 |
The body of Christ.Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottRC
1 Cor 12:27-28
27 Now you are the body of Christ, and members individually.
NKJV
Nowhere does scripture say that we must be members of any denomination.
That is not true in the sense that you are referring to "The Church" (Your denomination).Quote:
For almost a THOUSAND years after the death of Christ there was only ONE Church...
No arrogance was intended, the RCC does hold that the Church here on earth is the Mystical Body of Christ.Quote:
Originally Posted by ordinaryguy
Pope Paul VI described the “Mystical Body of Christ” as follows:
We believe in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church built by Jesus Christ on that rock which is Peter. She is the Mystical Body of Christ; at the same time a visible society instituted with hierarchical organs, and a spiritual community; the Church on earth, the pilgrim People of God here below, and the Church filled with heavenly blessings; the germ and the first fruits of the Kingdom of God, through which the work and the sufferings of Redemption are continued throughout human history, and which looks for its perfect accomplishment beyond time in glory. The Credo of the People of God , Pope Paul VI on June 30, 1968
By the “fullness of faith” I meant to imply the fullness as described here: “…Christ's Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help towards salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained. Decree on Ecumenism, Vatican II, UNITATIS REDINTEGRATIO, 21 November 1964
With that said the RCC holds that other faiths…”have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church.” (ibid)
JoeT
That is arrogant - to suggest that a denomination IS the body of Christ.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
I think determining orthodoxy is a game that religious institutions and the people who inhabit them play to determine who is IN and who is OUT. This game and the rules by which it is played consumes a substantial share of the attention of those who think it's very important to be IN. To those of us who don't care about being IN, the game is irrelevant. It's up to those of you who care about being IN to decide among yourselves who has the authority to determine what orthodoxy is. It's really none of my business.Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottRC
I don't "reject" either the Church or the Bible, I just don't accept either one as the sole source of spiritual guidance.
So the nascent Church was simply "playing a game" when they spread the Gospel?Quote:
Originally Posted by ordinaryguy
That's a new one for me...
So orthodoxy has nothing to do with a sincere desire to seek the truth, but is simply a "game"?Quote:
This game and the rules by which it is played consumes a substantial share of the attention of those who think it's very important to be IN. To those of us who don't care about being IN, the game is irrelevant. It's up to those of you who care about being IN to decide among yourselves who has the authority to determine what orthodoxy is. It's really none of my business.
Again, you've made it quite clear what you REJECT, but I'm wondering if you'd offer up what you DO accept at your sole source of spiritual guidance... please.Quote:
I don't "reject" either the Church or the Bible, I just don't accept either one as the sole source of spiritual guidance.
Yeah, the most repugnant thing about it is that the arrogance is unintended and unrecognized.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
Well, see, to me salvation is not the point. If there is an afterlife, and I wake up in it, I'll consider it a bonus and a pleasant surprise. But there are far more useful and important things to do with this life than to obsess about the next one.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
Other than just the name calling... any chance you can explain why you believe these things?. I just can't see the logic behind these unsupported opinions.Quote:
Originally Posted by ordinaryguy
Agreed...Quote:
But there are far more useful and important things to do with this life than to obsess about the next one.
You didn't mention spreading the gospel. You asked who I thought had the final authority to determine orthodoxy. Whole different subject.Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottRC
Maybe you should get out more.Quote:
That's a new one for me...
Not for me. But if it does for you, go for it.Quote:
So orthodoxy has nothing to do with a sincere desire to seek the truth, but is simply a "game"?
Again, I don't REJECT anything except the notion that any one source has a monopoly on spiritual truth.Quote:
Again, you've made it quite clear what you REJECT, but I'm wondering if you'd offer up what you DO accept at your sole source of spiritual guidance... please.
I haven't called you or anybody else names. I'm just telling you that I find the RCC's claim to be the mystical body of Christ arrogant, and that this arrogance is all the more repugnant for being unrecognized. Kind of like a person who says, "Oh, no, I'm not a racist. Some of my best friends are colored folks."Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottRC
Probably not to somebody like yourself who cares a lot about orthodoxy. If I thought you truly, TRULY cared and genuinely wanted to understand my thinking, and weren't just trying to convert or convince me that you're right and I'm wrong, I might be persuaded to try, but we're not even close to that point yet.Quote:
any chance you can explain why you believe these things?
