I personally believe there are big differences in the Catholic faith compared to protestant. Now I realize under different protestant denominations there are plenty of different doctrines but, in general about the fundementals of Christainity, I think there is more common ground then with Catholicism. I know catholics who do not call themselves Christian.. they prefer catholic. Now that isn't a great big deal but the fact that they pray to Mary, confess to a priest, believe in purgatory, have no assurance in salvation ( some don't even know what saved means) and the list goes on... I think it is different than Christianity. I understand that they believe that Jesus is GOD he died and rose again but for the most part.. I see a big difference.

And by the way, PLEASE do not take offense by any of this.. I am just asking. I'm not putting catholicism down... Fr_Chuck disagrees with me and I just thought I'd asked for some opinions.

[QUOTE=classyT;1318791] Now that isn't a great big deal but the fact that they pray to Mary, confess to a priest, believe in purgatory, have no assurance in salvationQUOTE]



I just don't understand what you mean by this, are you saying its wrong to prey to mary?

I am saying it isn't done in the protestant faith. As a Christian woman, I do NOT pray to Mary... I see no where in the Word where we are told to. My question is do you think Christians and Catholics are basically the same thing... I don't.

I think they are very different as well, I went to a catholic school and I also have christian friends and just having conversations with them I can see there are many differences. I do not know why catholics pray to mary, I personally don't, I have other beliefs ouside of the catholic religion, so I guess you could say I'm not truly a catholic, I believe you need to come to religion on your own, being pushed into something will not make you a full believer... sorry I went a little off topic there

I am saying it isn't done in the protestant faith. As a Christian woman, I do NOT pray to Mary....i see no where in the Word where we are told to. My question is do you think Christians and Catholics are basically the same thing...i don't.

Indeed scripture says that it is an abomination to communicate with the dead.

Deut 18:9-13
10 There shall not be found among you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire, or one who practices witchcraft, or a soothsayer, or one who interprets omens, or a sorcerer, 11 or one who conjures spells, or a medium, or a spiritist, or one who calls up the dead. 12 For all who do these things are an abomination to the LORD, and because of these abominations the LORD your God drives them out from before you.
NKJV

1. Catholics don't pray to Mary, those that believe so have been lied to what the catholics do, there were a few sects within the church that did at some point but Mary and the other Saints are asked to go to Jesus for the other person, A "pray list" of such. No difference than a Baptist asking their next door neighbor to pray for them, we ask Mary to also pray for us.

In fact it is the Catholic Church that was the first church and the only church for 1100 years till they split with the Orthodox Church, and the then they were the two churches till Luther split, and even he did not want to split but did so with the help of the German princes for more political than religious issues.

But actually if you look at the Anglican ( church of England) and all related churches, they are so closer to Catholic than baptist or the Penticostal are.

In fact much of what you call the Protestant churches are much newer creatures that have came about over new meanings that man has determined of the scripture.

And I guess by the above, Jesus sinned when he talked to Moses on the Mount?

One has to really be careful taking one verse very out of context, since the above calls Jesus a sinner, which we know he can not be??

The Catholic church, helped save and form the bible we have today, the early synods of the Church are the basic for almost all Christian churches, the creeds are used in Lutheran, Methodist and more.
It was and is the first and largest of the Christian churches.

I moved this to the discussion since the very theme sort of violates the christianity rules, no negative on anothers christian faith.

Darn, I wrote a good answer and the question came up deleted, or whatever.

Anyway, historically, the Catholic Church was about believers needing a person to intercede between them and God... a priest, or a blessed person. Mary was and is a favorite.

"Hail Mary! full of grace, the Lord is with thee.
blessed art thou among women
and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus.
Holy Mary, mother of God, *pray for us sinners* now and at the hour of our death, Amen"

One of the greatest changes the Reformation made was allowing that illiterate believers could pray to God directly... an intercession was not necessary.

1. Catholics don't pray to Mary, those that believe so have been lied to what the catholics do, there were a few sects within the church that did at some point but Mary and the other Saints are asked to go to Jesus for the other person, A "pray list" of such. No difference than a Baptist asking their next door neighbor to pray for them, we ask Mary to also pray for us.

The Pope disagrees. Here is a quote straight from the Vatican website:

"Dear brothers and sisters, dear friends who are taking part in this celebration this morning, let us pray this prayer to Mary together. In the face of the sad spectacle of all the false joy and at the same time of all the anguished suffering which is spreading through the world, we must learn from her to become ourselves signs of hope and comfort; we must proclaim with our own lives Christ's Resurrection." (Source: Solemnity of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, 15 August 2008 - Homily of Pope Benedict XVI (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/homilies/2008/documents/hf_ben-xvi_hom_20080815_assunzione_en.html) )

And I could provide mounds of additional backup from catholic sources. If we have been lied to, then we have been lied to from the highest levels of the leadership in the Roman Catholic Church.


In fact it is the Catholic Church that was the first church and the only church for 1100 years till they split with the Orthodox Church, and the then they were the two churches till Luther split, and even he did not want to split but did so with the help of the German princes for more political than religious issues.

The Roman Catholic Church did not exist as a single unit until 325 AD.


But actually if you look at the Anglican ( church of England) and all related churches, they are so closer to Catholic than baptist or the Penticostal are.

Agreed. That is because they are in fact Catholic. Henry VIII did not change anything but who was at the top, and any differences have occurred simply through evolution of the two denominations as they went on two different paths.


And I guess by the above, Jesus sinned when he talked to Moses on the Mount?

I assumed that you mean when He was transfigured into His gloried form as God? Why would it be a sin for God to speak to the dead?

That's right Tom, after discussions with Rome, Henry the VIII made himself the head of the church in England. English Catholic clergy and believers were required to chose Henry, not the Pope.

This caused lots of problems. His daughter, Mary, Queen of Scots was Catholic and his other daughter, Elizabeth I was a protestant... and so on :D

I think there is more common ground then with Catholicism. I know catholics who do not call themselves Christian ..they prefer catholic.
You are as usual nitpicking here... All Roman Catholics see themselves as Christians too.

A Christian is someone who accept "God" as the "Creator" , and "Jesus Christ" as "Saviour".
As to the rest : there are presently almost 3000 different Christian Church organizations and denominations, all following their own selection of the "one and only true belief".

If that is correct, almost 2999 Christian Church organizations and denominations must have it wrong. Nonsense of course !

I wonder what drives so many millions of people into this intolerant view. You believe your way, others believe their way, and if what you all believe is correct, than "God" will decide who is what.

Why interfere with how other people interpret their Christian belief? Please stop this intolerance and "wise-acring"!

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

.

.

I wonder what drives so many millions of people into this intolerant view. You believe your way, others believe their way, and if what you all believe is correct, than "God" will decide who is what.

Why interfere with how other people interpret their Christian belief? Please stop this intolerance and "wise-acring"!

As usual, John, rather than substantiating your view, you attack those who disagree with the "intolerant" label. That, to me, seems to be intolerant of those who hold views which disagree with you.

As usual, John, rather than substantiating your view, you attack those who disagree with the "intolerant" label. That, to me, seems to be intolerant of those who hold views which disagree with you.
Tommy : and that from the man who asked me to perform some form of blasphemy by starting my own Christian church.
( See : Working on Sunday (2) LINK (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/religious-discussions/working-sunday-2-a-268447.html#post1319624) )

And I thought you always claimed to be a Christian yourself...

:D :D :D :D :D :D

.

.

Tommy : and that from the man who asked me to perform some form of blasphemy by starting my own Christian church.
( See : Working on Sunday (2) LINK (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/religious-discussions/working-sunday-2-a-268447.html#post1319624) )

John, that is only because you seem to think that you alone are the one person who knows and can dictate what Christian doctrine is (based solely upon your opinion) - as shown by the discussion in that same thread that you linked to. And, I might add, this is despite the fact that both Catholics and non-Catholics have tried to correct you, but you won't listen.


And I thought you always claimed to be a Christian yourself...

Indeed I am!

Indeed I am!Tommy : if you were a real Christian you would not ask me (a committed Atheist) to perform some form of blasphemy by starting my own Christian church.

( See : Working on Sunday (2) LINK ) (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/religious-discussions/working-sunday-2-a-268447.html#post1319624)

:D :D :D :D :D :D


.

.

Tommy : if you were a real Christian you would not ask me (a committed Atheist) to perform some form of blasphemy by starting my own Christian church.

Then stop claiming to be the only person who can declare who is and is not a Christian and what is and what is not Christian doctrine in contradiction to a Christian standards of doctrine.

Most folk who think that they alone are able to make such proclamations start their own churches, religions or cults, and if that is what you are doing, then I am suggesting that you might as well follow the logical course.

And I note that once again, you are trying to hijack two threads at once.

You are as usual nitpicking here ... All Roman Catholics see themselves as Christians too.

A Christian is someone who accept "God" as the "Creator" , and "Jesus Christ" as "Saviour".
As to the rest : there are presently almost 3000 different Christian Church organizations and denominations, all following their own selection of the "one and only true belief".

If that is correct, almost 2999 Christian Church organizations and denominations must have it wrong. Nonsense of course !

I wonder what drives so many millions of people into this intolerant view. You believe your way, others believe their way, and if what you all believe is correct, than "God" will decide who is what.

Why interfere with how other people interpret their Christian belief? Please stop this intolerance and "wise-acring"!

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

.

.


Hello? Do I know you?. what do you mean nitpicking as usual? I was simply asking a question as to how close the catholic faith and christian faith were.. I wasn't being rude, unkind or intolerant. I wasn't IMPLYING anything... I thought it would make for a good discussion. Fr_Chuck and I were debating it a little and thought it would make for a good discussion on the Christian discussion board.

Gessh.. I hope you feel better

I personally believe there are big differences in the Catholic faith compared to protestant. Now i realize under different protestant denominations there are plenty of different doctrines but, in general about the fundementals of Christainity, I think there is more common ground then with Catholicism. I know Catholics who do not call themselves Christian... they prefer catholic. Now that isn't a great big deal but the fact that they pray to Mary, confess to a priest, believe in purgatory, have no assurance in salvation ( some don't even know what saved means) and the list goes on...i think it is different than Christianity. I understand that they believe that Jesus is GOD he died and rose again but for the most part..i see a big difference.

And by the way, PLEASE do not take offense by any of this..i am just asking. I'm not putting Catholicism down....Fr_Chuck disagrees with me and I just thought I'd asked for some opinions.

I think Fr. Chuck answered some of the specific charges made here, so I won’t answer to those issues. Instead, with your permission, I’d like to pose a few of my own question.

Where do you think “Protestantism” came from? From where did some 30,000 different Christian Denominations get their Scriptures, with each insisting it has the one and only authoritative interpretation? How do they recon Christ’s words, “That they all may be one, as thou, Father, in me, and I in thee; that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.” (Cf. John 17). How then do you or those 30,000, recon that hard saying, “I am the bread of life. 49 Your fathers did eat manna in the desert: and are dead. 50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven: that if any man eat of it, he may not die. 51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven.” (Cf. John 6). How that with your limited knowledge, not an insult – just a matter of human limitation, can say with more authority than Christ’s vicar what substance of faith threatens our morality, our souls?

The Catholic faith is a big deal, a big eternal deal, as it should be to you. To explain, I’ll give you the response Augustine once gave, "But should you meet with a person not yet believing the gospel, how would you reply to him were he to say, I do not believe? For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church." St. Augustin, AGAINST THE EPISTLE OF MANICHAEUS CALLED FUNDAMENTAL.(1)[CONTRA EPISTOLAM MANICHAEI QUAM VACANT FUNDAMENTI.] A.D. 397. Chp 5 How would you ansewer St Augustin's question? Are Scriptures really open to private interpretation?

We Catholics (who are Christian by the way) find that "This is the sole Church of Christ which in the Creed we profess to be one, holy, catholic and apostolic, which our Savior, after his resurrection, entrusted to Peter's pastoral care (Jn. 21:17), commissioning him and the other apostles to extend and rule it (cf. Matt. 28:18, etc.), and which he raised up for all ages as "the pillar and mainstay of the truth" (1 Tim. 3:15). This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him. Nevertheless, many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside its visible confines. Since these are gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, they are forces impelling towards Catholic unity." (Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Genitum, 8)

And I do, constantly, pray to Mary, Joseph and all the saints for us.

JoeT

Where do you think “Protestantism” came from? From where did some 30,000 different Christian Denominations get their Scriptures, with each insisting it has the one and only authoritative interpretation?

I trust you know what the logic fallacy "strawman" argument is. That is what you argument is. First, and we have been through this before, you do not understand what sola scriptura is - you keep repeating that false accusations put forward by your denomination.

Second, you should study the growth of the various denominations sometime. Though some denominations came about because of doctrinal disagreements, probably most were for much different reasons and only a minority claim that they alone have the sole and only authoritative interpretation of the Bible (the biggest one that comes to mind which claims that their private interpretation is the sole authoritative one is your denomination)


How do they recon Christ's words, “That they all may be one, as thou, Father, in me, and I in thee; that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.” (Cf. John 17).

Jesus was praying to the Father and asked God the Father to answer prayer, not us. Jesus also asked that we all (individual Christians) be one, not denominations. Jesus' prayer was answered when the father sent the Holy Spirit to indwell all believers. All believers are one in the Holy Spirit.

Man does not answer prayers to God. And Jesus did not pray to Mary or any of the saints (nor, for that matter did any godly person in scripture)

I trust you know what the logic fallacy "strawman" argument is. That is what you argument is. First, and we have been through this before, you do not understand what sola scriptura is - you keep repeating that false accusations put forward by your denomination.

Second, you should study the growth of the various denominations sometime. Though some denominations came about because of doctrinal disagreements, probably most were for much different reasons and only a minority claim that they alone have the sole and only authoritative interpretation of the Bible (the biggest one that comes to mind which claims that their private interpretation is the sole authoritative one is your denomination)



Jesus was praying to the Father and asked God the Father to answer prayer, not us. Jesus also asked that we all (individual Christians) be one, not denominations. Jesus' prayer was answered when the father sent the Holy Spirit to indwell all believers. All believers are one in the Holy Spirit.

Man does not answer prayers to God. And Jesus did not pray to Mary or any of the saints (nor, for that matter did any godly person in scripture)

Yes I’ve noticed the exponential growth of the Protestant denominations. If Protestant’s have a moral authority, then why do their numbers continue to grow? Do they not claim they get their authority from the Holy Spirit? If so why is the Holy Spirit schizophrenic in His revelation; giving one denomination a set of moral virtues, and another denomination a different set of moral virtues?

JoeT

Yes I’ve noticed the exponential growth of the Protestant denominations. If Protestant’s have a moral authority, then why do their numbers continue to grow? Do they not claim they get their authority from the Holy Spirit? If so why is the Holy Spirit schizophrenic in His revelation; giving one denomination a set of moral virtues, and another denomination a different set of moral virtues?


First of all, you may not have noticed that the topic here is Catholicism.

Second, as you have been told before, I am not a protestant.

Third, your response indicates that you read nothing of my last post or chose not to address any of the points that I raised, so I see no reason to respond to yours further. I can only assume that you did not attempt to respond to the points that I raised because you have no rebuttal, so my points stand.

Ok maybe I am just really ignorant on this topic. But when I read Paul 's epistles I see nothing of catholicism. I don't really know why the Catholic church thinks they were the frist? Paul lays out who the Church is, and how they are to function. Am I to believe that the churches he wrote to were CATHOLIC? I go to a non demonminational church because I don't want a name of any sort given to me. I am a CHRISTIAN... period. And if you read where the first church was formed in Anitioch... they called themselves CHRISTIANS. ( not catholics) Paul had the same problem back then when he said some say they follow me.. others follow someone else. The apostle Paul is the apostle who was given the revelation of the church... NOT PETER... who the apostle Paul had to get after from time to time because he struggled with mixing law with grace. Now how "out there" am I on this?

I guess the Catholic Church believes it is the first since all of the early church leaders evolved into the formal Catholic Church, the local church leaders as they grew formed structure and this became the Catholic and Orthodox Churches we know today.

