Scandals in the Roman Catholic Church....

To rjano:

Yes, there were individual churches, but they all were led by bishops, and these bishops were loyal to one another and served under the bishop of Rome.

There is plenty of documentation to verify this, therefore it is not "false history."

It's sad, really, that Protestants are so eager to denounce the common roots that we all share to the Early Church.



To Debbie:

2 Timothy 3:16, per your post:

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness."

Click to expand...

There is no debate, yes, all scripture is given by inspiration of God. Yet NOWHERE, in this verse or anywhere else in the New Testament, will you find it saying Scripture ALONE.

How can 1 Timothy 3:15 possibly be interpreted any other way?

"the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth."



Jesus established His Church before He left to return to the Father. Church = singular, not ChurchES = plural. To assure continuity and correctness in teaching it all had to be connected together, not Apostles running off in several different directions. And when the Church was attacked by heresy and apostasy, it was in the unity of the Church that these were refuted.

I fail to see how this comprises "false history."


Peace be with you,
~VOW

Verse 13 says "Jesus Christ" is who is being referred to in verse 15 as the pillar of truth, the church is faith in Christ=BIBLICAL JESUS.
IT doesnt say in verse 15"have all faith in your church" or "any faith in your church". A church spoken of in that verse, is one whose faith is based on Jesus=the WORD, from verse 13.
1 Cor.3:13-14= "WHich things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth:comparing spritual things with spritual. But the natural man recieveth not the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."

1 Timothy chapter 3: 1-13 all discuss qualifications of various ministers. Verse 13 is summing up the qualifications with: "Thus those who serve well as deacons gain good standing and much confidence in their faith in Jesus Christ."

Beginning in verse 14, Paul is discussing the fact that he may be delayed. Because of this, he is telling the people to "behave in the house of God." 15 "If I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth." Not one, but two references to "the house of God," and "the church of the living God," as being the pillar and foundation of truth.

And again, there is no reference to Scripture alone being the authority. It's simply not possible, since the canon for the New Testament was not formally recognized until over 300 years after Jesus ascended.


Peace be with you,
~VOW

and these bishops were loyal to one another and served under the bishop of Rome.

Click to expand...

That is true only to the limited scope of the Roman Empire and only after 313 A.D. The Churches addressed in Paul's epistles weren't servants to the bishop of Rome. They were independent and autonomous, using Paul's teachings and scriptures as their final authority. Of course, that Ethiopian man in Acts 8 had Philip's teaching and his own scriptures as a final authority as well.

I agree that the Lord Jesus founded his Church , which is the sum total of all Christians worldwide. You're simply trying to make the Church of Rome = Christ's only Church which is not the case.

It's sad, really, that Protestants are so eager to denounce the common roots that we all share to the Early Church.

Click to expand...

Who's trying to denounce common roots? I for one do not deny that the Church established in Rome was a true Christian Church. It simply has no more authority than any other Church... I probably believe most of the same things as those early Roman Christians did, but I do not believe that modern Catholicism, with all its rituals, sacraments, decrees, traditions, etc.. even resembles early Christianity.

Just f.y.i, I'm not a Protestant, I'm a Baptist. There's a difference

Well, trying to understand that book without trying to enter into the mind of the man who wrote it, or his times and circumstances can give you all kinds of very wierd interpretations that were very far from the mind of John or the Spirit who inspired him. There is no doubt that in addition to referring to the times of John, the Book of Revelation is also a prophecy that extends to the end of time. But before you start saying, "This means this" or "That means that," you're going to have to do your homework.

People of every age have found themselves in the Book of Revelation, most recently the World War I and II generation were treated to various scenarios in which they figured prominently in the Book. Hitler was the Beast. Stalin was the Beast. The people of the South during the Civil war thought Lincoln was the beast. All of which was complete idiocy.

If you understand that Babylon represented Rome, the pagan Roman Empire, in all its sensuality, covetousness and sin, and you want to look around for what Babylon might stand for in our times, then you want to look for something similar in our time. A totally secular society, steeped in sin and covetousness, in sex and money and power, the life of empty show, the pride of life. My personal inclination would be to vote for Western Society, with New York as Babylon. Even though it doesn't have seven hills, it corresponds much more closely to the Babylon of John's times than does Rome of today, much less the Roman Catholic Church. And here we are possibly not too far away from having a computer chip inserted in our shoulder, without which we will not be able to travel or do business. Is this the mark of the beast? Probably not.

My point is, before you start trying to find modern corollaries first take the trouble to understand what John was talking about. He clearly was not talking about the pope.


Lee

Vow, I am sorry you cannot understand that you have been given scripture to verify that scripture alone is the final authority.
You stated the canon was not recognized until 300 years after Christ so it's not possible for the NT to be your final authority.
There were many copies made of the original texts which are still in existance today. I am surprised that you do not know that there were many converts, the Bible speaks of thousands whom Jesus converted at once,3, then 7 thousand, etc. Copies were made in many languages & countries. Regardless, I dont care what you believe. It has nothing to do with the Catholic church. I am referring to any denomination & every denomination who trusts their church more than the Word of God.
There are Christians of other denominations as well who do not have the bible as their final authority.
1Tim 3 is not referring to the Catholic church as the pillar & foundation of truth, now matter how many times you repeat it, Paul was not Catholic, the Catholic denomination did not exist. A few years ago they told me it was a sin to eat meat on Friday. The Bible says it is not a sin. Who was the pillar & foundation of truth then?
Every denomination has it's faults. The gospel of Christ is the only pillar & foundation of truth.

