Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Yes, I said this.The Head of the Church is Christ
Paul and Clement also corrected Churches. Just because you correct does make you Pope or not make someone Pope.Christ gave John a vision in the Spirit which John wrote down as the Book of Revelation.
In that book, He gave John instructions to the Seven Churches of Revelation, to pass on to them...
This is how Christ corrects His Churches...
His "visible head" in this case was St. John the Theologian...
It was not the Pope of Rome
This type of argument isnt too strong.for the most part
And so it has been up to today.They did not just ask Peter to make the ruling... Instead, they held a Council in Jerusalem to settle the matter, and the matter was settled by the Council,
Scripture records that there was much disputing until Peter rose up and settled the matter.and the matter was settled by the Council, and not by the Chair of Peter
Well, I have received Holy Communion in Russian Orthodox Churches, no question...Considering you are a Russian Orthodox, are we really supposed to be surprised at this comment. I mean really, should we expect a different view?
I would add that Peter was initially the humble street-level leader among brethren, and initially perhaps the lead pastor in the church at Jerusalem, (Acts 5) and the first to use the keys to the kingdom, the gospel, (Col 1:13) for both Jews and Gentiles, (Acts 2,10) and receives the vision from Christ to include the latter, and thus is the lead speaker in the council at Jerusalem, exhorting salvation by heart-purifying faith, (Acts 15) and with whom Paul abode with at one early time fifteen days, and who is mentioned named specifically among other apostles as one who was married. (1Co. 9:5)Canon rejects this view... The Head of the Church is Christ -
Christ gave John a vision in the Spirit which John wrote down as the Book of Revelation.
In that book, He gave John instructions to the Seven Churches of Revelation, to pass on to them...
This is how Christ corrects His Churches...
His "visible head" in this case was St. John the Theologian...
It was not the Pope of Rome...
Peter comes into the picture after there had been much disputing and obtains silence to give his testimony with its evangelical gospel, and his exhortation to recognize this manifest grace of God with its basic implications regarding the keeping of the whole Law.Well, IF, as you say, Christ appointed Peter as Head of the Church, and the Church in the early days WAS Jerusalem for the most part, then the question of circumcision should have simply been asked of Peter, and he would have given his ruling, and the Roman Rule of Peter to come would perhaps be vindicted... But no, they had a monster discussion, loud and boisterous, and Peter's view eventually prevailed, and the Council of Jerusalem accdlaimed that view, and Iakovos, the Head of the Church in Jerusalem, pronounced the decision... They did not just ask Peter to make the ruling... Instead, they held a Council in Jerusalem to settle the matter, and the matter was settled by the Council, and not by the Chair of Peter... Peter was, instead, a participant in that Council... Iakovos was its leader in charge...
Yes, that really is to be the norm, and thus the Westminster Confession affirms "it belongeth to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith..." but application is another issue.That one Biblical event established Conciliar decision for Church questions as the norm...
The problem is when such presume veracity for themselves based upon their claim to historicity and their own tradition, versus wholly inspired Scripture, which is God's means of long term reliable preservation of His authoritative word. (Exodus 17:14; Exodus 34:27; Deuteronomy 10:4; Deuteronomy 17:18; Deuteronomy 27:3; Deuteronomy 31:24; 2 Kings 22:10-13; Isaiah 30:8; cf. Job 19:23; John 20:31; Revelation 20:12, etc.)So I should think it matters a lot, since Ecumenical Councils and local Councils continued even to this day for the purpose of addressing Ekklesiastical questions...
Indeed: Acts 20:28. Which feeding was with the word of God which is what is called spiritual "milk" and "meat" (1 Corinthians 3:2; Hebrews 5:13; 1 Peter 2:2) by which souls obtain spiritual life within themselves, (Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-9; Ephesians 1:13) and then by which they are "nourished" (1Timothy 4:6) and built up. (Acts 20:32)Indeed, they appointed deacons and presbyters for the running of the Churches, as Scripture also records...Arsenios
Arsenios said:But the children of the apostatic, authoritarian and scholastic Latin Church, after their Reformation failed to reform, now believe in themselves privately interpreting Holy Writ, thereby swallowing the camel while straining the gnats of endless interpretations of doctrines based on each person's private reading of the Bible...
