved
Music or no music (Singing or no singing)
Women pastors, no women pastors
Hell, or no hell
The Eucharist (Communion)
Sola scriptura/private interpretation
Ordination
Trinity vs. Unitarianism
Death/Soul Sleep
Church leadership, or no leadership
Head coverings or no head coverings
Health and wealth gospel
Drinking allowed, drinking not allowed)
Attend weekly services, don’t have to go to Church
Judge others, don’t judge others
What’s a sin, what is not a sin
Charity or no charity (help one another or let them help themselves)
Is God‘s Holy Name Jehovah
Predestination
Is it permissible for women to teach Scripture?
Can men and women sit together during services?

There is really no point in that statement. In writng there might be an agreement but in real life all Catholics don’t agree on all those! I have actually met a Catholic that claims he can speak in tongues.

Not sure why a Trinitarian would not believe in the Trinity, and believe in Unitarianism or both. They were the ones included in my statement-“ any others out there that do not at least believe the very base of what Trinitarian Christians believe.”

I think you would be pleasantly surprised in the similarities that Trinitarian Protestants and Catholics believe.

Paul mentions Scripture again-
1 Timothy 5
18For the Scripture says, “Do not muzzle the ox while it is treading out the grain,” and “The worker deserves his wages.”

Old Testament-

Deuteronomy 25
4 Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain.

And:

Luke 10
7Stay in that house, eating and drinking whatever they give you, for the worker deserves his wages. Do not move around from house to house.

By the way I am really enjoying this discussion! Have you ever noticed that some of the best discussions come when people have differing views!

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

OK, but the Didache is not a Gospel, but a how to live, act, worship “by the Gospel”. It is more about what the early church looked like and not a first hand account of Jesus and His actions. It is not a Gospel but in fact points to the Gospel:

You first say the writing is Gnostic and when proven wrong you change the spin to remain in disagreement?

“It bears no date itself, nor does it make reference to any datable external event, yet the picture of the Church which it presents could only be described as primitive, reaching back to the very earliest stages of the Church’s order and practice in a way which largely agrees with the picture presented by the NT, while at the same time posing questions for many traditional interpretations of this first period of the Church’s life.”

Do any of the Gospels, or any other book of the New Testament bear any dates? While we’re on the subject, do any of the Gospels, or any other book of the New Testament provide us a list of which writings should be included in the New Testament?

“Chapter 15. Bishops and Deacons; Christian Reproof. Appoint, therefore, for yourselves, bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord, men meek, and not lovers of money, and truthful and proved; for they also render to you the service of prophets and teachers. Therefore do not despise them, for they are your honored ones, together with the prophets and teachers. And reprove one another, not in anger, but in peace, as you have it in the Gospel.”

And who had the authority to appoint Bishops and Deacons?

It is in fact because of the Gnostic Gospels that a canon was made. The official canon was a confirmation of what was already known to be true.

**Melito, bishop of Sardis, an ancient city of Asia Minor (see Rev 3), c. 170 AD produced the first known Christian attempt at an Old Testament canon. His list maintains the Septuagint order of books but contains only the Old Testament protocanonicals minus the Book of Esther.

The Council of Laodicea, c. 360, produced a list of books similar to today’s canon. This was one of the Church’s earliest decisions on a canon.

Pope Damasus, 366-384, in his Decree, listed the books of today’s canon.

The Council of Rome, 382, was the forum which prompted Pope Damasus’ Decree.

Bishop Exuperius of Toulouse wrote to Pope Innocent I in 405 requesting a list of canonical books. Pope Innocent listed the present canon.

The Council of Hippo, a local north Africa council of bishops created the list of the Old and New Testament books in 393 which is the same as the Roman Catholic list today.

The Council of Carthage, a local north Africa council of bishops created the same list of canonical books in 397. This is the council which many Protestant and Evangelical Christians take as the authority for the New Testament canon of books. The Old Testament canon from the same council is identical to Roman Catholic canon today. Another Council of Carthage in 419 offered the same list of canonical books.

Since the Roman Catholic Church does not define truths unless errors abound on the matter, Roman Catholic Christians look to the Council of Florence, an ecumenical council in 1441 for the first definitive list of canonical books.

