The Early Church is the Catholic Church

[prodromos]

Thanks tips but that wasn't my point. If you're going to interject then interject properly and stay on topic. If not then don't bother interjecting.



Yes I know you made an assertion by bringing up another verse that you think contradicted what I said but in fact it didn't, which is why I pointed out to you that the Bible doesn't contradict itself, but you didn't back up your assertion with any facts, so please give us some facts as to how scripture contradicts itself in your eyes.

Keep your straw man.

 

[samir]

Earlier in this thread I provided a rather detailed explanation as to why purgatory is not biblical. I will take the liberty of pasting it for you.

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, Purgatory is “a place or condition of temporal punishment for those who, departing this life in God's grace, are not entirely free from venial faults, or have not fully paid the satisfaction due to their transgressions.” To summarize, in Catholic theology Purgatory is a place that a Christian’s soul goes to after death to be cleansed of the sins that had not been fully satisfied during life. Is this doctrine of Purgatory in agreement with the Bible? Absolutely not!

Jesus died to pay the penalty for all of our sins (Romans 5:8). Isaiah 53:5 declares, “But He was pierced for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon Him, and by His wounds we are healed.” Jesus suffered for our sins so that we could be delivered from suffering. To say that we must also suffer for our sins is to say that Jesus’ suffering was insufficient. To say that we must atone for our sins by cleansing in Purgatory is to deny the sufficiency of the atoning sacrifice of Jesus (1 John 2:2). The idea that we have to suffer for our sins after death is contrary to everything the Bible says about salvation.

When it says "have not fully paid the satisfaction due to their transgressions" you have to understand scripture teaches both an eternal consequence and a temporal punishment for sin. Catholics believe Jesus satisfied the eternal consequences of believer's sins but that believers sometimes undergo temporal punishment, either on earth or after death prior to entering heaven for the purpose of purification because scripture says regarding heaven "nothing impure shall enter it (Rev 21:27)."

For example, when David sinned, scripture says:

So David said to Nathan, “I have sinned against the Lord.”

And Nathan said to David, “The Lord also has put away your sin; you shall not die. However, because by this deed you have given great occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme, the child also who is born to you shall surely die.”

So although God forgave David's sin (and therefore the eternal consequences of it) when he repented, God disciplined him by taking away his child.

The New Testament also teaches "For whom the Lord loves He chastens (Heb 12:6)". So although God forgave the sins of believers in Christ there can still be discipline, or temporal punishment associated with their sins. The catholic teaching is that those who die who love God but are still attached to their sins, God will discipline them prior to entering heaven to purify them since nothing impure can enter heaven.

The primary Scriptural passage Catholics point to for evidence of Purgatory is 1 Corinthians 3:15, which says, “If it is burned up, he will suffer loss; he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the flames.” The passage (1 Corinthians 3:12-15) is using an illustration of things going through fire as a description of believers’ works being judged. If our works are of good quality “gold, sliver, costly stones,” they will pass through the fire unharmed, and we will be rewarded for them. If our works are of poor quality “wood, hay, and straw,” they will be consumed by the fire, and there will be no reward. The passage does not say that believers pass through the fire, but rather that a believer’s works pass through the fire. 1 Corinthians 3:15 refers to the believer “escaping through the flames,” not “being cleansed by the flames.”

If a person dies still attached to sin then he will suffer as his sins are being burned away. The purgatorial fire is not necessarily a literal material fire. Since scripture says "God is a consuming fire (Deut 4:24)", it may be the presence of God that purifies believers.

The idea of believers' works being burned separately doesn't fix the context. It would mean God burns a person's sins without any effect on the believer so he wouldn't be escaping through any flames. Also, if the believer benefits when his good works are exposed to the fire then there is no reason to believe he wouldn't suffer when his bad works are exposed to it.

Purgatory, like many other Catholic dogmas, is based on a misunderstanding of the nature of Christ’s sacrifice. Catholics view the Mass / Eucharist as a re-presentation of Christ’s sacrifice because they fail to understand that Jesus’ once-for-all sacrifice was absolutely and perfectly sufficient (Hebrews 7:27). Catholics view meritorious works as contributing to salvation due to a failure to recognize that Jesus’ sacrificial payment has no need of additional “contribution” (Ephesians 2:8-9). Similarly, Purgatory is understood by Catholics as a place of cleansing in preparation for heaven because they do not recognize that because of Jesus’ sacrifice, we are already cleansed, declared righteous, forgiven, redeemed, reconciled, and sanctified.