PeaceByJesus said:I see.
PeaceByJesus said:And just where is "privately interpreting Holy Writ" as in examination of what is taught by Scripture, and disagreeing with leadership when it is not, necessarily wrong?
All your blather is a poor excuse for an argument. And no, Keating and his kin do not refute all the objections i made, which is why no other RCs have either, despite my frequent posting of them.
Comfort zone?! This what we call a bare unsubstantiated "spit wad" in debate, which means the one who resorted to it is has no argument, which is exactly your case. By the grace of God I have been debating Catholics almost steadily for over 10 years, and am a former weekly mass-going RC, and a former CCC teacher and lector, and who often seems to know too much about the RCC for opponents to handle.
I would like to debate the likes of Staples and Keating et. al right now, and but it is very unlikely they would show up here, while their arguments are often what have been refuted for years.
Indeed.
Meaning you have not been able to.
That's only a part, but I simply addressed some of the typical beliefs Catholics end up posting, and showing them my cards saves time rather than doing so piecemeal. You, however, can respond to portions.
You complain about being overwhelmed but you want me to send you books? In addition, I am not arguing from any particular book of man, but i can show you where to read Scripture.
I am sure you think i am being offensive, but i do not have any personal animosity against the RCC, yet you need to understand that you are defending a elitist self-proclaimed one true church which in the historical past has damned the likes of me while presently disallowing our churches are worth to be called by the proper name "church," while teaching a gospel of entrance into Heaven by actually becoming good enough to be with God, versus obedient contrite faith being counted for righteousness.
Thus if i care about Truth and souls, I should not be silent in the face of provocative Catholic claims and the damming deceptions multitudes believe in.
God bless youWe have union via Communion...
I love every Catholic I know...
Yes... For various reasons...
I heard that the developers considered the other three SO objectionable that at least one of the three had to barricate his hotel doors with furniture to keep them out...
Whatever Hierotheos does should be good with me...
I prefer Grand-pa...
I am not a priest...
Arsenios
Sounds like you are posting the same propaganda s papal polemicists. While it may be convenient to make critical distinctions btwn your church and the EOs and OOs, but lump all so-called non-Apostolic churches together, this is a fallacy since there exists critical distinctions btwn them, including the charge you decided to pin on them all. In my 30+ years as an evangelical, I have never been taught (whether as part of a Fundamental or S. Baptist or Pentecostal church) that any of the fundamentals was for debate (indeed, it was due to a common contention for such that the modern evangelical moments began), nor that every single word of the Bible was also, because each person is burdened with figuring out for himself the meaning of every sentence in the Bible.
Instead, those who did not believe in core Truths (and usually then some) were not going to feel much at home, and were not going to go anywhere in ministry, and usually those who made such aberrant views known were going to get a talking to. However, it was expected that we do as the noble Bereans did, and search the Scriptures whether such things as were preached was Scriptural.
Meanwhile Traditional Catholics search their own historical teaching to ascertain the validity of modern church teaching, like as we look to he only wholly inspired record of what the NT church believed (including how they understood the gospels) For we should , want to conform to what the most ancient church manifestly believed as seen in Acts thru Rev.
The alternative is implicit trust in leadership. But perhaps you feel that since this typically results in disunity, then the flock should simply follow those who occupy the historical office of leadership.
So you think examining what is taught by the most reliable record, and with veracity resting upon the evidential weight of Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, is wrong?
I see. So according to this statement its either repentance from sin or study of the Bible as the core, with the latter not effecting the former.
I see. So the Son of God did not actually establish His Truth claims upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, but instead the Scriptures were basically superfluous, while the people knew and would know what to repent from and believe because oral tradition was the proven means of transcendent historical preservation of the word of God, and not writing. Answer clearly.
Which uniquely refers to which church? And excludes the others from being Christian?
And their feeling is mutual.
I see. And just where is "privately interpreting Holy Writ" as in examination of what is taught by Scripture, and disagreeing with leadership when it is not, necessarily wrong?