A sort of off comparison would be the early explorers who came to America were not US citizens but did they not form what becamse the US. While of course in the early time there was just the Church, the formal group that came from this was the Catholic Church. The term Catholic, which of course means universal came about to show that it included all christians everywhere at that time.

Fr_Chuck,

I am not good at Church History outside of the WORD. I only know what the Apostle Paul wrote. He wrote nothing of Priests ( other than our HIGH PRIEST.. Jesus). He worte nothing of what I believe Catholicism is today. If you read what he says about the assemblies and how they function... I just don't believe Catholics were the first church.. not the ones the Apostle Paul was writing to. Maybe after he died it evolved but
That wasn't what Paul was setting up. Am I wrong?

And having said that... what we have in Christendom today isn't what it is suppose to be... but I believe there are those that TRY to follow him as best as they can.

Ok maybe i am just really ignorant on this topic. But when I read Paul 's epistles I see nothing of Catholicism. I don't really know why the Catholic Church thinks they were the first? Paul lays out who the Church is, and how they are to function. Am I to believe that the churches he wrote to were CATHOLIC? I go to a non denominational church because I don't want a name of any sort given to me. I am a CHRISTIAN...period. And if you read where the first church was formed in Antioch...they called themselves CHRISTIANS. (not Catholics) Paul had the same problem back then when he said some say they follow me..others follow someone else. The apostle Paul is the apostle who was given the revelation of the church....NOT PETER...who the apostle Paul had to get after from time to time because he struggled with mixing law with grace. Now how "out there" am I on this?

I believe it was Cardinal John Henry Newman who said something like, people don’t hate the Catholic Church so much as they hate what they “think” the Catholic Church is. You might be interested in reading how the Catholic Church views the role of Peter. CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: The Pope (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm)

The following are a few Scriptural references showing Peter was the designated the head of the Church. And, logic dictates that if there is a head there must be a body. Catholics hold that part of Christ’s presents on earth was to commission his Church, establishing the new covenant.

Mt 16:18-19 – Simon is designated head of the Church, called Peter (the rock), given the keys to bind and loose.

Mt 10:1-4; Mk 3:16-19; Lk 6:14-16; Acts 1:13; Lk 9:32 – Scriptural evidence that the other Apostles viewed Peter at the “first.” He’s always mentioned first and foremost.

Mt 18:21; Mk 8:29; Lk 12:41; Jn 6:69 - Peter addresses the Apostles from a position of authority.

Jn 21:17 - It was Peter Christ commanded to "feed my sheep"

Jn 1:42 - Simon is referred to as Cephas (Aramaic: Kepha for rock).

Acts 2:14-40 – At the Pentecost: Peter was the first to stand, “14 But Peter standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and spoke to them: Ye men of Judea, and all you that dwell in Jerusalem, be this known to you and with your ears receive my words...”

Acts 3:6-7 - Peter worked first healing, in the name of Christ he said “arise and walk”.

Acts 10:46-48 – It was Peter that it was revealed that gentiles were to be included in baptism.

Lk 22:31-32 - And the Lord said: Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat. 32 But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm [strengthen] thy brethren.

JoeT

Joe777,

Well we disagree. First.. I don't hate the catholic church.. I just don't understand all of it. 2nd... I disagree with Peter being the founder of the church... it is PAUL that was given the revelation of the Church PERIOD.. not peter.. and by the way.. who were"MY SHEEP" and "thy brethren"... the JEWISH PEOPLE.

If you read Paul's epistles you will see where he lays out who the Church is, and how they are to worship... he also gives instructions on the Lord's Table, discipline.. anything you want to know concerning how the church should run.. read HIS epistles. He had to get after peter for returning to the law... You get all your verses in the gospels and a few in ACTS when Peter was still clueless about the CHURCH and the Period of Grace that we live in right now. He was waiting for Jesus to come and set up the Kingdom, he had NO IDEA what was to come.

Where does the Apostle Paul fit into all of this catholic doctine... I don't know? what do you do with his epistles?

Joe777,
Well we disagree.
Obviously.


first.. I don't hate the Catholic Church

I wasn’t implying that you hated the Catholic Church. I was pointing out that you obviously didn’t understand what “Catholic Church” meant.


.. I just don't understand all of it. 2nd... I disagree with Peter being the founder of the church... it is PAUL that was given the revelation of the Church PERIOD.. not peter


.. and by the way.. who were "MY SHEEP" and "thy brethren"... the JEWISH PEOPLE.

“Feed my lambs;” “Feed my lambs;” “Feed my Sheep.” These words were given to Peter only and indicate his spiritual supremacy over the entire flock. The lambs signify all believers, not just the Jew.


If you read Paul's epistles you will see where he lays out who the Church is, and how they are to worship... he also gives instructions on the Lord's Table, discipline.. anything you want to know concerning how the church should run.. read HIS epistles.

Yes Paul wrote letters giving good instruction, but nowhere in the Scriptures is he drawn on as an “authority” as the Vicar of Christ as is Peter.

He had to get after peter for returning to the law

And it was Peter’s authoritative decision that settled the issue.

Where does the Apostle Paul fit into all of this Catholic doctrine... I don't know? what do you do with his epistles?

Paul’s 14 letters fit between Acts and James.


The Catholic Church has always understood the Scripture to give Primacy to Peter. This was illustrated in a letter written by Pope Clement I (third in succession to Peter and had personally known Peter) to the Corinthians (circa) 95 AD claiming authority over Corinth. St. Irenaeus tells the second hand account from St. Polycarp where John was heard to say “the faithful wo are everywhere must agree with this Church (Rome) because of its more important principality.” During the Councils and Synods surrounding the early heresies the Popes decision settled the matter. This is illustrated in 431 AD. Where the Bishops responded to Pope Celestine’s decision, “He [Peter] lives even to this time, and always in his successor’s gives judgment.”

Only after 1520 some have asked why this reference is only found in one Gospel and not the others, Warren Carroll suggest the rather simple answer: “Why are Christ’s words to Peter found only in Matthew, and not in the other gospels? Because Mathew was there, with Peter and the Twelve, on the road to Caesarea Philippi in the summer of 29 A.D.: he heard the dialogue himself, in his own Aramaic language. Mark the Evangelist was not there; his information came from Peter, and we have very early testimony that out of humility Peter did not include Christ’s praise of him in his catechesis. John had the other gospels before him as he wrote, and rarely repeated what they had already reported.. . “ That the words don’t appear in Mark’s Gospel was influenced by Peter’s humility. It would be easy to suggest this as speculation however Victor of Antioch, the first commentator of Mark, mentions it as does Eusebius of Caesarea. Warren H. Carroll, A History of Christendom Vol 1, 1985, pg 338. (see also footnote 139)


JoeT

Joe,
Well you need to understand the Gospels are not really the "gospel". They are Jewish.. not christian. Christianity doesn't come until later.. in Acts.

See here in lies my problem and why I think that Christianty is different than catholicism... I don't care what Pope Clement I said... I only care about what the WORD of GOD says. Popes are just men that need to be saved like me (well I am a woman but you know). I do not mean to sound disrespectful but other than the written Word of GOD.. known as the BIBLE 66 books... I have no other authority. The particular church that I attend preaches only from the Word. If it isn't in the Word than in my mind... God isn't trying to reveal it. Because everything he wants me to know.. he has in there. There is NO mention of the Catholic church or some of their ways.. i.e. the pope, priests, nuns, rosary, having Mary intereceed for us... the list goes on. That is why I started this thread. I think main stream Christianity and Catholicism are really different.

Yes, I understand where Paul's epistles are placed but I don't know where they fit in your church. I don't know where you get your orders? With no disrespect, it isn't the Bible.

Fr_Chuck,

I am not good at Church History outside of the WORD. I only know what the Apostle Paul wrote. He wrote nothing of Priests ( other than our HIGH PRIEST..Jesus). He worte nothing of what I believe Catholicism is today. If you read what he says about the assemblies and how they function....i just don't believe Catholics were the first church..not the ones the Apostle Paul was writing to. Maybe after he died it evolved but
that wasn't what Paul was setting up. Am I wrong?

You are correct. A priest is a go between between man and God. Jesus did away with the priesthood because, as we who are believers are all priests, we no longer need a mediator between us and God.

There was no denomination not Catholic or anything else in the first century. There were efforts to align all churches into one organization but that did not come to fruitition until 325AD under Constantion. There were prior efforts to force control on all churches from Rome which failed.

Joe,
Well you need to understand the Gospels are not really the "gospel".
Uhm…Ok, the Gospels are not the Gospels. They are what?


They are Jewish.. not christian. Christianity doesn't come until later.. in Acts.
And on what date did Christianity come into being, by what means, and who is responsible? Didn't Christ have a role in it?

See here in lies my problem and why I think that Christianity is different than Catholicism... I don't care what Pope Clement I said... I only care about what the WORD of GOD says. Popes are just men that need to be saved like me (well I am a woman but you know).
Pope Clement was the second Pope. He recognized Peter’s authority; he took on the responsibility of that authority as the 2nd Pope. So, we can conclude there was a hierarchy sometime before Peter died, so he could pass that authority on to his successor.

You indicated that there was no church, that it was individual congregations. How can this be if Peter was the First Pope and Clement was the second Pope?


I do not mean to sound disrespectful but other than the written Word of GOD.. known as the BIBLE 66 books... I have no other authority.
Where did those 66 books come from? Did they just fall out of the sky in the 14th century?


The particular church that I attend preaches only from the Word. If it isn't in the Word than in my mind... God isn't trying to reveal it. Because everything he wants me to know.. he has in there.
So you worship a book called the Bible?

There is NO mention of the Catholic church or some of their ways.. i.e. the pope, priests, nuns, rosary, having Mary intercede for us... the list goes on. That is why I started this thread. I think main stream Christianity and Catholicism are really different.

But if you don’t believe the Gospels aren’t really the Gospels how do we move the discussion forward? I joined the discussion to see how you define “Christianity”; how you define “Catholicism”; and what difference you’ve managed to find. So far you haven’t suggested anything of substance to suggest a difference. I’ll go a step further and suggest that Christianity is the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church you call the Roman Catholic Church. History shows that all others are schismatic in nature.

Yes, I understand where Paul's epistles are placed but I don't know where they fit in your church. I don't know where you get your orders? With no disrespect, it isn't the Bible.
Paul’s epistles have the same weight as all the Scriptures. If it’s not the Bible what is it? Where did it come from?

JoeT

Peter and Paul knew each other, but Jesus did not choose
Paul as an Apostle (one of the Twelve) Paul persecuted the early Church until he met the risen Christ on the road to Damascus. After that he worked just as hard to build the Church up.
Jesus called Peter the Rock. Was he comparing him to God? (Psalm 18) no, just as in Joshua 24:25--28 Peter was to be a witness betrween the people and their God, having heard all the words Jesus had spoken on earth.
So when the churches later split off at the Reformation they were denying the primacy of Peter.

JOE...

LOL I enjoyed that.. OK I never said that the gospels weren't the gospels... I said they are not the GOSPEL. ( no S) In other words, you won't find out how to get saved reading them. The plan of salvation comes later...

Christ is why we call ourselves Christian so I guess I think he had the ONLY role in it. But he doesn't reveal the plan until later. The disciples were clueless as to what was happening... they didn't understand why he died and even after he rose again.. you can find that in the Gospels... you won't find the Gospel though..

I worship Jesus Christ . My point is that Catholicsim isn't found in those 66 books. No, I don't think they fell from the sky... I believe they were written by Man, inspired my God. AND NOT some pope.

If pauls epistles have the same weight.. could you point me to the verses about popes? NO? k... how about Priest in the Church.. no? Hmmmm? Ok.. hows about NUNs? NO? Golly gee wiz... ok how about this.. just point me to where the verse that says... PETER was the FIRST POPE! It ain't in those 66 books.

Yes, I understand where Paul's epistles are placed but I don't know where they fit in your church. I don't know where you get your orders? With no disrespect, it isn't the Bible.

Paul’s epistles have the same weight as all the Scriptures. If it’s not the Bible what is it? Where did it come from?


Ok... I think you got confused there... I meant you weren't getting your orders from the Bible. AND if you meant to rile me up saying that Chrisitanity is the ONE, HOLY,CATHOLIC, and APOSTOLIC church... you didn't. That just made me giggle. :) it is ridiculous.

Yes, I understand where Paul's epistles are placed but i don't know where they fit in your church. I don't know where you get your orders? With no disrespect, it isn't the Bible.

Paul’s epistles have the same weight as all the Scriptures. If it’s not the Bible what is it? Where did it come from?


Ok ...i think you got confused there...i meant you weren't getting your orders from the Bible. AND if you meant to rile me up saying that Chrisitanity is the ONE, HOLY,CATHOLIC, and APOSTOLIC church...you didn't. That just made me giggle. :) it is ridiculous.

I wasn’t giggling. However, not having an appreciation, I can understand how it might seem funny.

Everything Catholics hold as truth is either Scriptural based or based on Apostolic teachings (Tradition). Furthermore, both Scripture and Tradition must be in harmony. And to relieve you of the false notion; the Pope doesn’t go though every line of Scripture and mandate how a Catholic is to understand it. Rather, there are only a few concepts (doctrine) that are held based on Scripture and Tradition.

The foundation and the founder of the Church is, of course, Jesus Christ. “Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, [the Roman Catholic Church] teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism (124) and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church.” DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON THE CHURCH, LUMEN GENTIUM (http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html)

“The Catechism of the Catholic Church (http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/ccc_toc.htm)” (the teachings of the Church) has nearly 3,000 entries. (Now you can giggle!) But, most every tenet is scripturally based. The point I’m making here is that to explain the Catholic Church would be a monumental undertaking – which of course has already been done. In fact you would have to explain all of Christianity, because that’s what she is.


JoeT

Peter and Paul knew each other, but Jesus did not choose
Paul as an Apostle (one of the Twelve)

Actually, Jesus DID choose Jesus as one of the twelve.

Acts 9:2-5
3 And as he journeyed he came near Damascus, and suddenly a light shone around him from heaven. 4 Then he fell to the ground, and heard a voice saying to him, "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?" 5 And he said, "Who are You, Lord?" And the Lord said, "I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting.
NKJV


Jesus called Peter the Rock.

Jesus called Peter a stone, not a Rock.


So when the churches later split off at the Reformation they were denying the primacy of Peter.

There never was any primacy of Peter. Such a concept is not found in scripture.

Everything Catholics hold as truth is either Scriptural based or based on Apostolic teachings (Tradition).

Scripture says not to go beyond what is written.

Tj3,

I agree with you on everything you have stated. Scripture is clear about adding to it. And I don't understand how one could think Paul wasn't a chosen apostle... he wasn't one of the 12 but he was chosen. The poor guy had to defend his Apostleship way back then too.

I really don't see many similarities with mainstream Christianity and Catholics. To me, it is like night and day.

That is NOT to say, I do not believe that Catholics can't be true Christians.. anymore than I think everyone who claims to be one is. Did that make sense.. oh well, it is late. :)

I really don't see many similarities with mainstream Christianity and Catholics. To me, it is like night and day.

That is NOT to say, I do not believe that Catholics can't be true Christians..anymore than i think everyone who claims to be one is. Did that make sense..oh well, it is late. :)

That does make sense and I agree with what you said.

Hey JoeT777,

Don't think I didn't notice that you never gave me Bible verses regarding the way the Catholic church operates. That's OK.. I already know it isn't in there. Hey, I am NOT putting the Catholic faith down.. I'm just saying the things that you guys do ain't in the BIBLE. That's all. :)

Hey JoeT777,

Don't think i didn't notice that you never gave me Bible verses regarding the way the Catholic church operates. Thats ok..i already know it isn't in there. Hey, I am NOT putting the Catholic faith down..i'm just saying the things that you guys do ain't in the BIBLE. Thats all. :)

I was remiss in my reply. I should have listed "THE Catholic” verse. If you want to read "THE Catholic” verse I'd suggest that you start at Gen 1:1 and stop when you get to Rev. 22:21; there's no need to go beyond that.

JoeT

LOL... ok.. well then tell me what book in those 66 books that we spoke of... can I find anything that speaks of POPES, NUNS, the ROSARY... just to name a few. Just let me know the BOOK... don't have to pin it down to the verse.. just give me the book.. Cause from Genesis 1:1 to Revelation... I will BE DARN if I can find these tidbits...