Catholics are fully aware of the effects of Jesus' sacrifice on the cross. Protestants, despite believing Jesus atoned for their sins, acknowledge they still have a sinful nature and still struggle with sin. The purification after death purges the sinful nature and attachment to sin so that believers can enter heaven with a pure heart, free from sin. Some Protestants, once they learn what the Catholic Church really teaches about purgatory, have come to accept it as the teaching of scripture.

The very idea of Purgatory and the doctrines that are often attached to it (prayer for the dead, indulgences, meritorious works on behalf of the dead, etc.) all fail to recognize that Jesus’ death was sufficient to pay the penalty for ALL of our sins. Jesus, who was God incarnate (John 1:1,14), paid an infinite price for our sin. Jesus died for our sins (1 Corinthians 15:3). Jesus is the atoning sacrifice for our sins (1 John 2:2). To limit Jesus’ sacrifice to atoning for original sin, or sins committed before salvation, is an attack on the Person and Work of Jesus Christ. If we must in any sense pay for, atone for, or suffer because of our sins – that indicates Jesus’ death was not a perfect, complete, and sufficient sacrifice

Prayer for the dead and indulgences have nothing to do with forgiveness of sins so they don't take away from what Jesus has done. Prayer is meant to help those undergoing purification just like prayer helps Christians who are suffering on earth. Indulgences are meant to reduce the temporal punishment for sins that have already been forgiven.

For believers, after death is to be "away from the body and at home with the Lord" (2 Corinthians 5:6-8; Philippians 1:23).

What translation are you using?

I checked several but couldn't find any that used that phrase. The closest I found was the NKJV which says, "So we are always confident, knowing that while we are at home in the body we are absent from the Lord. 7 For we walk by faith, not by sight. 8 We are confident, yes, well pleased rather to be absent from the body and to be present with the Lord. 2 Corinthians 5:6-8)"

Verse 6 simply says that while Christians are on earth they are not in heaven which is self-evident. Verse 8 simply says Paul would rather be with the Lord than here on earth. Neither verse says those who are not on earth are with the Lord in heaven.

Regarding Philippians 1:23, the NKJV says "I am hard-pressed between the two, having a desire to depart and be with Christ, which is far better." This verse also says nothing more than if Paul had to choose between remaining on earth and being in heaven, he would prefer to be in heaven with Christ.

 

[keltoi]

When it says "have not fully paid the satisfaction due to their transgressions" you have to understand scripture teaches both an eternal consequence and a temporal punishment for sin.

This is OT, Christ is the New Covenant and CHrist's Death and Resurection have done everything that was expected in the OT.

Catholics believe Jesus satisfied the eternal consequences of believer's sins but that believers sometimes undergo temporal punishment, either on earth or after death prior to entering heaven for the purpose of purification because scripture says regarding heaven "nothing impure shall enter it (Rev 21:27)."

So Catholics therfore reject Christ's Death and Resurection on their behalf and believe in a man made doctrine that says Christ's Death wasn't enough for your sins you must be punished even further.

The New Testament also teaches "For whom the Lord loves He chastens (Heb 12:6)". So although God forgave the sins of believers in Christ there can still be discipline, or temporal punishment associated with their sins. The catholic teaching is that those who die who love God but are still attached to their sins, God will discipline them prior to entering heaven to purify them since nothing impure can enter heaven.

Stop taking verse out of context and saying they support your belief.

If a person dies still attached to sin then he will suffer as his sins are being burned away. The purgatorial fire is not necessarily a literal material fire. Since scripture says "God is a consuming fire (Deut 4:24)", it may be the presence of God that purifies believers.

The Bible says all have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God. Christ also says No one comes to the Father except through me. No RCC Bishop saying you have spent enought time in an imaginary place called purgatory changes that the RCC Bishop has no such power.

