Catholic defense

[WarriorAngel]

How do we know that the Church was not meant to continue to be the ONLY Church? And that He did not ordain Luther.
1 Timothy 5; 3 If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to that doctrine which is according to godliness, 4 He is proud, knowing nothing, but sick about questions and strifes of words; from which arise envies, contentions, blasphemies, evil suspicions, 5 Conflicts of men corrupted in mind, and who are destitute of the truth, supposing gain to be godliness.


How do we know the Lord did not want a 'new' doctrine? a NEW church?

2 Timothy 2; 12 If we suffer, we shall also reign with him. If we deny him, he will also deny us. 13 If we believe not, he continueth faithful, he can not deny himself.

How do we know the Church is without error?

14 These things I write to thee, hoping that I shall come to thee shortly. 15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

2 Timothy 1; 13 Hold the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me in faith, and in the love which is in Christ Jesus. 14 Keep the good thing committed to thy trust by the Holy Ghost, who dwelleth in us.

How can we test if the reformation was good?

2 Timothy 2; 18 Who have erred from the truth, saying, that the resurrection is past already, and have subverted the faith of some. 19 But the sure foundation of God standeth firm, having this seal: the Lord knoweth who are his; and let every one depart from iniquity who nameth the name of the Lord.


Are Catholics arrogant? Or are they correct?

2 Timothy 2; 25 With modesty admonishing them that resist the truth: if peradventure God may give them repentance to know the truth,
26 And they may recover themselves from the snares of the devil, by whom they are held captive at his will.


Something to think about the next time anyone decides to persecute, attack, profane the Church, or just protest against Her...

2 Timothy 3;


1 Know also this, that, in the last days, shall come dangerous times. 2 Men shall be lovers of themselves, covetous, haughty, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, wicked, 3 Without affection, without peace, slanderers, incontinent, unmerciful, without kindness, 4 Traitors, stubborn, puffed up, and lovers of pleasures more than of God: 5 Having an appearance indeed of godliness, but denying the power thereof. Now these avoid. 6 For of these sort are they who creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, who are led away with divers desires: 7 Ever learning, and never attaining to the knowledge of the truth. 8 Now as Jannes and Mambres resisted Moses, so these also resist the truth, men corrupted in mind, reprobate concerning the faith. 9 But they shall proceed no farther; for their folly shall be manifest to all men, as theirs also was. 10 But thou hast fully known my doctrine, manner of life, purpose, faith, longsuffering, love, patience,




11 Persecutions, afflictions: such as came upon me at Antioch, at Iconium, and at Lystra: what persecutions I endured, and out of them all the Lord delivered me. 12 And all that will live godly in Christ Jesus, shall suffer persecution. 13 But evil men and seducers shall grow worse and worse: erring, and driving into error. 14 But continue thou in those things which thou hast learned, and which have been committed to thee: knowing of whom thou hast learned them; 15 And because from thy infancy thou hast known the holy scriptures, which can instruct thee to salvation, by the faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice, 17 That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.


The next time anyone feels compelled, without knowing the Tradition of the Church, to give their utmost disdain on her...remember this...there was ONLY One Church, Only One doctrine, and Only One scripture for the ONE Church.

They {Apostles and first Church fathers..aka Timothy} are ONLY referring to the ONE Church.
NONE other existed.

AND if anyone at any time can point out scripture to me that shows me that without question....Luther and other christian churches were meant to exist...then please do so.

Because scripture is for all time...and was written ABOUT the ONE Church and foundation Jesus started.

Until I see emphatic and undeniable scripture of this Very Church needing to be broken apart...then please do not hesitate to share this prophecy.

IF you ask if God ordained the splitting of His Church, I have given sufficient information to show you in scripure, that it was never prophecied NOR would ever be fore ordained. In fact, it was spoken against...time and time again in the very scripture itself that we all hold so dear.

When I admonish others who are compelled to speak out against the Church, I do so at the behest of scripture.


BUT so all know..........and from my heart....I love all my estranged breathren...if I did not, I would NOT share this with you.



