What if Jesus comes tomorrow and it turns out these scriptures mean exactly as they read?

SabbathBlessings · Mar 3, 2021

The Liturgist said:
If @Root of Jesse is in error by being over-reliant on the Roman Catholic magisterium, and I don’t think he is by the way; the only doctrinal disagreement I think I might have with him based on reading his very good posts concerns the extent of the authority of the Bishop of Rome and also he and I might debate, if we cared, about the utility of the College of Cardinals; I prefer those churches where the Holy Synod comprises all bishops and there is not a group of elite bishops who are more episcopal than other bishops, but more churches than just the Roman Catholic are structured with a hierarchical hierarchy, but, if he were in error for relying on the Magisterium in excess in interpreting scripture, I fear you would be equally in error for relying on the writings of Ellen White.

My view is that the Roman Catholic Magisterium does contain some errors relating to certain doctrines, where the Eastern churches tend to have a better grasp on the issue, and I think there are particular problems with an over-reliance on Scholastics like Anselm of Canterbury and Thomas Aquinas; Aquinas was brilliant and I love reading his work, but there is I think a slight disconnect between it and what is often called the consensus patrum.

Likewise, the writings of Ellen White suffer from erroneous interpretations, but the errors she made were in my opinion larger, and more theologically problematic, than those errors in the Roman Catholic Magisterium which I can trace back to the Scholastic Era and the over-reliance of Aquinas on Anselm and also Augustine. But while I can read the Summa Theologica of Thomas Aquinas and enjoy it as a masterpiece of theological analysis, I find some of the more polemical works of Ellen White, like The Great Controversy, to be in great error, with unpleasant sectarian contempt of the Roman Catholic Church, a lack of charity shown to Catholics, an assumption that everyone who ever was a leader in the Catholic church had somehow been an enemy of divine truth, and also, a purported ecclesiastical history which is factually inaccurate.

Also, Thomas Aquinas was never heralded as a prophet, and to my knowledge, even the Roman doctrine of Papal infallibility does not confer any kind of prophetic authority or inspiration on Papal decrees.

This also takes us to the divergent eschatological expectations. A minority of Adventists, including I think you, from some of your posts, seem to believe that the rest of us are conspiring to make worship on Saturday illegal and Sunday worship mandatory. This is, frankly, nonsensical, because of two reasons: secularization and Islam. Muslims are outbreeding Christians and will soon overtake us as the largest religion on the planet. Their holy days of choice would be Thursday and Friday. Secularization meanwhile has caused a trend towards the repeal of “blue laws” limiting commerce on Sunday.

I would frankly welcome laws prohibiting youth sports activities from being scheduled on Sunday mornings; this pernicious trend in the US has been interfering with church attendance for decades. But otherwise I am generally opposed to “blue laws” and if there is any such conspiracy as some think, no one has let me in on it...

So the bottom line is that in my opinion neither of you are using Sola Scriptura. And neither am I; I am using primarily Patristic era exegesis, Eastern and Oriental Orthodox theology, and an eclectic blend of the best ideas from Roman Catholicism and the early Reformers, and lastly a heavy influence of John Wesley, who I think was probably the best theologian the Church of England ever produced, although I don’t agree with Wesley on everything, his work was exceedingly good.

I would also argue that it is impossible to claim sola scriptura as long as someone is relying on any singular infallible authority as an aid to interpretation.

You think there is something that is more important than eternal life? Ellen always said everything must be tested against scripture, Bible scripture. Does the pope also make these types of statements?

Valletta · Mar 3, 2021

imge said:
You think there is something that is more important than eternal life? Ellen always said everything must be tested against scripture, Bible scripture. Does the pope also make these types of statements?

No, the Catholic Church chose the 73 books of the Bible. Any text that was not 100 percent in compliance with Catholic teaching was rejected. The Bible is the book of the Catholic Church, not the other way around.

The Liturgist · Mar 3, 2021

imge said:
The church the Bible is referring to is God’s people, based on the Word of God, not a denomination. My question still stands. What if you’re wrong and only God can forgive sins like Jesus tells us and you only confessed yours to your church. Seems like there is a lot at stake.

The term “Catholic” literally means “according to the whole”, which is why various Protestant churches like the Anglicans, Lutherans and so on identify as being Evangelical Catholic, and also why the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox claim to be Catholic, and the full name of the Assyrian Church of the East, which is long and I can’t quite remember it, includes the word Catholic. The word is misused when applied only to the Roman Catholic Church, even in a Roman Catholic context, because there are several Eastern Catholic churches in communion with the Roman Catholic Church which are not Roman Catholic per se.

So when you use a phrase like “the church of the Bible”, it amuses me, because the three technically correct terms for the union of believers under Christ who have right doctrines are Catholic, Orthodox and Apostolic. And if you believe your doctrine is correct, you should not shy away from using those terms. Different people subscribe to different ecclesiologies, which is why the Roman Catholic Church, the Lutherans and the Orthodox can all claim to be Catholics while having different ideas about what the Church is and who is a part of it. Some people translate Catholic in the Nicene Creed to “Universal”, but the term is more complex, like many Greek theological words; the easiest way to translate it beyond the literal “according to the whole” is to say that the Catholic church is that which possesses the entirety of the true Apostolic doctrine of Christianity and the entirety of the adherents of that doctrine. So ironically if you believe that only the SDA and related Sabbatarian churches like the Seventh Day Baptists have the right doctrines, the correct term would not be “the Church of the Bible” but “the Catholic Church,” since Catholicity is like Orthodoxy: the definition of it is disputed.