The idea of believers' works being burned separately doesn't fix the context. It would mean God burns a person's sins without any effect on the believer so he wouldn't be escaping through any flames. Also, if the believer benefits when his good works are exposed to the fire then there is no reason to believe he wouldn't suffer when his bad works are exposed to it.

How sadly mistaken you are.

Catholics are fully aware of the effects of Jesus' sacrifice on the cross. Protestants, despite believing Jesus atoned for their sins, acknowledge they still have a sinful nature and still struggle with sin. The purification after death purges the sinful nature and attachment to sin so that believers can enter heaven with a pure heart, free from sin. Some Protestants, once they learn what the Catholic Church really teaches about purgatory, have come to accept it as the teaching of scripture.

Are Catholics fully aware of Christ's sacrifice on the Cross? If theya re why do they have Crucifixes that still have him on the Cross instead of acknowledging his Resurection? Let me remind you that the Bible says all have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God. Catholics are no different to Protestants. If you don't acknowledge you still have a sinful nature then you are mistaken.

Prayer for the dead and indulgences have nothing to do with forgiveness of sins so they don't take away from what Jesus has done.

Does the Parable of the rich man and Lazarus mean nothing? Once dead nothing changes, the physically dead are dead and anyone praying for them is simply a waste of oxygen that can be better used proclaming Christ.

Prayer is meant to help those undergoing purification just like prayer helps Christians who are suffering on earth. Indulgences are meant to reduce the temporal punishment for sins that have already been forgiven.

Wrong. Prayer for the dead is a waste of breath, Indulgences is a way to make money or get free work.

 

[keltoi]

Thanks tips but that wasn't my point. If you're going to interject then interject properly and stay on topic. If not then don't bother interjecting.

I wonder who made you a mod?

 

[StanJ]

The lost tribes were the northern kingdom, the 12 tribes are the united kingdom (2 southern tribes and 10 northern tribes).

Yes I know that, I was talking about Revelation 7:5-8, referring to the Twelve Tribes and showing the ten that were lost, sandwiched between Judah and Benjamin. However the ten lost tribes as indicated in Revelation are not the same as those of the Old Testament. You'll note that Levi is considered one of those tribes and Ephraim is not.

 

[StanJ]

I wonder who made you a mod?

I can't remember but it was a few years ago.

 

[keltoi]

I can't remember but it was a few years ago.

You've been a member for less than a month Stan

 

[StanJ]

If you believe no one has seen God because they only saw Jesus the man but not the word of God then you are holding a heretical view of Jesus condemned at the Council of Chalcedon. The catholic teaching is that Jesus is two natures but only one person. Therefore, those who have seen Jesus have seen God.

I believe exactly what Jesus said. Don't you? I also believe what Luke states in Hebrews 1:3 in the following link where you can read the Greek;
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=heb+1:3&version=MOUNCE

So you choose, either Jesus and Luke lied or you have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[StanJ]

You've been a member for less than a month Stan

I've been back for less than a month.

 

[StanJ]

Keep your straw man.

It's your strawman, I'm just trying to make you explain / identify it.

 

[Anguspure]

Could you cite an example?

I would have to ask him for a specific example of what he doesn't like. But perhaps the fact that the then incumbent Pope aknowledged and prayed at the alter of Lucifer under UN assembly hall, set some heads spinning.

 

[Anguspure]

If it is that important they can move. If there is not enough interest in the latin mass or the priest isn't qualified then they can't expect everyone to change for their preferences.

This has nothing to do with theology.

They did move but then had to move again. One can't support a young family of 13 on thin air.

Anyway, are you suggesting that when the most ancient traditions of the RC denomination are not upheld, this is ok?

 

[Anguspure]

Luther said it wasn't apostolic. How do you know the apostles' accepted it?

The revelation from Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John, who testifies to everything he saw—that is, the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ.
The servant John was an Apostle of Christ and also wrote the gospel of John and the letters 1,2 and 3 John.
That this book was written by this Apostle and that it contains the direct teaching of Our Lord (the letters to the 7 churches are the only directly dictated writing of Christ Jesus given in the Bible) should be sufficent reason alone.
I guess it could be said, at least, that the Apostle John accepted his own writings and that this gives the writing Apostolic authority in its own right.