One other sidenote; The dark history of the Church is a matter of interpretation as is the protest and reformation; done according to who is 'reporting' the event.
SO we cannot trust nor positively adhere to Luther being righteous. In fact, since the folks who wrote about the reformation have two different 'views' we can only get past the split, and again look at the very original Church.

Isn't it time we reunite and forget the opinions of the past?

Isnt it time to have One Eucharist for all, for all eternity?

I love you.

 

[Iollain]

How do we know that the Church was not meant to continue to be the ONLY Church? And that He did not ordain Luther

That's easy, we know that your church is not the Church because we have a Bible. We know that Luther was more right because we have a Bible. If you could have got rid of the Book you would have maybe more to stand on.

 

[Dragons87]

What could be ordained by God initially can lose favour very quickly. See the experience of Saul, Israel's first king. He was anointed king, but only several decades later he was gone. Poof. God didn't like him anymore.

Now, the Church has been around for about 1900 years. How can you prove that God is still solely with the present Catholic church?

 

[HypnoToad]

How do we know that the Church was not meant to continue to be the ONLY Church? And that He did not ordain Luther.
1 Timothy 5; 3 If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to that doctrine which is according to godliness, 4 He is proud, knowing nothing, but sick about questions and strifes of words; from which arise envies, contentions, blasphemies, evil suspicions, 5 Conflicts of men corrupted in mind, and who are destitute of the truth, supposing gain to be godliness.

This assumes that what the RCC teaches is correct, that they themselves weren't the ones teaching "otherwise".

How do we know the Lord did not want a 'new' doctrine? a NEW church?

2 Timothy 2; 12 If we suffer, we shall also reign with him. If we deny him, he will also deny us. 13 If we believe not, he continueth faithful, he can not deny himself.

Again, assumes the RCC is correct to begin with.

How do we know the Church is without error?

14 These things I write to thee, hoping that I shall come to thee shortly. 15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

2 Timothy 1; 13 Hold the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me in faith, and in the love which is in Christ Jesus. 14 Keep the good thing committed to thy trust by the Holy Ghost, who dwelleth in us.

Assumes the RCC is that "correct church" to begin with.

How can we test if the reformation was good?

2 Timothy 2; 18 Who have erred from the truth, saying, that the resurrection is past already, and have subverted the faith of some. 19 But the sure foundation of God standeth firm, having this seal: the Lord knoweth who are his; and let every one depart from iniquity who nameth the name of the Lord.

Relevence?

Are Catholics arrogant? Or are they correct?

2 Timothy 2; 25 With modesty admonishing them that resist the truth: if peradventure God may give them repentance to know the truth,
26 And they may recover themselves from the snares of the devil, by whom they are held captive at his will.

Assumes that the RCC is the one that has "the truth" to begin with.

Something to think about the next time anyone decides to persecute, attack, profane the Church, or just protest against Her...

2 Timothy 3;


1 Know also this, that, in the last days, shall come dangerous times. 2 Men shall be lovers of themselves, covetous, haughty, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, wicked, 3 Without affection, without peace, slanderers, incontinent, unmerciful, without kindness, 4 Traitors, stubborn, puffed up, and lovers of pleasures more than of God: 5 Having an appearance indeed of godliness, but denying the power thereof. Now these avoid. 6 For of these sort are they who creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, who are led away with divers desires: 7 Ever learning, and never attaining to the knowledge of the truth. 8 Now as Jannes and Mambres resisted Moses, so these also resist the truth, men corrupted in mind, reprobate concerning the faith. 9 But they shall proceed no farther; for their folly shall be manifest to all men, as theirs also was. 10 But thou hast fully known my doctrine, manner of life, purpose, faith, longsuffering, love, patience,




11 Persecutions, afflictions: such as came upon me at Antioch, at Iconium, and at Lystra: what persecutions I endured, and out of them all the Lord delivered me. 12 And all that will live godly in Christ Jesus, shall suffer persecution. 13 But evil men and seducers shall grow worse and worse: erring, and driving into error. 14 But continue thou in those things which thou hast learned, and which have been committed to thee: knowing of whom thou hast learned them; 15 And because from thy infancy thou hast known the holy scriptures, which can instruct thee to salvation, by the faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice, 17 That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work. [/i]

Only applies to non-RCC if you assume the RCC is correct to begin with.

