 |
|
| Browse | Ask | Answer | Search | Join/Login |
|
|
||||
|
All right well... something a lot of people don't understand is that babies don't go to Hell... The wages of sin is death, not the sin nature.
Catholics do a lot of things that have more to do with the condemnation factor than the conviction, God never leaves you with no way out. Anyway, as far as the fact that we aren't perfect in nature, even if we were, I mean think about it Adam and Eve had daily communion with God one on one, and all they had was a tree to mess up on, and did so. We also have years and years of generational curses, which is biblical, the sins of our forefathers will be passed through the generations. ~Ash |
||||
|
||||
 Originally Posted by Tj3
Please don't lengthen these messages by repeating this over and over.. .
Don't tell us - show us where in scripture this change took place. Rather than long messages, I would like to get focused on that singular specific point.
536 The baptism of Jesus is on his part the acceptance and inauguration of his mission as God's suffering Servant... At his baptism "the heavens were opened" - the heavens that Adam's sin had closed - and the waters were sanctified by the descent of Jesus and the Spirit, a prelude to the new creation. Matthew 3 16 And Jesus being baptized, forthwith came out of the water: and lo, the heavens were opened to him: and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove, and coming upon him. 17 And behold a voice from heaven, saying: This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
As symbolic only!!
God tied Baptism to New Life as an efficacious sign which points to the reality. Without the sign of new life, there is no new life.
You and I may be using th term church differently to refer to your denomination, which i think you know that I can and would refute readily
. However, this post is already long enough for let's not add to the scope of the discussion. If you want to discuss that, please start a new thread.
My point was that when a specific denominational doctrine disagrees with scripture, the standard must always be the word of God.
Let me just explain that to Catholics the Word of God is passed on in Tradition as well as in Scripture. This is confirmed in Scripture which says, 1 Thessalonians 2 13 Therefore, we also give thanks to God without ceasing: because, that when you had received of us the word of the hearing of God, you received it not as the word of men, but (as it is indeed) the word of God, who worketh in you that have believed.
Now you will likely say that you see no disagreement, but that is what we need to focus on - where does scripture say that baptism is essential for salvation?
Again, let's keep focused. Open another thread and I will gladly show you where Jesus himself said that those who believe that they need to drink His blood betrayed Him.
But regardless, if you think that it is the communion cup that causes remission of sins, you have already turned away from the cross of Christ where the Bible says that the remission takes place.
These verses do not say that. They do not even touch on baptism. You are adding to scripture.
1182 The altar of the New Covenant is the Lord's Cross, from which the sacraments of the Paschal mystery flow. On the altar, which is the center of the church, the sacrifice of the Cross is made present under sacramental signs. The altar is also the table of the Lord, to which the People of God are invited. In certain Eastern liturgies, the altar is also the symbol of the tomb (Christ truly died and is truly risen). 1225 In his Passover Christ opened to all men the fountain of Baptism. He had already spoken of his Passion, which he was about to suffer in Jerusalem, as a "Baptism" with which he had to be baptized. The blood and water that flowed from the pierced side of the crucified Jesus are types of Baptism and the Eucharist, the sacraments of new life. From then on, it is possible "to be born of water and the Spirit" in order to enter the Kingdom of God. See where you are baptized, see where Baptism comes from, if not from the cross of Christ, from his death. There is the whole mystery: he died for you. In him you are redeemed, in him you are saved. A
cts 22:16
Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.' NKJV There are three things mentioned in this passage: 1) We are to arise and be baptized 2) We are to call upon the name of the Lord 3) We are to have our sins washed away.
Scripture speaks strongly regarding the fact that we are saved by calling upon the name of the Lord. Here are some examples: Acts 2:21, Rom 10:13, 1 Cor 6:11
Let's also look at Hebrews 9 which speaks of the that which cleanses us from sin:
Heb 9:11-15 11 But Christ came as High Priest of the good things to come, with the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is, not of this creation. 12 Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption. 13 For if the blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of a heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifies for the purifying of the flesh, 1 4 how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? 15 And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of theof the eternal inheritance. NKJV
We see confirmation here that it is not the water that cleanses, but the blood of Christ sacrificed on the cross.
1. If they believe and are baptized they shall be saved... 2. Arise and be baptized for the remission of sin...
Why should we assume that the sins are washed away by baptism when we see throughout the NT that we are saved by calling upon the name of the Lord and nowhere are we told that we are saved through baptism. Why ignore the second half of that verse when what it says is consistent with the rest of scripture?
Really? Then why did Jesus come to die on the cross? If obedience is essential for salvation, then the cross is a waste of time, because Romans 3:23 says that all have sinned. If, on the other hand, Christ came because we are NOT obedient, then we have the gospel that we find in scripture today.
1 Peter 2 21 For unto this are you called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving you an example that you should follow his steps. Jesus didn't suffer so that we wouldn't suffer. He suffered so we would learn the efficacy of suffering in union with Him: Romans 8 17 And if sons, heirs also; heirs indeed of God, and joint heirs with Christ: yet so, if we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified with him.
Can you honestly say that you have obeyed all of the law perfectly and thus never sinned?
BTW, it makes no sense to say that we are under the law if we disobey, but not under it if we obey it. That makes no sense whatsoever and is completely contrary to scripture.
Galatians 5 18 But if you are led by the spirit, you are not under the law. 19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are fornication, uncleanness, immodesty, luxury, 20 Idolatry, witchcrafts, enmities, contentions, emulations, wraths, quarrels, dissensions, sects, 21 Envies, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like. Of the which I foretell you, as I have foretold to you, that they who do such things shall not obtain the kingdom of God. 22 But the fruit of the Spirit is, charity, joy, peace, patience, benignity, goodness, longanimity, 23 Mildness, faith, modesty, continency, chastity. Against such there is no law. 24 And they that are Christ's, have crucified their flesh, with the vices and concupiscences. 25 If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.