 

[Anguspure]

ONLY the dead in Christ will be resurrected when Christ returns.

Ah yes, the living have no need for this procedure.

But at the risk of going way off topic, I think you are referring to the ones destined for judgement, and perhaps I am wrong. The timing of things in the heavans relative to solar time is often difficult to judge.

I suspect there is a bit of "Time Lord" style behaviour taking place i.e. Even though the next thing a person who dies knows is ressurection to life or judgement and this would appear to happen instantaneously, from another perspective (of time) it might also be true that these things do not happen until the end of the age or the return of Our Lord.

 

[Thursday]

Well I'm sure you can find them if you do a Google search on early church fathers or ECFs.

Try this. Google New Advent Early Fathers and you'll see hundreds of writings from early Church fathers. Unfortunately, from your standpoint, they are all Catholics.

Where are the people who believed as you believe?

 

[Thursday]

They did move but then had to move again. One can't support a young family of 13 on thin air.

Anyway, are you suggesting that when the most ancient traditions of the RC denomination are not upheld, this is ok?

There are requirements in liturgy, and there are optional portions of the mass. For example, the language and the music can be different. The ancient tradition is upheld even if you prefer a different language or musical style.

There are dogmas, which cannot change, and disciplines, which can change.

 

[Thursday]

I would have to ask him for a specific example of what he doesn't like. But perhaps the fact that the then incumbent Pope aknowledged and prayed at the alter of Lucifer under UN assembly hall, set some heads spinning.

Gibberish.

 

[samir]

The revelation from Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John, who testifies to everything he saw—that is, the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ.
The servant John was an Apostle of Christ and also wrote the gospel of John and the letters 1,2 and 3 John.
That this book was written by this Apostle and that it contains the direct teaching of Our Lord (the letters to the 7 churches are the only directly dictated writing of Christ Jesus given in the Bible) should be sufficent reason alone.
I guess it could be said, at least, that the Apostle John accepted his own writings and that this gives the writing Apostolic authority in its own right.

The Muratorian canon mentioned earlier says "We receive also the Apocalypse of John and that of Peter." I read the Apocalypse of Peter and, like Revelation, it too claims to be written by an Apostle and contains Christian teaching. Since Peter was more prominent than John, why don't you accept his Apocalypse?

When the Apostle Paul wrote to the Colossians he said, "After this letter has been read to you, see that it is also read in the church of the Laodiceans and that you in turn read the letter from Laodicea (Col 4:16)." Why do you consider Paul's letter to the Colossians to be God's word but not his letter to the Laodiceans?

The history channel had a show that said the Catholic Church knew of a Gospel of Thomas but left it out of the bible because it disagreed with the hierarchy. Like Revaltion, it too claims to be written by an Apostle and contains Christian teaching so why shouldn't I consider Thomas' gospel to be God's word?

 

[Anguspure]

Suppose you believe baptism is unnecessary for salvation but your bishop told you water baptism was necessary for salvation, would you humbly submit to the bishop's teaching and accept the necessity of water baptism for salvation?

Yes, because even if water baptism is not necessary for salvation, it is certainly necessary as a first outward sign of obedience and indentification with Our Lord.
Water baptism is specifically ordained by Christ Jesus himself and supplies actions to the declaration we make with our mouth that Jesus is Our Lord.

Yes, there is also a universal priesthood of all believers. Although all believers are priests, that does not mean there is not a ministerial priesthood.

I agree but this does not leave a sub-class of pew warmers.

Do you actually submit to your bishop when you have a disagreement over doctrine? If your believed in faith alone but your bishop told you that was not enough that works were necessary would you humbly submit or leave and find another bishop somewhere else who agrees with you?

In fact I have had just this sort of issue with a Pastor in a town near me (on a different theological point), but nevertheless wish to submit to Him in Love and humility and make Him welcome in my home.
On this issue I would humbly submit the letter of James to this Bishop. Works are necessary for faith, but they are the evidence of faith not things that create faith.
If the Bishop is the leader appointed by God in my town, to leave Him, perhaps causing others to leave as well, would create a division of the body (assuming no such division had already occured).
While I believe that the Bishop has fallen off the path on this issue I would not wish to scatter the flock.
In the event of continued disagreement on this issue I would just have to continue in my faith that produces works, and after all the Bishop wouldn't know the difference. He would just think I was trying very hard to be a good boy, thus gaining my salvation, when in fact what I am doing is simply evidence of the Spirit within me.