And it is quite obvious that you also need someone to teach you what those you attack actually believe, which is not that we do not need teachers or are not to teach.
But here it was study of the Bible" - or at least from one of the writings that was established as Scripture - that was used to bring conversion.
..
Wow. Catholics almost claim that same thing, but not that they have everything all all ironed out, which I am sure even the NT church did not. However,
.
I see. So like RCs are sppsd to believe, you so much believe in the veracity of your church, since they are the historical magisterial stewards of Scripture, Tradition and history, that you no longer need to prove all things, for nothing from Scripture could be contrary to it, or fail to support what she believes. And thus dissent from her is dissent from God?
As for me, I cannot even find one single prayer by anyone (except pagans) on earth praying to anyone else in Heaven but the Lord. Despite prayer being such a common basic practice that there are over 200 prayers in Scripture, and despite there being plenty of occasions in Scripture when this would be fitting, and despite there always being plenty of created beings in Heaven to pray to.
Thanks for sharing your reply to meWe have union via Communion...
I love every Catholic I know...
Yes... For various reasons...
I heard that the developers considered the other three SO objectionable that at least one of the three had to barricate his hotel doors with furniture to keep them out...
Whatever Hierotheos does should be good with me...
I prefer Grand-pa...
I am not a priest...
Arsenios
Sounds like you are posting the same propaganda s papal polemicists. While it may be convenient to make critical distinctions btwn your church and the EOs and OOs, but lump all so-called non-Apostolic churches together, this is a fallacy since there exists critical distinctions btwn them, including the charge you decided to pin on them all. In my 30+ years as an evangelical, I have never been taught (whether as part of a Fundamental or S. Baptist or Pentecostal church) that any of the fundamentals was for debate (indeed, it was due to a common contention for such that the modern evangelical moments began), nor that every single word of the Bible was also, because each person is burdened with figuring out for himself the meaning of every sentence in the Bible.
Instead, those who did not believe in core Truths (and usually then some) were not going to feel much at home, and were not going to go anywhere in ministry, and usually those who made such aberrant views known were going to get a talking to. However, it was expected that we do as the noble Bereans did, and search the Scriptures whether such things as were preached was Scriptural.
Meanwhile Traditional Catholics search their own historical teaching to ascertain the validity of modern church teaching, like as we look to he only wholly inspired record of what the NT church believed (including how they understood the gospels) For we should , want to conform to what the most ancient church manifestly believed as seen in Acts thru Rev.
The alternative is implicit trust in leadership. But perhaps you feel that since this typically results in disunity, then the flock should simply follow those who occupy the historical office of leadership.
So you think examining what is taught by the most reliable record, and with veracity resting upon the evidential weight of Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, is wrong?
I see. So according to this statement its either repentance from sin or study of the Bible as the core, with the latter not effecting the former.
I see. So the Son of God did not actually establish His Truth claims upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, but instead the Scriptures were basically superfluous, while the people knew and would know what to repent from and believe because oral tradition was the proven means of transcendent historical preservation of the word of God, and not writing. Answer clearly.
Which uniquely refers to which church? And excludes the others from being Christian?
And their feeling is mutual.
I see. And just where is "privately interpreting Holy Writ" as in examination of what is taught by Scripture, and disagreeing with leadership when it is not, necessarily wrong?
And it is quite obvious that you also need someone to teach you what those you attack actually believe, which is not that we do not need teachers or are not to teach.
But here it was study of the Bible" - or at least from one of the writings that was established as Scripture - that was used to bring conversion.
..
Wow. Catholics almost claim that same thing, but not that they have everything all all ironed out, which I am sure even the NT church did not. However,
.
I see. So like RCs are sppsd to believe, you so much believe in the veracity of your church, since they are the historical magisterial stewards of Scripture, Tradition and history, that you no longer need to prove all things, for nothing from Scripture could be contrary to it, or fail to support what she believes. And thus dissent from her is dissent from God?
