P
PRmerger
Guest
Interesting. Makes sense to me, if it’s true that the “Church started with Abel.”
:dancing::bowdown2:
- Status
:dancing::bowdown2:
4
4thelamb
Guest
16 You turn things upside down,Of course not.
We’re simply showing that to accept the NT canon is to accept the authority (an infallible authority at that!) of the CC.
as if the potter were thought to be like the clay!
Shall what is formed say to him who formed it,
“He did not make me”?
Can the pot say of the potter,
“He knows nothing”?–Isaiah 29:16
16 It does not, therefore, depend on man’s desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. 17For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.”–Romans 9:16-17
P
PRmerger
Guest
Is there an error in the canon? That is, 4thlamb, do you think a book was excluded that should be included (perhaps the Didache?). Or rather do you think that there’s a book that needs to be removed? Revelation perhaps?
I suspect that you believe that the books of the bible are just fine (give or take 7 OT books).
Then, reason demands that you conclude that this was an infallible proclamation by the CC.
That’s all we’re saying.
T
tester
Guest
Whether that is your opinion (often repeated by others) or a doctrine of the Catholic Church : That is so untrue on so many levels it is a heresy.
I proclaim as Christ is my Lord and the Saviour that the Catholic Church is not required for anyone’s salvation.
Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved. -Peter from Acts 4
Now you have been told the Truth ;
spin and twist it to suit your arrogant pride at your own risk.
T
tester
Guest
in a reply to PRmerger, 4thelamb wrote
PRmerger please read John chapter 8 and see how Jesus responds to the the people who think they are right with God on the basis of what group they belong to.
I would add,
PRmerger please read John chapter 8 and see how Jesus responds to the the people who think they are right with God on the basis of what group they belong to.
P
PRmerger
Guest
tester, the Catholic Church is not a group. It is the Body of Christ.
I am sorry that you are offended by the Truth.
And I understand it, really I do!
Your reaction is exactly what non-Christians feel when we tell them, “Without Christ you are not saved”. They respond with the same indignant emotions that you do and dismiss Christians as arrogant, when we really are only proclaiming the Truth. There is no arrogance in that statement.
T
tester
Guest
in case you didn’t know:
I and ALL believers are in the Body of Christ.
And that is the TRUTH
P
Philthy
Guest
Well, there’s a little more I think.Is there an error in the canon? That is, 4thlamb, do you think a book was excluded that should be included (perhaps the Didache?). Or rather do you think that there’s a book that needs to be removed? Revelation perhaps?
I suspect that you believe that the books of the bible are just fine (give or take 7 OT books).
Then, reason demands that you conclude that this was an infallible proclamation by the CC.
That’s all we’re saying.
It’s not merely that it was an infallible proclamation by the CC, it was an infallible proclamation through the CC guided by the Holy Spirit. I think that will be a little more palatable to our non-Catholic brethren.
This still allows them the luxury of believing that although the CC was used by God to proclaim the NT canon that perhaps that was the end of God’s use of the CC with respect to infallible declarations.
In doing this, however, they will have to rationalize that the CC was not infallible in proclaiming the OT canon, which it did at the same time as the NT canon. That is an odd necessity of the belief and one which is ultimately unreasonable. That would mean that we either have no OT canon or that it was revealed at a later point in time which remains unknown to us. That is also unreasonable.
P
Philthy
Guest
Because there are several levels of understanding with respect to the “body of Christ”, different terms were constructed to represent them. There is the merely physical body of Christ which our Lord occupied during his earthly life; there is the resurrected body of Christ which our Lord occupies now that He is resurrected; there is the “transfigured” body of Christ which appeared on Mt Tabor, there is the body of Christ present at the Lord’s Supper, and there is the body of Christ that represents a mystical union of all those who are united to Christ by grace through faith. That is 5 different concepts of the body of Christ, and in order to distinguish them Christians have used terms to identify them. The Eucharist, for example, refers to the body of Christ at the Lord’s Supper. What is the term that you use to describe all those who are on earth united to Christ and all those who have passed from this earth who are united to Christ? A very long time ago(1st century) the term “Catholic Church” was put forth as the term for the mystical body of believers united to Christ. It was a more useful term during the first 1500 years of Christianity when there werent thousands of different denominations of Christians. It includes all sorts of folks who don’t or didnt identify themselves as “Catholic” and you may very well be one of them…that is not for me to say. Anyhow, you should understand the history and use of the terms so that you don’t make statements like the one above and think that they somehow state something that we disagree with…we don’t.