Originally posted by VOW

Nowhere in Scripture does it state that Scripture Alone is to be the final authority. Read 1 Timothy 3:15, "you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth." The Catholic Church believes in the infallibility of Scripture, but it also holds to Sacred Tradition, together they form the Original Deposit of Faith created by the Apostles. Scripture makes no reference to a denomination, because denominations did not exist for the first 1500 years of Christian history. All that existed was "the Church."
Peace be with you,
~VOW

Click to expand...

Sorry VOW - Here we go again,
2 Tim. 3: 16-17 - "All scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, (17) so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."

And this too, 2 Tim. 4: 3-4 - "For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. (4) They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths."

I can almost hear that fat man in the red suit yelling, "HO HO HO. This is one of those myths that the Catholics allowed. Did Peter allow this?? Almost the whole world got drunk on this one. I can tell you one thing, if you see the whole world doing it, then it can't be from God. The world is so lost, they think they are doing good to honor Jesus' birth. But Jesus did not come to be born. He already existed from the foundations of the world. No - He came to die for the sins of man. He was the Lamb of God. Now shall we talk about the other myths, I'll spare you all.

Originally posted by VOW
It's sad, really, that Protestants are so eager to denounce the common roots that we all share to the Early Church.

Click to expand...

geeze.....not all us Protestants are like that.

I just want to say; we all should be subject to the laws of this land no matter what our religion is.

With the love of Jesus Christ.

Hope,
Ijust want to pray the LORD bless you. I am not Catholic, but I have Catholic friends that love the LORD, and like you want to see the truth come out, and the right thing to br done.

With the love of Jesus Christ.

Originally posted by rollinTHUNDER
2 Tim. 3: 16-17 - "All scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, (17) so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."

Click to expand...

Yes, All Scripture....but it doesn't say ONLY Scripture. Again, (and again...and again) Sacred Tradition has been around since the Apostles. WITHOUT SACRED TRADITION you wouldn't have the New Testament you hold in your hands today.


One thing at a time, okay? You don't need to throw everything including the kitchen sink into an apologetics discussion. Santa Claus has got NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with Peter. Sheesh. Play nice, okay? LOL.


Peace be with you,
~VOW

Amen rollinThunder!
I have tried to sit here, and just read these post; but I think it is amazing how Wolseley, and other people of the catholic persuasion are protecting the sinner, and bashing everyone who don't agree with them. Sin is sin regardless who commits it, regardless of their religious persuasion. Wolsely; just keep in mind that all those people you mentioned payed, or are paying for their sin (crime). If their perspective churches had covered up what they did, you more than likely wouldn't have known about it. Speaking for myself; I want every person that is involved in sex sin (crime), or any other that brings dishonor to the name of GOD to be punished.

With the love of Jesus Christ.

Originally posted by VOW
The Catholic Church believes in the infallibility of Scripture, but it also holds to Sacred Tradition, together they form the Original Deposit of Faith created by the Apostles. Scripture makes no reference to a denomination, because denominations did not exist for the first 1500 years of Christian history. All that existed was "the Church."
Peace be with you,
~VOW

Click to expand...

Hi VOW,
It is not wise to mix the Holy word of God, with the wicked traditions of men. God has said many times that He hates the traditions of men and their pagan gods.

Mark 7: 7-9 - "They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men. (8) You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men. (9) And He said to them : "You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions."

Originally posted by Debbie
Vow, I am sorry you cannot understand that you have been given scripture to verify that scripture alone is the final authority.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry that you cannot allow for an interpretation other than your own, an interpretation that has existed for 2000 years. There WAS no assembled "Scripture" until the Early Church Fathers brought all the writings together and then discerned which of them were true, and which were not. The Apostles didn't sit down on the day of the Ascension and start writing. Each book in the New Testament was written at a different time. There was also a lot of FALSE "scripture" out there, as well. It wasn't until the canon was approved by the Early Church Fathers, that the actual, assembled list of books came to exist. Keep in mind, too, that individual books often must be interpreted with other NT writings, they aren't meant to stand alone. Using "Scripture to verify Scripture" is a false argument, and truly, God would not allow His people to be lured by something false.

Originally posted by Debbie
You stated the canon was not recognized until 300 years after Christ so it's not possible for the NT to be your final authority.

Click to expand...

That's right. Check history.

Originally posted by Debbie
I am surprised that you do not know that there were many converts, the Bible speaks of thousands whom Jesus converted at once,3, then 7 thousand, etc. Copies were made in many languages & countries. Regardless, I dont care what you believe. It has nothing to do with the Catholic church. I am referring to any denomination & every denomination who trusts their church more than the Word of God.

Click to expand...