Now, moving on, you seem to ignore that in Matthew 16, Jesus Christ did delegate to the Apostles the ability to bind and loose sins. And when I challenged you with that verse before, you quoted the Pharisees in Mark! I don’t understand why you would quote the Pharisees as a source of doctrinal authority since a major point of the Gospels and the New Testament is that they were in error. Also, logically, since the Seventh Day Adventist church is a Christian church, SDA ministers like those in the rest of the Church Catholic have the ability to forgive and retain sins, since this was delegated to the Apostles by God and was not a one-time thing; nowhere in the Bible does it suggest that God revoked the authority given to the Church by Him to bind and loose sins. God is ultimately the one who forgives, but the Church is the Ark of Salvation, the chosen vessel by which this forgiveness is administered.

imge said:
You think there is something that is more important than eternal life?

Firstly, what in my post prompted you to ask that question? It has nothing to do with anything I wrote in my reply to you, which dealt with the Catholic Magisterium and what is effectively the Adventist Magisterium.

Secondly, the answer is actually yes, there is something more important than eternal life, that being God Himself, without whom there would be no life, eternal or otherwise, and who is love. How can I possibly say eternal life is more important than God? And if I cannot love everyone, and if eternal life is not filled with love and grace, that is the definition of Hell, something Jesus Christ warned us about but which the SDA denies owing to its Annihilationist doctrine, which no major denomination believed in before the Adventists, which again is contradicted by the words of our Lord. So my first goal is to love God with all my heart, mind and soul; my second goal is to love my neighbor as myself; and my third aspiration is that God will have mercy on me for my terrible sins and permit me to be with Him for eternity, but as He said, “I will have mercy on who I will have mercy.” It would be presumptuous of me to assume I had obtained eternal life since that decision is up to God. The church may forgive sins on God’s behalf, but only Jesus knows if He knows me, and I know Him.

Ellen always said everything must be tested against scripture, Bible scripture. Does the pope also make these types of statements?

The problem isn’t that Ellen White said that everything should be tested against Scripture; she was quoting the New Testament in that incident, where reference is made to the noble Bereans, who did test the Gospel preached by the holy Apostles against the Old Testament and realized the Gospel was true.

The problem rather is that a small minority of Adventists seem to want to test scripture against Ellen White, and other non-scriptural doctrinal sources. Like your assertion that ministers do not have the ability to bind and loose; that’s literally not what Jesus says. Or annihlationism. It’s literally not what Jesus says. Jesus Christ is the Word of God, and the Bible, which is the written icon of the Word, the word of the Word if you will, or a container of the Word, records that Jesus, the Word, gave ministers the power to bind and loose, and did warn of eternal hellfire. So if we test your doctrines that you are talking about with Scripture, there is an inconsistency.

So my point is, you’re not doing sola scriptura any more than @Root of Jesse , and it might be that you’re actually further from a sola scriptura approach since @Root of Jesse and @concretecamper are exegeting these passages they have quoted against scripture in a manner which is consistent and logical, even if I don’t agree precisely with their exegesis (specifically, I believe that the authority given to Peter propagated to his successors not just in Rome but in Antioch, and also via his own follower, Mark the Evangelist, into Alexandria, and also from all of the other disciples, who did in Acts act in union when they ordained Matthias to replace Judas Iscariot and then when they ordained the Seven Deacons. And I personally believe this authority now exists in the entire Catholic Church, which includes the Roman Catholic Church and any other church which can articulate orthodox doctrine, which most evangelicals agree the SDA does.

So regardless of your opinion, the Adventist Church in adhering to the Nicene Creed would under such a definition of Catholicity have the authority and responsibility to bind and loose with regards to her own members.

SabbathBlessings · Mar 3, 2021

Valletta said:
No, the Catholic Church chose the 73 books of the Bible. Any text that was not 100 percent in compliance with Catholic teaching was rejected. The Bible is the book of the Catholic Church, not the other way around.

My Bible has 66 books. And that is the most ridiculous statement I have ever heard. The Bible is God’s Word and no man, no church is above God.

concretecamper · Mar 3, 2021

imge said:
The church the Bible is referring to is God’s people

exactly, the Baptized.

imge said:
based on the Word of God

which is not limited to scripture

imge said:
not a denomination

no question about it, not protestant.

imge said:
What if you’re wrong and only God can forgive sins like Jesus tells us

not true. Know scripture much?
John 20:22 When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost.
20:23 Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them: and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.

imge said:
Seems like there is a lot at stake

that is why I follow EVERYTHING Jesus taught.

SabbathBlessings · Mar 3, 2021

concretecamper said:
exactly, the Baptized.
which is not limited to scripture
no question about it, not protestant.
not true. Know scripture much?
John 20:22 When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost.
20:23 Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them: and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.
that is why I follow EVERYTHING Jesus taught.

I will stick with Bible scripture, any changes to God’s Word we are warned about.

Proverbs 30:
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.

concretecamper · Mar 3, 2021

imge said:
I will stick with Bible scripture, any changes to God’s Word we are warned about

sort of like the incorrect statement

imge said:
What if you’re wrong and only God can forgive sins like Jesus tells us and you only confessed yours to your church

Ok then

The Liturgist · Mar 3, 2021

imge said:
My Bible has 66 books. And that is the most ridiculous statement I have ever heard. The Bible is God’s Word and no man, no church is above God.

Ok, dude, let me break it down for you: when Jesus ascended, and the Apostles were given the Great Commission, and the Spirit descended on them at Pentecost, the Gospel began to be preached immediately, but the four Gospel books had not yet been written. It would take several decades for the apostles and the evangelists to write all 27 books in the protocanonical New Testament.

