The RCC born in 313 AD? (2)

[Root of Jesse]

The church is founded on the apostles and the prophets with Christ as the cornerstone. Christ is the head of the church and all mainstream churches maintain this truth. This IS in scripture.

Is not your church. Yours is one among many.

Not just the people but all Christians. All Christians are not part of your church.

Right.


Nothing here about your church.

lol Your church is one of the first denominations.


Nope. I'm not part of your church but I am part of the universal church that Christ instituted.


Is not your church.

Is it your church then?

Here we go again...the evidence speaks for itself. And if you don't want to be part of Christ's Church, suit yourself. But saying my Church (actually Christ's Church) isn't The Church multiple times doesn't get us anywhere. Think of what you're saying. I never said my Church. If I claimed it as mine, I'd be very wrong. It's not my Church. It's Christ's. He instituted it. Whatever other Church you belong to was started by someone other than Christ, though they may do a very good job of preaching Him and his message. Christ's Church is protecte by the Holy Spirit, and represented on Earth by the Pope and the other Bishops in communion with the Pope.
Whatever. Christ knows His Church, and that's what matters.

 

[Hentenza]

Here we go again...the evidence speaks for itself. <snip>

What evidence?

 

[Albion]

Where's that, in the Bible???

I just love it when someone whose guidepost is "Tradition" demands proof from the Bible as though it would make any difference to him.

 

[Standing Up]

For a council to be ecumenical, it doesn't require heretical sects to be involved, nor does it require all bishops to be involved either. I do not think there has ever been a council were all bishops were present.

For a council to be ecumenical, it need only invite those Christians with whom it agrees. This was learned under Victor c195ad. Under Nicea, it also learned to use the state's power to enforce its "ecumenical" conclusions.

 

[Standing Up]

The authority is Christ's, who left it up to you to follow Him or not, and in what way.

Why would the Church accept the recommendations of those who aren't part of the Church?

Christ's Church is universal because he says so in Scripture. There is no other Church, than Christ's. If you're baptized in the Trinitarian formula, you're part of it, whether you think so or not. There is only one Baptism...

Better late than never. Surely you know Pope Stephen permitted non-Trinitarian formulas, like Arius' and others, to be on par with a Christian baptism. Up until some 15 years ago, RC considered LDS baptism as equivalent.

Given enough time, we can circle back to where we were 2000 years ago

 

[MoreCoffee]

Where's that, in the Bible???...

I just love it when someone whose guidepost is "Tradition" demands proof from the Bible as though it would make any difference to him.

It's even more amusing when one who advocates sola scriptura fails to give biblical support

 

[Rev Randy]

It's even more amusing when one who advocates sola scriptura fails to give biblical support

 

[Standing Up]

-snip-


If you're part of His church, and I believe that, then you are, indeed, part of my Church. There is only one Church.

True enough. The problem is the additional de fide beliefs that RC requires of her people in order to be part of her vs every other church's salvific beliefs.

For examples,

papacy
filioque
Marian dogmas

So, while there is one Church, well, suffice to say, there is one Church. Believers may be found in numerous denominations, including RC.

 

[Root of Jesse]

I just love it when someone whose guidepost is "Tradition" demands proof from the Bible as though it would make any difference to him.

I love you, too Albion, even though I disagree with you. But Tradition complements Scripture, so to say we believe in Tradition over Scripture is a wrong statement. Thanks.

 

[Albion]

You and your colleague are trying too hard to come up with a snappy answer there, Rev.

I believe in the authority of the word of God. I am under no obligation to jump through hoops just because someone on a discussion board wants me to perform for no good reason.





.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Better late than never. Surely you know Pope Stephen permitted non-Trinitarian formulas, like Arius' and others, to be on par with a Christian baptism. Up until some 15 years ago, RC considered LDS baptism as equivalent.

Given enough time, we can circle back to where we were 2000 years ago

Evidence? I don't believe your word, sorry. Got to be dogmatic statement, too, please.

Regarding Mormon baptism, it's really no different from what was always practiced. The Church makes definitive statement when necessary, usually when a practice is called into question. Such is the case.

The two cases, Arianism and Mormonism aren't even similar, though. Arianism held an incorrect understanding of a Christian doctrine. Mormonism believes “God the Father is an exalted man, native of another planet, who has acquired his divine status through a death similar to that of human beings”; that “God the Father has relatives and this is explained by the doctrine of infinite regression of the gods who initially were mortal”; that “God the Father has a wife, the Heavenly Mother, with whom he shares the responsibility of creation”; and that “Four gods are directly responsible for the universe, three of whom have established a covenant and thus form the divinity”, which is a total violation of the Christian form.

 

[Root of Jesse]

And? Older does not mean better. It just means older.



No. The "council" of Jerusalem was not even called. Paul and Barnabas brought the issue to the church of Jerusalem and the apostles and the elders met to resolve the issue. Peter was merely one of the apostles that deliberated and one, along with James, that delivered the decision.

The Church instituted by Christ, and a council called by its leaders, the bishops.