LOL....ok..well then tell me what book in those 66 books that we spoke of...can I find anything that speaks of POPES, NUNS, the ROSARY...just to name a few. Just let me know the BOOK...don't have to pin it down to the verse..just give me the book..Cause from Genesis 1:1 to Revelation...i will BE DARN if I can find these tidbits ......

Pope (Greek – Papas a variant of pappas or father): (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm)

Christ named St. Peter the head of His Church refer to Matt 16:17-19 and John 21:15-17

“The title pope, once used with far greater latitude (see below, section V), is at present employed solely to denote the Bishop of Rome, who, in virtue of his position as successor of St. Peter, is the chief pastor of the whole Church, the Vicar of Christ upon earth.”

Nun: (the Latin for the feminine form of monk, nonna) (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11164a.htm)

“The institution of nuns and sisters, who devote themselves in various religious orders to the practice of a life of perfection, dates from the first ages of the Church, and women may claim with a certain pride that they were the first to embrace the religious state for its own sake, without regard to missionary work and ecclesiastical functions proper to men. St. Paul speaks of widows, who were called to certain kinds of church work (1 Timothy 5:9), and of virgins (1 Cor. vii), whom he praises for their continence and their devotion to the things of the Lord. The virgins were remarkable for their perfect and perpetual chastity which the Catholic Apologists have extolled as a contrast to pagan corruption (St. Justin, "Apol.", I, c. 15; Migne, "P.G.", VI, 350; St. Ambrose, "De Virginibus", Bk. I, C. 4; Migne, "P.L.", XVI, 193). Many also practiced poverty. From the earliest times they were called the spouses of Christ, according to St. Athanasius, the custom of the Church ("Apol. ad Constant.", sec. 33; Migne, "P.G.", XXV, 639). St. Cyprian describes a virgin who had broken her vows as an adulteress ("Ep. 62", Migne, "P.L.", IV, 370). Tertullian distinguishes between those virgins who took the veil publicly in the assembly of the faithful, and others known to God alone; the veil seems to have been simply that of married women. Virgins vowed to the service of God, at first continued to live with their families, but as early as the end of the third century there were community houses known as partheuones; and certainly at the beginning of the same century the virgins formed a special class in the Church, receiving Holy Communion before the laity. The office of Good Friday in which the virgins are mentioned after the porters, and the Litany of the Saints, in which they are invoked with the widows, shows traces of this classification. They were sometimes admitted among the deaconesses for the baptism of adult women and to exercise the functions which St. Paul had reserved for widows of sixty years.” CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Nuns (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11164a.htm)

Monk: Origin: bef. 900; ME; OE munuc < LL monachus < Gk monachós hermit, n. use of adj.: solitary, equiv. to món(os) alone + -achos adj. suffix ]
Friar [From Lat. Frater, through O. Fr. Fredre, frere, M. E. frere; It. Frate (as prefix fra); Sp. Fraile (asprefix fray); Port. Fret; unlike the other Romance languages French has but the one word frère for friar and brother].
Friar: (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06280b.htm) “A friar is a member of one of the mendicant orders…Mendicant Friars are members of those religious orders which, originally, by vow of poverty renounced all proprietorship not only individually but also (and in this differing from the monks) in common, relying for support on their own work and on the charity of the faithful. Hence the name of begging friars.”

"The Rosary (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13184b.htm)", says the Roman Breviary, "is a certain form of prayer wherein we say fifteen decades or tens of Hail Marys with an Our Father between each ten, while at each of these fifteen decades we recall successively in pious meditation one of the mysteries of our Redemption."

The Hail Mary is rooted in scripture as is the Our Father.
‘It is commonly described as consisting of three parts. The first, "Hail (Mary) (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07110b.htm) full of grace, the Lord is with thee, blessed art thou amongst women", embodies the words used by the Angel Gabriel in saluting the Blessed Virgin (Luke, I, 28). The second, "and blessed is the fruit of thy womb (Jesus)", is borrowed from the Divinely inspired greeting of St. Elizabeth (Luke 1:42), which attaches itself the more naturally to the first part, because the words "benedicta tu in mulieribus" (I, 28) or "inter mulieres" (I, 42) are common to both salutations. Finally, the petition "Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death. Amen." is stated by the official "Catechism of the Council of Trent" to have been framed by the Church itself. "Most rightly", says the Catechism, "has the Holy Church of God added to this thanksgiving, petition also and the invocation of the most holy Mother of God, thereby implying that we should piously and suppliantly have recourse to her in order that by her intercession she may reconcile God with us sinners and obtain for us the blessing we need both for this present life and for the life which has no end."’

JoeT

Lets see.. hmmm? You could give me the root word.. a few verses about Mary being Jesus' mother and a virgin before he was born ( I know that) a few things about Paul talking about Widows and virgins and somehow that turns into nuns... most all of this is just what you wanted it to be.. you added to it. But OK... I getcha now.. I can see at least how some of this came to be. It was helpful... sincerely.

There have always been religious orders, what you call nuns and monks. Numbers chapter 6 John the Baptist, Sampson, and Samuel were Nazirites who had taken a special vow before God.

Lets see.. hmmm? You could give me the root word.. a few verses about Mary being Jesus' mother and a virgin

Virgin Mary:

Luke: 26 And in the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent from God into a city of Galilee, called Nazareth, 27 To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David: and the virgin's name was Mary. 28 And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. 29 Who having heard, was troubled at his saying and thought with herself what manner of salutation this should be. 30 And the angel said to her: Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found grace with God. 31 Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb and shalt bring forth a son: and thou shalt call his name Jesus. 32 He shall be great and shall be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of David his father: and he shall reign in the house of Jacob for ever. 33 And of his kingdom there shall be no end. 34 And Mary said to the angel: How shall this be done, because I know not man?

Mary is the Mother of God, attested to by the Council of Ephesus in 431AD. She is perpetually virgin, immaculately conceived, and assumed into heaven. The Nazarene woman, Mary, was born without ever knowing original sin being “FULL OF GRACE.” Her conception and birth was kept free from the stain of original sin and remained pure throughout her life.

Mary’s Immaculate Conception:

The Virgin Mother of God would not be conceived by Anna before grace would bear its fruits; it was proper that she be conceived as the first-born, by whom "the first-born of every creature" would be conceived. They testified, too, that the flesh of the Virgin, although derived from Adam, did not contract the stains of Adam, and that on this account the most Blessed Virgin was the tabernacle created by God himself and formed by the Holy Spirit, truly a work in royal purple, adorned and woven with gold, which that new Beseleel made. Pope Pius IX ineffabilis Deus, December 8, 1854

You might recall the Tabernacle is the tent-like sanctuary of the Hebrews before the erection of Solomon's Temple, made permanent by King Solomon. The Tabernacle called, beth Yahweh, house of Yahweh included an outer court surrounded by a wall; an inner court; Holy of Holies. The Holy of Holies contained the veil that separated the Ark from the inner court. It contained the incense altar, the table of the Bread of Presence (12 loaves), the menorah, It was. This sanctuary housed the Ark of the Covenant, see Ex. 25-31 and Ex. 36 – 40 for additional information on the Tabernacle.

Mary was Ever Virgin:

You say that Mary did not continue a virgin: I claim still more, that Joseph himself on account of Mary was a virgin, so that from a virgin wedlock a virgin son was born. For if as a holy man he does not come under the imputation of fornication, and it is nowhere written that he had another wife, but was the guardian of Mary whom he was supposed to have to wife rather than her husband, the conclusion is that he who was thought worthy to be called father of the Lord, remained a virgin. St. Jerome, Against Helvidius 383 c.
No Siblings of Christ:
In Matthew 13:55 we see the clansmen of Christ, called brothers and sisters as was the custom, who were children of Mary of Cleophas, sister of the Ever Virgin Mary: refer to Matt 27:56, and John 19:25. With proper Hermeneutics we see in the Old Testament the word “brother” to express a broad kinship or clanship as well as the word indicating siblings. Following are selected thought from St. Jerome who argued vehemently that to hold that Christ had siblings was an error:

17. I say spiritual because all of us Christians are called brethren, as in the verse, Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity. … Shall we say they are brethren by race? … Again, if all men, as such, were His brethren, it would have been foolish to deliver a special message, Behold, your brethren seek you, for all men alike were entitled to the name … Just as Lot was called Abraham's brother, and Jacob Laban's, just as the daughters of Zelophehad received a lot among their brethren, just as Abraham himself had to wife Sarah his sister, for he says, Genesis 20:11 She is indeed my sister, on the father's side, not on the mother's, that is to say, she was the daughter of his brother, not of his sister. St. Jerome, Against Helvidius.

If we were to argue for the literal interpretation of brother so as to insist on Jesus having siblings in this instance, then wouldn’t that redefine John 19:26-27? Jesus says to John, “Behold thy Mother.” Being redefined in our errant insistence on a literal interpretation would add John to James, and Joseph, and Simon, and Jude as siblings of Christ; which of course is nonsense.

Mary is Ever Virgin.

Roman Catholic beliefs:

"We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful." Pope Pius IX ineffabilis Deus, December 8, 1854


before he was born ( i know that) a few things about Paul talking about Widows and virgins and somehow that turns into nuns... most all of this is just what you wanted it to be.. you added to it. But OK... i getcha now.. i can see at least how some of this came to be. It was helpful... sincerely.

And what did you get?


JoeT

Virgin Mary:
Mary is the Mother of God

God has no mother. Mary would have to be a god herself to be the mother of God. We have been through this before and scripture nowhere would back up this claim.


She is perpetually virgin

Matt 13:55-56
55 Is this not the carpenter's son? Is not His mother called Mary? And His brothers James, Joses, Simon, and Judas? 56 And His sisters, are they not all with us?
NKJV


immaculately conceived

Even Mary acknowledged that she was a sinner in need of a Saviour:

Luke 1:46-48
46 And Mary said:
"My soul magnifies the Lord,
47 And my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior.
48 For He has regarded the lowly state of His maidservant;
NKJV


and assumed into heaven.

I note that you did not even attempt to validate this claim.



The Nazarene woman, Mary, was born without ever knowing original sin being “FULL OF GRACE.”

Let's look at that verse:

Luke 1:28-29
28 And having come in, the angel said to her, "Rejoice, highly favored one, the Lord is with you; blessed are you among women!"
NKJV

The translation "highly favoured one" is a more accurate translation. Now, if we look in scripture, we see thye following passage where the same word in Greek is found:

Eph 1:6
6 to the praise of the glory of His grace, by which He has made us accepted in the Beloved.
NKJV

The term "made us accepted" is the same word in Greek. Thus, according to you interpretation, this would make all of us sinless, thus this belief in Mary being sinless is a complete denial of the gospel. Are you saying that Romans 3:23 is a mistake?

Scripture directly refutes each one of these. So this actually support ClassyT's position.

We already know that you don't accept the virgin status of Mary as the Catholic church views it, and the idea that we view Jesus as God and Mary was his mother.

This has been hashed to death in another thread.

Lets get back on topic, Merely not agreeing on these two issues do not make or does not make Catholics Christian,

Anymore than if they require being bapisted by going under the water as some do.

These are merely differences in teachings, not the fact that all of them accept Christ as their savior who died for their sins.

Instead of looking at some of the more minor differences, we could pick Baptist to Pentecostal groups to death, who have a lot more differences than lets say Catholics and Anglican ( Anglican all have saints, and special services for saints) which is a protestant group last time I checked.

It is more a matter of how they worship and some of the non saving issues of belief.

JoeT,

I see what things you all used to get your belief system. I couldn't figure out how and why you believed what you did.. I couldn't find it in the Bible. I still can't... but I see how you make the S T R E T CH.

We already know that you don't accept the virgin status of Mary as the Catholic church views it, and the idea that we view Jesus as God and Mary was his mother.

God is a trinity, and pre-existed Mary. Jesus created her. God was manifest in the flesh through Mary - God was not conceived in Mary. The flesh into which God was manifest was.


Lets get back on topic, Merely not agreeing on these two issues do not make or does not make Catholics Christian,

Agreed.


anymore than if they require being bapisted by going under the water as some do.

Agreed.


These are merely differences in teachings, not the fact that all of them accept Christ as their savior who died for their sins.

I would agree that one can disagree on these points and still be saved, b ut I not agree that these are minor differences in teaching. I believe that some of these are quite serious doctrinal issues.


Instead of looking at some of the more minor differences, we could pick Baptist to Pentecostal groups to death, who have a lot more differences than lets say Catholics and Anglican ( Anglican all have saints, and special services for saints) which is a protestant group last time I checked.

I am not a denominationalist in any case, and not a protestant. I have issues with some of the doctrines taught by other denominations where they go outside of or in contradiction to scripture also.

I would disagree that Anglicans are protestant. They are essentially Catholic, though with a different person at the top - the ,monarch is in essence holding the same position as the pope.

JoeT, I couldn't find it in the Bible. I still can't
Find it or not, it’s there.

... but I see how you make the S T R E T CH.
It’s not my station to stretch or condense the Catholic doctrine.

JoeT

Find it or not, it’s there.

It does require faith to believe that it's there when no one can find it.

JoeT777,

You can make anything in there if you want it bad enough... come on. It's just not in there my friend.

FR_Chuck,

So YOU believe that Mary stayed a Virgin? You believe that Jesus didn't have actual blood brothers? i.e. James and Jude?

JoeT777,

You can make anything in there if you want it bad enough...come on. It's just not in there my friend.

Your comments, in my understanding, point to one of the primary differences between our respective faiths. In my estimation of Protestantism there is an element of rationalism mixed with relativism and naturalism. When applied it to Church doctrine we call it “liberal theology”. Protestantism synthesizes its own traditional morals for autonomous pre-determined conclusions on the premises desired. Catholicism, on the other hand uses both Tradition and Scripture to reveal God's will; that is inasmuch as man is capable of knowing. It's a matter of what God's absolute Truth is, and what it is not is what I “read into the Bible”.

As I understand it Protestantism holds that each individual can subjectively determine God's will (refer to the “five solas”). Fr. Felix Sarda y Salvany in 1886 addressed problem in 1886 when he said, “Free-thought begets free morals, or immorality.” See Liberalism Is A Sin (link) (http://www.ewtn.com/library/theology/libsin.HTM). Here you find that the term “Liberal” was understood to mean Protestant or other similar forms of rationalizing faith.

Based on my observation, Protestants hold that inductive reasoning founded on Christian faith, weighing actions on traditional Catholic morals, is discarded as being slow, regressive, and narrow-minded. The fault seems to be that conclusions drawn are autonomous intellectual exercises; judgments are based on subjective reasoning not founded on absolute moral truths that only Catholicism brings. Ultimately Protestantism must come in conflict with the Church.

Protestantism must require toleration of different virtuous moral precepts. Fr. Felix Sarda y Salvany seems to support this concept when he states:

“Liberalism is the program of naturalism. Free thought begets free morals, or immorality- Restraint is thrown off and a free rein given to the passions. WHOEVER THINKS WHAT HE PLEASES WILL DO WHAT HE PLEASES (sic). Liberalism in the intellectual order is license in the moral order. Disorder in the intellect begets disorder in the heart, and vice-versa. Thus does Liberalism propagate immorality, and immorality Liberalism.”

Right and wrong become subjective; morality and integrity become matters of positive law as opposed to natural law. The liberal trait is exhibited as autonomous authority to have “freedom from” doctrine as well as “freedom to” implement proxy ethics independent of God's will, e.g. abortion, devoice etc. As such the standard of right and wrong become subjective and differ from individual to individual; thus we hear the refrain "it might be wrong for you but its right for me." This ideology becomes progressively independent of God's authority in its thinking as it no longer needs God for its authority; this is evidenced by the number of independent non-denominational Christian Churches and Protestant denominations – which is upwards of 30,000 – it was only one in 1520. Tracking the liberal trait of autonomous authority over morality it can be seen to become asymptotic to atheism – and in short order. While still holding a Christian like caricature, liberalism progresses to the point where God is no longer needed (or wanted); thereby God ceases to exist in the heart and mind.