Secondly, John 1:1 says that the Word of God is Jesus Christ. The Bible could be said to be the written Word, or to contain the Word or be a verbal icon of the Word, but the Word is Jesus Christ.

Thirdly, the Church belongs to God. It is the mystical Body of Christ. Jesus is the head of the Church. When we believe in Jesus, when we are baptized, when we take communion, we are uniting ourselves with Him in His Church, His Body. Individual local churches with a small c are not above God, but the entire Church Catholic, which if we go by Evangelical ecclesiological doctrine, includes the SDA, is the Body of Christ, so speaking of a division between God and the Church as a whole is erroneous.

The Liturgist · Mar 3, 2021

imge said:
My Bible has 66 books. And that is the most ridiculous statement I have ever heard. The Bible is God’s Word and no man, no church is above God.

Continuing from my previous post, while there is a universally agreed upon minimum canon which consists of 66 books, of this, as I stated previously, the 27 books that represent the canonical New Testament had to be written. Given how long St. John the Beloved Disciple lived, it is possible Revelations or other Johannine texts were written close to the turn of the second century.

During and after, heretics produced spurious texts, literal false Gospels like the Gospel According to Thomas, the Gospel According to Philip, the Gospel According to Mary, even a Gospel According to Judas! And there were also psuedepigraphical writings which while not obviously heretical, were ultimately deemed to be inauthentic, such as 1 Barnabas. And finally there are deuterocanonical books, legitimate Apocrypha, which churches are free to include or not include in their canon. The definitive New Testament canon was determined by St. Athanasius of Alexandria, who was also the chief defender of Christianity against Arianism in the Eastern Roman Empire. He excluded 1 Barnabas, he excluded the Infancy Gospel According to James, which was extremely popular in the early church, and another very popular text which could have been part of the New Testament, The Shepherd of Hermas, he consigned to sub-canonical status, as something to be read to edify catechumens but not as Scripture.

Lastly, he included all of the familiar epistles, while at the time most bibles being printed lacked some, and in a bold move, he included Revelations. Revelations was extremely controversial in the Fourth Century church; many bishops regarded it as spurious, but it was included in the New Testament because of the respect the early church had for Athanasius, and today it is one of the most influential, popular and important works of Scripture. Considering how much of Ellen White’s writings revolve around eschatology, imagine how different our lives would have been had Athanasius not endorsed Revelations. Without him including it in his list of canonical New Testament books, it is probable the early church would have eventually rejected it, as they did with several other apocalyptic texts which were not, strictly speaking, heretical.

Also, what Bible do you have? If it’s a King James Version, the KJV proper includes the Deuterocanonical books the Catholics read, because the Anglicans also read those books, such as Tobit, Wisdom, Sirach, Judith and the Maccabees, for edification, but most printed KJVs started omitting them around 1790 under pressure from non-Anglicans who did not regard those texts as having any merit.

Conversely, the Ethiopian Orthodox Church contains many books not in the canons used by other churches, such as 1 Enoch. The Armenian Bible includes 3 Corinthians. Also, @MarkRohfrietsch mentioned in a thread I read a while back, if I recall correctly, that Lutherans do not have a “closed canon,” so for Lutherans I would presume the question of what to do with the deuterocanonical books used by all Orthodox, the Roman Catholics, and Anglicans, up to individual Lutherans (correct me if I am wrong here), and furthermore, Martin Luther wanted to delete Jude, Hebrews, Revelations and especially the Epistle of James, but because of the heavy use of these books in Christianity, he was persuaded reluctantly to translate them into German, but he made his distaste for them known by shoving them into the very end of the New Testament, hence those four books became known as “Luther’s Antilegomenna.”

So, your Bible may only have 66 books, but that doesn’t mean that the Bible only has 66 books. The exact number of books is indeterminate because of a lack of consensus on the canon, and also the fact that there exist multiple versions of some Old Testament books (Esther and Daniel most notably), and in the Greek Septuagint translation of the Old Testament, which was made 200 years before Christ, the Psalms are numbered and versified differently, and there are 151 of them (however the Orthodox only use the usual 150 in worship). There are also Psalms 152-155, which survive only in Syriac manuscripts, and the Epistle of Paul to the Laodiceans; I have not heard any doctrinal complaints regarding Psalms 152-155, nor with Laodiceans, but no church includes these in its canon that I am aware of; also Laodiceans is widely regarded as spurious, a “pious fraud.”

Since the Bible does not have a divinely inspired Table of Contents, what we have instead is a minimum consensus of 27 New Testament books, and less than 22 Old Testament books (Esther was mildly controversial because the shorter “modern” Hebrew text lacks the theological content of the earlier Septuagint translation.

On that last note, by the way, the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls shows there are indeed several versions of popular Old Testament books, and that the Jews did use these different versions, for example, versions which align with the Septuagint in content and fragments of 1 Enoch.

Christ, who is the true Word of God (John 1:1) is present in all of these books regardless.

Valletta · Mar 3, 2021

imge said:
My Bible has 66 books. And that is the most ridiculous statement I have ever heard. The Bible is God’s Word and no man, no church is above God.

The Catholic Church chose the 73 books of the Bible in a process that spanned centuries. St. Athanasius is credited with the first Biblical canon (NT) containing the same books in the same order we use today. The list was approved by Pope Damasus and formally approved of by Councils at Hippo and Carthage in the late 300s. Pope Innocent I wrote a letter to the Bishop of Toulouse in 405 A.D. which was re-affirmed at Carthage in 419 A.D., by the Council of Florence 1442 A.D., and by the Council of Trent in 1546 A.D.
All Bibles had 73 books for roughly a thousand years until the Protestant reformation when 7 books were dropped. No Catholic Church, no Bible.