Submission to bishops is a vertical authority structure and the church that has maintained this structure from the beginning has the same faith it had in the beginning.

True and it has also maintained the same element of submission horizontally. It is a mark of Christ that we lay down our lives both vertically and horizontally, in all areas of life.

Nope. Oral tradition is more reliable than books because you can pass along the faith directly instead of having to interpret a book increasingly removed from one's culture and language.

The book however is permanent and not subject to revision. Culture and language issues are taken care of by good education. Look at the Torah, 9 letter level differences in over 2000 years. We can know with absolute confidence that the books given to Moses are identical to those that we have today.
The New Testament also has an exemplary paper trail from which we can know that with a few very minor uncertainties we hold the writings of the Apostles that were available to the 1st century church.
We cannot say the same of the oral tradition, especially when this was often passed on under the guidance of some pretty direputable people.

They didn't just whisper the faith in someone's ear one time like some schools had kids do to attempt to how oral traditions are unreliable. They instructed them and made sure they understood. When a bishop appeared to change something, there were protests and that bishop was corrected by the rest of the church. The fact their successors are in agreement is solid evidence the tradition was preserved faithfully.

If there was some concrete evidence for this I might be pursuaded but as it is, I am not. It is well known that scribes had difficulty enough maintaining faithful copies of the books of the Bible, but in this case we have a trail of copies by which we can make an assesment of their discrepencies.
In the case of the oral tradition we do not, and if we do it is because the record is in writing.

The apostles were men. The books in your bible were chosen by men. Those men were all catholic orthodox Christians who taught oral tradition.

A bit of equivocation here. Yes they were a part of the Christian church that is catholic. But when the Roman church became exclusive it became catholic in name only.

The New Testament wasn't written yet and since they were Jews they examined the Old Testament to see whether Paul's teaching about Jesus being the Messiah was true. Once they saw that Jesus fulfilled the prophecies in the scriptures they already accepted, they accepted Paul's message. Did you think they scrutinized the New Testament, not believing anything Paul taught unless they were able to confirm it in one of those books?

No I do not beleive this, but since the letters and gospels have in turn been accepted as reliable because of their standing in this respect, they have been regarded as scripture. I dare say at one point or another the same could be said for any part of the scripture that was recorded after another.

Since it's harder to manage the church, someone who can't manage their own family obviously shouldn't manage something more difficult than what he can handle. But that verse says nothing about those who are unmarried and don't have a family.
If the church decides to choose an unmarried person to be a priest instead of a married priest, that is a practice, not a doctrine or teaching.

Perhaps, but this is not the guidance given to Timothy. And the question is asked: How can he manage the church if he can't manage his own family? and; If he doesn't have a family how can it possibly be known whether he will be any good at managing a family?

Besides it is my observation over 25 years at sea that single men tend to become increasingly neurotic and tyranical over the years and this is not a desirable trait for a person who represents Christ Jesus.
It is a trait that is often observed in religous leaders that do not have a Loving and strong family behind them.

No it hasn't. Protestants claim that without one shred of evidence.

And yet it is certainly a plague of the RC denomination and my source is a priest by the name of Malachi Martin.

Scripture is interpreted in so many different ways by Protestants it is ridiculous. Protestants can't even agree on the essential teachings about salvation. The majority of Protestants I know hold blatantly anti-scriptural opinions based on their personal interpretations with faith alone and OSAS being the worst. Those two erroneous interpretations alone will probably result in millions of people going to hell.

OSAS?

If you got that from reading the papal bull, it should be in Latin. Is that your personal translation or did you quote it from someone else? Is it from Pope Innocent I or another Pope Innocent? What is the name of the 3rd bull he issued so I can look it up?

Pope Innocent III (Roman numerals) I amazed at the denial however. At the very least millions of people do not suddenly become slaughtered for nothing.