Go back and read Gal 3 again. What scripture tells us is that if we are in Christ, we are not under the law, but if we are not, then we are under the law, and the reason is because the law is there to point us to Christ.
But if we sin, we break the law and are therefore under the law. For if we break one commandment, we break them all. [quote]Yep, and that is what I said. So if you fail on any point of the law, you have failed on them all. So it is useless to be baptized if you ever lusted, stole a penny, lied, because these are all sins and if you did any of them, then you are going to hell - if what you claim is true, and that is that obedience is required. [QUOTE] That is not the Catholic Teaching. To us, salvation is a process. It is not a one time, once saved always saved deal. We must persevere in faith until the end: Matthew 24 13 But he that shall persevere to the end, he shall be saved.
As for the OT saints who died before Christ, I believe that we find that answer in scripture:
James 2:23 23 And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, "Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness." NKJV In the OT times, those who were faithful to God looked forward to the coming Messiah and now we have the full revelation and look back to the cross. No one was ever saved except by Christ. There are many other passages, but again, I would prefer not to extend the scope of this thread - the posts are far too long now.
You brought up work by suggesting that it was not finished by Christ's sacrifice on the cross, but we have to do something in order to be saved.
If you make a law requiring baptism in order to be saved, then you have placed yourself back under a law of works.
I do not follow the dictates of any specific denomination - I follow what scripture says which is to believe in Jesus Christ and you shall be saved.
Let's stick to the Bible, okay, rather than pushing doctrinal stances of a specific denominations.
Holy Spirit.
This is why the Scriptures say, "if you dispute with your brother take him to the Church." There has to be an arbiter to say who is really guided by the Holy Spirit. Who better than the entity which Scripture calls the Pillar of Truth.
Good - it was not clear to me why you were disagreeing with me when I said that previously.
I answered that a couple of times. They received the indwelling of the Holy Spirit which scripture says only comes to those who are saved.
Now, please answer my question (which I think I have asked 4 or 5 times now)
I never said anything against being baptized. It is an act of obedience following salvation. This discussion is not about whether we should be baptized, it is trying to find any scripture which would validate or claim that it is required to be saved.
1. You do believe in being baptized. 2. As an act of obedience. 3. And it is not required. If I have divided your words correctly, don't #2 and #3 contradict? Otherwise why are you performing an empty ritual which is not required? And if it is not required, why do you consider it obedience? Obedience means you are acquiesing to a command.
"moving amongst" is not the same thing as receiving the Holy Spirit as the Apostles did.
Acts 10:47 Then Peter answered: Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy Ghost, as well as we? Thanks for the courteous discussion. Tomorrow is a busy day in our household and I may not be able to respond until late or the next day. May God bless you and your family, Sincerely, |
||||
|
||||
|
De Maria,
I said that if you did not chose to focus on your keys points and shorten this, I would choose them for you, so here si what I see as the key points: 1) You are not taking your doctrine from the Bible (God's word), but rather from your denominational dictates. That is our first point of contention because unless we have agreement on the standard that we use, we have no hope of ever bringing this to a conclusion, and I do not intend to deviate from using God's word as my standard. You also use a un-scriptural oxymoron of the "efficacious symbol", which again is not found in scripture but appears to come from your denominational teachings. 2) You claim that baptism is efficacious, but to date have failed to demonstrate that to be the case from scripture. Indeed, you have failed to show how the people in Acts 10:47 were saved before water baptism. This point alone is fatal to your argument. In addition, though you claim you have not, you have in fact come forward with two ways to be saved. One for Jews (not requiring baptism), and one for Gentiles (requiring baptism). Scripture says that there is one way to be saved. Now, unless you can come up with something better than the same old arguments which have been addressed over and over again, I suggest that we are pretty much at the end of the trail on this one. |
||||
|
||||
|
Originally Posted by Tj3
1) You are not taking your doctrine from the Bible (God's word), but rather from your denominational dictates.
For you, God's word is entirely contained in the Bible. Am I right? But for Catholics, God's word is contained in the traditions by Word and Scripture. So I agree this would be a wonderful place to start.
That is our first point of contention because unless we have agreement on the standard that we use, we have no hope of ever bringing this to a conclusion, and I do not intend to deviate from using God's word as my standard.
As I understand, you believe in a doctrine called Sola Scriptura? Would you define the doctrine and show me where it is in Scripture? In the meantime, the three prong Catholic Tradition is confirmed in Scripture: First we are instructed to listen to the Church: Matthew 18:17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. Two, we are instructed that the Word of God is passed on orally: 1 Thessalonians 2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe. As well as by Scripture, and therefore it follows; three, that we keep traditions by word and scripture. 2 Thessalonians 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle. Again, if you don't mind, in order not to derail this thread any further, I'll post this separately and we can continue there. Sincerely, De Maria |
||||
|
||||
|
Originally Posted by De Maria
2 Peter 1:20-21 20 knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, 21 for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. NKJV
For you, God's word is entirely contained in the Bible. Am I right?
Prov 30:5-6 5 Every word of God is pure; He is a shield to those who put their trust in Him. 6 Do not add to His words, Lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar. NKJV
But for Catholics, God's word is contained in the traditions by Word and Scripture.
3 He answered and said to them, "Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition? NKJV
As I understand, you believe in a doctrine called Sola Scriptura? Would you define the doctrine and show me where it is in Scripture?
In the meantime, the three prong Catholic Tradition is confirmed in Scripture:
First we are instructed to listen to the Church: Matthew 18:17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.
Two, we are instructed that the Word of God is passed on orally:
1 Thessalonians 2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.
As well as by Scripture, and therefore it follows; three, that we keep traditions by word and scripture.