Well, there you go. That's exactly why I doubt it would be productive for either of us.Quote:
... I just can't see the logic behind these unsupported opinions.
Just a figure of speech... calling the claim "arrogant" and the follow up "repugnant" is simply non-productive without offering any explanation or support.Quote:
Originally Posted by ordinaryguy
This red herring is just as bad... I really could care less what you think it is "kind of like" when you have yet to explain your reasoning behind your assertion that the claim is "arrogant".Quote:
Kind of like a person who says, "Oh, no, I'm not a racist. Some of my best friends are colored folks."
I'm not going to beg... ;)Quote:
If I thought you truly, TRULY cared and genuinely wanted to understand my thinking,
I can assure you I have no interest in converting you... and while I understand that it's a lot easier to just shoot down the beliefs of others, sometimes it is just good manners to explain your own beliefs when you feel the need to interject your two cents into a discussion.Quote:
and weren't just trying to convert or convince me that you're right and I'm wrong, I might be persuaded to try, but we're not even close to that point yet.
I quoted you accurately and verbatim, and I did not misrepresent what you wrote.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Whether you label it as a "definition" or not, the plain meaning of your words and the point of your "contrast" is that to "read what is said and take it at face value" is not interpretation, whereas to read it and "bend it to fit your beliefs is interpretation. The contradiction between this meaning of the word and your earlier usage of it, "Interpretation means to understand the original intent" is clear. Your continuing refusal to explain or even acknowledge this contradiction belies your feigned indignation at being misrepresented.Quote:
I SAID:
The key is how you reach that understanding. Do you simply read what is said and take it at face value, or do you bend it to fit your beliefs. The first is not interpretation - the second is.
Now note, I was giving a contrast and at no point did I say or suggest that it was a definition.
I have been honest and truthful throughout this discussion, and I will to continue to be so.Quote:
Now can we continue this discussion by handling views that you don't agree with some degree of honesty? I asked you once before because of mis-representation of what I said to quote me if you plan to refer to what I said, and you chose not to do so once again when you decided to mis-represent me.
If you cannot back you claims with the truth, then is your position worth defending?
You claimed that it was a definition, and no one can honestly make such a claim. Even if you had a bad day and mis-read what was said, it has been explained to you a few times, and yet you still deliberately carry on mis-representing it.Quote:
Originally Posted by ordinaryguy
Ohh, for crying out loud! If you think this discussion is about whether that particular statement of yours meets the criteria for "a definition", we really do have here a failure to communicate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
The discussion is about is whether the process of reading a sacred text like the Bible, formulating an understanding of its meanings, and considering their implications for our behavior, is encompassed by the commonly-used and generally-agreed meaning of the word "interpretation". I think that it is.
Without a doubt, some interpretations are more accurate, (feel free to insert other synonyms here... correct, true, right, reasonable, complete, convincing, persuasive, etc.) than others. I don't dispute that. What I do dispute is the notion that a human mind, yours, mine, or anyone else's, can understand the meaning of a printed text, sacred or not, without performing an act of interpretation. It is cognitively impossible. Reading is interpretation which, done successfully, leads to comprehension and understanding.
Your usage (notice, I'm not saying that you called it "a definition") of the word, in answer to my very first question, "What do you mean by interpretation?", was the closest you've come to making sense in this whole discussion. You said:I'm sure you try to do that when you read the Bible, and that you succeed most of the time.Quote:
Interpretation means to understand the original intent--post #110
We do indeed. Please read what I said more carefully and maybe we can avoid further "failures to communicate.". Again, it would help if, when you wish to refer to csomething that I said, if you take the time to quote it, rather than give your variant understanding / modification of what I said. Now as to what this discussion is about is one thing, but you were the one who made a false claim about how I defined interpretation. That was not me who went off on this sidetrack.Quote:
Originally Posted by ordinaryguy
After all, if you think that I am wrong, then you would be far more effective in your argument to validate that belief if you deal honestly and straightforwardly with what I actually said, and in context. If you manipulate what I said, and then argue against that, it weakens your argument because it appears that you are unable to refute what I actually said. Just a bit of free advice!
Now can we move forward without further discussion on this point, and get back to the topic at hand?
I have quoted your statements, carefully and accurately, without modification or distortion of meaning.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
I have done so scrupulously in the past, and will continue to do so in the future.Quote:
After all, if you think that I am wrong, then you would be far more effective in your argument to validate that belief if you deal honestly and straightforwardly with what I actually said, and in context.