The next time anyone feels compelled, without knowing the Tradition of the Church, to give their utmost disdain on her...remember this...there was ONLY One Church, Only One doctrine, and Only One scripture for the ONE Church.

They {Apostles and first Church fathers..aka Timothy} are ONLY referring to the ONE Church.
NONE other existed.

AND if anyone at any time can point out scripture to me that shows me that without question....Luther and other christian churches were meant to exist...then please do so.

Because scripture is for all time...and was written ABOUT the ONE Church and foundation Jesus started.

Until I see emphatic and undeniable scripture of this Very Church needing to be broken apart...then please do not hesitate to share this prophecy.

IF you ask if God ordained the splitting of His Church, I have given sufficient information to show you in scripure, that it was never prophecied NOR would ever be fore ordained. In fact, it was spoken against...time and time again in the very scripture itself that we all hold so dear.

When I admonish others who are compelled to speak out against the Church, I do so at the behest of scripture.


BUT so all know..........and from my heart....I love all my estranged breathren...if I did not, I would NOT share this with you.



One other sidenote; The dark history of the Church is a matter of interpretation as is the protest and reformation; done according to who is 'reporting' the event.
SO we cannot trust nor positively adhere to Luther being righteous. In fact, since the folks who wrote about the reformation have two different 'views' we can only get past the split, and again look at the very original Church.

Isn't it time we reunite and forget the opinions of the past?

Isnt it time to have One Eucharist for all, for all eternity?

I love you.

Again, this all assumes that the RCC is the "correct, one church". Just because it may have BEGAN by being founded by Christ, it does NOT necessarily follow that they maintained accurate theology. Jesus' own disciples proved themselves fallible multiple times. To insist they and their own disciples suddenly became infallible is utterly baseless.

 

[ScottBot]

That's easy, we know that your church is not the Church because we have a Bible. We know that Luther was more right because we have a Bible. If you could have got rid of the Book you would have maybe more to stand on.

Ignoring the fact that Luther even had a book in the first place was because of the Church. These threads are becoming old and tiresome.

 

[Iollain]

Ignoring the fact that Luther even had a book in the first place was because of the Church. These threads are becoming old and tiresome.

Luther had the Book because God has preserved it for us, the Book has not changed, people added stuff other ways.

 

[Blank123]

where does it say in the Bible that the church is supposed to be one institution under one hierarchy?

 

[WarriorAngel]

Luther had the Book because God has preserved it for us, the Book has not changed, people added stuff other ways.

The BOOK belonged to the Church.

The BOOK was the laws of the Church, and we know since she preserved them, that she would not go against them.

Tsk tsk...refer to the entire first OP>

Paul spoke to Timothy WITHIN THE CHURCH.

He spoke to Timothy about ALL he TAUGHT Timothy...which is 'Tradition' and oral BTW.

Also....we CAN presume the RCC has no errors...because the Holy Spirit is sent and with HER.

If this were untrue, then WHY DID JESUS PROMISE HE WOULD BE WITH THEM FOR ALL TIME.

Now we know the Apostles werent going to live for all time...

Conclusion, the Apostolic Church would be FOR ALL TIME...and as it says...

Even if we are unfaithful, Jesus cannot be unfaithful to Himself.

He ordained the Church, and He would not be unfaithful to the Church He PROMISED WOULD STAND UP AGAINST THE GATES OF HELL.



Sorry Scott...I am also tired of the accusations, the misconceptions and the poutright attacks dsans the pure logic of Christ's SACRED WORD WITHOUT FAIL...which is a human quality to get tired of something....

THAT THE CHURCH WOULD PERSEVERE.