The Liturgist · Mar 3, 2021

Valletta said:
The Catholic Church chose the 73 books of the Bible in a process that spanned centuries. St. Athanasius is credited with the first Biblical canon (NT) containing the same books in the same order we use today. The list was approved by Pope Damasus and formally approved of by Councils at Hippo and Carthage in the late 300s. Pope Innocent I wrote a letter to the Bishop of Toulouse in 405 A.D. which was re-affirmed at Carthage in 419 A.D., by the Council of Florence 1442 A.D., and by the Council of Trent in 1546 A.D.
All Bibles had 73 books for roughly a thousand years until the Protestant reformation when 7 books were dropped. No Catholic Church, no Bible.

It’s not that simple. The councils you are talking about are local synods that applied only in the Roman church, and which were used ultimately in effect to determine which of the books translated by St. Jerome would be included as part of the canonical Vulgate, because St. Jerome did reluctantly translate books like 4 Esdras he considered spurious, “lest they perish completely.”

Then, your Greek Catholics, the Sui Juris Greek Catholic churches, of which there are many, tend to use the same Bible as their Orthodox counterparts, which has slightly more material than the Vulgate, is translated entirely from the Septuagint, and also numbers some books differently. I have also been told that the Ethiopian Catholics accept some books popular in Ethiopian Christianity that are elsewhere regarded as apocryphal, like 1 Enoch, but I havent been able to verify this as the Ethiopian Catholic Church is small and obscure.

You also overlooked Pope Gelasius, who wrote a list, I forget the formal name of it, of books which were and were not canonical, and that list proved extremely important in the formation of the canon of Roman Catholic scripture and also in the acceptance of the Athanasian Canon of 27 books; had Gelasius and the Roman Church not endorsed the Athanasian canon, it is likely that an earlier proposed canon for the New Testament without Revelations and several of the epistles would have prevailed outside of the Church of Alexandria. Indeed, East Syriac versions of the Peshitta printer by the Assyrian Church of the East and presumably by the Chaldean Catholics and Syro-Malabar Catholics do contain this smaller canon; only the West Syriac version of the Peshitta used by the Syriac Orthodox, the Syriac Catholics, and at one time, the Maronites, have all 27 books (although the Assyrian Church of the East does not deny the authenticity or canonicity of the books missing from the Peshitta; rather, their answer is they only print in the Peshitta the books they read in church according to the lectionary of the East Syriac liturgical tradition.

Strong in Him · Mar 4, 2021

Root of Jesse said:
Where did I say otherwise?

I didn't say that you did say otherwise.
I was stating that fact because other Catholics on these forums have said otherwise.

Root of Jesse said:
Sir,

Madam

Root of Jesse said:
would you stop putting words in my mouth?

I wasn't putting words in your mouth, I was questioning and trying to find out what you meant.
You acknowledge that I have Jesus and that Jesus is the truth - but said that Protestants only have "a subset" of the truth. What does that mean? WERE you saying that either i don't fully have Jesus, who is the truth, or that there is more truth besides Jesus, that Protestants do not have?

Root of Jesse said:
I'm talking about the faith, which came from Jesus, but is not Jesus. It points to Jesus. Is Jesus, he, himself, baptism? No, but he tells us the faith, to be baptized. Is Jesus the Sermon on the Mount? No, but he certainly taught us how we should live there.

As Jesus is the Truth then clearly everything he taught and did was true as well.
So Jesus doesn't have to BE baptism - he told his disciples to go and baptise in his name, and he, and John the Baptist, said that he would baptise in the Holy Spirit. Therefore, baptism is part of the faith.
The sermon on the Mount is true because Jesus taught it - he is the truth, therefore he speaks, and teaches, truth.

Root of Jesse said:
See my point?

As Jesus is truth, all his words and actions are truth.
So no, I don't really see what you are getting at.

Root of Jesse said:
And my point, getting to the original question, is that you (Protestants) don't believe Jesus meant what he, himself, said in some passages, such as Matthew 16:18-20 and John 6.

Of course we do.
We don't accept the Catholic interpretation and the consequences of that interpretation.
For example, you say that the rock on which Jesus said he would build his church was Peter- the consequence of that is that you say Peter was the first leader in the church, was the first bishop and therefore the first Pope. And that, somehow, that makes the Catholic church the true church; being built on Peter, as Jesus said.
Whereas I, and I think Protestants, believe that the Rock on which Jesus builds his church is the phrase "you are the Christ, the Son of God". GOD is the rock - the Psalms describe him as such and Peter himself says that Jesus is the living stone rejected by men, 1 Peter 2:4. The church is built on Jesus - Peter's confession that Jesus is the Messiah and Son of God is the foundation stone. Paul says this as well, that Jesus is the foundation stone, 1 Corinthians 3:11. A church that is built on a human being would not last, as humans are fallible; a church built on Jesus, the Son of God and living stone, cannot fail because GOD is the foundation.
Yet because we don't have the same interpretation of this verse as you, that leads to accusations that we don't believe the words of Jesus.