I have not done so in the past and will not do so in the future.Quote:
If you manipulate what I said, and then argue against that, it weakens your argument because it appears that you are unable to refute what I actually said.
I am grateful for your generosity.Quote:
Just a bit of free advice!
Yes.Quote:
Now can we move forward without further discussion on this point, and get back to the topic at hand?
It’s interesting that you should mention 1 Cor 12, but only quote a few words. It supports that the Catholic Church is one body. Not a group of likeminded churches or a group of likeminded people in a room. But a body with Christ at the head. A hierarchy with a list of offices; Apostles, prophets, theologians etc…Clearly depicted is one “Mystical Body of Christ”; only one church. Not Lutherans, plus Calvinists, plus Baptist, plus Methodists, etc or plus any of 30,000 other post-Protestant era congregations; at least not until the schism is healedQuote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
1 Cor 12: 12 For as the body is one and hath many members; and all the members of the body, whereas they are many, yet are one body: So also is Christ. …13 For in one Spirit were we all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free: and in one Spirit we have all been made to drink. [The real presence of Christ] 14 For the body also is not one member, but many…27 Now you are the body of Christ and members of member. 28 And God indeed hath set some in the church; first apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly doctors: after that miracles: then the graces of healings, helps, governments, kinds of tongues, interpretations of speeches. 29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all doctors? 30 Are all workers of miracles? Have all the grace of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret? 31 But be zealous for the better gifts. And I show unto you yet a more excellent way.
Sorry if my previous statement about the “Mystical Body of Christ” seemed arrogant. I can be when the need arises, but that wasn’t the case here.
JoeT
Well said Joe... even a look at the church described in Acts shows that the notion that Chrisianity is meant to be a unified body is quite evident:Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
Acts 15:2 And when Paul and Barnabas had great dissension and debate with them, the brethren determined that Paul and Barnabas and some others of them should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders concerning this issue.
There were false teachers in Judea and how did the early church settle the issue?
By looking for a scripture to "interpret itself"?
Nope... the went to their LEADERS... the Apostles and elders.
And after these LEADERS decided upon the issue, it was settled:
Acts 16:4 Now while they were passing through the cities, they were delivering the decrees which had been decided upon by the apostles and elders who were in Jerusalem, for them to observe.
"for them to observe." They were not to look for a verse in scripture and decided for themselves, they were ORDERED by those in authority to follow their decisions...
Why? James makes it clear that their decisions were equal to the Holy Spirit:
Acts 15:28 For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these essentials... "
Actually, you did not. You pulled an excerpt out of one sentence, and using that claimed that I said something that I did not. Now have a little shame and just admit that you erred or something and let's move on. Defending the indefensible does not enhance your credibility.Quote:
Originally Posted by ordinaryguy
No, it does not. There were no denominations at that time, the Roman denomination was formed in 325AD and this passage speaks of the body of Christ, the body of all believers, not a denomination.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
If you wish for me to believe otherwise, show me anywhere in the NT where we find a denomination.
No I don't wish for you to believe on my account. But I'd rather you believe on Christ's account. No, not on my account at all, but on account of God's love. (Jer 31:3), (Is 54: 10; cf. 54:8) A God who it is said 'so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son for God is love' (John 3:16), (1 John 4:8, 16.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Therefore what you believe is something between you and God. For me, a fallible human, I've found the Roman Church a reliable refuge, a place of strength. Pope Paul VI best describes our faith as follows:
The Credo of the People of God (in part)
Put above all, we place our unshakable confidence in the Holy Spirit, the soul of the Church, and in theological faith upon which rests the life of the Mystical Body.
To the glory of God most holy and of our Lord Jesus Christ, trusting in the aid of the Blessed Virgin Mary and of the holy apostles Peter and Paul, for the profit and edification of the Church, in the name of all the pastors and all the faithful, we now pronounce this profession of faith, in full spiritual communion with you all, beloved brothers and sons.
WE BELIEVE in one only God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, creator of things visible such as this world in which our transient life passes, of things invisible such as the pure spirits which are also called angels, and creator in each man of his spiritual and immortal soul.
God alone can give us right and full knowledge of this reality by revealing Himself as Father, Son and Holy Spirit, in whose eternal life we are by grace called to share, here below in the obscurity of faith and after death in eternal light.