The final infallible definition of canonical books for Roman Catholic Christians came from the Council of Trent in 1556 in the face of the errors of the Reformers who rejected seven Old Testament books from the canon of scripture to that time.**

There is really no point in that statement. In writng there might be an agreement but in real life all Catholics don’t agree on all those! I have actually met a Catholic that claims he can speak in tongues.

While Catholics may question, or even disagree with each other, they remain a part of the one true Church.

I think you would be pleasantly surprised in the similarities that Trinitarian Protestants and Catholics believe.

Not surprised at all, when you consider where the teaching originates and where Trinitarian Protestants received the teaching.

As some have repeatedly posted the statement that Catholis must believe what the magisterium tells them to believe, that is not true! Catholics choose, through Christian faith and faith in Christ’s Church to believe what the magisterium of the Church teaches.

 

[PRmerger]

The official canon was a confirmation of what was already known to be true.

Do you have a Scripture verse for this, shaick? Chapter and verse, please.

There is really no point in that statement. In writng there might be an agreement but in real life all Catholics don’t agree on all those!

That a Catholic dissents from Christ’s teaching in the CC speaks more to this Catholic than it does to the CC.

I have actually met a Catholic that claims he can speak in tongues.

Indeed. The CC does not proclaim that Catholics cannot speak in tongues.

By the way I am really enjoying this discussion! Have you ever noticed that some of the best discussions come when people have differing views!

'zactly! And I pray that by these discussions Truth will come to be understood.

 

[Dokimas]

Ok. So please give me how Trinitarian Christians agree on these–

What is original sin and its effects on humanity - the wages of sin is death (separation from God)
Baptism - two kinds: water and of the Holy Spirit
Rapture - yes
Tongues (some believe others are not saved if they don’t speak in tongues) - two kinds: angelic and human; one for personal edification; one for evangelizing; neither as an evidence of spirituallity.
Divorce - only in the case of infidelity.
Abortion - no; except to save the life of the mother (extreme case only)
Homosexuality - it exists and is a sin (one of the toughest to deal with)
When to celebrate the Lord’s Day - everyday
Once saved, always saved - I don’t think a truly save person can loose their salvation; however, I think a person can give it back.
Music or no music (Singing or no singing) - MUSIC
Women pastors, no women pastors - I would have no problem having a women ordained to teach other women or children; women should NOT pastor men, IMO.
Hell, or no hell - hell; of our own making; the fires of hell are our unbridles passions that will never be quenched. It’s also separation from God and everything. Those who say they won’t mind being in hell because all their friends will be there are as foolish as anyone ever has been. Their friends may be there, but there won’t be any ‘togetherness’.
The Eucharist (Communion) - absolutely; not the actual Body and Blood of Jesus.
Sola scriptura/private interpretation - Scripture only; not private interpretation - Peter told us that Scripture wasn’t given by private knowledge but by the Holy Spirit so It’s not understood by private interpretation.
Ordination - sure
Trinity vs. Unitarianism - I believe I’ve answered this below.
Death/Soul Sleep - I’m not sure; I tend to think to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord; the body will be reunited with the soul at a later time.
Church leadership, or no leadership - pastoral leadership - not infallible; personal accoutability.
Head coverings or no head coverings - matters not to me.
Health and wealth gospel - our treasure is in Heaven; Jesus was poor in this worlds stuff; James (and other writters - not to mention Jesus’ own words) warns against the trappings of wealth.Drinking allowed, drinking not allowed)
Attend weekly services, don’t have to go to Church - we are not supposed to forsake the assembling together but do it all the more as the day of the Lord approaches.
Judge others, don’t judge others - there’s two kinds of judging - we are to judge whether something is sinful or not according to the Bible. How can we help people out of error if we don’t judge thusly? The other kind results from thinking we are better than others, ‘looking down our noses at those sinners’; we kind of play God in the lives of others; Paul, in Romans 2, tells us this kind of judging often comes from people who do the same things (maybe to cover up their own wrongdoing)
What’s a sin, what is not a sin - sin is transgressing God’s character; He is Holy.
Charity or no charity (help one another or let them helpthemselves) - help others; the greatest help though could be to help them help themselves
Is God‘s Holy Name Jehovah - not a concern to me; however, YAHWEH sounds wonderful to my ear.
Predestination - by the foreknowledge of God.
Is it permissible for women to teach Scripture? - sure; but not to men
Can men and women sit together during services?