Similarly with John 6; of course we believe that Jesus is the Bread of life, that we need to feed on him, that he is present in the bread and wine at communion and that we are taking him into our lives when we feed on him.
But I have heard Catholics say that we have to believe that the bread and wine somehow, literally, become flesh and blood in our mouths in order to REALLY believe those words of Jesus. I can't speak for other Protestants, but I do not believe that. I do not believe it is necessary to believe that in order to be spiritually fed by Jesus and have communion with him, and I do not see either that he taught this, nor that the early church practiced it. The early church broke bread daily, Acts 2:46. It does not say that they all believed that they were literally eating Jesus' flesh, and that anyone who believed differently was sent away. There isn't even any mention of wine in this verse.
So again, we have a slightly different interpretation - though leading to the same result, that we both have fellowship with Jesus and feed on him. Yet somehow it is only Catholics who are correct, while we are told "you don't believe in the words of Jesus."

Root of Jesse said:
The Magisterium, which is the teaching Office of the Church and is compounded from the writings of the Church, tell us what those Scriptures mean and proved it to me beyond a shadow of a doubt.

It's the teaching office of the Catholic church.
And if you accept what they teach, and their interpretation of certain verses, go for it. If these things help you in your faith and bring you closer to the Lord; good.
But that has led to some of your fellow Catholics teaching that Protestants are not true Christians, and one even said that we belong to an apostate church - which I refute.
I wouldn't choose to worship in a Catholic church, personally, yet I believe that Catholics are Christians.
It appears that not all Catholics are that charitable about Protestants.

Root of Jesse said:
I pray that Creed every week. And say Amen afterward.

Yes, as do I.
My point was - and this was written with other conversations with Catholics in mind - that if we believe the same Lord and confess the same faith, we are one in God's eyes and therefore equal. You may not have said otherwise, and I apologise if I made it appear like that; but other Catholics have. They have implied that they are either greater, more advanced spiritually or somehow have more of the truth than Protestants.

Root of Jesse said:
There is obviously a subset of the Truth, to Protestants.

That's what I'm saying - there isn't.
We all believe the words of Jesus, our Saviour, the Son of God, that are written in Scripture. We have a different interpretation of those words.
The Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16:16-18 is that the church is built on Peter, who was the first leader/bishop/pope - and that, somehow, that makes the Catholic church the only true church. Because of that interpretation, it follows that everything that Catholic bishops, theologians and the pope teaches will be, for you, the truth. It has to be; you have already asserted that your church is built on Peter.
It also follows that if you believe that you have the truth then anyone who differs from you does not have the truth, or maybe not the whole truth. That follows logically - but it may not be true.

Root of Jesse said:
You're trying to tell me that it's not the Truth that Peter was given an office?

Not exactly.
Peter was restored by Jesus after the resurrection - he had to be; he had denied Jesus 3 x and needed forgiveness and restoration before he could serve God. Yes, he was told by Jesus to feed his sheep, and yes, he gave the first sermon at Pentecost, several others as well and was used by God in great ways.
I think, personally, that James was the leader of the church in Jerusalem, and there are a few commentators who agree.
The point is, though, that even if Peter WAS the first leader; even if the Lord himself appeared to me tonight and said "Peter was my first leader, and therefore bishop", so what? That was then. He doesn't lead now; he is not head of the church now, Jesus is. Peter was given a task, an important task, in the church and, for what it's worth, was a faithful and inspiring person. Peter pointed people to Jesus, though, and taught only about Jesus.

Root of Jesse said:
We believe we have the entire Truth, including the right Scriptural interpretation based on what the Early Church Fathers wrote, and that Protestants excised that, and therefore don't have the entire Truth.

You're entitled to that belief.

Root of Jesse said:
I'm Catholic, and I believe you're my brother

Sister.

Root of Jesse said:
in Christ, and that every human is important to God, all equal.

Great.

But the fact remains that not all Catholics think like that, and have said that Protestants aren't saved, are not true Christians and do not believe that we are all equal.

The Liturgist · Mar 4, 2021

Strong in Him said:
I didn't say that you did say otherwise.
I was stating that fact because other Catholics on these forums have said otherwise.

Madam

I wasn't putting words in your mouth, I was questioning and trying to find out what you meant.
You acknowledge that I have Jesus and that Jesus is the truth - but said that Protestants only have "a subset" of the truth. What does that mean? WERE you saying that either i don't fully have Jesus, who is the truth, or that there is more truth besides Jesus, that Protestants do not have?

As Jesus is the Truth then clearly everything he taught and did was true as well.
So Jesus doesn't have to BE baptism - he told his disciples to go and baptise in his name, and he, and John the Baptist, said that he would baptise in the Holy Spirit. Therefore, baptism is part of the faith.
The sermon on the Mount is true because Jesus taught it - he is the truth, therefore he speaks, and teaches, truth.

As Jesus is truth, all his words and actions are truth.
So no, I don't really see what you are getting at.

Of course we do.
We don't accept the Catholic interpretation and the consequences of that interpretation.
For example, you say that the rock on which Jesus said he would build his church was Peter- the consequence of that is that you say Peter was the first leader in the church, was the first bishop and therefore the first Pope. And that, somehow, that makes the Catholic church the true church; being built on Peter, as Jesus said.
Whereas I, and I think Protestants, believe that the Rock on which Jesus builds his church is the phrase "you are the Christ, the Son of God". GOD is the rock - the Psalms describe him as such and Peter himself says that Jesus is the living stone rejected by men, 1 Peter 2:4. The church is built on Jesus - Peter's confession that Jesus is the Messiah and Son of God is the foundation stone. Paul says this as well, that Jesus is the foundation stone, 1 Corinthians 3:11. A church that is built on a human being would not last, as humans are fallible; a church built on Jesus, the Son of God and living stone, cannot fail because GOD is the foundation.
Yet because we don't have the same interpretation of this verse as you, that leads to accusations that we don't believe the words of Jesus.