2 Thessalonians 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
Again, if you don't mind, in order not to derail this thread any further, I'll post this separately and we can continue there.
|
||||
|
||||
|
The Bible says that we are saved by the Gospel of Christ, which is the death burial and resurrection or Him, and in Romans 6:1 is the following through of that gospel, that we have died to our old selves, and a buried with Christ, as such we should walk in newness of life.
In acts 2:38, I looked up in the greek, someone had told me that "for" and the "for the remission of sins" meant "because of". Bogus. For is from the word eis, which is a preposition, and the translation for "for" is, -In direct or immediate necessity of- I also looked at the word "name" in Matthew 28:19... its proper name. Acts 2:38 And Peter said unto them, Repent (romans 6:1-6, death to the old and new birth to the new), and be baptised (baptiso, full submersion in water) in the name of Jesus Christ ( Acts 4:12 Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved.") For (in direct necessity of) the remission of sins. And you WILL receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. If that's not spelled out well enough for you... I don't know what else can be done. ~Ash |
||||
|
||||
|
Originally Posted by Leidenschaftlich für Wahr
Matt 12:41 41 The men of Nineveh will rise up in the judgment with this generation and condemn it, Because they repented at (eis) the preaching of Jonah; and indeed a greater than Jonah is Here. NKJV The word "at" is eis. Now did they repent so that they would have the preaching of Jonah? Or is it the other way around? Rom 6:3-4 3 Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptizedinto (eis) His death? NKJV Were we baptized to cause His death? Matt 3:11 11 I indeed baptize you with water unto (eis) repentance, but He who is coming after me is Mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. NKJV Were they baptized with water to get repentance or because they repented? The point is that the intent of “because of” is commonly used both in English and in Koine Greek, and that is the only sense in which the word “eis” can be understood in the context of scripture for it to be consistent with the rest of scripture. With that in mind, let's have another look at Acts 2:38: Acts 2:38 38 Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. NKJV So now understanding that the intent of “eis” in context is “because of”, we could read this to say: “Repent, and then be baptized because you have received remission of sins and the Holy Spirit.” |
||||
|
||||
|
I don't see your response on that thread so I guess you want to continue here?
Originally Posted by Tj3
God is not contained within His word, but God has chosen to reveal Himself in the Bible and anything else which claims to be from God must be tested by using God's word, because God will never contradict Himself.
Prov 30:5-6 5 Every word of God is pure; He is a shield to those who put their trust in Him. 6 Do not add to His words, Lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar. NKJV Matthew 18 17 And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.
Matt 15:2-4
3 He answered and said to them, "Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition? NKJV This is precisely the authority which the Church now accepts. If we look at Church history, we see and individual named Arius who claimed the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and who interpreted Scripture to mean that Jesus is not God. The Church compared his teachings to Tradition and Scripture. The Church declared Arius a heretic.
I just did.
First, define what you mean by the word "Church". I think that is something else where we may be at odds.
Where does it say to pass it on "orally"?
For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe. The word of God ye HEARD of us means that they spoke these words.
Yep.
Okay.
I'll be gone for the next 8 days. God willing we'll take up where we left off when I return. Sincerely, De Maria |
||||
|
||||
|
Originally Posted by De Maria
Correct.
The Bible seems to say that the Church is the ultimate test:
Matthew 18 17 And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican. Note how Jesus, the Head of the Church is judging between a certain tradition and the Word of God. This is precisely the authority which the Church now accepts. If we look at Church history, we see and individual named Arius who claimed the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and who interpreted Scripture to mean that Jesus is not God.
The Church compared his teachings to Tradition and Scripture. The Church declared Arius a heretic.
Do you mean that there is no explicit statement which says that Scripture is the only standard of faith?
The universal Church which Jesus established and whose head He is.
1 Thessalonians 2:13
For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe. |
||||
|
||||
|
εἰς (eis 1519)
1. into into (to the interior), to, unto. 2. to unto (implying motion to the interior); into, towards, with a view to; implying immediate purpose. 2. εἰς τὸ (eis 1519 to) with the infinitive, to the end that, with a view to doing, being, or steering whatever the verb may mean. 3. unto unto; implying purpose, to the end that; when referring to time it marks either the interval during; or the point itself as an object of the aim or purpose, up to, for (marking the immediate purpose?). 4. in into, unto, to, implying motion to the interior, governing the Accusative. *Act 2:27,31 (with Genitive) εἰς ᾅδου (eis 1519 haidou) = unto (the habitation or power of) Hades. 5. for into, to, unto, with a view to; hence, with respect to a certain event, in order to, for. 6. on into (motion to the interior) to, unto. 7. toward -s unto, to, towards. 8. against (motion to the interior) into, to; unto; towards, sometimes implying mere reference in regard to, sometimes hostility, against. 9. upon unto, into, implying motion to an object; unto, implying object, and purpose; into, union and communion with. 10. At (motion to the interior) into, to, unto, with a view to (opposite of ἔμπροσθεν (emprosthen 1715)). 11. Among, amongst (motion to the interior), into, to, unto, with a view to. 12. Of into, to, unto, with a view to; with respect to a certain result, in order to for, towards. 13. Concerning into, to, unto, with a view to, marking the direction of thought or speech. 14. Throughout unto, into. 15. A or an preposition, into, with a view to; also, denoting equivalence, as. 16. Before (motion to the interior) into, to, unto. 17. By into, implying motion to the interior; to, unto, with a view to; (opposite of ἐκ (ek 1537)). 18. As (motion to the interior) into, to, with a view to. 19. One (feminine μία (mia), neuter ἕν (hen)) one, the first cardinal numeral; emphatic, one, even one, one single. 20. That... might be unto, for. (Here, εἰς σωτηρίαν (eis 1519 sōtērian) for salvation). 21. Till unto, when referring to time, denoting either the interval up to a certain point, during; or the point itself as the object or aim of some purpose, up to, for. 22. Until unto; implying purpose, to the end that; when referring to time, marking either the interval, during; or the point itself as the object of the aim or purpose, up to, for. 23. With into, implying either motion to a place, or arrival at a place by motion; up to, as the object of some aim or purpose. 24. Condemned (to be) into, to, unto, with a view to (denoting object); in order to (denoting purpose). Sorry I must have read the wrong line, however this is better. Greekbiblestudy.org |
||||
|
||||
|
Originally Posted by Tj3
Good, so if you know this how could you say this...