We believe then in the Father who eternally begets the Son, in the Son, the Word of God, who is eternally begotten; in the Holy Spirit, the uncreated Person who proceeds from the Father and the Son as their eternal love.
We believe in our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the Son of God.
We believe in the Holy Spirit, who is Lord, and Giver of life, who is adored and glorified together with the Father and the Son. He spoke to us by the prophets; He was sent by Christ after His resurrection and His ascension to the Father; He illuminates, vivifies, protects and guides the Church; He purifies the Church's members if they do not shun His grace.
We believe that Our Lord Jesus Christ, by the sacrifice of the cross redeemed us from original sin and all the personal sins committed by each one of us, so that, in accordance with the word of the apostle, "where sin abounded grace did more abound."
We believe in one Baptism instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.
We believe in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church built by Jesus Christ on that rock which is Peter. She is the Mystical Body of Christ; at the same time a visible society instituted with hierarchical organs, and a spiritual community; the Church on earth, the pilgrim People of God here below, and the Church filled with heavenly blessings; the germ and the first fruits of the Kingdom of God, through which the work and the sufferings of Redemption are continued throughout human history, and which looks for its perfect accomplishment beyond time in glory. In the course of time, the Lord Jesus forms His Church by means of the sacraments emanating from His plenitude. By these she makes her members participants in the Mystery of the Death and Resurrection of Christ, in the grace of the Holy Spirit who gives her life and movement.
We believe that the Church founded by Jesus Christ and for which He prayed is indefectibly one in faith, worship and the bond of hierarchical communion.
We believe that the Church is necessary for salvation, because Christ, who is the sole mediator and way of salvation, renders Himself present for us in His body which is the Church. But the divine design of salvation embraces all men, and those who without fault on their part do not know the Gospel of Christ and His Church, but seek God sincerely, and under the influence of grace endeavor to do His will as recognized through the promptings of their conscience, they, in a number known only to God, can obtain salvation.
This mysterious change is very appropriately called by the Church transubstantiation.
We believe in the life eternal.
We believe that the multitude of those gathered around Jesus and Mary in paradise forms the Church of Heaven, where in eternal beatitude they see God as He is, and where they also, in different degrees, are associated with the holy angels in the divine rule exercised by Christ in glory, interceding for us and helping our weakness by their brotherly care.
So, the things I've been writing aren't original thought. They're not new (obviously being 2,000 years old). Rather I've been telling you of those things which I've come to love, albeit with my imperfect humanity.
I am a beliver in the gospel of Jesus Christ and I put my faith solely in Him, not in traditions of men nor in any denomination or organization of men.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
If you choose to do, that is your choice, but don't expect me to stop warning others against following men rather than God.
Now you say that you believe that your church is a denomination founded by Christ, but you failed to show me where any denomination existed in the 1st century, let alone yours, and certainly not that Jesus wanted to start a denomination. And indeed, you have failed to show how your denomination founded in 325AD by Constantine could be the one and only true church. That is entirely contrary to scripture. And posting a belief statement about your denomination is not going to convince me to turn from scripture. These are just a few of the questions that you would need to address.
By all means warn them Paul Reverie. Ride out - "the Cathlics are coming"Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
If you can twist my words that badly (actually the Pope's word), only God knows what you could do to Scripture.
JoeT
Joe, I stand on scripture - not the words of your church leadership. I believe that God's words are infallible, man's words are fallible.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
Maybe its time to step down off the Bible and read it instead?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Joe,Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
Nice try, but I would love to see you get into God's word instead of trying to covert us to what the men in your denomination teach as part of their tradition.
I'm not trying to convert you. That's not my job! I'm a pew warmer for crying out loud.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Good! Because you will never convince me to turn from God's word.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
You hate Catholics so bad, I’d be willing to bet you’ll be one within a year or two. You’re convicting yourself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
JoeT
How do you get "hate" out of this thread? Just because someone disagrees with you, that means he hates you?Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
Why do Roman Catholics so often use the "hate" card against anyone who disagrees with their doctrines?Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
Why can they not accept that there are some who accept the Bible at face value and do not and will not agree with them?
Why can they not accept that people can disagree and yet care for them?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Ok change "hate" to "dislike." My bad for using too strong a word.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Dislike is not true also.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
If you said that I strongly disagree with Roman Catholicism as a religion, I would agree, but disliking Romans Catholics is so far off base. If only you knew my background. But rather you chose to prejudge me because I disagree with you.