As for me, I cannot even find one single prayer by anyone (except pagans) on earth praying to anyone else in Heaven but the Lord. Despite prayer being such a common basic practice that there are over 200 prayers in Scripture, and despite there being plenty of occasions in Scripture when this would be fitting, and despite there always being plenty of created beings in Heaven to pray to.
I try and answer that at latter time .Canon rejects this view... The Head of the Church is Christ -
Christ gave John a vision in the Spirit which John wrote down as the Book of Revelation.
In that book, He gave John instructions to the Seven Churches of Revelation, to pass on to them...
This is how Christ corrects His Churches...
His "visible head" in this case was St. John the Theologian...
It was not the Pope of Rome...
Well, IF, as you say, Christ appointed Peter as Head of the Church, and the Church in the early days WAS Jerusalem for the most part, then the question of circumcision should have simply been asked of Peter, and he would have given his ruling, and the Roman Rule of Peter to come would perhaps be vindicted... But no, they had a monster discussion, loud and boisterous, and Peter's view eventually prevailed, and the Council of Jerusalem accdlaimed that view, and Iakovos, the Head of the Church in Jerusalem, pronounced the decision... They did not just ask Peter to make the ruling... Instead, they held a Council in Jerusalem to settle the matter, and the matter was settled by the Council, and not by the Chair of Peter... Peter was, instead, a participant in that Council... Iakovos was its leader in charge...
That one Biblical event established Conciliar decision for Church questions as the norm...
So I should think it matters a lot, since Ecumenical Councils and local Councils continued even to this day for the purpose of addressing Ekklesiastical questions...
I think he was the first in Jerusalem - Why on earth would the Apostles subject themselves to expending their time and energy on administrative issues when so much more was at stake... Indeed, they appointed deacons and presbyters for the running of the Churches, as Scripture also records...
Arsenios
The Word of God sacrificed Himself to God for the sake of His Body, the Church...And as is abundantly evidenced, as written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God.
Your prolix attempt to justify rejection of Scripture as the supreme standard for faith and obedience may be necessary in order rationalize this as right in your own eyes, but fails to be convincing in the light of examination.We'll see...
Well, Holy Writ, you see, was actually written, so that the first issue was even obtaining a copy, which itself had to be manuscripted from an original. It was never designed for Guttenburg's printing presses... God did not wait for Guttenburg to appoint His Holy Ones to see to the manuscripting of what is Holy and Written... The culture itself was bye and large illiterate, and even the Apostles were not all that quill-full, but were simple, pious and hard-working fishermen...
So that these early and Holy and manuscripted Scrolls were not intended for private reading and study, but were for public reading, which is what they were used for in the Synagogues of Apostolic times, beginning with Jesus, Who did not like what He found there... Aside from His expressed outrage, we find Him foretold of it in Psalm 82 [of your Judaic (eg non-Christian) version of the Bible]... Where "God IS in (the) Synagogue of gods. In (the) midst of gods is He judging..." [Ὁ θεὸς ἔστη ἐν συναγωγῇ θεῶν, ἐν μέσῳ δὲ θεοὺς διακρίνει] Each day in the Synagogues the Jews gathered for Services, and read from the Books aloud for all to HEAR what was being READ... THAT, you see, is how God intended His words to be received for one thousand five hundred years... Not read and dissected by scholars, but read aloud to the faithful for their hearing... NOT for their reading... Faith comes by HEARING - Not by reading... We wrote it down in the Bible for you...
The Bereans were a priveledged group of the faithful, a community of those who owned and read the Books - And they liked what they were HEARING so much that they went to the books to see if what they were hearing about this Jesus was actually foretold in the Scrolls as those who were preaching Jesus were claiming... And lo and behold, they found His Prophesy in the ancient texts...
SO THAT...
Revelation came to them about prior revelation and its fulfillment... And I would encourge you to note that the revealers themselves did NOT run to the written to verify the veracity of what they were revealing... They KNEW... So that in a word, what is needed is not written verifiction, but direct revelation... And this you find in abundance in the Acts of the Apostles... And for this, for the first millennium and a half, and even up to the present day and hour and minute, the way to receive direct Revelation from God is also written down by the Holy Fathers of the Church - Which record Christ-God's very words in that beautiful revelation of the Beattitudes: "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God." And we all know from John the Baptist and from Christ and from Peter that purification of the Heart is the very FIRST WORD of the Gospel of Jesus Christ: REPENT [Be Ye Repenting is more accurrate]. This word is a COMMAND - The Gospel of Jesus Christ is a Command and its justification - A COMMAND to be obeyed or not... It is the CALL given to man unto an OBEDIENCE freely given FOR the sake of his Salvation by God...