What I meant when I said that you and I interpret the term "Word of God" differently is that you consider the Word of God to be exclusively in the Bible. Whereas we consider it is also in the Traditions of God passed on by the Church.
The Church as Roman Catholics interpret it is their denomination, and an interpretation of their denomination is made by men is in violation of 2 Peter 1:20.
As for the verse that you quoted, no doubt you know that this has to with dispute resolution and has nothing to do with doctrinal interpretation.
Note how Jesus, the Head of the Church is judging between a certain tradition and the Word of God.
Matt 28:18 And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. 19 Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world. And as Matt 18:17 has shown before, the Church has the authority to settle disputes in any matter and to excommunicate those who do not "hear the Church". Therefore the Church now has the authority given Her by Jesus Christ to judge between man made traditions and the Word of God.
The Roman Catholic Church also declared one of the "infallible popes" a heretic.
Why do you keep asking after being answered?
So you do not mean the Roman Catholic Church which was founded but Constantine in 325AD
but are referring to the body of all believers. Good, we agree.
They heard them speak it, but you claimed that it told you to pass it along orally - still waiting for where it says that.
Are you implying that your doctrines may be implied in Scrpture but Catholic doctrines must be explicit? I don't think so. As they say, what is good for the gander is good for the goose. So, if that is the case, please provide the explicit statement of Sola Scriptura in Scripture? Sincerely, |
||||
|
||||
|
Originally Posted by De Maria
2 Peter 1:20-21 20 knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, 21 for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. NKJV That means no one, not you, not me, not the pope, not Martin Luther, not your priest. No one. And Yes, non-Catholics are not subject to your church doctrines and private interpretations, but rather my position is that we should submit ourselves to God's teachings given in the Bible.
What I meant when I said that you and I interpret the term "Word of God" differently is that you consider the Word of God to be exclusively in the Bible.
Whereas we consider it is also in the Traditions of God passed on by the Church.
First, provide the proof that "The Church as Roman Catholics interpret it is their denomination...". After which you can try to prove how the Churches interpretation of "the Church" is in violation with any Scripture.
Also, please provide your interpretation of "the Church". I guarantee, the interpretation in violation of Scripture is yours.
Exactly. And Jesus the Head of the Church passed on His authority to the Church:
You love to jump around don't you? Are you trying for the scatter gun effect? But hey, I have time. Provide the data and lets examine it in detail. Lets see exactly who declared whom a heretic and find out if it were a valid declaration. And lets see if you even know what the term "infallible" means to a Catholic.
Because you haven't answered. Or if you have, point to it. I don't see a statement from you saying, Sola Scriptura means this or that and you can find it in this verse in the Bible.
St. Constantine did not found a Church. He protected the Church from Roman persecution when he came into power as the Roman Caesar because his own mother, St. Helena, whom he loved was a faithful Christian.
I am referring to the Church founded by Jesus Christ.
The Word of God is passed on by hearing. It is strongly implied in this verse.
|
||||
|
||||
|
Originally Posted by Tj3
As I pointed out, scripture is of no private interpretation.
2 Peter 1:20-21
20 knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, 21 for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. NKJV That means no one, not you, not me, not the pope, not Martin Luther, not your priest. No one.
And Yes, non-Catholics are not subject to your church doctrines and private interpretations,
but rather my position is that we should submit ourselves to God's teachings given in the Bible.
Again, please allow me to speak for myself, and you speak for yourself. That will work much better. I stated my position about this before, and no you did not properly represent my position. Please deal with what I did say, not what you want me to say.
Now the question is - what is the "church". Is it your denomination or is it what the Bible says that it is, the body of all believers? I chose the latter.
Let me correct a misconception. The Magisterium defines Church as any institution whose Bishops were anointed by Bishops which can be traced to the Apostles. Examples would be, the Orthodox and the Coptic. Non-Catholic confessions, such as the Lutherans and Baptists can only trace their beliefs as far back as Luther. But they are still considered members of the Body of Christ due to their Baptism. So, although those institutions which stem from the Protestant revolution are not considered Churches. Ttheir members, if Baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, are considered members of the Catholic Church. Even if they themselves don't acknowledge the Catholic Church. 838 "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."322 Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."323 With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist."324
This is the key point of our disagreement -
you choose to submit yourself to your denomination. I do not submit myself to any denomination.
However, in order to understand what you believe, YOU must divulge it. I can't read your mind.
See above.
First, provide the proof that "The Church as Roman Catholics interpret it is their denomination...". After which you can try to prove how the Churches interpretation of "the Church" is in violation with any Scripture.
See above.
However, the Catholic Church also recognizes that the term Church refers to the Institution which Jesus established. And since the Bible says, "take him to the Church" (Matt 18:17) when one brother is disputing with another, that proves that the Bible recognizes the Church as an Institution with authority. The Catholic Church also recognizes that the term Church refers to the gathing place of believers for the sake of worship. And since the Bible says "that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church" (1 Tim 3:15) This proves that the Bible recognizes that the Church is the place where believers gather to worship. So, what I see above is that you don't understand the way the Catholic Church defines the word "Church". And that by reducing your definition of Church to strictly being the "body of all believers", you contradict Scripture. Correct me if I'm wrong.