BTW, the changing of a king vs an entire Church which is the foundation and God's house and pillar of truth would mean that God is UNFAITHFUL. IS He unfaithful?
Would this include His other Promises?

Ordaining a king to rule a nation for a short period vs ordaining ONE Church to keep all Truth intact for all time, are quite different matters.

 

[ScottBot]

where does it say in the Bible that the church is supposed to be one institution under one hierarchy?

Where does it say it is supposed to be anything other than that? In Matthew 16:18 (regardless of what you think it means), Jesus establishes what He calls HIS church. Not my church, or your church, or Rick Warren's church, or Martin Luther's church, or Benny Hinn's church, or Creflo Dollar's church, or Chuck Swindal's church, or Billy Hibels church, etc.... It is Christ's CHURCH (singluar). Christ didn't start a bunch of competitive organizations so they could bicker with each other and wag their fingers at each other.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

IMO, it's far more productive in these interdenomination/nondenominational discussion forums to SHARE what we believe...

How do we know that the Church was not meant to continue to be the ONLY Church? And that He did not ordain Luther.

1 Timothy 5; 3 If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to that doctrine which is according to godliness, 4 He is proud, knowing nothing, but sick about questions and strifes of words; from which arise envies, contentions, blasphemies, evil suspicions, 5 Conflicts of men corrupted in mind, and who are destitute of the truth, supposing gain to be godliness.

Of course, this verse does not support the idea that the "one holy catholic and apostolic church, the communion of saints" just happens to be RCC...

IMO, what it's saying is that false teaching is not to be tolerated. Um, Luther might well have quoted this verse...

As I often find among my brothers in the RCC (and also LDS) is this assumption that they ARE essentially THE "one holy catholic and apostolic church, the communion of saints" and that thier corpus of chosen, embraced and norming Tradition are True (even infallible), and THEREFORE, others not a part of their institution or agreeing with them just be wrong. OF COURSE, given the assumptions, they are. Just not all Christians make those assumptions.

But again, just read the words of the text provided. The connection to the issue raised for it requires a lot of assumptions...

How do we know the Lord did not want a 'new' doctrine? a NEW church?

2 Timothy 2; 12 If we suffer, we shall also reign with him. If we deny him, he will also deny us. 13 If we believe not, he continueth faithful, he can not deny himself.

Again, the connection of the text with the point made seems amazingly stretched and requires that we assume much.

How is denying Christ related to the issue of what congregation or denomination we may or may not participate in? This verse says nothing about congregations or denominations.

How can we test if the reformation was good?

2 Timothy 2; 18 Who have erred from the truth, saying, that the resurrection is past already, and have subverted the faith of some. 19 But the sure foundation of God standeth firm, having this seal: the Lord knoweth who are his; and let every one depart from iniquity who nameth the name of the Lord.

Again, the connect is completely lost on me...
Unless you ASSUME certain self-claims are true...

Luther, of course, felt that the RCC had erred from the truth, so I can understand how Protestants would reference this verse... But, yes, the Lord does know who are His own - who is and is not a believer.

AND if anyone at any time can point out scripture to me that shows me that without question....Luther and other christian churches were meant to exist...then please do so.Because scripture is for all time...and was written ABOUT the ONE Church and foundation Jesus started.

I think you are assuming that the interpretation of some Scriptures and some things written by some early Christians are True and the Norm for determing if your particular denominations' self-claims are true.

I think that Christians are allowed - certainly not forbidden - to assoicate with others, perhaps for the purposes of mutual edification, cooperation, support and accountability. Some of these are mentioned in the Bible, sometimes refered to in the singular (church) and sometmes plural (churches). In theology, we often call this a "congregation." I don't see that Jesus Himself founded any congregations, certainly none that still exist, all million or so of them around just now. I think that congregations are also allowed - certainly not forbidden - to associate with other congregations, perhaps for the purposes of mutual edification, cooperation, support and accountability. The roots of this can be seen in the Bible. In theology, we often call this "denominations." I don't see that Jesus Himself founded any denominations (or even that such remotely existed during His early ministry).