Ok Tom, it’s time to pony up.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
Let’s hear a “reasoned” explanation on why you think the Catholic Church didn’t start till 325AD. Where applicable base your explanation on scripture and history; and use references – I’d like to verify them. Personally, I haven’t seen anything except your opinion – “the tradition of men”. It would even be more appropriate to discuss how “Scripture interprets Scripture” is scripturally based. Actually, it would be better still if you could give a Scriptural argument of how "Sola Scriptura" is authoritatively scripturally based.
JoeT
Sigh! I have posted information many times on this. I am not on my home computer right now, but later I can post some information again. I am surprised that you are not aware of history surrounding your denomination and the Roman Empire. Here is something that one of your Cardinals wrote on the topic:Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are told in various ways by Eusebius that Constantine, in order to recommend the new religion to the heathen, transferred into it the outward ornaments to which they had been accustomed in their own. It is not necessary to go into a subject which the diligence of Protestant writers has made familiar to most of us. The use of temples, and those dedicated to the particular saints, and ornamented on occasion with branches of trees, incense, lamps, and candles; votive offerings on recovery from illness, holy water, asylums, holy days and seasons, use of calendars, processions, blessings on the fields, sacerdotal vestments, the tonsure, the ring in marriage, turning to the East, images at a later date, perhaps the ecclesiastical chant and the Kyrie Eleison are all of pagan origin, and sanctified by adoption into the Church.
(Source: An Essay On The Development Of Christian Doctrine)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok - well I've got most of the weekend to research through my history books. Which Eusebius are we discussing; as I recall one was a bishop another was a historian but lived a hundred years or so apart?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
JoeT
PS: Newman: "the Church of the Fathers might be corrupted into Popery, never into Protestantism."
Eusebius of Caesarea - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaQuote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
Eusebius was an advisor to Constantine and was present at the Council in 325AD.
I trust in Jesus Christ alone, not in those who are dead in the flesh, and who, like myself were sinners saved by grace through the death and resurrection on the cross. Scripture never says to put our trust in men, but in God alone:Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
Ps 16:1
Preserve me, O God, for in You I put my trust.
NKJV
Ps 71:5
5 For You are my hope, O Lord GOD;
You are my trust from my youth.
NKJV
Heb 2:12-13
"I will declare Your name to My brethren;
In the midst of the assembly I will sing praise to You."
13 And again:
"I will put My trust in Him."
NKJV
Roman Catholicism says that His grace comes to us only through the Roman Catholic Church.Quote:
God alone can give us right and full knowledge of this reality by revealing Himself as Father, Son and Holy Spirit, in whose eternal life we are by grace called to share, here below in the obscurity of faith and after death in eternal light.
And who came to earth to make us God and gods.Quote:
We believe in our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the Son of God.
For the Son of God became man so that we might become God."80 "The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods."81
(CCC #460)
Baptism does not save - it is Jesus' sacrifice on the cross that saves and remits our sins.Quote:
We believe in one Baptism instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.
The errors in this are just so many.Quote:
We believe in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church built by Jesus Christ on that rock which is Peter. She is the Mystical Body of Christ;
- There is one church, but not a denomination
- Peter is not nor ever was the Rock - scripture is clear, abundantly explicit that it is Jesus.
- A denomination cannot be the body of Christ. All who are in the body of Christ are saved. Membership in a denomination does not save.
And there are so many other errors in this one paragraph alone.
But you believe it is a denomination.Quote:
We believe that the Church founded by Jesus Christ and for which He prayed is indefectibly one in faith, worship and the bond of hierarchical communion.
And you believe that you denomination is necessary for salvation! This is denominationalism at its worst. There were no denominations in the 1st century, so what happened before 325AD?Quote:
We believe that the Church is necessary for salvation,
This doctrine is explicitly referred to as a betrayal of Christ in John 6.Quote:
This mysterious change is very appropriately called by the Church transubstantiation.
That is an incomplete understanding of Scripture. From the time of Moses, God has put authority in men that men may trust in man.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Exodus 19 9 The Lord said to him: Lo, now will I come to thee in the darkness of a cloud, that the people may hear me speaking to thee, and may believe thee for ever. And Moses told the words of the people to the Lord.
And Moses accepted that authority:
15 And Moses answered him: The people come to me to seek the judgment of God.
Moses was literally God's vicar. God's representative who went in place of God to Pharoa:
Exodus 7 1 And the Lord said to Moses: Behold I have appointed thee the God of Pharao: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.