That once again is the doctruine of your denomination, not given in scripture.
Indeed your denomination did not exist at the time that Jesus walked the earth in the flesh, nor did any denomination.
Matthew 28 And 18 therefore have absolutrely nothing to do with your denomination or any denomination. If you claim otherwise, show me where we find any denomination in the Bible.
The Catholic Church believes in the Body of Christ in the Eucharist: Matthew 26 26 And whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke: and gave to his disciples, and said: Take ye, and eat. This is my body. The Catholic Church breaks bread daily: Acts Of Apostles 2 46 And continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they took their meat with gladness and simplicity of heart; The Catholic Church keeps one doctrine: Romans 16 17 Now I beseech you, brethren, to mark them who make dissensions and offences contrary to the doctrine which you have learned, and avoid them. The Catholic Church keeps the Traditions by Word and Scripture: 2 Thessalonians 2 14 Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle. The Catholic Church teaches that faith is expressed in one's works as well as one's words: James 2 18 But some man will say: Thou hast faith, and I have works: show me thy faith without works; and I will show thee, by works, my faith. The Catholic Church is universal: Matt 28:19 Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world. There are many other signs of the Church which are in Scripture.
Heh heh - it is you using the scattergun effect. The facts are acknowledged by even Catholic sources - are you denying this to be true?
So by asking you for details, I will demonstrate that you have been duped. So, provide the Catholic doctrine of Papal Infallibility. That will show that the Church teaches that the Pope is infallible only when speaking from the Chair of Peter. Then provide the Catholic doctrine of Church Infallibility. That will show that the Church teaches that the Magisterium is infallible when gathered ecumenically in union with the Bishops and the Pope. Then when you provide the data of the incident, I will provide the data from a Catholic source and prove that neither is the case. Although some Popes have erred, they have not done so when teaching the Church from the Chair of Peter. And although some councils have made erroneous statements, no ecumenical council teaching in union with the Bishops of the entire Church and with the Pope has ever done so. So, I repeat, provide the details. Now if you don't have any details, that is a different matter.
It is useless to discuss anything with you if your approach is going to be to deny if you don't like the answer.
Even your Cardinal John Henry Newman disagreed with you on that point.
Are you denying that this is the body of all believers?
Implied in your opinion.
Luke 11 28 But he said: Yea rather, blessed are they who hear the word of God, and keep it. John 10 35 If he called them gods, to whom to word of God was spoken, and the scripture cannot be broken; Acts Of Apostles 8 4 They therefore that were dispersed, went about preaching the word of God.
Again, they heard them speak it, but you claimed that it told you to pass it along orally - still waiting for where it says that.
That still leaves you without any verse teaching Sola Scriptura. Sincerely, De Maria |
||||
|
||||
|
Originally Posted by De Maria
As I said, that is Catholic doctrine. The Catholic Church does not permit private interpretation.
How do you define "private interpretation"?
2 Peter 1:20-21 20 knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, 21 for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. NKJV Interpretation of men rather than interpretation of the Holy Spirit which is found in scripture.
How do you do that without interpreting the Bible?
Then you don't believe in Sola Scriptura? Please clarify your position.
Oh, I see. OK.
Let me correct a misconception. The Magisterium defines Church as any institution whose Bishops were anointed by Bishops which can be traced to the Apostles...
And that by reducing your definition of Church to strictly being the "body of all believers", you contradict Scripture.
1 Cor 12:27-28 27 Now you are the body of Christ, and members individually. NKJV Now show me where your denomination existed (or any denomination) existed at the time of Christ and I will show you where one of your cardinals said Constantine created your denomination.
Then when you provide the data of the incident, I will provide the data from a Catholic source and prove that neither is the case. Although some Popes have erred, they have not done so when teaching the Church from the Chair of Peter.
Really? Could you provide the details. Cardinal John Henry Newman is a convert to the Catholic Church who is credited with saying, "To be steeped in history is to cease to be Protestant."
No. Are you denying that the Church which Jesus built is also an Institution vested with His authority and given the mission to make disciples in all nations? Are you denying that the Church is also the place where believers gather to worship?
No. That's just one verse. Scripture is clear that the Word of God is passed on orally as welll as in Scripture:
Luke 11 28 But he said: Yea rather, blessed are they who hear the word of God, and keep it.
John 10 35 If he called them gods, to whom to word of God was spoken, and the scripture cannot be broken;
Acts Of Apostles 8 4 They therefore that were dispersed, went about preaching the word of God.
|
||||
|
||||
|
Originally Posted by Tj3
I trace your objection back to these words: Originally Posted by De Maria It is a Catholic doctrine that the Word of God is not interpreted individually. Whereas, nonCatholics have reserved the right to interpret the Word of God in the Bible apart from Church Tradition from the inception of the Protestant movement. To which you answered: Again, please deal with what I do say, and do not use strawman arguments. As I pointed out, scripture is of no private interpretation. Read my statement again. Did I say that YOU said anything? I simply reiterated that the Catholic Church teaches against private interpretation. And I mentioned that it is nonCatholics who teach private interpretation. Did I say that you teach private interpretation?
It uses private interpretation. Indeed it insists that the interpretation of the leaders of the denomination be followed by it's members.
The scriptural definition.
2 Peter 1:20-21 20 knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, 21 for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. NKJV Interpretation of men rather than interpretation of the Holy Spirit which is found in scripture. You allow it to interpret itself and submit yourself and your beliefs to what it says. How did they resolve their dispute? Well, they followed the Scripture: Matt 18:15 But if thy brother shall offend against thee, go, and rebuke him between thee and him alone. If he shall hear thee, thou shalt gain thy brother. 16 And if he will not hear thee, take with thee one or two more: that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand. 17 And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican. The Church resolved in favor of Athanasius and against Arius. Unfortunately, Arius did not accept the Church's judgement and the Church was forced to excommunicate Arius for teaching heresy. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican. .