If you can provide a reliable source, I'm willing to consider it but not if it's from anti-catholic propaganda sites run by people full of hate.
What is the source of your quotes?
I researched similar quotes in the past and they turned out to be false so I don't want to waste my time doing that again. I learned there are many hateful people who will say anything to slander the church. They had to lie because they were unable to refute anything the catholic church actually taught.

So why then do you accept similiar stories about the Protestants?

I agree. Even atheists can be united to each other so I'm not sure what that proves.

It proves that we do not have to be in perfect agreement to be in unity. What is required is humility, gentleness and Love.

I prefer to be united with Christ and to fellowship with others willing to believe what He taught.

So would I.

I agree Jesus revealed that but he also revealed many other things such as that a person who has great faith that can move mountains is nothing if he has not love and that loving God involves obeying His commandments which is necessary for salvation.

Obeying His commands, the law of the Spirit, is evidence of salvation. It is not necessary for salvation to have followed His commands but a person who is saved and has His Spirit (and those that do not have His Spirit do not belong to Him) will follow His commands because they are living by the Spirit, NOT by the Law which is powerless to remove sin.

I agree 100% of that. Luther and Calvin really harmed the church and even caused a war that killed thousands, maybe millions. It's sad so many will end up in hell because of their false teachings.

So you say.

Luther's tradition of faith alone led, by his own admission, to a huge decline in morality as people no longer felt the need to obey God to escape eternal punishment in hell./quote]
I think Luther left a whole lot to be desired in his own conduct let alone that that he encouraged. Nevertheless Paul himself faced this same issue in at least Corinth and Galatia when he proclaimed the same freedom in Christ. His solution was not to deny the freedom of Faith but rather to urge beleivers to use their new found freedom for Love.

I read those letters many times. It's not taught there except in Luther's bible but only because he added the word alone based on his own self-proclaimed authority.

I have never read Luthers bible so I don't know what you're on about.

I encourage you to read the early Christian writings because you will see quite clearly they were definitely not Protestant.

Of course they weren't but the books of the New Testament stand on thier own merit and certainly don't teach the dominance of the RC denomination.

Faith alone is a man-made Protestant tradition that is in opposition to the Spirit of Christ. I hope you see that someday.

I will not depart from the teaching that I was first given, and the clear teaching that was first given to the Roman Church:

"What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, discovered in this matter? If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about—but not before God. What does Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”

Now to the one who works, wages are not credited as a gift but as an obligation. However, to the one who does not work but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness. David says the same thing when he speaks of the blessedness of the one to whom God credits righteousness apart from works: “Blessed are those whose transgressions are forgiven,

whose sins are covered.

Blessed is the one whose sin the Lord will never count against them.”

Is this blessedness only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? We have been saying that Abraham’s faith was credited to him as righteousness. Under what circumstances was it credited? Was it after he was circumcised, or before? It was not after, but before! And he received circumcision as a sign, a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. So then, he is the father of all who believe but have not been circumcised, in order that righteousness might be credited to them. And he is then also the father of the circumcised who not only are circumcised but who also follow in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.

It was not through the law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world, but through the righteousness that comes by faith. For if those who depend on the law are heirs, faith means nothing and the promise is worthless, because the law brings wrath. And where there is no law there is no transgression.

Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham’s offspring—not only to those who are of the law but also to those who have the faith of Abraham. He is the father of us all. As it is written: “I have made you a father of many nations.” He is our father in the sight of God, in whom he believed—the God who gives life to the dead and calls into being things that were not.

Against all hope, Abraham in hope believed and so became the father of many nations, just as it had been said to him, “So shall your offspring be.” Without weakening in his faith, he faced the fact that his body was as good as dead—since he was about a hundred years old—and that Sarah’s womb was also dead. Yet he did not waver through unbelief regarding the promise of God, but was strengthened in his faith and gave glory to God, being fully persuaded that God had power to do what he had promised. This is why “it was credited to him as righteousness.” The words “it was credited to him” were written not for him alone, but also for us, to whom God will credit righteousness—for us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead. He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification.
Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand. And we boast in the hope of the glory of God."