Similarly with John 6; of course we believe that Jesus is the Bread of life, that we need to feed on him, that he is present in the bread and wine at communion and that we are taking him into our lives when we feed on him.
But I have heard Catholics say that we have to believe that the bread and wine somehow, literally, become flesh and blood in our mouths in order to REALLY believe those words of Jesus. I can't speak for other Protestants, but I do not believe that. I do not believe it is necessary to believe that in order to be spiritually fed by Jesus and have communion with him, and I do not see either that he taught this, nor that the early church practiced it. The early church broke bread daily, Acts 2:46. It does not say that they all believed that they were literally eating Jesus' flesh, and that anyone who believed differently was sent away. There isn't even any mention of wine in this verse.
So again, we have a slightly different interpretation - though leading to the same result, that we both have fellowship with Jesus and feed on him. Yet somehow it is only Catholics who are correct, while we are told "you don't believe in the words of Jesus."

It's the teaching office of the Catholic church.
And if you accept what they teach, and their interpretation of certain verses, go for it. If these things help you in your faith and bring you closer to the Lord; good.
But that has led to some of your fellow Catholics teaching that Protestants are not true Christians, and one even said that we belong to an apostate church - which I refute.
I wouldn't choose to worship in a Catholic church, personally, yet I believe that Catholics are Christians.
It appears that not all Catholics are that charitable about Protestants.

Yes, as do I.
My point was - and this was written with other conversations with Catholics in mind - that if we believe the same Lord and confess the same faith, we are one in God's eyes and therefore equal. You may not have said otherwise, and I apologise if I made it appear like that; but other Catholics have. They have implied that they are either greater, more advanced spiritually or somehow have more of the truth than Protestants.

That's what I'm saying - there isn't.
We all believe the words of Jesus, our Saviour, the Son of God, that are written in Scripture. We have a different interpretation of those words.
The Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16:16-18 is that the church is built on Peter, who was the first leader/bishop/pope - and that, somehow, that makes the Catholic church the only true church. Because of that interpretation, it follows that everything that Catholic bishops, theologians and the pope teaches will be, for you, the truth. It has to be; you have already asserted that your church is built on Peter.
It also follows that if you believe that you have the truth then anyone who differs from you does not have the truth, or maybe not the whole truth. That follows logically - but it may not be true.

Not exactly.
Peter was restored by Jesus after the resurrection - he had to be; he had denied Jesus 3 x and needed forgiveness and restoration before he could serve God. Yes, he was told by Jesus to feed his sheep, and yes, he gave the first sermon at Pentecost, several others as well and was used by God in great ways.
I think, personally, that James was the leader of the church in Jerusalem, and there are a few commentators who agree.
The point is, though, that even if Peter WAS the first leader; even if the Lord himself appeared to me tonight and said "Peter was my first leader, and therefore bishop", so what? That was then. He doesn't lead now; he is not head of the church now, Jesus is. Peter was given a task, an important task, in the church and, for what it's worth, was a faithful and inspiring person. Peter pointed people to Jesus, though, and taught only about Jesus.

You're entitled to that belief.

Sister.

Great.

But the fact remains that not all Catholics think like that, and have said that Protestants aren't saved, are not true Christians and do not believe that we are all equal.

Many high church Anglicans do actually believe in Transsubstantiation or something similiar, despite the Black Rubric. That’s also a major reason why the so-called Black Rubric has been omitted from most versions of the Book of Common Prayer used outside the Church of England, and it was also omitted from the 1928 Deposited Book which Parliament rejected.

Root of Jesse · Mar 4, 2021

imge said:
I am going to use my line, that you used, and I am going to use again but apply it to these scriptures:

What if Jesus comes tomorrow and it turns out these scriptures mean exactly as they read?

What if it turns out only God can save you and you only confessed to your church and what Jesus told us was exactly what He meant?

John 14:6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.

1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus,

Acts 16: 30 And he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?”31 So they said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.” 32 Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. 33 And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized.

John 10:7 Then Jesus said to them again, “Most assuredly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep. 8 All who ever came before Me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not hear them. 9 I am the door. If anyone enters by Me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture. 10 The thief does not come except to steal, and to kill, and to destroy. I have come that they may have life, and that they may have it more abundantly.

John 3:16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. 17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.

Acts 4:10 let it be known to you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, by Him this man stands here before you whole. 11 This is the ‘stone which was rejected by you builders, which has become the chief cornerstone.’ 12 Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”

Ephesians2: 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God

I completely agree with you, you'll be fascinated to understand. Only God can save us. But the Church is God's institution, and therefore, what we do through the Church for the glory of God is merited to us.
All your underlines, bolds and italics notwithstanding.

Root of Jesse · Mar 4, 2021

Strong in Him said:
I didn't say that you did say otherwise.
I was stating that fact because other Catholics on these forums have said otherwise.

Madam

My apologies.

I wasn't putting words in your mouth, I was questioning and trying to find out what you meant.
You acknowledge that I have Jesus and that Jesus is the truth - but said that Protestants only have "a subset" of the truth. What does that mean? WERE you saying that either i don't fully have Jesus, who is the truth, or that there is more truth besides Jesus, that Protestants do not have?

How would I know if you fully have Jesus? But what you are doing is missing out. Jesus presents us a banquet, and you choose not to partake of it completely. But you are at the banquet, in my view.