• sure

I believe in the Godhead being God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. If that make me a ‘trinitarian’ I guess I am. If not, these are my answers anyway.

 

[PRmerger]

-I believe in the Godhead being God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. If that make me a ‘trinitarian’ I guess I am. ** If not, these are my answers anyway**.

But these are certainly not the answers of 40,000 other Christian denominations. They have all read the Bible but have come up with a different–sometimes contrary–set of answers to what you’ve given above.

Kind of makes the point that reading the Bible alone, without any central authority, cannot make clear what God’s message is.

 

[Dokimas]

But these are certainly not the answers of 40,000 other Christian denominations. They have all read the Bible but have come up with a different–sometimes contrary–set of answers to what you’ve given above.

Kind of makes the point that reading the Bible alone, without any central authority, cannot make clear what God’s message is.

God is merciful and gracious. God knows our frame and it’s but dust. Our hearts are despirately wicked, who can know it but God.​

I’m responsible for me, not anyone else.​

I know you can’t think this way, but what if some of the teachings of the CC are wrong? As you stand before God, if He cares enough to show you that you were wrong, what will you say to Him? “Lord, it was that church you told me in the Bible that taught me that. You can’t blame me for believing that. I was obeying the church that said to obey it because it was the church that said You said that it couldn’t teach anything wrong.”​

BTW, want to ask me about any of my specific answers? Want to discuss any of these further?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

God is merciful and gracious. God knows our frame and it’s but dust. Our hearts are despirately wicked, who can know it but God.​

I’m responsible for me, not anyone else.​

I know you can’t think this way, but what if some of the teachings of the CC are wrong? As you stand before God, if He cares enough to show you that you were wrong, what will you say to Him? “Lord, it was that church you told me in the Bible that taught me that. You can’t blame me for believing that. I was obeying the church that said to obey it because it was the church that said You said that it couldn’t teach anything wrong.”​

BTW, want to ask me about any of my specific answers? Want to discuss any of these further?

Those that believe Him are where they are because that’s where the Holy Spirit has led us, according to our ‘frailties’. He knows us better than we know ourselves.

I believe all Christians agree, or should, that we cannot know the fulness of God’s truth, even in a lifetime. With this realization, we must persevere and strive to know those truths He reveals to us, always discerning to know what’s from Him, from within ourselves or the influence of others, as best as we can.

Pray that He fills us with that which is from Him, replacing those misconceptions we may have placed within ourselves and always seek Him and His truth with open hearts.

Pray for everyone to be made worthy of the promises of Christ.

 

[Dokimas]

Those that believe Him are where they are because that’s where the Holy Spirit has led us, according to our ‘frailties’. He knows us better than we know ourselves.

I believe all Christians agree, or should, that we cannot know the fulness of God’s truth, even in a lifetime. With this realization, we must persevere and strive to know those truths He reveals to us, always discerning to know what’s from Him, from within ourselves or the influence of others, as best as we can.

Pray that He fills us with that which is from Him, replacing those misconceptions we may have placed within ourselves and always seek Him and His truth with open hearts.

Pray for everyone to be made worthy of the promises of Christ.

We are but sojourners here waiting to be taken to the real Promised Land. Shall we wait, living for the glory of God to be revealed in and through us?

 

[tweetymom]

We are but sojourners here waiting to be taken to the real Promised Land. Shall we wait, living for the glory of God to be revealed in and through us?

How is your MIL?

 

[Randy_Carson]

CentralFLJames;6189626:

Nope. Protestants are missing too many sacraments and too many truths to give them anything close to an even categorical chance of being able to cooperate with grace to overcome concupiscence to attaing to to heaven AND their highest and best crown that God wants for each soul in heaven. But then again Catholics are held to a much higher standard as well so I wouldn’t dare to try to quantify it except in general terms – “not equal”. But this is off topic anyway…

James

This is what I said wrong to. Protestants are not missing out on anything,

As you know (since you teach RCIA), there are seven sacraments. Protestants only recognize two sacraments, therefore, they are missing five.

Additionally, since Protestants do not have a valid priesthood, they are not receiving the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus when they serve their bread and grape juice.