My position has been stated many times. I am tired of repeating it.
Now, if you believe in Sola Scriptura, please say so categorically and just for kicks, point to the definition in Scripture.
I do not care what your denomination teaches.
I care about what scripture says. You will note that I did not comment on many of your responses simply because all they were were c/p of your denominational teachings.
Really?
1 Cor 12:27-28 27 Now you are the body of Christ, and members individually. NKJV
Now show me where your denomination existed
You will note that I did not comment on many of your responses simply because all they were were c/p of your denominational teachings.
(or any denomination) existed at the time of Christ and I will show you where one of your cardinals said Constantine created your denomination.
heh heh heh, I prefer historical accuracy to denominational defences of their own actions.
Regardless, you too easily try to distract the discussion onto side issues. If you honestly have been kept in the drak by your denomination, send me a PM or start a new thread. We don't need this one to be taken any further off track.
J. H. Newman, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, Chapter 8.
Newman Reader - Development of Christian Doctrine - Chapter 8 Lets go back to where Constantine was first mentioned: You said:
So you do not mean the Roman Catholic Church which was founded but Constantine in 325AD
:
St. Constantine did not found a Church. He protected the Church from Roman persecution when he came into power as the Roman Caesar because his own mother, St. Helena, whom he loved was a faithful Christian.
Even your Cardinal John Henry Newman disagreed with you on that point.
An institution is, at best, made up of both believers and non-believers and therefore there is no denomination or church institution which can claim to be the body of Christ. Many churches and denominations have members of the body of Christ as members, but the institution itself is not the body of Christ, nor does being a member of any institution save you. Lastly, no denomination existed at the time of that Christ walked the earth in the flesh.
This does not prove your point. I can read the Bible and people hear it - that does not mean that your denominational tradition is mandated by scripture.
And our "denominational tradition" is mandated by Scripture since Scripture instructs us to keep the traditions and to obey our prelates. Nowhere does Scripture tell us to disregard the Church. In fact, even when Jesus disagrees with the Pharisees, who happen to be the Religious leaders before the Church, He instructs the people to obey them. Matthew 23 3 All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not; for they say, and do not.
This refers to the unsaved (read John 10:26 and Psalm 82 which Jesus referred to in this passage).
So people preach from the Bible - that says nothing about your denominational traditions.
Sincerely, De Maria |
||||
|
||||
|
Originally Posted by De Maria
As we understand "private interpretation", it is the translation of Scripture without regard to Church history or Tradition.
In other words, when we go to interpret Scripture, we take into account what Christians taught from the beginning regarding the Scripture we are reading.
How did they resolve their dispute? Well, they followed the Scripture:
I thought you had said you believe in Sola Scriptura. But now you seem to be qualifiying that statement.
I assumed you wouldn't simply because you have yet to provide any Scripture for the doctrines which you believe in opposition to the Church. Sola Scriptura for instance.
But the Scriptures also depict the Church as an identifiable institution to which one can be brought for dispute resolution. That would be impossible if one must bring anyone to all believers.
I already provided my evidence. You ignored it. Now you claim I never provided it.
All I know is, if Cardinal Newman ever made such a statement, he must have recanted. Why would anyone join a Church which they did not believe was established by Jesus Christ? I know I wouldn't.
So, read the chapter again and show me where Cardinal Newman said that Constantine founded the Church. I don't see it.
""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." Notice that he even calls your denomination a "new religion".
Then why did Jesus institute the Church? And why did He give the Church the power to bind and loose? And why is the Church called the Body of Christ?
Yes, I think it does.
Reading the Bible outloud is an example of oral transmission of the Word of God. But the Bible does not say it is the only way. Preaching is another.
And our "denominational tradition" is mandated by Scripture since Scripture instructs us to keep the traditions and to obey our prelates.
It doesn't say it refers to the unsaved. Show me.
John 10:26-27 26 But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep, as I said to you. NKJV Does this sound like they were saved? Now read Psalm 82 on your own.
I've provided other evidence of Catholic Traditions which are mentioned in the Bible but you said you preferred to ignore them.
|
||||
|
||||
|
Originally Posted by Tj3
Maybe it is easier to make up a position for me and then to attack it, but for the sake of accuracy, if you are going to claim something is my position - quiote me. Simple.
Or to re-phrase - translation of scripture without your denomination's (private) interpretation.
You want everyone to follow what your denomination teaches.
That is the core of the argument. Indeed every discussion that we have comes down to that one point - you believe that we should all follow the private interpretations of your denomination.
Matthew 10 40 He that receiveth you, receiveth me: and he that receiveth me, receiveth him that sent me. But you want to teach your own teachings. You have already admitted you don't accept any denomination.
No, you don't actually. You selectively take comments from various writers, all of whom come from your denomination after it was formed in 325AD.
"When, however, they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition... It comes to this, therefore, that these men do now consent neither to Scripture or tradition" (Against Heresies 3,2:1). "Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary, [in that case,] to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches?" (Against Heresies 3,4:1).
Bingo - they used scripture as their standard of doctrine, just as Jesus and the Apostles did, as we should.
How did they resolve their dispute? Well, they followed the Scripture:
Matt 18:15 But if thy brother shall offend against thee, go, and rebuke him between thee and him alone. If he shall hear thee, thou shalt gain thy brother. 16 And if he will not hear thee, take with thee one or two more: that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand. 17 And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican. The Church resolved in favor of Athanasius and against Arius. Unfortunately, Arius did not accept the Church's judgement and the Church was forced to excommunicate Arius for teaching heresy. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican. .
I believe in Sola scriptura, but it is not up to you to re-define it.