As Jesus is the Truth then clearly everything he taught and did was true as well.
So Jesus doesn't have to BE baptism - he told his disciples to go and baptise in his name, and he, and John the Baptist, said that he would baptise in the Holy Spirit. Therefore, baptism is part of the faith.
The sermon on the Mount is true because Jesus taught it - he is the truth, therefore he speaks, and teaches, truth.

Jesus, the Truth, left us a faith. A way to practice what He taught us. You disagree with how to carry that out.

As Jesus is truth, all his words and actions are truth.
So no, I don't really see what you are getting at.

Of course we do.
We don't accept the Catholic interpretation and the consequences of that interpretation.
For example, you say that the rock on which Jesus said he would build his church was Peter- the consequence of that is that you say Peter was the first leader in the church, was the first bishop and therefore the first Pope. And that, somehow, that makes the Catholic church the true church; being built on Peter, as Jesus said.
Whereas I, and I think Protestants, believe that the Rock on which Jesus builds his church is the phrase "you are the Christ, the Son of God". GOD is the rock - the Psalms describe him as such and Peter himself says that Jesus is the living stone rejected by men, 1 Peter 2:4. The church is built on Jesus - Peter's confession that Jesus is the Messiah and Son of God is the foundation stone. Paul says this as well, that Jesus is the foundation stone, 1 Corinthians 3:11. A church that is built on a human being would not last, as humans are fallible; a church built on Jesus, the Son of God and living stone, cannot fail because GOD is the foundation.
Yet because we don't have the same interpretation of this verse as you, that leads to accusations that we don't believe the words of Jesus.

Regarding the Rock, Can't Jesus be the foundation on which the Rock, Peter was building on? Jesus is the cornerstone on which the Church was built.

Similarly with John 6; of course we believe that Jesus is the Bread of life, that we need to feed on him, that he is present in the bread and wine at communion and that we are taking him into our lives when we feed on him.
But I have heard Catholics say that we have to believe that the bread and wine somehow, literally, become flesh and blood in our mouths in order to REALLY believe those words of Jesus. I can't speak for other Protestants, but I do not believe that. I do not believe it is necessary to believe that in order to be spiritually fed by Jesus and have communion with him, and I do not see either that he taught this, nor that the early church practiced it. The early church broke bread daily, Acts 2:46. It does not say that they all believed that they were literally eating Jesus' flesh, and that anyone who believed differently was sent away. There isn't even any mention of wine in this verse.
So again, we have a slightly different interpretation - though leading to the same result, that we both have fellowship with Jesus and feed on him. Yet somehow it is only Catholics who are correct, while we are told "you don't believe in the words of Jesus."

Because historically, what is meant by what was written was known by the original Church, and then changed 1500 years later.

It's the teaching office of the Catholic church.
And if you accept what they teach, and their interpretation of certain verses, go for it. If these things help you in your faith and bring you closer to the Lord; good.
But that has led to some of your fellow Catholics teaching that Protestants are not true Christians, and one even said that we belong to an apostate church - which I refute.
I wouldn't choose to worship in a Catholic church, personally, yet I believe that Catholics are Christians.
It appears that not all Catholics are that charitable about Protestants.

Yes, as do I.
My point was - and this was written with other conversations with Catholics in mind - that if we believe the same Lord and confess the same faith, we are one in God's eyes and therefore equal. You may not have said otherwise, and I apologise if I made it appear like that; but other Catholics have. They have implied that they are either greater, more advanced spiritually or somehow have more of the truth than Protestants.

That's what I'm saying - there isn't.
We all believe the words of Jesus, our Saviour, the Son of God, that are written in Scripture. We have a different interpretation of those words.
The Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16:16-18 is that the church is built on Peter, who was the first leader/bishop/pope - and that, somehow, that makes the Catholic church the only true church. Because of that interpretation, it follows that everything that Catholic bishops, theologians and the pope teaches will be, for you, the truth. It has to be; you have already asserted that your church is built on Peter.
It also follows that if you believe that you have the truth then anyone who differs from you does not have the truth, or maybe not the whole truth. That follows logically - but it may not be true.

Not exactly.
Peter was restored by Jesus after the resurrection - he had to be; he had denied Jesus 3 x and needed forgiveness and restoration before he could serve God. Yes, he was told by Jesus to feed his sheep, and yes, he gave the first sermon at Pentecost, several others as well and was used by God in great ways.
I think, personally, that James was the leader of the church in Jerusalem, and there are a few commentators who agree.
The point is, though, that even if Peter WAS the first leader; even if the Lord himself appeared to me tonight and said "Peter was my first leader, and therefore bishop", so what? That was then. He doesn't lead now; he is not head of the church now, Jesus is. Peter was given a task, an important task, in the church and, for what it's worth, was a faithful and inspiring person. Peter pointed people to Jesus, though, and taught only about Jesus.

You're entitled to that belief.

Sister.

Great.

But the fact remains that not all Catholics think like that, and have said that Protestants aren't saved, are not true Christians and do not believe that we are all equal.

SabbathBlessings · Mar 4, 2021

The Liturgist said:
Ok, dude, let me break it down for you: when Jesus ascended, and the Apostles were given the Great Commission, and the Spirit descended on them at Pentecost, the Gospel began to be preached immediately, but the four Gospel books had not yet been written. It would take several decades for the apostles and the evangelists to write all 27 books in the protocanonical New Testament.

Secondly, John 1:1 says that the Word of God is Jesus Christ. The Bible could be said to be the written Word, or to contain the Word or be a verbal icon of the Word, but the Word is Jesus Christ.