Consequently, at least in my way of thinking, we see a trend where by Protestantism forces interpretation of Scripture to fit the will of man. The Lutheran view would reject any type of cooperation with the concept of “once saved always saved”, the certitude of justification. The Lutheran views man as depraved and as such saving graces must be forced on man. Thus, Luther rejects that there is free will. Similarly Calvin's views of a fiduciary faith which denies that man can be holy, a faith that merely covers sin. Catholics however believe in a justification through penance and good works actually removes sin. Whereas, Catholicism finds a synergism between God and man when sanctifying graces are conferred; the free human will and the will of God (the Holy Spirit) work together to bring about spiritual regeneration or salvation. [cf. Trent, Sixth Session, Cannon IV] In the Catholic world man subjects his will to God, as opposed to finding some scriptural support whereby the will of God is subjected to man's will. Therefore, I find God's objective Truth remains true whether I “find it in there”; whether I “want it bad enough.”



JoeT

Your comments, in my understanding, point to one of the primary difference between our respective faiths. In my estimation of Protestantism there is application of rationalism mixed with relativism and naturalism. When applied it to Church doctrine we call it “liberal theology”. Protestantism synthesizes its own traditional morals for autonomous pre-determined conclusions on the premises desired. Catholicism, on the other hand uses both Tradition and Scripture to reveal God’s will; that is inasmuch as man is capable of knowing. It’s a matter of what God’s absolute Truth is, and what it is not is what I “read into the Bible”.

By applying traditions of man and making that equal to scripture, you in fact are using relativism, because the traditions change over time.

By sticking solely to God's word, we have an anchor that never changes.


As I understand it Protestantism holds that each individual can subjectively determine God’s will (refer to the “five solas”).

I cannot speak for protestantism, but sola scriptura does not hold to that. Sola scriptura holds to the belief that scripture interprets itself, and thus holds to what scripture says that scripture is of no private interpretation, unlike Catholicism which holds that only the private interpretation of their leadership and their denomination is correct. It is my understanding that protestants also typically use sola scriptura.

Basically what we are talking about is that at one time there was one church, and now there are many different denominations all claiming that theirs is the absolute truth and the other people are wrong.
But if they split off from us how can that be true? If the church was, say, good enough to carry the word of God from Jesus day down until the day that they decided they wanted to start their own schism, how can the narrowness be in us?
It also puzzles me how all of these denominations use the scripture that their leaders authority must be obeyed by all good Christians, if they don't they need to be disfellowshipped, sort of the same as their original founders were when they left the Church? If they had no respect for the fellowship and the congregation, and the holy spirit poured out on the leaders, how can they claim the same privilege.

Guys,

The Catholic church was not the first church! Read Paul's epistles... not the Catholic church AT ALL... you all evolved.

Churches splitting has been happening for centuries.. they had the same troubles in Paul's day.

I do not belong to a denomination for that very reason.

Well that is my thoughts anyway.

Paul had several congregations, which should be thought of as church buildings in different towns. They were not separate denominations. Acts tells us all the Christians were of one community and shared their property in common

FR_Chuck,

so YOU believe that Mary stayed a Virgin? You believe that Jesus didn't have actual blood brothers? i.e. James and Jude?

Actually talking what the church believes, no where does it say that Jesus had blood brothers and sisters,
Since the term brothers and sisters can and was used for all family including cousins at that time in history.
Also many feel it was also step brothers and sisters from Joseph.

The basic facts is that the bible does not tell us one way or the other for sure.

Yes consider the book of Ruth. Ruth's child she had with Boaz was considered Naomi's child. Ruth wasn't even born a Jew, she was a Moabitess.

Paul had several congregations, which should be thought of as church buildings in different towns. They were not seperate denominations. Acts tells us all the Christians were of one community and shared their property in common

Oh I wasn't clear.. I mean he had problems with people saying I follow paul or I follow peter, or whoever... I didn't mean they actually split.

Guys,

The Catholic church was not the first church! Read Paul's epistles...not the Catholic church AT ALL...you all evolved.

Churches splitting has been happening for centuries..they had the same troubles in Paul's day.

I do not belong to a denomination for that very reason.

well that is my thoughts anyway.

Eusebius wrote, “It is my purpose to write an account of the successions of the holy apostles, as well as of the times which have elapsed from the days of our Saviour to our own; and to relate the many important events which are said to have occurred in the history of the Church; and to mention those who have governed and presided over the Church in the most prominent parishes, and those who in each generation have proclaimed the divine word either orally or in writing.” Eusebius of Cæsarea Church History, I.1., (260-341 (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2501.htm)). Why didn’t the good Bishop of Cæsarea write a History of the “Churches” (plural), or the elect, or the congregational, or the Baptist? Its clear Eusebius is discussing an emerging community of faith (called Catholic today), not a single congregation. Also, note that the Church taught “orally,” that’s to say, God is free to reveal himself outside the confines of the Bible; for that matter, outside the confines of Paul’s epistles.


JoeT

basically what we are talking about is that at one time there was one church, and now there are many different denominations all claiming that theirs is the absolute truth and the other people are wrong.

There was never a single organizational church. There were no denominations until the 4th century.


It also puzzles me how all of these denominations use the scripture that their leaders authority must be obeyed by all good Christians,

I would avoid ANY denomination that claims that their leaders must be obeyed by all Christians. Do we agree on that?


if they don't they need to be disfellowshipped, sort of the same as their original founders were when they left the Church?

ANY church or denomination that excommunicates or disfellowships believers simply for disagreeing with their leadership are clearly wrong - do we agree?

I am not sure, we see the churches following the instructions of th Apostles, We see Paul going to see Peter for permission to do certain things. If that is not a organised group I don't know what is. They appointed leaders, they had specific job duties, teachers ministers and more.

We even see them appointing a replacement for Judas into the position of leadership.

Paul had several congregations, which should be thought of as church buildings in different towns. They were not seperate denominations. Acts tells us all the Christians were of one community and shared their property in common

All Christians. It does not say all church goers. It does not say all churches. It does not say all were of one denomination. Scripture is clear that not all church or all church goers were Christians.

We see Paul going to see Peter for permission to do certain things.

References?

I wonder is anyone is going to tell us that the 7 churches in Revelation were all one denomination.

Eusebius wrote, “It is my purpose to write an account of the successions of the holy apostles, as well as of the times which have elapsed from the days of our Saviour to our own; and to relate the many important events which are said to have occurred in the history of the Church; and to mention those who have governed and presided over the Church in the most prominent parishes, and those who in each generation have proclaimed the divine word either orally or in writing.” Eusebius of Cæsarea Church History, I.1., (260-341 (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2501.htm)). Why didn’t the good Bishop of Cæsarea write a History of the “Churches” (plural), or the elect, or the congregational, or the Baptist? Its clear Eusebius is discussing an emerging community of faith (called Catholic today), not a single congregation. Also, note that the Church taught “orally,” that’s to say, God is free to reveal himself outside the confines of the Bible; for that matter, outside the confines of Paul’s epistles.

I could quote a number of things from his record that would contradict what you believe of church history, but nonetheless lets not forget that Eusebius besides being an historian was the right hand man of Constantine.

Actually talking what the church believes, no where does it say that Jesus had blood brothers and sisters,

First, why would the term for brothers be used here when there is a word in Koine Greek meaning cousin, unless they were cousins. The word is used elsewhere in the new Testament, for example:

Col 4:10-11
10 Aristarchus my fellow prisoner greets you, with Mark the cousin of Barnabas (about whom you received instructions: if he comes to you, welcome him),
NKJV

Let's also look at a Messianic prophecy in Psalms

Ps 69:8
8 I have become a stranger to my brothers,
And an alien to my mother's children;
NKJV

The word here for children is "ben" which is used widely to designate the direct descedents. Indeed, in hebrew, a person is ofetn referred to as XXX ben YYY where XXX is their name and YYY is their father's name. Thus it means XXX, the child of YYY.

So we do have some direct references to Mary having other children. What we do not have is any reference which says that she was perpetually a virgin.

I could quote a number of things from his record that would contradict what you believe of church history, but nonetheless lets not forget that Eusebius besides being an historian was the right hand man of Constantine.


Wow, I’m impressed. How did you know Eusebius was right handed?

Let me see you can appear to know the bible, so you have never read where Paul went to Peter and the Apostles about preaching to the gentiles?

Maybe that is just in mine?

Let me see you can appear to know the bible, so you have never read where Paul went to Peter and the Apostles about preaching to the gentiles ??

Maybe that is just in mine?

As for Paul being sent to the Gentiles, I read this:

Acts 13:1-3
13:1 Now in the church that was at Antioch there were certain prophets and teachers: Barnabas, Simeon who was called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. 2 As they ministered to the Lord and fasted, the Holy Spirit said, "Now separate to Me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them." 3 Then, having fasted and prayed, and laid hands on them, they sent them away.
NKJV


Acts 13:46-52
46 Then Paul and Barnabas grew bold and said, "It was necessary that the word of God should be spoken to you first; but since you reject it, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, behold, we turn to the Gentiles. 47 For so the Lord has commanded us:

'I have set you as a light to the Gentiles,
That you should be for salvation to the ends of the earth.' "

48 Now when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and glorified the word of the Lord. And as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed. 49 And the word of the Lord was being spread throughout all the region. 50 But the Jews stirred up the devout and prominent women and the chief men of the city, raised up persecution against Paul and Barnabas, and expelled them from their region. 51 But they shook off the dust from their feet against them, and came to Iconium. 52 And the disciples were filled with joy and with the Holy Spirit.
NKJV

I see nowhere where Paul went to Peter for permission to preach to the Gentiles. God commanded him through prophets and teachers and Peter's name is not even mentioned amongst them.

You said specifically that Paul went "to see Peter for permission to do certain things".

Maybe it is just in your Bible. Give us the references and let's see.

Eusebius wrote, “It is my purpose to write an account of the successions of the holy apostles, as well as of the times which have elapsed from the days of our Saviour to our own; and to relate the many important events which are said to have occurred in the history of the Church; and to mention those who have governed and presided over the Church in the most prominent parishes, and those who in each generation have proclaimed the divine word either orally or in writing.” Eusebius of Cæsarea Church History, I.1., (260-341 (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2501.htm)). Why didn’t the good Bishop of Cæsarea write a History of the “Churches” (plural), or the elect, or the congregational, or the Baptist? Its clear Eusebius is discussing an emerging community of faith (called Catholic today), not a single congregation. Also, note that the Church taught “orally,” that’s to say, God is free to reveal himself outside the confines of the Bible; for that matter, outside the confines of Paul’s epistles.


JoeT

See JoeT,

This is my whole problem.. There is no Eusebius in those 66 books we discussed earlier. And IF they are not IN those 66 books.. they ARE NOT THE WORD OF GOD! It isn't a hard concept. You cannot add to the Word... EVER! The word is the word. That is my problem with Catholicism. LOL and I don't care what the Church taught... if it ain't in the 66 books I ain't interested.

Well, I would disagree with you on the point you make that God is free to reveal himself outside of the confines of the Bible. He isn't the author of confusion either. And he isn't a man that he should lie. So when he says don't add to the Word.. it I BEST not to add to the Word.

See JoeT,

This is my whole problem..There is no Eusebius in those 66 books we discussed earlier. And IF they are not IN those 66 books..they ARE NOT THE WORD OF GOD! it isn't a hard concept. You cannot add to the Word....EVER! The word is the word. That is my problem with Catholicism. LOL and i don't care what the Church taught...if it ain't in the 66 books I ain't interested.

Well, i would disagree with you on the point you make that God is free to reveal himself outside of the confines of the Bible. He isn't the author of confusion either. And he isn't a man that he should lie. So when he says don't add to the Word..it i BEST not to add to the Word.

You’re correct; there is no History of the Church by Eusebius in the Bible. But events did occur after the Ascension of Christ. Did all progress of mankind stop once the 73 books of the Bible were written? Was this the end of all recorded history once the Scriptures were written (the last of which was written around 90 AD.)? [Don't tell me, if God meant for man to fly we’d be born with wings.] The destruction of Jerusalem isn’t discussed. Did it never happen? Nor is Hannibal mentioned in the Bible; did he never invade Rome? Nor is Hitler mentioned in the Bible; did he not kill 4 to 6 million Jews and Christians?

Eusebius recorded historical events as they related to the Church. Those events show that the Kingdom of God on earth (the Catholic Church) had a functioning hierarchy with Peter at its head. In short it existed; it existed from the ascension to at least Eusebius’ time. Eusebius’ history records some events surrounding the original 12 Apostles, mentions many of the written documents of that early Catholic Church, including what we know as the Bible today. So, whether Eusebius was right handed or not, whether he was an appointee of Constantine or not, we know that;

“… during the reign of Claudius, the all-good and gracious Providence, which watches over all things, led Peter, that strongest and greatest of the apostles, and the one who on account of his virtue was the speaker for all the others, to Rome against this great corrupter of life. He like a noble commander of God, clad in divine armor…proclaiming the light itself, and the word which brings salvation to souls, and preaching the kingdom of heaven.” Church History (Eusebius) 2.14.6 (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250102.htm)

Thus there was an organization, it was headed by Peter commanded in divine armor spreading the light of God’s Word of salvation.

Now let me ask a question. Where did your faith come from: from the Bible? And how did the Bible come to you through some 2,000 years of this so called non-biblical history? Who decided which of the Holy Scripture was to be included?

JoeT

Great point JoeT. Has she not heard of the middle ages, all those monks laboriously writing out illuminated copies the Bible by hand before printing presses were invented? It's like she thinks her church just dropped from the sky or something, that Christ was crucified but then He made a special exception for her and came back again? This is exactly what Paul means by impaling Christ afresh for themselves.

Paul talks about his ministry at Galatians 1:11-24 and 2:1--10.
TJ3, Paul was not one of the 12, or the 13th, or even in the top 72: Luke chapter 10:1--24.
Paul if we can believe what he reports received his commission directly from a vision of Christ that he received on the road to Damascus; the others with him did not see it (again, Galatians 1:11--24). He went on to practically write most of the New Testament by himself, so yes I personally do believe it happened to him just like he said.

TJ3 as to your post #63, yes we agree on those points, but I can tell you a lot of the Protestant churches do just this, because I have heard it said and done myself.
Also I have gone to baptisms and they baptise in the name of their church, not in the name of the father, son and holy ghost.

TJ3 as to your post #63, yes we agree on those points, but I can tell you a lot of the Protestant churches do just this, because I have heard it said and done myself.

I know that many do. And I openly oppose it, just as I do when Catholic Churches do the same thing.


Also I have gone to baptisms and they baptise in the name of their church, not in the name of the father, son and holy ghost.

Now that I have never heard or seen. Before I would believe that, I would want to see the validation.

Great point JoeT. Has she not heard of the middle ages, all those monks laboriously writing out illuminated copies the Bible by hand before printing presses were invented? It's like she thinks her church just dropped from the sky or something, that Christ was crucified but then He made a special exception for her and came back again? This is exactly what Paul means by impaling Christ afresh for themselves.

First, I note that Joe chose to add some books to the Bible. These were added during the Council of Trent by the Roman Catholic denomination.

But putting that aside for now,when you say that to oppose or support a denomination is like "impaling Christ afresh for themselves" sounds to me like you believe that your denomination is essential for salvation. Where is that in scripture? This sounds like one of those extra-Biblical additions that classT is concerned about.

Paul talks about his ministry at Galatians 1:11-24 and 2:1--10.
TJ3, Paul was not one of the 12, or the 13th, or even in the top 72: Luke chapter 10:1--24.

Really? I looked at the reference that you gave and I do not see anything that would say that paul was not one of the 12. Could you be more specific with respect to your interpretation of this passage in the context that you have applied to it?

Well I would say to you all, including classyt... Matthew chapter 7, don't judge another, as Jesus would say. If for instance you say "may God **** you" this is asking God to act, but if you say "**** you" you are assuming yourself equal to God and able to judge other people in His place, the same as when we might speak ill of the dead, people who have already been judged by God. So think whatever you think, but it is none of our place to tell another.