And this is what Jesus has done with Peter and the Church. Peter literally means Rock. And the only Rock mentioned in Scripture is Jesus.
1 Corinthians 10 4 And all drank the same spiritual drink; (and they drank of the spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ.)
Therefore when Jesus named Simon, Rock, the meaning is clear. Peter is representing Jesus to us.
Matthew 16 18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Correct. All grace flows through the Body of Christ.Quote:
Roman Catholicism says that His grace comes to us only through the Roman Catholic Church.
That is correct. That is straight from Scripture.Quote:
And who came to earth to make us God and gods.
For the Son of God became man so that we might become God."80 "The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods."81
(CCC #460)
2 Peter 1 4 By whom he hath given us most great and precious promises: that by these you may be made partakers of the divine nature: flying the corruption of that concupiscence which is in the world.
Scripture says it does:Quote:
Baptism does not save
1 Peter 3 21 Whereunto baptism being of the like form, now saveth you also: not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the examination of a good conscience towards God by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
That is true. If Jesus hadn't died on the Cross, we could not repent and be baptized for our salvation. Baptism is the application of Jesus' grace.Quote:
- it is Jesus' sacrifice on the cross that saves
Colossians 2 12 Buried with him in baptism, in whom also you are risen again by the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him up from the dead.
Not if we don't cooperate with His grace:Quote:
and remits our sins.
John 8 24 Therefore I said to you, that you shall die in your sins. For if you believe not that I am he, you shall die in your sin.
The Catholic Church.Quote:
The errors in this are just so many.
- There is one church, but not a denomination
Only if you twist the Scripture:Quote:
- Peter is not nor ever was the Rock - scripture is clear, abundantly explicit that it is Jesus.
John 1 42 And he brought him to Jesus. And Jesus looking upon him, said: Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is interpreted Peter.
Cephas means Rock in Aramaic.
If membership in the Kingdom of Heaven does not save, then membership in a Church does not save either:Quote:
- A denomination cannot be the body of Christ. All who are in the body of Christ are saved. Membership in a denomination does not save.
Matt 13:
24 Another parable he proposed to them, saying: The kingdom of heaven is likened to a man that sowed good seeds in his field. 25 But while men were asleep, his enemy came and oversowed cockle among the wheat and went his way.
26 And when the blade was sprung up, and had brought forth fruit, then appeared also the cockle. 27 And the servants of the goodman of the house coming said to him: Sir, didst thou not sow good seed in thy field? whence then hath it cockle? 28 And he said to them: An enemy hath done this. And the servants said to him: Wilt thou that we go and gather it up? 29 And he said: No, lest perhaps gathering up the cockle, you root up the wheat also together with it. 30 Suffer both to grow until the harvest, and in the time of the harvest I will say to the reapers: Gather up first the cockle, and bind it into bundles to burn, but the wheat gather ye into my barn.
The errors are yours.Quote:
And there are so many other errors in this one paragraph alone.
Apparently you have your own definition of "denomination".Quote:
But you believe it is a denomination.
# a group of religious congregations having its own organization and a distinctive faith
# a class of one kind of unit in a system of numbers or measures or weights or money; "he flashed a fistful of bills of large denominations"
# appellation: identifying word or words by which someone or something is called and classified or distinguished from others
Wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
It is a simple word which means "name" or "designation".
Obviously, our set of beliefs can be distinguished from other Christian denominations by the term Catholic Church.
But the fact that the Catholic Church is the true Church of Jesus Christ can be proven both Scripturally and historically.
Why yes. If Jesus Christ had not established a Church, there would be no salvation. All the graces of Jesus Christ flow through His Church.Quote:
And you believe that you denomination is necessary for salvation!
Well, yes there was. There was one. The Catholic Church.Quote:
This is denominationalism at its worst. There were no denominations in the 1st century, so what happened before 325AD?
That is your misunderstanding of the Scripture. The Scripture is clear that he who betrayed Christ did not believe in transubstantiation which Christ had just explained:Quote:
This doctrine is explicitly referred to as a betrayal of Christ in John 6.
John 6 56 For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed.
Sincerely,
De Maria
How do we know this?Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
JoeT
Your standard of "proof" is abysmally low. But you probably don't really expect anyone who doesn't already believe it to be persuaded.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:59 PM. |