Thirdly, the Church belongs to God. It is the mystical Body of Christ. Jesus is the head of the Church. When we believe in Jesus, when we are baptized, when we take communion, we are uniting ourselves with Him in His Church, His Body. Individual local churches with a small c are not above God, but the entire Church Catholic, which if we go by Evangelical ecclesiological doctrine, includes the SDA, is the Body of Christ, so speaking of a division between God and the Church as a whole is erroneous.

God's church is not the Catholic church. God's church is not a denomination, it's His people who choose to follow Him and keep all of His Words and not the teachings of man. The pope is a man, He will die, He does not have eternal life unless Jesus gives Him grace when He comes on the clouds of Glory.

The Liturgist · Mar 4, 2021

imge said:
God's church is not the Catholic church. God's church not a denomination, it's His people who choose to follow Him, not teachings on man. The pope is a man, He will die, He does not have eternal life unless God gives Him grace when He comes.

Go and re-read my post, because I am not Roman Catholic and was not speaking about the Roman Catholic Church, and I think I was pretty clear about that, in explaining the meaning of the word Catholic and how there are different definitions of Catholicity. And if you had read my post thoroughly you would not have written the reply you just did, because at no point did I say that the Roman Catholic Church is uniquely God’s Church.

In my ecclesiology, it and the other Nicene Churches together form the Catholic Church, which has become politically divided due to schisms but is still united by faith in the Trinity. So with that being said, go and reread my posts, bearing in mind I am not Roman Catholic and I did not say what you seem to think I said.

SabbathBlessings · Mar 4, 2021

The Liturgist said:
Firstly, what in my post prompted you to ask that question? It has nothing to do with anything I wrote in my reply to you, which dealt with the Catholic Magisterium and what is effectively the Adventist Magisterium.

Let me connect the dots for you. You previously stated Ellen White's "error" was more erroneous than the Roman Catholic Church. Ellen White taught us that everything has to be tested against Biblical scripture. Scripture from the 66 books that was chosen with God's guidance that we now call the Holy Bible. She believed, like the Bible teaches, every Word from God is pure. She taught only Jesus can save, because that is what Jesus told us by His own Words.

The Catholic Church teaches the Catholic Church can save. If you confess your sins to the Catholic church they can save you. If it turns out what Jesus told us is true, you do not need a mediator, Jesus is your Mediator and you can pray to Him directly and the only way for eternal life is through Jesus- than whose error has more consequences?

You guys are welcome to believe as you wish. Some of these statements made seem pretty boisterous, I know the most beautiful angle in Heaven also wanted to be like God, which is why we are in this mess.

We are told, the meek shall inherit the world.

Mathew 5:5 Blessed are the meek, For they shall inherit the earth.

SabbathBlessings · Mar 4, 2021

I am going to leave this thread with this. I think people will be saved from many different denominations. I am sure there will be many, many God loving Catholics that will be saved. We are only judged based on our knowledge and God knows our hearts. Jesus is coming soon and I hope to see all of you there. God bless.

The Liturgist · Mar 4, 2021

imge said:
Let me connect the dots for you. You previously stated Ellen White's "error" was more erroneous than the Roman Catholic Church. Ellen White taught us that everything has to be tested against Biblical scripture. Scripture from the 66 books that was chosen with God's guidance that we now call the Holy Bible. She believed, like the Bible teaches, every Word from God is pure. She taught only Jesus can save, because that is what Jesus told us by His own Words.

The Catholic Church teaches the Catholic Church can save. If you confess your sins to the Catholic church they can save you. If it turns out what Jesus told us is true, you do not need a mediator, Jesus is your Mediator and you can pray to Him directly and the only way for eternal life is through Jesus- than whose error has more consequences?

You guys are welcome to believe as you wish. Some of these statements made seem pretty boisterous, I know the most beautiful angle in Heaven also wanted to be like God, which is why we are in this mess.

We are told, the meek shall inherit the world.

Mathew 5:5 Blessed are the meek, For they shall inherit the earth.

What part of “I am not a Roman Catholic” isn’t clear?

Jesus expressly granted the Apostles the ability to bind and loose sins. All particular Christian churches, which evangelicals like myself commonly refer to as the “Church Catholic”, including the Adventist church, have the delegated ability to forgive sins on God’s behalf. The forgiveness comes from God; the church’s role is to witness and administer the forgiveness and apply pastoral care. Specifically, churches have an obligation to forgive anyone who is repentant.

What you’re doing now is quoting Ellen White against Scripture. If she said only Jesus can save, that is true in terms of how we are saved, through His sacrifice on the cross, but what Jesus said in His own words was as follows, from Matthew 16:

15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?

16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

20 Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.

Those are the words of Jesus on this matter, which outrank those of Ellen White. Now I disagree with Roman Catholics that these words give the Pope supreme ecclesiastical authority; so do all of the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox and other Protestant Christians.

However, we all agree the power to bind and loose means something; it is an important responsibility. Christ created His church, which is not exclusively the Roman Catholic Church or the Seventh Day Adventist church, in order to be a vehicle for our salvation. The Church as a whole is the Bride of Christ.

If Ellen White taught differently, and I don’t believe she did, because I have not met any Adventists before who have put forward the doctrine you have, then what she taught would be, in that case, in direct contradiction to Scripture and to the words of our Lord.

What if Jesus comes tomorrow and it turns out these scriptures mean exactly as they read?

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Well-Known Member

Member of His Church

Well-Known Member

Member of His Church

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Well-Known Member

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Great is thy faithfulness

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord

Well-Known Member

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Similar threads