I cannot believe that you actually made that statement. I'll bet that you if you were in the same room with me, you couldn't say it with a straight face. Now look, again I'll say it, if you are going to ignore everything that I say and not deal with what I have said, then what is your purpose in discussing this?
But again, this has nothing to do with your denomination.
2. You have just admitted that the Church is an institution. 3. But it proves that my denomination exegetes Scripture correctly.
No m'am, you didn't. You provided your denominational teachings, but no evidence of any denomination, not yours or any others in scripture.
I don't have to show evidence of any denomination. Suffice to prove that my denomination's teachings are confirmed in Scripture.
heh heh heh, I love it - when your own church leaders disagree with your position, you cannot deal with it, and hope that they recanted. You don't want to deal with the evidence, you can only believe what you want to believe.
Rose coloured glasses?
""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."
Notice that he even calls your denomination a "new religion". ....yet it is plain from Tertullian that Christians had altars of their own, and sacrifices and priests. And that they had churches is again and again proved by Eusebius who had seen "the houses of prayer levelled" in the Dioclesian persecution; from the history too of St. Gregory Thaumaturgus, nay from Clement [Note 10]. ... So, if Cardinal Newman recognizes the Church existed in the time of Tertullian. How can he claim that St. Constantine formed the Church?
Key point which can never be resolved between us as long as I rely upon scripture for the definition of church and you rely upon your denominational teaching.
This is the essence of private interpretation. You take verses out of context and say what you think that they mean and say that that establishes your doctrine. This is why we are spinning wheels on here. As long your thoughts (private interpretation) and your denominations teaching (private interpretation) are the basis for your position, and mine is the context of scripture as it interprets itself, we have no hope of resolving our disagreements because we do not have a common basis of understanding.
I interpret Scripture according to the teaching of the Church. That means my interpretation is not private but shared by many. The Church explains Scripture and teaches that we should interpret Scripture in the Tradition of the Church. The Church condemns private interpretation of Scripture which contradicts the Teaching of the Church through the centuries. You, on the other hand, only believe what you interpret from Scripture yourself. Saying that you allow Scripture to interpret itself is illogical. What you read still has to be examined and understood in your brain. Since you don't care what anyone else says on the matter, your interpretation of Scripture is the very definition of private.
Still not an endorsement of your denomination's traditions.
I keep asking for the references... still waiting.
2 Thessalonians 2 14 Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle. Hebrews 13 17 Obey your prelates, and be subject to them. For they watch as being to render an account of your souls; that they may do this with joy, and not with grief. For this is not expedient for you.
Sigh. Must I read it to you?
John 10:26-27
26 But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep, as I said to you. NKJV Does this sound like they were saved? John 10 35 If he called them gods, to whom to word of God was spoken, and the scripture cannot be broken; To which you responded: This refers to the unsaved (read John 10:26 and Psalm 82 which Jesus referred to in this passage). Obviously, John 10:26 is referring to unbelievers which Jesus is addressing. And John 10:35 is referring to believers which the Scriptures refer to as gods to whom the Word of God was orally presented, spoken, in the past. Two different ideas all together. Try again.
Now read Psalm 82 on your own.
Right. I accept what the Bible teaches, not your denomination's private interpretations.
However, it is obvious that your method of interpretation is essentially "private" since you eschew anyone's input. Sincerely, |
||||
|
||||
|
Originally Posted by De Maria
The Church is not private. It is very public.
Because I believe the Church teaches the truth.
Here's the difference between you and I. I am passing on the teaching of the Church which was established by Jesus Christ.
But you want to teach your own teachings.
You have already admitted you don't accept any denomination.
You've quoted me out of context. Here's what I actually said:
It is clear the Scripture to which I refer tells us that the Church is the authority we turn to in order to resolve disputes.
I haven't. I've continually asked for you to define it and point to it in Scripture.
You've spent about four posts now claiming that you have provided the support for that doctrine. Wouldn't it be simpler to either repeat it or identify it in the post where you claim you posted it? I sincerely do not see your explanation.
1. You just admitted that the Church does not necessarily mean the body of all believers.
2. You have just admitted that the Church is an institution. 3. But it proves that my denomination exegetes Scripture correctly. Once again (and this is the same cycle as with other things - I repeat myself and you mis-represent and ignore what I say and then tell me repeat it again) "An institution is, at best, made up of both believers and non-believers and therefore there is no denomination or church institution which can claim to be the body of Christ. Many churches and denominations have members of the body of Christ as members, but the institution itself is not the body of Christ, nor does being a member of any institution save you. lastly, no denomination existed at the time of that Christ walked the earth in the flesh."
I don't have to show evidence of any denomination. Suffice to prove that my denomination's teachings are confirmed in Scripture.
The challenge stands. Where does Cardinal Newman state that St. Constantine formed the Catholic Church?
As opposed to the Old religion of Judaism.
As I have shown, Scripture recognizes that the Church is a temple, a gathering place and an authoritative Institution built by Christ as well as the body of believers. The Catholic Church accepts all those definitions. You deny all except the latter.
The Church condemns private interpretation of Scripture which contradicts the Teaching of the Church through the centuries.
You, on the other hand, only believe what you interpret from Scripture yourself.
But it is a confirmation that the Church's teachings are in line with Scripture.
Unlike you I can go back to messages and prove I have made them there, I can quote myself, or I can provide them anew.
I've done so frequently:
Obviously, John 10:26 is referring to unbelievers which Jesus is addressing. And John 10:35 is referring to believers which the Scriptures refer to as gods to whom the Word of God was orally presented, spoken, in the past.
Two different ideas all together. Try again. |
||||
|
||||
|
Originally Posted by Tj3
heh heh heh nice try - read the context of the scripture - private refers to human interpretation rather than that of the Holy Spirit.