The twelve apostles were Peter, Andrew, James, John, Bartholomew, Matthew, Philip, Thomas, James the son of Alphaeus, Simon the Zealot, Judas son of James, and Judas Iscariot, who was replaced by Matthias Acts chapter 1.
Paul at this time was still a practicing Jew and was present for the stoning of Stephen, the first Christian martyr Acts chapter 7
It was only afterwards that Paul was converted.

I am not for any particular denomination, but Paul means that if we have divisions among ourselves we are not thinking of ourselves as all members of the one body of Christ

You're correct; there is no History of the Church by Eusebius in the Bible. But events did occur after the Ascension of Christ. Did all progress of mankind stop once the 73 books of the Bible were written? Was this the end of all recorded history once the Scriptures were written (the last of which was written around 90 AD.)? [Don't tell me, if God meant for man to fly we'd be born with wings.] The destruction of Jerusalem isn't discussed. Did it never happen? Nor is Hannibal mentioned in the Bible; did he never invade Rome? Nor is Hitler mentioned in the Bible; did he not kill 4 to 6 million Jews and Christians?

Eusebius recorded historical events as they related to the Church. Those events show that the Kingdom of God on earth (the Catholic Church) had a functioning hierarchy with Peter at its head. In short it existed; it existed from the ascension to at least Eusebius' time. Eusebius' history records some events surrounding the original 12 Apostles, mentions many of the written documents of that early Catholic Church, including what we know as the Bible today. So, whether or not Eusebius was right handed or not, whether he was an appointee of Constantine or not, we know that;

“… during the reign of Claudius, the all-good and gracious Providence, which watches over all things, led Peter, that strongest and greatest of the apostles, and the one who on account of his virtue was the speaker for all the others, to Rome against this great corrupter of life. He like a noble commander of God, clad in divine armor…proclaiming the light itself, and the word which brings salvation to souls, and preaching the kingdom of heaven.” Church History (Eusebius) 2.14.6 (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250102.htm)

Thus there was an organization, it was headed by Peter commanded in divine armor spreading the light of God's Word of salvation.

Now let me ask a question. Where did your faith come from: from the Bible? And how did the Bible come to you through some 2,000 years of this so called non-biblical history? Who decided which of the Holy Scripture was to be included?

JoeT

There are 66 books. But Paul completed the Bible. That is what he said.. not me. I don't believe that anything that has been have added to the Christian church is biblical. That's all. And if I appear to be judging you, I'm NOT. I really wanted to know where catholic got their belief system.. thats all. Some of it is biblical.. some of it isn't. That is the way I see it anyway. The LORD decided what would be added. Just like he inspired the writers to write the books. And I believe he perserved his Word through men.. (i.e. the scribes)

I am not for any particular denomination, but Paul means that if we have divisions among ourselves we are not thinking of ourselves as all members of the one body of Christ

And I agree with you. We are all one body, I don't care what denomination. (as long as you are really saved. )

There are 66 books. But Paul completed the Bible. That is what he said.. not me.

You'll have to show me where it says Paul completed the Bible. I’m not familiar with that verse.



I don't believe that anything that has been have added to the Christian church is biblical. That's all.


What has been “added”?



and if I appear to be judging you, I'm NOT.

Judge away.



I really wanted to know where catholic got their belief system.. thats all. Some of it is biblical.. some of it isn't. That is the way I see it anyway. The LORD decided what would be added. Just like he inspired the writers to write the books. And I believe he perserved his Word through men.. (i.e. the scribes)


The simple answer is that Catholics get their commission, authority to teach, authority of sanctification, and supremacy to fix doctrine, from Christ through Peter and the Apostles as taught by their successors as evidenced in Scriptures:


The Catholic Church receives its commission directly from Christ:

• Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven. Again I say to you, that if two of you shall consent upon earth, concerning anything whatsoever they shall ask, it shall be done to them by my Father who is in heaven. For where there are two or three gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them." (Matt 28:18-20)


The Church has the Scriptural Authority to Teach:

• And going, preach, saying: The kingdom of heaven is at hand. 8 Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out devils: freely have you received, freely give.. . That which I tell you in the dark, speak ye in the light: and that which you hear in the ear, preach ye upon the housetops. (Matt 10:7, 27)

• And he made that twelve should be with him, and that he might send them to preach. (Mk 3:14)

• And he said to them: Go ye into the whole world and preach the gospel to every creature. (Mk 16:15)


The Church has the authority of Sanctification:

• Jesus answered: Amen, amen, I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. (John 3:5)

• If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, for the life of the world. The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat? Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen, I say unto you: except you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. (John 6:52-53)

• And taking bread, he gave thanks and brake and gave to them, saying: This is my body, which is given for you. Do this for a commemoration of me. (Luke 22:19)

• And giving thanks, broke and said: Take ye and eat: This is my body, which shall be delivered for you. (1 Cor 11:24)

• When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them: and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained. (John 20:22-23)

The Church has supremacy to fix doctrine:

• Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven. (Matt 18:18)

• And sitting down, he called the twelve and saith to them: If any man desire to be first, he shall be the last of all and be minister of all. (Mk 9:35)


Christ obliges all to submit to the power of the Apostles.

• He that receiveth you, receiveth me: and he that receiveth me, receiveth him that sent me. He that receiveth a prophet in the name of a prophet, shall receive the reward of a prophet: and he that receiveth a just man in the name of a just man, shall receive the reward of a just man. (Matt 10:40-41)

• Amen, amen, I say to you, he that receiveth whomsoever I send receiveth me: and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me. (John 13:20)

• He that heareth you heareth me: and he that despiseth you despiseth me: and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me (Lk 10:16)

• And not for them only do I pray, but for them also who through their word shall believe in me. That they all may be one, as thou, Father, in me, and I in thee; that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. (John 17:20)

JoeT

The twelve apostles were Peter, Andrew, James, John, Bartholomew, Matthew, Philip, Thomas, James the son of Alphaeus, Simon the Zealot, Judas son of James, and Judas Iscariot, who was replaced by Matthias Acts chapter 1.
Paul at this time was still a practicing Jew and was present for the stoning of Stephen, the first Christian martyr Acts chapter 7
It was only afterwards that Paul was converted.

There is no indiaction that Judas was God's choice - that is the only Apostle that no mention of God's endorsement is given to. Paul on the other hand was called by Jesus directly and called an Apostle.

And scripture says that there are only 12 Apostles.

The Catholic Church receives its commission directly from Christ: [/B]

• Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven. Again I say to you, that if two of you shall consent upon earth, concerning anything whatsoever they shall ask, it shall be done to them by my Father who is in heaven. For where there are two or three gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them." (Matt 28:18-20)

I see nothing about any denomination mentioned there, and this, BTW, is not establishing the authority of any manmade organization.


The Church has the Scriptural Authority to Teach:

• And going, preach, saying: The kingdom of heaven is at hand. 8 Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out devils: freely have you received, freely give.. . That which I tell you in the dark, speak ye in the light: and that which you hear in the ear, preach ye upon the housetops. (Matt 10:7, 27)

Yep - again, not referring to any denomination


The Church has the authority of Sanctification:

• Jesus answered: Amen, amen, I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. (John 3:5)

This verse says nothing of the sort. It is the Holy Spirit who sanctifies.


The Church has supremacy to fix doctrine:

• Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven. (Matt 18:18)

• And sitting down, he called the twelve and saith to them: If any man desire to be first, he shall be the last of all and be minister of all. (Mk 9:35)

Doctrines were set in scripture. No man has the right to alter, add to, or remove from what it says. Nor, according to scripture, can any man intepret scripture, not me, not you, not the pope, no one.


Christ obliges all to submit to the power of the Apostles.

• He that receiveth you, receiveth me: and he that receiveth me, receiveth him that sent me. He that receiveth a prophet in the name of a prophet, shall receive the reward of a prophet: and he that receiveth a just man in the name of a just man, shall receive the reward of a just man. (Matt 10:40-41)

This passage not say that but in any case it does not matter since there are no apostles alive on earth today.

BTW, in order to properly understand what scripture says about the Church, one must first understand what "the church" is according to scripture. First and foremost it is not a denomination.

I am not for any particular denomination, but Paul means that if we have divisions among ourselves we are not thinking of ourselves as all members of the one body of Christ

The verses that speak about unity do not at any time speak about denominations or organizational unity, but rather the unity that exists amongst all believers through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

well I would say to you all, including classyt...Matthew chapter 7, don't judge another, as Jesus would say. If for instance you say "may God **** you" this is asking God to act, but if you say "**** you" you are assuming yourself equal to God and able to judge other people in His place, the same as when we might speak ill of the dead, people who have already been judged by God. So think whatever you think, but it is none of our place to tell another.

I see no one on this thread judging others, but we are commanded to judge doctrine and actions.

There is no indiaction that Judas was God's choice - that is the only Apostle that no mention of God's endorsement is given to. Paul on the other hand was called by Jesus directly and called an Apostle.

And scripture says that there are only 12 Apostles.

Exactly. WOW... you are pretty smart! I agree totally with that and most people don't see it that way...

Joet,

Colossians 1:25

Whereof I am made minister, according the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God.

That was Paul job, he fulfilled the Word of God and we are warn other places not to add to it.

Judas was a man just like any other, who heard the word of God and then chose to sin and disregard it. I'm saying Jesus while walking on earth before he was crucified, chose the 12, later he chose 72. After Judas left their company the remaining 11 chose another (Matthias) for whatever reason is not clear, maybe it had something to do with there being 12 tribes of Israel. Only sometime later was Paul even converted to Christianity. Paul himself calls these others the Pillars of the Church and the Super Apostles but he was in agreement with them and called himself an Apostle or a follower of Christ.
I like to read the New Testament like a CSI sometimes, maybe this isn't a good idea and it's easier for someone who has never read all of it before and so has no preconceived notions:
If you look at Paul or Saul's early ministry, he was walking in the footsteps of Jesus actually in most of the things he did, which could account for his tremendous success and wide popularity. It seems to this investigator that he almost thought he, Saul named after all for the first king of Israel, should have been appointed king of the Jews--his preaching, his appearance before the Jewish leaders and the Roman rulers.
And again I mention Joshua, who took over for Moses and set up a stone as a witness, just like Laban and Jacob did, and like the Israelites set up an altar in the wilderness that was different from the altar in the temple. After Peter another man and then another was set up as the witness rock.

I'm saying Jesus while walking on earth before he was crucified, chose the 12,

12 were Apostles, and only 12.


later he chose 72.

These are not apostles, so it is not clear what your point is with respect to the 70 (not 72).

Luke 10:1-2
10:1 After these things the Lord appointed seventy others also, and sent them two by two before His face into every city and place where He Himself was about to go.
NKJV


After Judas left their company the remaining 11 chose another (Matthias) for whatever reason is not clear, maybe it had something to do with there being 12 tribes of Israel.

Yes, and unlike the other Apostles, this was the only one identified who was not chosen by or endorsed by Jesus. He may have been a very good man - I don't doubt it - but scripture does not show any indiaction that this was God's choice.


Only sometime later was Paul even converted to Christianity. Paul himself calls these others the Pillars of the Church and the Super Apostles but he was in agreement with them and called himself an Apostle or a follower of Christ.

He does not say that they are pillars to the exclusion of others, Indeed the term applies to all believers:

Rev 3:12
12 He who overcomes, I will make him a pillar in the temple of My God, and he shall go out no more. And I will write on him the name of My God and the name of the city of My God, the New Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven from My God.
NKJV

As for "super Apostles", I believe that you are referring to this passage where he points out that he is their equal:

2 Cor 11:5-6
5 For I consider that I am not at all inferior to the most eminent apostles.
NKJV

It is also not clear who specifically he is referring to here.

So again, with all due respect, it is not clear what the point is that you are trying to make with these references.

Well more to the point what does classyt think. Because I'm not sure she gets this whole reformation business. They left us, we didn't somehow develop independently of them.
I also looked at Deut 1:9--18 elders of the faith
Acts 8:9--19 shows that's God's favor is given like it was to Paul, not something that is handed out to anyone
Deut 18:15--22 gift of prophecy
Paul talks about his ministry at Galatians 1:11--24, 2:1--11, Acts 11:19--26 Acts 15:1--12 here he shows that he started independently but that he met with Peter and the others and they were all in agreement.
That is quite different from, say starting up your own sect and expecting everyone else to follow you, and if they don't leaving the church and starting your own.

well more to the point what does classyt think. Because I'm not sure she gets this whole reformation business. They left us, we didn't somehow develop independently of them.

Keep in mind that throughout history there have always been Christians outside of the Roman Catholic church, but for most of this timeframe (counted from the start of the Roman catholic church in 325AD) and indeed even in some countries today, one has had to be a member of the Roman catholic church or face penalties which have, at various times and places, included imprisonment or death. Forced unity does not mean that all who were members of that denomination were necessary in concert with the denomination or its leadership.


I also looked at Deut 1:9--18 elders of the faith
Acts 8:9--19 shows that's God's favor is given like it was to Paul, not something that is handed out to anyone
Deut 18:15--22 gift of prophecy
Paul talks about his ministry at Galatians 1:11--24, 2:1--11, Acts 11:19--26 Acts 15:1--12 here he shows that he started independently but that he met with Peter and the others and they were all in agreement.
That is quite different from, say starting up your own sect and expecting everyone else to follow you, and if they don't leaving the church and starting your own.

It is not clear to me how this relates to the discussion. Scripture does not mandate that we be part of a specific denomination, or that any denomination exist at all.

Please clarify.

Indeed, I would suggest that denominationalism is entirely contrary to scripture. This does not mean that denominations are wrong, but when we make the denomination the master rather than a tool or ministry, that is wrong.

Well you or maybe I seem to be hung up on Paul's title somehow, whether he is an Apostle or the 12th Apostle.
Like it or not there exist denominations today and we both agree this is not what Christ wants or intended

well you or maybe I seem to be hung up on Paul's title somehow, whether he is an Apostle or the 12th Apostle.

The fact is that there were ONLY 12 true Apostles (FULL STOP), therefore there is no question as to whether he is one of the 12 if he is an Apostle. If he is an Apostle, he is the 12th.

Rev 21:14-15
14 Now the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.
NKJV


Like it or not there exist denominations today and we both agree this is not what Christ wants or intended

Agreed. What is important is that we submit ourselves to God and His word and not to any denomination.

There are hundreds of diffrences but so much more similarities, I know you didn't mean to cause offence but where I am from(was from moved due to violence) belfast northern ireland is ripped apart by this debate.. my opinion is it doesent matter there are so many religeons out there that christians and catholics should be happy that another religeon has so many similarities because so many other people have so many other beliefs.

OK I've been thinking some more and have more to add. First there was catholicism, and due to people not liking some of the abuses by the churhch the great schism happened , orthodox and catholicism, then in germany luther started the papal bull against the pope due to his abuses of power, basically peoples interpretations of the bible are what started christianity that's the diffrence two people read the same book and two difrent meaanings come from the same words there is no way to solve this argument we juts have to agree to disagree

there are hundreds of diffrences but so much more similarities, i know you didnt mean to cause offence but where i am from(was from moved due to violence) belfast northern ireland is ripped apart by this debate..

There are additional issues that exacerbated the situation in N. Ireland. Let's not further complicate this discussion by bringing politics and personalities into it. This thread discussion is focused on doctrine.

ok iv been thinking some more and have more to add. first there was catholicism, and due to people not liking some of the abuses by the churhch the great schism happened , orthodox and catholicism, then in germany luther started the papal bull against the pope due to his abuses of power, basically peoples interpretations of the bible are what started christianity thats the diffrence two people read the same book and two difrent meaanings come from the same words there is no way to solve this arguement we juts have to agree to disagree

This has more to do with Catholicism using sources outside of the Bible including the Apochrypha, tradition and others as sources of doctrine.

As for different people's interpretations, you have a point there and that is specifically why scripture says that no man is to interpret scripture.

OK but my point is, there are so many religeons and beliefs every single person in the world has difrent beliefs.. are muslims wrong? Are jews wrong ? Hindus? Budhists? I'm saying christians and catholics believe so many of the same things why are people hung up on the diffrences? To be honest I hate both of these religeons because of what they have done to my people, and the world.. its been around for 2000 years? What happened to people before they believed in god? The same thin that happens to us now. I have no problems with peopl ewho are religious most of them are decent people a lot nicer than some other people out there but I think it has become a major thing in peoples lives and this is wrong. People believe in religeon because it makes it easier to accept the fact that we are all going to die:) I ghope I haven't offended you and I wish I had your faith in religeon juts things I have seen have made me question things.