Until I see emphatic and undeniable scripture of this Very Church needing to be broken apart...then please do not hesitate to share this prophecy.

I believe it never was, never will be. "We believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic church, the communion of saints." That is my confession. Only when this is confused with our particular institutional congregations and denominations do we suddenly have an issue with the current 1,000,000 congregations and 30,000 denominations in the world. Only then do we have a problem with the failure to show that ALL Christians and congregations were subject to Pope in Rome, with the Pope's excommunication of the Archbishop of Constantinople in 1054 - the biggest split in the history of Christiandom, the Pope's excommunication of Martin Luther, Unam Sanctum's binding, doctrinal, current statement that, "we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff."

SO we cannot trust nor positively adhere to Luther being righteous. In fact, since the folks who wrote about the reformation have two different 'views' we can only get past the split, and again look at the very original Church.

I agree. We should NOT simply accept the interpretations and application of ANY HUMAN BEING OR INSTITUTION. Thus the reason why I don't just accept the self claims of the RCC and why I adhere to Sola Scriptura. I think we must hold all accountable for their self claims, interpretations and applications and not just conclude that our teachers, congregations or denominations are correct 'cuz they say so.

Isn't it time we reunite and forget the opinions of the past?

Does that include this current, binding, doctrinal position of the RCC? "we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff." Because, if it does, then we aren't reuniting or forgetting the OPINIONS (Tradition) of the past, you are simply asking everyone to embrace the OPINIONS (Traditions) and Magisterium of the RCC. You are asking the world's other billion Christians to just accept the self-claims and opinions of one particular institution as "true" cuz they say so. I don't find that too likely to happen - either Unam Sanctum being declared heresy or the other billion Christians just embracing the self claims and opinions of one out of 30,000 denominations.


How I see it...


- Josiah


.

 

[Blank123]

Where does it say it is supposed to be anything other than that? In Matthew 16:18 (regardless of what you think it means), Jesus establishes what He calls HIS church. Not my church, or your church, or Rick Warren's church, or Martin Luther's church, or Benny Hinn's church, or Creflo Dollar's church, or Chuck Swindal's church, or Billy Hibels church, etc.... It is Christ's CHURCH (singluar). Christ didn't start a bunch of competitive organizations so they could bicker with each other and wag their fingers at each other.

okay so why should I submit myself to a government that Christ did not ordain? Shouldn't it be enough that I submit myself to Christ and Christ alone?

 

[ScottBot]

A misrepresentation of Unam Sanctam.

 

[ScottBot]

okay so why should I submit myself to a government that Christ did not ordain? Shouldn't it be enough that I submit myself to Christ and Christ alone?

And what of Paul and his exortations for people not to rebel against the Bishops and Presbyters, as they exist because of Christ to serve you, and if you rebel against them, you are really rebelling against Christ. How can you say you submit to Christ while at the same time spitting on the Church He established?

 

[Blank123]

And what of Paul and his exortations for people not to rebel against the Bishops and Presbyters, because they exist because of Christ to serve you, and if you rebel against them, you are really rebelling against Christ. How can you say you submit to Christ while at the same time spitting on the Church He established?

you seem to be implying that He established the Roman Catholic Church and that the bishops and Presbyters are the authority of that church. What happens when those leaders go against the word of God - are we allowed to question them or hold them accountable for that?

The Roman Catholic church has a very specific hierarcy from priest all the way up to the Pope, and I do not see this hierarchy in Scripture. Where is it?

Now my Bible says that all we have to do to be a member of the church of Christ is to accept Christ as our Saviour and make Him Lord of our lives. I do not see anywhere in the Bible where it says we need to belong to a set church or institution - I would appreciate seeing Biblical bak up for this as well

 

[ScottBot]

you seem to be implying that He established the Roman Catholic Church and that the bishops and Presbyters are the authority of that church. What happens when those leaders go against the word of God - are we allowed to question them or hold them accountable for that?