Lets go back to verse 16: 2 Peter 1:16 For we have not by following artificial fables, made known to you the power, and presence of our Lord Jesus Christ; but we were eyewitnesses of his greatness. We didn't make this up. We were eyewitnesses of the power and presence of our Lord Jesus Christ. 17 For he received from God the Father, honour and glory: this voice coming down to him from the excellent glory: This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him. 18 And this voice we heard brought from heaven, when we were with him in the holy mount. We heard the word of God from on high proclaiming His beloved Son. 19 And we have the more firm prophetical word: whereunto you do well to attend, We advise that you hear what we say, because we have the word of God. as to a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: We are your light until the light of Christ returns again like the day star in your hearts. 20 Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation. 21 For prophecy came not by the will of man at any time: but the holy men of God spoke, inspired by the Holy Ghost. For Scripture was not inspired by man, but men of God were inspired by the Holy Spirit to speak and to write.
ou are quite welcome to follow your denomination and I likewise have the right to choose to follow the Bible.
I can test to see if this is true by going to scripture - God does not contradict himself - yet your denominational teaching contradicts God's word.
For instance. Sola Scriptura is no where mentioned in Scripture. But Scripture says that the Church is authoritative and the Pillar of Truth and that we should keep the Traditions in word and Scripture. So it seems that Sola Scriptura contradicts Scripture. While Catholic doctrine follows Scripture to the letter.
sigh - here we go with the strawman mis-representations again.
Right. Just like Jesus was not a member of any denomination, nor were the Apostles.
Remember, the first Christians were considered a Jewish sect or denomination.
The quote from scripture that you gave showed that they followed scripture, and went to scripture to determine doctrinal truth. Precisely.
But that isn't the only place where Scripture says that the Church is our authority: Hebrews 13 17 Obey your prelates, and be subject to them. For they watch as being to render an account of your souls; that they may do this with joy, and not with grief. For this is not expedient for you. 1 Cor 6:1 Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to be judged before the unjust, and not before the saints? 2 Know you not that the saints shall judge this world? And if the world shall be judged by you, are you unworthy to judge the smallest matters? 3 Know you not that we shall judge angels? How much more things of this world? 4 If therefore you have judgments of things pertaining to this world, set them to judge, who are the most despised in the church.
As I have,
but you constantly ignore it, and refine it, and mis-quote me.
And you ignore it and mis-quoted me when I have posted the information - so how many times do I need to keep telling you?
sigh - once again you mis-represent me. I did not say "The Church" - as you use that, it means your denomination. No such usage exists in scripture,
because there are no denominations in scripture.
Once again (and this is the same cycle as with other things - I repeat myself and you mis-represent and ignore what I say and then tell me repeat it again)
"An institution is, at best, made up of both believers and non-believers
That is why, the existence of non-believers in the Church does not invalidate the fact of whether it is the Body of Christ.
and therefore there is no denomination or church institution which can claim to be the body of Christ.
Now the question is - what is the "church". Is it your denomination or is it what the Bible says that it is, the body of all believers? Are you reversing yourself now? I quote: no denomination or church institution which can claim to be the body of Christ. At the same time any institution can "claim" to be the Body of Christ. Whether they can prove it is another story. As I have shown, but which you have continually ignored, the Catholic Church considers Her members to be members of the Body of Christ. But the Catholic Church considers all the Baptized to be members of the Body of Christ, whether they, themselves consider themselves Catholic or not. So, in fact, it is you who keep misrepresenting what I have said.
Many churches and denominations have members of the body of Christ as members,
but the institution itself is not the body of Christ,
nor does being a member of any institution save you.
lastly, no denomination existed at the time of that Christ walked the earth in the flesh."
So, the question remains: Then why did Jesus institute the Church? So that anyone could ignore it? And why did He give the Church the power to bind and loose? So that they could bind and loose nothing? And why is the Church called the Body of Christ in Scripture? Is it just a cool nickname?
A statement does not make it so.
Take off the dark glasses and maybe you can read it.
Read again. You know when Constantine lived, and it was Constantine who brough the pagan things into the church to create a new religion.
sigh - isn't it good enough to deal honestly with what I said? Does it give you some empty satisfaction to shot down strawman arguments based upon things that I never said?
1. The institution built by Christ with authority to bind and loose. 2. The gathing place for Christian worship. 3. As well as the body of Christ.
Again, I do not care what your denomination teaches - I go by what scripture teaches.
The only one of your teachings which you have divulged is Sola Scriptura and you have provided no Scripture verse to support it. While I have provided many verses which seem to contradict it.
Strawman argument again - show me where I said that.
:
You have already admitted you don't accept any denomination. Right. Just like Jesus was not a member of any denomination, nor were the Apostles.
This is the key point of our disagreement - you choose to submit yourself to your denomination. I do not submit myself to any denomination.
Not in the slightest.
I can, I have, I have repeated myself and you constantly ignore what I say and post strawmen. As a result, I am finding myself much less motivated to waste my time on you.
I prefer to spend time with folk who are seeking truth, who will read what I said and respond to it and who will deal honestly with what I said.
And your claims have been refuted in context frequently.
Now read the whole passage - and read Psalm 82 which Jesus refers to. It's not hard - it is only a few verses. Give it a shot on your own.
Luke 11 28 But he said: Yea rather, blessed are they who hear the word of God, and keep it. Acts Of Apostles 8 4 They therefore that were dispersed, went about preaching the word of God. |
||||
Not your question?
Ask your question
View similar questions
| Question Tools | Search this Question |
Add your answer here.
Check out some similar questions!
Who keeps the orignal signed lease agreement
[ 4 Answers ]
Hello, I'm a landlord(Lessor) of a rental property. The tenant/Lessee had asked for the original signed signature page of the lease agreement. Should I give them the orignal signed signature page or give them a photocopy of the signed signature page? Thanks in advanced.
View more questions Search
|