OK but my point is, there are so many religeons and beliefs every single person in the world has difrent beliefs.. are muslims wrong? Are jews wrong ? Hindus? Budhists?

That is a different question, for a different thread. Feel free to start a new thread. But just ponder this - since Christianity is mutually exclusive with all these religions, it is impossible for all to be right.


I'm saying christians and catholics believe so many of the same things why are people hung up on the diffrences?

Because many of the difference go to heart of what Christianity is.

And I now understand your point again apologies and thanks for your input .

I personally believe there are big differences in the Catholic faith compared to protestant.

Do you mean, big differences between what Protestants teach and what the Catholic Church teaches? If so, I agree.


Now i realize under different protestant denominations there are plenty of different doctrines but, in general about the fundementals of Christainity, I think there is more common ground then with Catholicism.

The Catholic Church teaches the fundamentals of Christianity. No other Church teaches all of those fundamentals.


I know catholics who do not call themselves Christian.. they prefer catholic.

Either you don't understand them or they don't understand their faith. We are the original Christians. It is from the Catholic Church that all other Christian churches broke off.


Now that isn't a great big deal but the fact that they pray to Mary,

I know Fr_Chuck said we don't pray to Mary. But we do. I think he meant to say that we don't WORSHIP Mary. Which we don't.

Note that the Catholic Church is the only one that teaches the BIBLICAL meaning of the word "pray".

Genesis 12:13
Say, I pray thee, thou art my sister: that it may be well with me for thy sake; and my soul shall live because of thee.

Here, Abram says, "I pray thee" to Sara.

Genesis 18:3
And said, My LORD, if now I have found favour in thy sight, pass not away, I pray thee, from thy servant:

Here Abraham says, "I pray thee" to the Lord.

Matthew 10:42
And whosoever shall give to drink unto one of these little ones a cup of cold water only in the name of a disciple, verily I say unto you, he shall in no wise lose his reward.

Matthew 10:41
He that receiveth a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet's reward;...


Matthew 10:41
... and he that receiveth a righteous man in the name of a righteous man shall receive a righteous man's reward.

Luke 16:24
And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.

Here we see that the Bible gives us examples of asking for assistance in the name of another.


confess to a priest,

Jesus gave His Priests the power to forgive sin:

John 20 23 Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.

In order for them to forgive sin, one has to confess their sin to them.


believe in purgatory,

1 Peter 3 19 In which also coming he preached to those spirits that were in prison:

I don't think any explanation is necessary. It is very straight forward.


have no assurance in salvation

That's your misunderstanding. We believe in a conditional assurance of salvation. Which is what Scripture teaches:

Philippians 2 12 Wherefore, my dearly beloved, (as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but much more now in my absence,) with fear and trembling work out your salvation.

Romans 2 6 Who will render to every man according to his works. 7 To them indeed, who according to patience in good work, seek glory and honour and incorruption, eternal life:


( some don't even know what saved means)

Not the way you mean it. We know we are saved when God says so. Not when we say so:

1 Corinthians 4 4 For I am not conscious to myself of any thing, yet am I not hereby justified; but he that judgeth me, is the Lord. 5 Therefore judge not before the time; until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts; and then shall every man have praise from God.

It is foreign to us to judge ourselves.


and the list goes on... i think it is different than Christianity.

It is very different from Protestant Christianity. But that is because Protestant Christianity has abandoned the teachings of Jesus Christ.

We can examine for instance, the idea of Sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura contradicts Scripture. Simply speaking, Jesus Christ never wrote one letter of Scripture. But He built a Church (Matt 16:18), gave it the power to teach the nations (Matt 28:20) and established many other Traditions such as Baptism, Eucharist etc. to impart grace on the believers.


I understand that they believe that Jesus is GOD he died and rose again but for the most part.. i see a big difference.

And by the way, PLEASE do not take offense by any of this.. i am just asking. I'm not putting catholicism down... Fr_Chuck disagrees with me and I just thought I'd asked for some opinions.

I don't take offense. There was a time I didn't believe the Catholic Church either. I'm looking forward to your response.

Sincerely,

De Maria

We are the original Christians. It is from the Catholic Church that all other Christian churches broke off.

Your denomination did not exist until 325AD. There were no denominatyions in the first century.


I know Fr_Chuck said we don't pray to Mary. But we do. I think he meant to say that we don't WORSHIP Mary. Which we don't.

In the book "Glories of Mary", One of the most endorsed doctors of the Roman catholic church states:

"The Holy Church commands a WORSHIP peculiar to MARY""


Note that the Catholic Church is the only one that teaches the BIBLICAL meaning of the word "pray".

Genesis 12:13
Say, I pray thee, thou art my sister: that it may be well with me for thy sake; and my soul shall live because of thee.

Here, Abram says, "I pray thee" to Sara.

He did not pray to Sara, though. That is much different.


Jesus gave His Priests the power to forgive sin:

John 20 23 Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.

He was not speaking to his "priests here. Have another look. He was speaking to disciples:

John 20:20
Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord.
NKJV

A disciple is a follower. Jesus also did away with the organizational priesthood. All believers are priests.


In order for them to forgive sin, one has to confess their sin to them.

Nope - that is found nowhere in scripture.


1 Peter 3 19 In which also coming he preached to those spirits that were in prison:

This refers to those in Abraham's bosom who were there before the cross.


That's your misunderstanding. We believe in a conditional assurance of salvation. Which is what Scripture teaches:

Scripture is not conditional in its assurance of salvation.

John 6:37-38
37 All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out.
NKJV


Not the way you mean it. We know we are saved when God says so. Not when we say so:

1 Thess 1:5-6
5 For our gospel did not come to you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Spirit and in much assurance, as you know what kind of men we were among you for your sake.
NKJV


We can examine for instance, the idea of Sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura contradicts Scripture.

You keep saying this but never back it up. We are commanded not to go beyond what is written:

1 Cor 4:6-7
6 Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively transferred to myself and Apollos for your sakes, that you may learn in us not to think beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up on behalf of one against the other.
NKJV



Simply speaking, Jesus Christ never wrote one letter of Scripture.

So you deny the Holy Spirit inspiration of ALL scripture? Are you saying that if ONLY the Holy Spirit inspired it but Jesus did not physically put pen to paper, that it not as good?


But He built a Church (Matt 16:18),

Yes, but did not build a denomination.


gave it the power to teach the nations (Matt 28:20)

Yes.


and established many other Traditions such as Baptism, Eucharist etc. to impart grace on the believers.

Grace comes from God, not traditions or denominations.

De Maria,

Your post was most helpful. I can see now where some of these things catholics believe originated. I had NO idea where they got the idea of purgatory.. now I do. Thank you very much for your input. ( course I disagree with it.. but I appreciate it.)

Tj3,

I know this is off the subject a bit but I'd love to know your thoughts on the verse in Peter where it says Christ preached to the spirits in prison.

Tj3,
I know this is off the subject a bit but i'd love to know your thoughts on the verse in Peter where it says Christ preached to the spirits in prison.

This one is well understood. In Luke 16, we find Jesus describing the location known as Hades and Abraham's Bosom.

Luke 16:22-25
22 So it was that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels to Abraham's bosom. The rich man also died and was buried. 23 And being in torments in Hades, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. 24 Then he cried and said, 'Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.'
NKJV

Note that it was only those who were unsaved who were in torment in hell, whereas across from the gap, the godly men such as lazarus were located awaiting the time of the cross when the price for their sins would be paid on the cross. In Abraham's bosom, these men were in a comfortable place awaiting the time when Christ would come and take them to heaven.

When Christ died on the cross and came to release these men to heaven we read:

1 Peter 3:18-21
18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit, 19 by whom also He went and preached to the spirits in prison, 20 who formerly were disobedient, when once the Divine longsuffering waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water.
NKJV

Because they looked forward to the coming of the Messiah:

Heb 11:13
13 These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off were assured of them, embraced them and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.
NKJV

They were therefore saved through the blood of Christ, though the blood had not yet been shed. We see nothing more of Abraham's bosom after this point because Christ freed all those who were saved and took them into heaven.

Tj3,

I don't mean to sound dense. But you think that he was preaching to the 8 souls that were saved... or to all of those who were saved from Adam on down.

I totally get and understand the story of Lazarus and the great gulf.. one side of torment the other a place of rest. But I got confused because he said he preached to the spirits in Prison which I assumed was the torment side and I couldn't imagine what he could have preached . It makes sense that he is talking about the ones who are waiting to be taken to heaven. OK... gotcha.

Tj3,
I don't mean to sound dense. But you think that he was preaching to the 8 souls that were saved... or to all of those who were saved from Adam on down.

All who died before the cross. The 8 souls refers to the comparison to those who had a place of refuge on Noah's Ark. This is a comparison to the remnant saved on the ark.


I totally get and understand the story of Lazarus and the great gulf.. one side of torment the other a place of rest. But I got confused because he said he preached to the spirits in Prison which I assumed was the torment side and I couldn't imagine what he could have preached . It makes sense that he is talking about the ones who are waiting to be taken to heaven. OK... gotcha.

Here is an article which may explain it better:

Resurrection Of The Dead - Chapter 10 (http://www.foundationsofthefaith.ca/english/sermons/chapter10.php)

1 Peter 3 19 In which also coming he preached to those spirits that were in prison:

I don't think any explanation is necessary. It is very straight forward.





If you believe that 1 Peter 3:19 is referring to purgatory, then you believe God destroyed the earth with a flood to kill off those who where actually in God's grace and friendship - not the wicked as is commonly believed.


Rob

Wow tj3 post #110 we covered this recently in our bible study group and no one there explained it this well!
Also I think DeMaria explained well if she'd got here say 7 pages ago she could have saved us a lot of trouble!

....
They were therefore saved through the blood of Christ, though the blood had not yet been shed. We see nothing more of Abraham's bosom after this point because Christ freed all those who were saved and took them into heaven.

That's kind of the point TJ. Purgatory is temporary.

1030 All who die in God's grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.

All in Purgatory eventually wind up in heaven.

Rev 20

4And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

5But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.

Note how in the first resurrection, a few of the dead went straight to heaven. But the rest of the dead LIVED NOT AGAIN until the thousand years were finished.

Where did they go? We believe, to Purgatory.

...

12And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. 13And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

Now the dead are awakened again. And this time they are judged according to their works.

14And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

Note here the three distinctives. Death, hell and the lake of fire. Death and hell refer to the Hell of the damned, which is true death and hell refers to purgatory. These are tossed into the permanent Hell of damnation. Into eternal fire.

15And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

And those who were in Purgatory, were found in the book of life and went to heaven. But those who weren't went to Eternal Fire.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Thats kinda the point TJ. Purgatory is temporary.

1030 All who die in God's grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.

All in Purgatory eventually wind up in heaven.

The scriptural description of Abraham's Bosom is completely incompatible with the Roman Catholic doctrine of purgatory. For example, purgatory is supposed to be place of fire. Abraham's Bosom is the exact opposite.

Scripture says nothing about purification in purgatory. It is our hope and faith in Jesus which purifies.

Abraham's Bosom ceased when Jesus emptied it. Your denomination claims purgatory has people in it today.

Clearly these are not the same place.

De Maria,

Let's look at that text again:

in which also He went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison,
who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days
of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight
persons, were brought safely through the water. (1 Peter 3:19,20 NASB)

Claiming that those who Christ made proclamation to in prison were actually
In God's grace and friendship goes against the very clear reason why God
Brought the flood. God tells us why he did it in Genesis:

Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and
that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
The LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in
His heart. The LORD said, "I will blot out man whom I have created from the
face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the
sky; for I am sorry that I have made them." (Genesis 6:5-7 NASB)

It's clear from 1 Peter 3:19-20 that the folks that Christ made proclamation to "in prison" were connected to the account of Noah and the Ark. It's also clear why God sent the flood and destroyed those not in the Ark. Therefore to say that those that Christ was making proclamation to in prison were in God's grace and friendship is clearly mistaken.

Rob

All who died before the cross. The 8 souls refers to the comparison to those who had a place of refuge on Noah's Ark. This is a comparison to the remnant saved on the ark.



Here is an article which may explain it better:

Resurrection Of The Dead - Chapter 10 (http://www.foundationsofthefaith.ca/english/sermons/chapter10.php)

That did help and thanks. Are you this good on end time propehcies too? I could pick your brain all day... ha.

Darn, I wrote a good answer and the question came up deleted, or whatever.

Anyway, historically, the Catholic Church was about believers needing a person to intercede between them and God...a priest, or a blessed person. Mary was and is a favorite.

"Hail Mary! full of grace, the Lord is with thee.
blessed art thou among women
and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus.
Holy Mary, mother of God, *pray for us sinners* now and at the hour of our death, Amen"

One of the greatest changes the Reformation made was allowing that illiterate believers could pray to God directly...an intercession was not necessary.

What happened to the Our Father? Did the Church remove that prayer?

That did help and thanks. Are you this good on end time propehcies too? I could pick your brain all day...ha.

I have studied it somewhat, and I am always glad to help where I can!

De Maria,

Let's look at that text again:

in which also He went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison,
who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days
of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight
persons, were brought safely through the water. (1 Peter 3:19,20 NASB)

Claiming that those who Christ made proclamation to in prison were actually
in God's grace and friendship goes against the very clear reason why God
brought the flood. God tells us why he did it in Genesis:

Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and
that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
The LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in
His heart. The LORD said, "I will blot out man whom I have created from the
face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the
sky; for I am sorry that I have made them." (Genesis 6:5-7 NASB)

It's clear from 1 Peter 3:19-20 that the folks that Christ made proclamation to "in prison" were connected to the account of Noah and the Ark. It's also clear why God sent the flood and destroyed those not in the Ark. Therefore to say that those that Christ was making proclamation to in prison were in God's grace and friendship is clearly mistaken.

Rob

Two things.

1. You are being overly literal on the account of the flood. We know by reason that even in the time of Noah, there were children. And children could not be accused of heinous sin.

2. Lets go over the account by Peter and see what he says about those in prison:

19 In which also coming he preached to those spirits that were in prison: 20 Which had been some time incredulous, when they waited for the patience of God in the days of Noe,...

So, their sin was INCREDULITY. But none the less, they were waiting for God's patience to wear out with the people's actions.

Incredulity means, in my opinion, that they didn't believe Noah. But otherwise, they seem to have been awaiting God's salvation.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Two things.

1. You are being overly literal on the account of the flood. We know by reason that even in the time of Noah, there were children. And children could not be accused of heinous sin.

2. Lets go over the account by Peter and see what he says about those in prison:

19 In which also coming he preached to those spirits that were in prison: 20 Which had been some time incredulous, when they waited for the patience of God in the days of Noe, .....

So, their sin was INCREDULITY. But none the less, they were waiting for God's patience to wear out with the people's actions.

Incredulity means, in my opinion, that they didn't believe Noah. But otherwise, they seem to have been awaiting God's salvation.

Sincerely,

De Maria


De Maria,

Okay, let me make sure that I'm understanding what you are saying.

1) Are you arguing then, that it's the children who died during the flood who are being held in the prison mentioned in 1 Peter 3:19?

2) It seems to me that you are saying that those who died in the flood were merely guilty of not believing Noah. Is that accurate?

Rob

children could not be accused of heinous sin.

Although it seems to us that children are innocent, their parents are responsible for teaching them to love God and his standards and there are numerous occasions recorded in the bible where children have lost their lives due to their parents bad decisions.

Does the bible not tell us that ALL have sinned and far short of the glory of God

TJ3, what about the story of Saul and Samuel at 1Sam 28: 4--18. Did Samuel actually come back from the dead or was that just a demon or the witchcraft tricking Saul?

TJ3, what about the story of Saul and Samuel at 1Sam 28: 4--18. Did Samuel actually come back from the dead or was that just a demon or the witchcraft tricking Saul?

It appears from what I read that it was Samuel, permitted to speak to Saul to pronounce God's judgment on him in part for calling up the dead.

Did Samuel actually come back from the dead or was that just a demon or the witchcraft tricking Saul?