The Roman Catholic church has a very specific hierarcy from priest all the way up to the Pope, and I do not see this hierarchy in Scripture. Where is it?

Now my Bible says that all we have to do to be a member of the church of Christ is to accept Christ as our Saviour and make Him Lord of our lives. I do not see anywhere in the Bible where it says we need to belong to a set church or institution - I would appreciate seeing Biblical bak up for this as well

There are dozens of threads that discuss this, dear. Please do a search. And if you want a more concise answer, ask it in One Bread One Body. Anything I post here will attract 15-20 antagonists champing at the bit to express their pet theories.

 

[Iollain]

The BOOK belonged to the Church.

The BOOK was the laws of the Church, and we know since she preserved them, that she would not go against them.

Tsk tsk...refer to the entire first OP>

Paul spoke to Timothy WITHIN THE CHURCH.

He spoke to Timothy about ALL he TAUGHT Timothy...which is 'Tradition' and oral BTW.

Also....we CAN presume the RCC has no errors...because the Holy Spirit is sent and with HER.

If this were untrue, then WHY DID JESUS PROMISE HE WOULD BE WITH THEM FOR ALL TIME.

Now we know the Apostles werent going to live for all time...

Conclusion, the Apostolic Church would be FOR ALL TIME...and as it says...

Even if we are unfaithful, Jesus cannot be unfaithful to Himself.

He ordained the Church, and He would not be unfaithful to the Church He PROMISED WOULD STAND UP AGAINST THE GATES OF HELL.



Sorry Scott...I am also tired of the accusations, the misconceptions and the poutright attacks dsans the pure logic of Christ's SACRED WORD WITHOUT FAIL...which is a human quality to get tired of something....

THAT THE CHURCH WOULD PERSEVERE.

BTW, the changing of a king vs an entire Church which is the foundation and God's house and pillar of truth would mean that God is UNFAITHFUL. IS He unfaithful?
Would this include His other Promises?

Ordaining a king to rule a nation for a short period vs ordaining ONE Church to keep all Truth intact for all time, are quite different matters.

That might be but the Church is not the RCC.

 

[J0nDaFr3aK]

Man, you know, the church is not what you think it is. the church is not a building and we mistakenly call a building God's house. In Haggai it is written, "'The glory of this present house will be greater than the glory of the former house,' says the LORD Almighty. 'And in this place I will grant peace,' declares the LORD Almighty." here the prophet is clearly talking about something greater, more important and more glorious that would happen in the following years. the present house is man. In Acts 17:24 it says, "The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands." so, i dont think you should consider the Church as the house of God. because we are the temples of the Holy Spirit. moreover, Jesus didnt came to establish a religion nor a philosophy. So it is wrong to say "I follow Paul" or "I follow Appollos". it is even wrong to say "I follow the Catholic church" or "I follow Protestantism". The Church Jesus wants is the huge group of people who have been called and have been chosen by Him. Catholicism has never saved anybody. Neither has Protestantism nor my church nor Jehovah's Witnesses and so on. Jesus saves. What matters is to be born-again. My religion is not better than yours. Yours is not better than mine.
last but not least, traditions are vain. "And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition?" Matthew 15:3
Blessings

 

[ScottBot]

That might be but the Church is not the RCC.

Of course no, because it is a commonly propogated idea that the Catholic Church is apostate and headed by the anti-Christ.

 

[Tonks]

Another ignorant repudiation of Unam Sanctam. You guys never get tired of that stuff, do you.

Unam Sanctum - the gift that keeps on giving......

 

[Blank123]

There are dozens of threads that discuss this, dear. Please do a search. And if you want a more concise answer, ask it in One Bread One Body. Anything I post here will attract 15-20 antagonists champing at the bit to express their pet theories.

I have asked several catholics these questions over the last two years I have been here and I really get no answers from them that align with Scripture and if I ask in OBOB I can hardly debate if their answers should not line up with Scripture, can I?

I would appreciate anyone giving me the answers to my questions