Of course there were converts! Jesus sent the disciples out to TEACH, he didn't say "go out and write". As a matter of fact, John 21: 25 says, "There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written." That means, if you discount Sacred Tradition, you completely disregard the oral teachings of the Apostles which may have described those very things that Jesus did.

Originally posted by Debbie
1Tim 3 is not referring to the Catholic church as the pillar & foundation of truth, now matter how many times you repeat it, Paul was not Catholic, the Catholic denomination did not exist. A few years ago they told me it was a sin to eat meat on Friday. The Bible says it is not a sin. Who was the pillar & foundation of truth then?

Click to expand...

I am not asking you to necessarily agree with 1 Timothy 3:15, but the fact is, the statement by Paul is there. Paul was an Apostle of "the Christian Church," which is what the Catholic Church was known as originally. You may deny it, that is your prerogative, but your authority does not supersede that of the Church. The "sin" of eating meat on Friday was a discipline, NOT dogma, and was originated as a faith-promoting teaching.

Originally posted by Debbie
The gospel of Christ is the only pillar & foundation of truth.

Click to expand...

And you are most welcome to your opinion.


You have stated that you "used" to be Catholic. I have no idea what caused you to leave the Church, and I'm sorry the experience left you so angry with the Church. I'm not trying to convert you back. My only reason for posting the Catholic teachings in this forum is to clear up the misunderstandings and misconceptions that exist between Catholics and Protestants so we all can work together as the Body of Christ and share the Gospel with the world.


Peace be with you,
~VOW

Originally posted by Rjano21
That is true only to the limited scope of the Roman Empire and only after 313 A.D. The Churches addressed in Paul's epistles weren't servants to the bishop of Rome. They were independent and autonomous, using Paul's teachings and scriptures as their final authority. Of course, that Ethiopian man in Acts 8 had Philip's teaching and his own scriptures as a final authority as well.

Click to expand...

And the source of your information is?

"Paul's Church" and "Peter's Church" were the same one. There was no division between "Paul's scriptures" and "Other scriptures." Paul even deferred to Peter.

Originally posted by Rjano21
I agree that the Lord Jesus founded his Church , which is the sum total of all Christians worldwide. You're simply trying to make the Church of Rome = Christ's only Church which is not the case.

Click to expand...

The Roman Empire was the vehicle for the initial spread of Christianity. The Church still had its original framework originated by the Apostles; they still functioned as a single unit, to preserve the Original Deposit of Faith. There wasn't any fracturing until Martin Luther, although many attempts were made by the different heresies.

Originally posted by Rjano21
Who's trying to denounce common roots? I for one do not deny that the Church established in Rome was a true Christian Church. It simply has no more authority than any other Church... I probably believe most of the same things as those early Roman Christians did, but I do not believe that modern Catholicism, with all its rituals, sacraments, decrees, traditions, etc.. even resembles early Christianity.

Click to expand...

All teachings, all dogma have their origins in Scripture and do not contradict either Sacred Scripture or Sacred Tradition.

Originally posted by Rjano21
Just f.y.i, I'm not a Protestant, I'm a Baptist. There's a difference

Click to expand...

Pardon me. What is the difference, please?


Peace be with you,
~VOW

Okay VOW,
I see you have a lot to deal with here. I didn't know others were getting in on this, so I'll give you time to catch up. Just please remember, you and I are not enemies. I still love you, even if we disagree. We can just chalk this up as Bible Study. Yeah that's it, Competitive Bible Study, LOL !! Hey that could be the name of a "New Game".

To Thunder:

Go open a thread in the Fellowship Forum: Comparative Bible Study.




Peace be with you,
~VOW

Originally posted by rollinTHUNDER
I still love you, even if we disagree.

Click to expand...

what about me rollin thunder...love me too??? you know rollin thunder...I know that you are such a good sport, but I just couldn't help but post this...
Amie
Hi VOW

Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

I don't think it's commonly understood that Paul was betrayed by the church. His prophesy concerning false teaching is not something yet to come, it was happening as He wrote it. He even named the false teachers.

2TI 4:16 At my first defense, no one came to my support, but everyone deserted me. May it not be held against them. 17 But the Lord stood at my side and gave me strength, so that through me the message might be fully proclaimed and all the Gentiles might hear it.

Paul stood alone and proclaimed the gospel while others went away to corrupt the church. 2TI. is nothing if it's not a warning about false teaching.

The key is that the message was fully proclaimed (fully means that nothing else need be proclaimed) What part of "fully" do you think we (the church) doesn't get?

For this reason I belive that many today are caught in a trap, one set long ago, by men that knew how and when to make a power play. Paul warned us clearly.
The Bible is all we have, everything else is intresting reading.

In His Service

Hi Amie,
Yeah I still love you too. Don't laugh, we'll probably meet one day soon. I think Jesus is going to have a field day when we all finally get home. I for one, don't believe that their is a perfect denomination on earth. But I know there will be unity at last when we get there. All Christians are united already, many just don't know it yet. Our unity is in Him, just like our righteousness is. If you're under the blood, then I'll see ya when we get there. Bye for now !!