Regarding your first comment, if we accept your statement, which we don't, that's true. But the closer we begin from Christ, the more chance of correctness. We are the Church instituted by Christ. The one and only Church He instituted. Once again, that does not exclude you. You exclude yourself.

 

[Erose]

Evidence? I don't believe your word, sorry. Got to be dogmatic statement, too, please.

Regarding Mormon baptism, it's really no different from what was always practiced. The Church makes definitive statement when necessary, usually when a practice is called into question. Such is the case.

The two cases, Arianism and Mormonism aren't even similar, though. Arianism held an incorrect understanding of a Christian doctrine. Mormonism believes “God the Father is an exalted man, native of another planet, who has acquired his divine status through a death similar to that of human beings”; that “God the Father has relatives and this is explained by the doctrine of infinite regression of the gods who initially were mortal”; that “God the Father has a wife, the Heavenly Mother, with whom he shares the responsibility of creation”; and that “Four gods are directly responsible for the universe, three of whom have established a covenant and thus form the divinity”, which is a total violation of the Christian form.

SU likes making statements he can't support and then post them over and over and over, hoping someone will just accept what he wrote. It is just part of his charm.

 

[Albion]

The two cases, Arianism and Mormonism aren't even similar, though.

They[re both non-Trinitarian, which was the point you were replying to.

Arianism held an incorrect understanding of a Christian doctrine. Mormonism believes “God the Father is an exalted man, native of another planet, who has acquired his divine status through a death similar to that of human beings”; that “God the Father has relatives and this is explained by the doctrine of infinite regression of the gods who initially were mortal”; that “God the Father has a wife, the Heavenly Mother, with whom he shares the responsibility of creation”; and that “Four gods are directly responsible for the universe, three of whom have established a covenant and thus form the divinity”, which is a total violation of the Christian form.

Very well, then, so why would a Mormon baptism be acceptable?

 

[Root of Jesse]

The church is founded on the apostles and the prophets with Christ as the cornerstone. Christ is the head of the church and all mainstream churches maintain this truth. This IS in scripture.

Christ did not institute all mainstream churches. He instituted one universal Church. So your idea is not biblical. Thanks for proving it.

Is not your church. Yours is one among many.

Not just the people but all Christians. All Christians are not part of your church.

All Christians are part of His Church. Again, not MY church. His.

Right.


Nothing here about your church.

lol Your church is one of the first denominations.

Not a denomination at all.

Nope. I'm not part of your church but I am part of the universal church that Christ instituted.

Right. The Catholic Church. The one (and only) that Christ instituted.

Is not your church.

Error...that's all, simply error.

 

[Root of Jesse]

What evidence?

Christ instituted one Church. He instituted it, and it came to being on Pentecost.

All the evidence I need, right there.

 

[Albion]

Here's a thought...

Why don't we discuss when the Roman Catholic Church was born (since that's the topic of the thread), rather than the oh-so enlightening 'denomination doesn't mean denomination, church doesn't mean church,' etc.?

Was it:

A. early second century?

B. Time of Constantine?

C. Time of Leo the Great?

D. Time of Charlemagne?

E. Later ninth century?

F. 1054?

G. Another date/time in history?

 

[Erose]

Here's a thought...

Why don't we discuss when the Roman Catholic Church was born (since that's the topic of the thread), rather than the oh-so enlightening 'denomination doesn't mean denomination, church doesn't mean church,' etc.?

Was it:

A. early second century?

B. Time of Constantine?

C. Time of Leo the Great?

D. Time of Charlemagne?

E. Later ninth century?

F. 1054?

G. Another date/time in history?

Obviously it is "G" around 33AD in a room in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost in the same year of the death and resurrection of our Lord. There is the answer. Now we can close this thread.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by Albion

Here's a thought...
​

Why don't we discuss when the Roman Catholic Church was born (since that's the topic of the thread), rather than the oh-so enlightening 'denomination doesn't mean denomination, church doesn't mean church,' etc.?
​

Obviously it is "G" around 33AD in a room in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost in the same year of the death and resurrection of our Lord. There is the answer.

Now we can close this thread.

You can always bribe the OP to do that

Mic 3:11
Her heads judge for a bribe, Her priests teach for pay, and her prophets divine for money.
Yet they lean on the LORD and say, "Is not the LORD among us? No harm can come upon us."

The Destruction of Jerusalem - George Peter Holford, 1805AD

"I consider the Prophecy relative to the destruction of the Jewish nation,
if there were nothing else to support Christianity, as absolutely irresistible."
(Mr. Erskine's Speech, at the Trial of Williams, for publishing Paine's Age of Reason)

After this, Josephus, in the name of Titus, earnestly exhorted John and his adherents to surrender ; but the insolent rebel returned nothing but reproaches and imprecations, declaring his firm persuasion that Jerusalem, as it was GOD'S own city, could never be taken : thus literally fulfilling the declaration of Micah, that the Jews, in their extremity, notwithstanding their crimes, would presumptuously "lean upon the LORD, and say,

'Is not the LORD among us ? none evil can come upon us." (Micah iii. 11 )

.
.

 

[Albion]

You can always bribe the OP to do that

Oh, but he's so demanding.