Since Jesus only founded one church, those 7 parishes all taught and believed the same Christian faith. They were not 7 individual churches that taught a variety of opinions that contradicted what the other churches taught.

Nobody suggest that they were and nobody is suggesting that the Roman church at the time was anything different. it is the proud ponitification that came later that is the issue and it is the same issue that Peter and the disciples had before Christ was crucified.
While He was preparing to carry out the greatest act of Love the world has ever seen the disciples were squabling over ranking and the church continues to be just as heartless today.
Why so bound up in the theological differences when Love in the body is so badly lacking? Why not first learn to follow Christ in Love? With our eyes fixed firmly on Him and who He is and what He represents the theological differences dissolve anyway.
The greatest will be least, you can have your greatness, and we the least will wait for Him.

The Roman church was praised for it's faithfulness in the book of Romans. It did not need correction like those 7 churches mentioned in Revelation.

There were 2 churches among the 7 that did not receive any correction at all so your reasoning is flawed.
Furthermore the letter to the Roman church is pastoral from Paul and while inspired by the Spirit of Christ did not come directly from the mouth of Christ Jesus as did the letters to the churches.
In any case the letter to the Roman church seems to be largely ignored by the current and historical Roman church so any praise for faithfullness has long vanished into the ether.

The problem is popular Protestant belief and trust is not enough for salvation and I sincerely hope Protestants realize that before it's too late. That belief mentioned in scripture includes submitting to the teaching of Christ, not just believing he is one's personal Savior. That teaching is found in the church Christ founded. Whoever hears those he sent hears Christ. Whoever rejects them, rejects Christ.

Quote from a direct Apostolic source please.

If those different understandings were about things God did not reveal (like some of the issues between Calvinists and Armenians which are similar to Molonists and Thomists on the Catholic side) then I would agree it should never be a justification for division of the body. However, different teachings that contradict each other and what Christ taught, especially regarding matters of salvation, should never be tolerated.

There will always be different teachings but the Church of Christ remains in Him, and just because one claims this Bishop or that denomination or some theological hoohaa means nothing if we are not found in Him.

Very true and an excellent verse thought it's important to know the faith is what Christ taught and that love involves obeying the commandments and is necessary for salvation.

One who has faith in the Spirit follows the Law of the Spirit because of the Spirit that is within Him. It is fruit that is looked for, not more manure at the base of the tree.

 

[Anguspure]

The Muratorian canon mentioned earlier says "We receive also the Apocalypse of John and that of Peter." I read the Apocalypse of Peter and, like Revelation, it too claims to be written by an Apostle and contains Christian teaching. Since Peter was more prominent than John, why don't you accept his Apocalypse?

Peter more prominent than John? Why do you keep condemning your favourite Apostle to the bottom of the heap in the kingdom? Anyway I've never read it so I will let you know what I think when I do.

When the Apostle Paul wrote to the Colossians he said, "After this letter has been read to you, see that it is also read in the church of the Laodiceans and that you in turn read the letter from Laodicea (Col 4:16)." Why do you consider Paul's letter to the Colossians to be God's word but not his letter to the Laodiceans?

Is there a copy available?

The history channel had a show that said the Catholic Church knew of a Gospel of Thomas but left it out of the bible because it disagreed with the hierarchy. Like Revaltion, it too claims to be written by an Apostle and contains Christian teaching so why shouldn't I consider Thomas' gospel to be God's word?

The gospel of Thomas along with the other 12 rejected gospels that are available are a really good example with which we can compare sober, historically, geographically and culturally accurate portrayals of 1st century Jewish life into which Jesus of Nazareth was born, with fantastic legends and story telling that bears now knowledge of the these things.

For example in all of the rejected gospels only 2 towns are mentioned: Bethlehem and Jerusalem, and they have zero knowledge of the geographical relationship between these 2 places, thus betraying the fact that these authors had never been near the land of Israel far less walked for miles and miles in the footsteps of the Rabbi.

Whereas the 4 accepted Gospels and the book of Acts take in a comprehensive geographical picture and show a real experiential knowledge of of the areas in which they take place.

I like the extra "gospels" because if some tells me that the writings that we have are simply legends I can invite them to read some real legends so as to compare with the 5 accepted accounts that we have.