Considering that divination is despised by God, and elsewhere in the bible it gives us evidence that the dead are not conscious, the obvious conclusion is that this was in fact Satanic trickery. Remember that Saul had fallen out of God's favor, so he was more prone to Satan's snares.

Considering that divination is despised by God, and elsewhere in the bible it gives us evidence that the dead are not conscious, the obvious conclusion is that this was in fact Satanic trickery. Remember that Saul had fallen out of God's favor, so he was more prone to Satan's snares.

Good points. What makes me think that this was an exception was that "Samuel" did pronounce a condemnation on Saul for his wrongful activities, and that pronouncement came to pass. This would be unlikely for Satan.

In either case, this incident provided no comfort for those who think that it is acceptable to pray to the dead.

"Samuel" did pronounce a condemnation on Saul for his wrongful activities, and that pronouncement came to pass. This would be unlikely for Satan.

When Samuel was alive he refused to have anything to do with Saul after God rejected him, and also refused to have anything to do with spirit mediums, so I'm sure no condemned spirit medium could force him to do after his death what he'd refused to do while still alive.

The so called prediction of Saul's future proves that spirits know when one is no longer in God's favor especially when turning to something as condemned as spiritism. So this particular spirit quite reasonably saw an unfavorable future for Saul and his sons. One of the most important things to remember from this passage is that Satan and his demons are liars and frauds.

For the OP's sake, I am Christian and do not pray to or through Mary or find any evidence in the bible of a literal hell/purgatory. God is far too loving to create something so heinous.

ANY church or denomination that excommunicates or disfellowships believers simply for disagreeing with their leadership are clearly wrong

Shouldn't the leadership be following God's Word though? So shouldn't this mean that they should be cut off from the fellowship for disagreeing with God to avoid any further "poisoning" within the congregation?
This was most certainly practiced and encouraged by Paul and his fellow christians in the first century.

When Samuel was alive he refused to have anything to do with Saul after God rejected him, and also refused to have anything to do with spirit mediums, so I'm sure no condemned spirit medium could force him to do after his death what he'd refused to do while still alive.

The so called prediction of Saul's future proves that spirits know when one is no longer in God's favor especially when turning to something as condemned as spiritism. So this particular spirit quite reasonably saw an unfavorable future for Saul and his sons. One of the most important things to remember from this passage is that Satan and his demons are liars and frauds.


Well clearly we see this passage differently, but nonetheless I think that we agree on the underlying principle and that is that it is an abomination to God to communicate or pray to gthe dead.


For the OP's sake, I am Christian and do not pray to or through Mary or find any evidence in the bible of a literal hell/purgatory. God is far too loving to create something so heinous.

Purgatory we agree upon because it is not found in scripture, but hell is clearly taught in scripture.

Shouldn't the leadership be following God's Word though? So shouldn't this mean that they should be cut off from the fellowship for disagreeing with God to avoid any further "poisoning" within the congregation?
This was most certainly practiced and encouraged by Paul and his fellow christians in the first century.

What I said was "ANY church or denomination that excommunicates or disfellowships believers simply for disagreeing with their leadership are clearly wrong".

I'd like to make two points about this:

1) Disagreeing with the leadership does not mean that the person is in any way in conflict with the word of God. The leadership should be following the word of God, but just because a person is in a leadership position in a church does not mean that they are. Nowhere in scripture will you find the leadership of a church exempt from the challenge of rebuke and correction spoken of in 2 Tim 3:16.

2) How should you treat a person who is in the wrong?

Matt 18:17
17 And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church. But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector.
NKJV

How do you treat a heathen or tax collector according to scripture? With love and a desire to bring them into a right relationship with God.

Gal 6:1-4
6:1 Brethren, if a man is overtaken in any trespass, you who are spiritual restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness, considering yourself lest you also be tempted. 2 Bear one another's burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ. 3 For if anyone thinks himself to be something, when he is nothing, he deceives himself.
NKJV

This is not typical of excommunication or disfellowshipping.

Just read "The Great Controversy." That ought to answer a lot of questions you have on Catholicism and Christianity (as well as their origins). Remember, the whole reason the protestants split from the Catholic church is because they persecuted them and [esp.] the Bible. Tyranny best marks them and their fascist Jesuits.
Traditions of men are nothing if they aren't supported by the Word of God (most accurate=KJV), NOT "church fathers."

Hope that helps. And yes, I agree- they are VERY different.

Just read "The Great Controversy." That ought to answer a lot of questions you have on Catholicism and Christianity (as well as their origins). Remember, the whole reason the protestants split from the Catholic church is because they persecuted them and [esp.] the Bible. Tyranny best marks them and their fascist Jesuits.
Traditions of men are nothing if they aren't supported by the Word of God (most accurate=KJV), NOT "church fathers."

Hope that helps. and yes, i agree- they are VERY different.

I would not recommend this book, but if anyone chooses to read the book, I would recommend learning a bit about the author:

Ellen White: Gnostic False Prophetess (http://www.angelfire.com/az/grahamsite/egwgnostic.html)

hell is clearly taught in scripture.
Not a LITERAL hell. Only a symbolic one.

There has to be some discipline! Remember Korah opposed Moses, and the earth opened up and swallowed him? But that's been done, guys, anyway if it happened all the time there wouldn't be too many of us left. Jesus chose the Apostles and wanted them to carry on after his death on the cross. You have to have respect for the holy spirit poured out on the leaders. Back when the Levite priests stood up with the Urim and Thumin, the decision was final, you couldn't yell "best out of three" for example.
Maybe if the Bible had been translated earlier like some wanted the people would have had more time to remove or paraphrase the passages they didn't agree with? Since it survived intact for so long in a form maybe not the easiest read, the original intentions can still be gleaned. I mean have you read some of those later versions out there?

What I said was "ANY church or denomination that excommunicates or disfellowships believers simply for disagreeing with their leadership are clearly wrong".

I'd like to make two points about this:

1) Disagreeing with the leadership does not mean that the person is in any way in conflict with the word of God. the leadership should be following the word of God, but just because a person is in a leadership position in a church does not mean that they are. Nowhere in scripture will you find the leadership of a church exempt from the challenge of rebuke and correction spoken of in 2 Tim 3:16.

2) How should you treat a person who is in the wrong?

Matt 18:17
17 And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church. But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector.
NKJV

How do you treat a heathen or tax collector according to scripture? With love and a desire to bring them into a right relationship with God.

Gal 6:1-4
6:1 Brethren, if a man is overtaken in any trespass, you who are spiritual restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness, considering yourself lest you also be tempted. 2 Bear one another's burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ. 3 For if anyone thinks himself to be something, when he is nothing, he deceives himself.
NKJV

This is not typical of excommunication or disfellowshipping.

Absolutely agree there! Yes there are certain steps to take to get members/leaders back on track and in one accord and only when they persistently rebel should they be disfellowshipped.

[QUOTE=Tj3
Not a LITERAL hell. Only a symbolic one.

Not a literal hell? Hmmm... I believe in Revelation it says.. that all that were not found written in the book of life were thrown into the lake of fire. It is LITERAL... scary too.

Not a literal hell? Hmmm... I believe in Revelation it says..that all that were not found written in the book of life were thrown into the lake of fire. It is LITERAL...scary too.

Quote right. Indeed scripture goes farther:

Rev 14:10-11
11 And the smoke of their torment ascends forever and ever; and they have no rest day or night, who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name."
NKJV

That torment is literal!

What I said was "ANY church or denomination that excommunicates or disfellowships believers simply for disagreeing with their leadership are clearly wrong".



1) Disagreeing with the leadership does not mean that the person is in any way in conflict with the word of God. the leadership should be following the word of God, but just because a person is in a leadership position in a church does not mean that they are.
Matt 18:17
17 And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church. But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector.
NKJV
Gal 6:1-4
6:1 Brethren, if a man is overtaken in any trespass, you who are spiritual restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness, considering yourself lest you also be tempted.
This is not typical of excommunication or disfellowshipping.


TJ3, the whole point of this question is the OP, quite obviously Protestant is asking where did those Catholics get all their heretical ideas, anyhow, why are they like that?
How does your answer, which says to tell the church leaders, work if the person in your example is complaining about the Church leaders? That seems to be a circular argument. If a person is confirmed in their rebellion, sort of like a prodigal son, he is disfellowshipped lest he damage the faith of other people and lead them astray.
But those people are mostly dead and it's not for us to judge them.
Where does that leave a person today, they were born into a Protestant denomination, their parents were, they themselves didn't leave any church, it happened generations ago? Should they take Paul's advice to serve God in whatever circumstance they found themselves when they first accepted Christ, slave, freeman, married, single etc?

[QUOTE=Moparbyfar;1345137]

Not a literal hell? Hmmm... I believe in Revelation it says..that all that were not found written in the book of life were thrown into the lake of fire. It is LITERAL...scary too.

Thankfully we know that from Rev 20:14 that eventually "death will be thrown into the lake of fire." As death can't literally be tormented it makes sense that the lake of fire and sulphur is symbolic. The thing I am scared of, well no, wary of, is falling out of God's favor and missing out on the wonderful reward of life forever on paradise earth.
The fact too that Satan is to be thrown into the lake of fire also tells us that it can't be literal because he being a spirit creature cannot be harmed by such elements as fire.

TJ3, the whole point of this question is the OP, quite obviously Protestant is asking where did those Catholics get all their heretical ideas, anyhow, why are they like that?

Why do you say that she is protestant? Perhaps you should ask rather than judge. I am not protestant. I also think that you need to be careful to be fair in dealing with her comments. Did you notice what she said here?

"And by the way, PLEASE do not take offense by any of this..i am just asking. I'm not putting catholicism down"

Take her at her word, rather than accusing her of doing what she said that she was not doing.


How does your answer, which says to tell the church leaders, work if the person in your example is complaining about the Church leaders?

How does what work? Where doers scripture say to obey church leaders, right or wrong?


That seems to be a circular argument. If a person is confirmed in their rebellion, sort of like a prodigal son, he is disfellowshipped lest he damage the faith of other people and lead them astray.

First, what if it is a church leader who is in rebellion against the word of God?

Second, if the Bible does not teach this approach (as I showed from the Bible), then by what authority should man put such an approach in place?

There are ways to deal with a person who is poisoning a congregation, but that was not the question at hand. What I said was "ANY church or denomination that excommunicates or disfellowships believers simply for disagreeing with their leadership are clearly wrong".

Thankfully we know that from Rev 20:14 that eventually "death will be thrown into the lake of fire." As death can't literally be tormented it makes sense that the lake of fire and sulphur is symbolic.

The conclusion is unwarranted. What that means is that there will be no more death. Death came into the world through Satan and his demons. Once Satan and His demons are literally thrown into the lake of fire, their rebellion will be over and there will be no more death.

Once again I agree with you Tj3!

Moparbyfar,

Why do you think that a spirit can't be harmed by elements such as fire. If you read the story of Lazarus the beggar and the rich man, the rich man was in torment. He was dead and therefore a spirit. He surely was in agony he SAID so.

The conclusion is unwarranted. What that means is that there will be no more death. Death came into the world through Satan and his demons. Once Satan and His demons are literally thrown into the lake of fire, their rebellion will be over and there will be no more death.

Exactly! If death is to become no more by being thrown into the lake of fire, then the same goes for humans and Satan. They are simply no more. They cease to exist. Thanks for clearing that up.

If you read the story of Lazarus the beggar and the rich man, the rich man was in torment. He was dead and therefore a spirit. He surely was in agony he SAID so.
Thought you may have already seen my post to InSorrow who also mentioned the illustration of Lazarus and the rich man (how is it then that we see ghosts and spirits?) I'll not go over it all again for the sake of the OP but I did explain the meaning of this parable there.
At the end of the day, we disagree I know that much :p but I will never consider God to be so hateful that he would allow humans to be tortured (who live comparatively short lives on earth) literally for the rest of eternity! That just doesn't fit God's personality.
1 John 4:8 says "God is love." For example Deut 25:4 shows this in his command "You must not muzzle a bull while it is threshing." What care and concern he showed even for the animals!
Jeremiah 7:31 speaks of the horrific practice many were involved in of burning their children as sacrifices in the Valley of Hinnom a thing that God had not commanded and had not come up into his heart. If this kind of thing wasn't in his heart, do you think something on a larger scale like hell would be?

Exactly! If death is to become no more by being thrown into the lake of fire, then the same goes for humans and Satan. They are simply no more. They cease to exist. Thanks for clearing that up.

They do not cease to exist. Quite the contrary!

Rev 14:11
1 And the smoke of their torment ascends forever and ever; and they have no rest day or night, who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name."
NKJV

Rev 20:9-10
10 The devil, who deceived them, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone where the beast and the false prophet are. And they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.
NKJV

They do not cease to exist. Quite the contrary!

Rev 14:11
1 And the smoke of their torment ascends forever and ever; and they have no rest day or night, who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name."
NKJV

Rev 20:9-10
10 The devil, who deceived them, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone where the beast and the false prophet are. And they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.
NKJV

By looking back to the time of Isaiah, the nation of Edom was condemned by God, (Isa 34:9,10) and we can get an idea of what being "tormented forever and ever" really means. Rather than the whole nation being pitched into some mythical lake of fire, Edom was completely wiped out and disappeared from the world scene as if consumed by fire and sulphur. The final result was not literal eternal torture but emptiness, nothingness. (Isa 34:11,12)
Think of a house which has burnt to the ground. Smoke still ascends from the ashes for some time after the flames have died down, giving evidence to onlookers that fire has destroyed something.
Today, people still remember the lesson learned from Edom's destruction and in this way the 'smoke of her burning' is still ascending in a symbolic way.
Those who have the mark of the beast will also be destroyed as if by fire. How will they be tormented? By way of the truth which exposes them and their deeds, and warns them of God's coming judgment.
Once they have been totally destroyed by God, "the smoke of their torment ascends forever and ever" - in other words, their final judgement serving as a reminder, just as Edom's fate does for us, to those observing.

By looking back to the time of Isaiah, the nation of Edom was condemned by God, (Isa 34:9,10) and we can get an idea of what being "tormented forever and ever" really means. Rather than the whole nation being pitched into some mythical lake of fire, Edom was completely wiped out and disappeared from the world scene as if consumed by fire and sulphur. The final result was not literal eternal torture but emptiness, nothingness. (Isa 34:11,12)

This passage does not speak of eternal torment.

Isa 34:11-1
11 But the pelican and the porcupine shall possess it,
Also the owl and the raven shall dwell in it.
And He shall stretch out over it
The line of confusion and the stones of emptiness.
12 They shall call its nobles to the kingdom,
But none shall be there, and all its princes shall be nothing.
NKJV

Therefore is not a comparable situation.

This passage does not speak of eternal torment.

Isa 34:11-1
11 But the pelican and the porcupine shall possess it,
Also the owl and the raven shall dwell in it.
And He shall stretch out over it
The line of confusion and the stones of emptiness.
12 They shall call its nobles to the kingdom,
But none shall be there, and all its princes shall be nothing.
NKJV

Therefore is not a comparable situation.

Certainly in Isa 34:9,10 it tells of Edom's land becoming like burning pitch and night and day it would not be extinguished, that to time indefinite it's smoke would keep ascending. Many believe that Rev 14:9-11 proves that hellfire is literal but in actual fact there is no mention of these ones being tormented forever, but rather the smoke that ascends forever and ever. By comparing Isa 34:9,10 we get a clue as to what this smoke symbolizes - evidence that the fire and sulphur has done it's work of complete and total destruction. That is basically what I was trying to get across.
... and yes I know you'll be waving Rev 20:10 at me but the 'wild beast' and 'the false prophet' and death and Hades are not literal persons so therefore cannot experience conscious torment. G. B. Caird wrote in A Commentary on the Revelation of St. John the Divine, “the lake of fire” means “extinction and total oblivion.” This conclusion is easily reached when reading Rev 20:14 "This means the second death, the lake of fire."
I guess we will just have to agree to disagree here :p;) but I do find great interest in reading your posts.

Certainly in Isa 34:9,10 it tells of Edom's land becoming like burning pitch and night and day it would not be extinguished, that to time indefinite it's smoke would keep ascending.