Blessings!
P
PRmerger
Guest
Yes, if you are validly baptized, this is true. And it is through this Body of Christ, the Catholic Church, to which you are imperfectly joined, that you may be saved.
T
tester
Guest
sorry that i see that as spin
the plain simple truth is
Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved. -Peter from Acts 4
P
PRmerger
Guest
I understand. I really do, tester. :sad_yes:
You are following in the tradition of Apollos: zealous, but following a truncated Gospel.
Amen!
That’s very Catholic of you to say that, tester!
T
TinaG
Guest
Philthy,
This is a really good post. Part of our argument, I think, is “what is the Catholic Church?” Another is “what is authority, and how is it effective in the CC?”
I think it is significant that no one has argued with me that bishops are a bunch of bums.
-Tina “Probably More of a Bum than Any of Them” G
T
TinaG
Guest
I have plans to go back and answer some posts I have not answered. If I have not responded, that is why.
-Tina “Climb Every Mountain, Ford Every Stream” G
-Tina “Climb Every Mountain, Ford Every Stream” G
P
Philthy
Guest
Thanks
Tina I think you are sorely mistaken in two ways: First that it is significant that no one has argued with you over your claim, and secondly that bishops are a bunch of bums.
The first point has been largely ignored because it is irrelevant. God can use whomever he wishes to bring about his ends. We can prove our point that God revealed Scripture through the bishops of the Catholic Church without arguing against your allegation.
Your second point is simple ignorance. How many bishops from around the world are you even remotely familiar with? None, Tina. Spreading rumors about the character of others whom you don’t even know is a serious sin called bearing false witness. I’d think twice about continuing to do so. I understand that there are some bishops that you have some strong opinions of, but to condemn all of them based upon a relatively few bad apples is inappropriate.
Kinda wish I had seen this before I responded above…I must have misinterpreted your comments - my apologies.
Blessings!
P
Philthy
Guest
I think it is significant that neither you, tester nor byfaithalone aka “dont let the door hit you in the *** on the way out” has responded to my posts 200 and 201 regarding Joe Mizzis weak arguments against the Catholic position. Both tester and byfaithalone claimed agreement with his arguments, but chose not to respond to my dismantling of his opinions. You game?
For the rest of the thread, please don’t confuse the non-issue of *whether *God’s word is authoritative (of course it is) with the topic at hand of *how we recognized the writings *we recognize as actually being the authoritative word of God. They are separate issues and it’s frustrating and counterproductive to have to point out the obvious.
Blessings!
T
TinaG
Guest
Thanks
Sometimes I have taken refuge in someone’s misinterpretation of my comments. It works both ways.
-Tina “Misinterpret Away!” G
PS What I tried with the quotes did not work right but it is still clear, I think.
T
TinaG
Guest
Hi! (Again!)
Sorry I never heard of Joe Mizzi before now, and I hesitate to defend something I do not know.
I wasn’t aware I was confusing the issues. Sorry if I was. I will try not to!
-Tina “Expert in Separating Issues!” G
P
Philthy
Guest
Sounds good! Excellent work with the quote feature!
T
TinaG
Guest
Thanks!Sounds good! Excellent work with the quote feature!
I decided to reread this thread to pick up Points I Still Need To Respond To. I also Googled Joe Mizzi to see what is up.
-Tina “Dizzy from Trying to Track all This - I Think I Will Go Lie Down Now for a While” G
- Status