Isa 34:9-10
9 Its streams shall be turned into pitch,
And its dust into brimstone;
Its land shall become burning pitch.
10 It shall not be quenched night or day;
Its smoke shall ascend forever.
From generation to generation it shall lie waste;
No one shall pass through it forever and ever.
NKJV

Note the timeframe in which this occurs:

Isa 34:1-2
Come near, you nations, to hear;
And heed, you people!
Let the earth hear, and all that is in it,
The world and all things that come forth from it.
2 For the indignation of the LORD is against all nations,
And His fury against all their armies;
He has utterly destroyed them,
He has given them over to the slaughter.
NKJV

This is God's judgment against the world. A future event.

I think we all need to worried about our own salvation rather than what will befall those who refuse to enter God's kingdom, their fate is really up to God, not us.
TJ3 could you possibly answer my question,
{ I didn't realize I needed to be politically correct here, What is wrong with those Catholics anyway but I don't mean to offend anyone} there how's that. Classyt has a fully functional keyboard so I don't think you need to jump in and accuse me of judging her, she can speak for herself I'm sure. As far as I know anyone who isn't a Catholic Is a protestant, and anyone who asks this Q and states that they disagree with a priest over whether what those Catholics are doing is scriptural, is obviously not Catholic. But your reply seems to indicate that she should somehow be bringing the Catholics before her own church leaders and deciding whether to disfellowship them? That is what I don't follow. How can someone who has already been excommunicated now say that the Catholics should be kicked out of Their church? They are already separated. Anyway my question had to do with, we know these divisions exist. How do you propose we fix them? That is what I was curious to have your view on.

[QUOTE=Tj3;

Note the timeframe in which this occurs:

Isa 34:1-2
Come near, you nations, to hear;
And heed, you people!
Let the earth hear, and all that is in it,
The world and all things that come forth from it.
2 For the indignation of the LORD is against all nations,
And His fury against all their armies;
He has utterly destroyed them,
He has given them over to the slaughter.
NKJV

This is God judgment against the world. A future event.[/QUOTE]

Note vs 5 of Isa 34 which says "For in the heavens my sword will certainly be drenched. Look! Upon E′dom it will descend, and upon the people devoted by me to destruction in justice. 6 YHWH has a sword; it must be filled with blood; it must be made greasy with the fat, with the blood of young rams and he-goats, with the fat of the kidneys of rams. For YHWH has a sacrifice in Boz′rah, and a great slaughtering in the land of E′dom."

The whole earth is to hear and take note of Edom's fate (vs 1,2). I'm not quite sure what you're meaning by "timeframe."

Note vs 5 of Isa 34 which says "For in the heavens my sword will certainly be drenched. Look! Upon E′dom it will descend, and upon the people devoted by me to destruction in justice. 6 YHWH has a sword; it must be filled with blood; it must be made greasy with the fat, with the blood of young rams and he-goats, with the fat of the kidneys of rams. For YHWH has a sacrifice in Boz′rah, and a great slaughtering in the land of E′dom."

The whole earth is to hear and take note of Edom's fate (vs 1,2). I'm not quite sure what you're meaning by "timeframe."

Your comments above change nothing. I explained what "timeframe" means. I said, and I repeat:

"This is God's judgment against the world. A future event."

BTW, a sidenote - I don't know what you are doing when you quote, but you need that closing square bracket after the "quote=Tj3" or whoever's comment that you are copying to cause it to create the quote box. Anytime that there is a starting square bracket, that "quote" tag must be closed with a second closing square bracket.

I think we all need to worried about our own salvation rather than what will befall those who refuse to enter God's kingdom, their fate is really up to God, not us.

I think that we need to make sure that they hear the gospel.

Ezek 33:12-16
12 "Therefore you, O son of man, say to the children of your people: 'The righteousness of the righteous man shall not deliver him in the day of his transgression; as for the wickedness of the wicked, he shall not fall because of it in the day that he turns from his wickedness; nor shall the righteous be able to live because of his righteousness in the day that he sins.' 13 "When I say to the righteous that he shall surely live, but he trusts in his own righteousness and commits iniquity, none of his righteous works shall be remembered; but because of the iniquity that he has committed, he shall die. 14 Again, when I say to the wicked, 'You shall surely die,' if he turns from his sin and does what is lawful and right, 15 if the wicked restores the pledge, gives back what he has stolen, and walks in the statutes of life without committing iniquity, he shall surely live; he shall not die. 16 None of his sins which he has committed shall be remembered against him; he has done what is lawful and right; he shall surely live.
NKJV


Classyt has a fully functional keyboard so I don't think you need to jump in and accuse me of judging her, she can speak for herself I'm sure.

I am a person who has a strong sense of fairness, and I do not like to see anyone treated like that. If more people would take a stand when they see such behaviour, I expect that people would be less quick to make such inappropriate and unfair comments. I would defend you if you were treated likewise, as I have defended others who were have various denominations, religions, cults and even one person who was virulently anti-Christian. It has absolutely nothing to do with political correctness (if you know me, you will know that you clearly have the wrong number there), but everything to do with taking a stand for what is right and for demonstrating one's profession of faith in Christ affects how to interact with the world.


As far as I know anyone who isn't a Catholic Is a protestant,

That is where you are wrong. I don't intend to get into great detail on this, but I will give one example. Look up the history of Anabaptists. They were attacked (literally) by both protestants and Catholics because they were neither.

I am also neither protestant or Catholic. Though I accept that there can be believers in both, all who profess the name of Christ are required to submit themselves to the word of God. I do not condemn denominations, but when the denomination is no longer the servant but the master, and when a denomination claims that you must obey it, then they have gone beyond what scripture permits - and I don't care if denomination is Catholic or Protestant.


and anyone who asks this Q and states that they disagree with a priest over whether what those Catholics are doing is scriptural, is obviously not Catholic.

And if you have seen me in other discussions and seen that i question catholic teachings and Protestant teachings, then by your own logic, I am not catholic and I am not protestant. What do you do then? Why must you label everybody? The only label that I accept is that I am a Christian.


But your reply seems to indicate that she should somehow be bringing the Catholics before her own church leaders and deciding whether to disfellowship them?

I cannot even comprehend how you manipulated what i said to come to that conclusion. What I said, and I will repeat, was:

"There are ways to deal with a person who is poisoning a congregation, but that was not the question at hand. What I said was "ANY church or denomination that excommunicates or disfellowships believers simply for disagreeing with their leadership are clearly wrong"."

Perhaps you can tell me how you arrived at your conclusion from that statement.

Further, if you read the rest of what i said on this topic, you will see that I also said:

I'd like to make two points about this:

1) Disagreeing with the leadership does not mean that the person is in any way in conflict with the word of God. the leadership should be following the word of God, but just because a person is in a leadership position in a church does not mean that they are. Nowhere in scripture will you find the leadership of a church exempt from the challenge of rebuke and correction spoken of in 2 Tim 3:16.

2) How should you treat a person who is in the wrong?

Matt 18:17
17 And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church. But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector.
NKJV

How do you treat a heathen or tax collector according to scripture? With love and a desire to bring them into a right relationship with God.

Gal 6:1-4
6:1 Brethren, if a man is overtaken in any trespass, you who are spiritual restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness, considering yourself lest you also be tempted. 2 Bear one another's burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ. 3 For if anyone thinks himself to be something, when he is nothing, he deceives himself.
NKJV

This is not typical of excommunication or disfellowshipping.

Where exactly do you see me supporting disfellowshipping or excommunication?

I explained what "timeframe" means. I said, and I repeat:
"This is God's judgment against the world. A future event."

Umm yes a future event that happened to Edom. This is pretty obvious in this chapter, but maybe not to some...
Hehe, thanks for the sidenote too - I guess that's imperfection for you! I had intended to insert quote tags but forgot. :o

Look up the history of Anabaptists? If you knew me, you would know that my family at one time WERE Anabaptists. These later divisions can call themselves anything they want to, it does not change the fact that they basically want to go off in their own direction rather than follow an established church. Just the fact that there are so many divisions now tells us that fracturing the body of Christ seems to be the in thing to do rather than working together for the good of all.

Look up the history of Anabaptists? If you knew me, you would know that my family at one time WERE Anabaptists.

Then I am surprised that you are not aware of the history.


These later divisions can call themselves anything they want to, it does not change the fact that they basically want to go off in their own direction rather than follow an established church.

There were Christians who were not members of what you call the "established church" throughout history from the first century onward. So what is your point? What would you call Christians from the time of Christ's death and resurrection on the cross until the creation of the first denomination (Roman Catholicism) in 325AD?

Why do you think that only Constantine had the right to create a denomination?


Just the fact that there are so many divisions now tells us that fracturing the body of Christ seems to be the in thing to do rather than working together for the good of all.

How can the body of Christ be fractured by those who refuse to go alone with non-Biblical doctrines and practices within one or another denomination? The body of Christ is not a denomination, but the body of all believers in Christ. If we took that approach, then you would saying that there was no body of Christ until Constantine created it.

Well if those people could somehow trace their ancestry back to the time of Christ, then we'd have something. But most of us have no idea about our family line back beyond a few generations. And a church that split off from a church that broke away from another church ad nauseum doesn't need to be telling everyone else what true worship is. So maybe you and I agree after all. Cool!

well if those people could somehow trace their ancestry back to the time of Christ, then we'd have something.

Why does genealogy matter? Very few people can trace their family tree back that far, and I suspect that would include you.

Titus 3:9
9 But avoid foolish disputes, genealogies, contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and useless.
NKJV

Why do you think that to trace your genealogy back to the 1st century means anything?


But most of us have no idea about our family line back beyond a few generations.

And scripture says to argue about that is foolish.


And a church that split off from a church that broke away from another church ad nauseum doesn't need to be telling everyone else what true worship is.

What is your point? Are you saying that when Constantine started the first denomination, that the Roman Catholic church was not legit because it broke away from any churches which chose not to go along with the Roman Emperor?

Let's look at what scripture says about division:

Paul divided with others for the sake of truth:

Gal 4:15-17
15 What then was the blessing you enjoyed? For I bear you witness that, if possible, you would have plucked out your own eyes and given them to me. 16 Have I therefore become your enemy because I tell you the truth?
NKJV

Who then is it who is divisive when divisions occur? Those who are in apologetics or polemics ministries are often called “divisive”. Are those who divide from a church or organization which is teaching wrong doctrine in the wrong? What does Paul says about this type of division?

1 Cor 11:18-20
18 For first of all, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you, and in part I believe it. 19 For there must also be factions among you, that those who are approved may be recognized among you.
NKJV

Divisions are not desirable, but divisions are necessary in the physical church between those who are in Christ and those who are not. We find this elsewhere in scripture. What message does this verse give in the original Greek languagge? The word which ios translated in English as "factions" is "hairesis" in Greek, which means:

Hairesis (hah'-ee-res-is); from NT:138; properly, a choice, i.e. (specially) a party or (abstractly) disunion: KJV - heresy [which is the Greek word itself], sect.
(Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright (c) 1994, Biblesoft and International Bible Translators, Inc.)

Which is where our word "heresies" comes from. Therefore this verse could rightly be translated as:

1 Cor 11:19
19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.

Thus it is not division which is wrong, but is the false teaching which is wrong. We must therefore examine doctrine, and yes, examine the doctrine of church organizations and when they have strayed too far from sound doctrine, we must divide from them.

Keep in mind that Paul commended the Bereans for getting into God's word to test to see if what he said was true, therefore no church, or church leader today should claim exemption from that same examination being brought to their teachings by members of the body of Christ.

the church leaders are men, not saints or angels. They can and do sin just as much as every human does. So if that happens we use the old rule, the customer is always right, and if the customer is wrong, refer to rule number one. Anyone who desires to be a church leader or a teacher is liable to heavier guilt if he sins in his teaching, but we are told to submit ourselves to their authority which is given from God through the holy spirit. How many times did Saul sin, and very grieviously too. Yet David would always say, how can I thrust out my hand against the anointed of Israel? Once he even crept into the very room where Saul and his guards were sleeping, but he just left a sign that he had been there. So I'm saying it is not a desirable thing to divide up into factions. As you are teaching me there is no church that can claim to be the church started by Paul? So if a person is born Amish or born Baptist or Presbyterian... is there any reason for them to change, just because they all teach different doctrine? There is only one baptism into Christ, after all, isn't there?

the church leaders are men, not saints or angels. They can and do sin just as much as every human does.

That's right. That is why nowhere in scripture are we told to follow church leaders simply because they are church leaders.


So if that happens we use the old rule, the customer is always right, and if the customer is wrong, refer to rule number one.

Christianity is not a consumer commodity.


Anyone who desires to be a church leader or a teacher is liable to heavier guilt if he sins in his teaching, but we are told to submit ourselves to their authority which is given from God through the holy spirit.

Show me where it says that we are to submit to a church leader who sins in his teaching. If that were true, then why are we told this in scripture?

2 Peter 2:1-3
2:1 But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction. 2 And many will follow their destructive ways, because of whom the way of truth will be blasphemed. 3 By covetousness they will exploit you with deceptive words; for a long time their judgment has not been idle, and their destruction does not slumber.
NKJV

This requires that we judge whether they are true of false teachers, even if they are leaders in the church. In Acts 17:10-11. The men of Berea were commended for testing what Paul was teaching by going into the Bible. And scripture has much more to say on this topic. But I am not aware of any scripture that says to follow what your leaders teach whether they are right or wrong.


How many times did Saul sin, and very grieviously too. Yet David would always say, how can I thrust out my hand against the anointed of Israel?

Let's look at the context of that passage:

1 Sam 24:5-7
5 Now it happened afterward that David's heart troubled him because he had cut Saul's robe. 6 And he said to his men, "The LORD forbid that I should do this thing to my master, the LORD's anointed, to stretch out my hand against him, seeing he is the anointed of the LORD." 7 So David restrained his servants with these words, and did not allow them to rise against Saul. And Saul got up from the cave and went on his way.
NKJV

The context here is that Saul was the king of Israel, anointed by God to that position. What David was talking about here was not whether we should obey or oppose false teachers, but rather whether he should physical harm or kill the king of Israel.

That is a much different question.


So I'm saying it is not a desirable thing to divide up into factions.

Not desirable but often necessary due to teaching of wrong doctrine. That is what Paul says:

1 Cor 11:18-20
18 For first of all, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you, and in part I believe it. 19 For there must also be factions among you, that those who are approved may be recognized among you.
NKJV

What else does Paul say?

2 Cor 11:4
4 For if he who comes preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or if you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted--you may well put up with it!
NKJV

What is Paul saying? That if one comes with false teaching of the gospel, we are not to put up with it.

Jesus also says that it is good to test those who claim to authority and judge them accordingly:

Rev 2:2
2 "I know your works, your labor, your patience, and that you cannot bear those who are evil. And you have tested those who say they are apostles and are not, and have found them liars;
NKJV

There is so much in scripture regarding this. But where is there a verse that says that we must not divide when false doctrine is being taught?


As you are teaching me there is no church that can claim to be the church started by Paul?

Neither Paul, nor Jesus nor any other Apostle or disciple started a denomination. Now as to whether a congregation still meets in some city where that congregation was started by Paul, that may be, but what does it matter?

1 Cor 3:4
4 For when one says, "I am of Paul," and another, "I am of Apollos," are you not carnal?
NKJV


So if a person is born Amish or born Baptist or Presbyterian... is there any reason for them to change, just because they all teach different doctrine?

Being born into a denomination does not save. One must receive Jesus Christ as Saviour. If a church is a part of a denomination (ant denomination), that does not guarantee that they are sound in their teaching.

Should they change? Yes they must. To be saved, we must all undergo a change whereby we receive Jesus as Lord and Saviour. Will our doctrine change - possibly. There is no denomination that has their doctrine 100%. The only source which does is the Bible, and the doctrine of a church, denomination or person is tested by God's word.


There is only one baptism into Christ, after all, isn't there?

Yes, but that has nothing to do with what church congregation you attend, but everything to do with whether your received the true gospel and received Jesus as Lord and Saviour.

1 Cor 12:27-28
27 Now you are the body of Christ, and members individually.
NKJV