For the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand! It is HERE... It is NOW... It is not merely there and then...
The purification of the heart in repentance from evil and the calling on the Name of the Lord is the hallmark of Christian Life, and an illiterate person can normally do it better than the impoverished scholastic who has to prove every jot and tittle...
SO THAT...
It is the Revelation that comes from God to those who are living lives of repentance in the ongoing purification of the heart so as to see God Who alone even HAS His Revelation to give to them, that IS the basis of scripture, and our confirmation of it... THAT Proof, you see, CANNOT be disproven, but each and every miserable one of OUR OWN conclusions most assurredly CAN be reversed with some NEW line of thinking by the fallen reasoning of fallen man in a fallen world...
Your own private interpretation of the Holy Texts of the Faith of Christ is worthless without living a life of repentance from sin and calling on the name of the Lord and the taking of the Cup of Salvation... These texts were written for the Faith Community of Christ's Holy Body, the Church, who live such a repentant life... And it is to this Faith Community of the last 2000 years of Christian history that we look when we are having an issue with interpreting some part of it...
And fwiw, to hear implies to obey... Hear O Israel!
Faith comes by Hearing, you see...
God Bless You this New Year...
Arsenios
Just how does this equate to "privately interpreting Holy Writ as in examination of what is taught by Scripture, and disagreeing with leadership when it is not" being necessarily wrong, unless you resort to an either/or assertion, that laity were to be wholly dependent upon clergy for knowledge of Scripture and its meaning (based on what they wanted them to hear) and were not also to privately study it themselves as available to them, (Acts 17:11) and which even Catholic Chrysostom encouraged:So that these early and Holy and manuscripted Scrolls were not intended for private reading and study, but were for public reading...you see, is how God intended His words to be received for one thousand five hundred years... Not read and dissected by scholars, but read aloud to the faithful for their hearing... NOT for their reading.
This also is fallacious, since despite your tendency toward false dichotomies, faith coming by HEARING is not opposed to READING, any more then since things such as John 5:46 which were spoken as the word of God and heard as such were from the the written word, and we know the very text you refer to because it was written!Faith comes by HEARING - Not by reading... We wrote it down in the Bible for you...
Which means they were violating what you said that these Holy and manuscripted Scrolls were not intended for private reading and study, but were for public reading..read aloud to the faithful for their hearing... NOT for their reading..The Bereans were a priveledged group of the faithful, a community of those who owned and read the Books
Indeed, Rather than simply believing what was told to them they went to Scripture as being the supreme authority - which the apostles preached from. (Acts 17:2)- And they liked what they were HEARING so much that they went to the books to see if what they were hearing about this Jesus was actually foretold in the Scrolls as those who were preaching Jesus were claiming... And lo and behold, they found His Prophesy in the ancient texts...
Hold on cowboy. There was no direct revelation apart from Scripture given to the Bereans, but instead illumination from Scripture, with the apostles testifying of Christ from the Scriptures.
SO THAT...Revelation came to them about prior revelation and its fulfillment...
Just where are you getting this from? Do you actually think that what the apostles preached was independent from Scripture or not subject to testing by it, and that this thus justifies the purported revelations of your church as not being subject to testing by Scripture? This is wrong on multiple levels.And I would encourge you to note that the revealers themselves did NOT run to the written to verify the veracity of what they were revealing... They KNEW... So that in a word, what is needed is not written verifiction, but direct revelation...And this you find in abundance in the Acts of the Apostles...
Which claim to new public direct Revelation, with the veracity of which not being subject to testing by Scripture, is simply cultic and not Biblically Christian.And for this, for the first millennium and a half, and even up to the present day and hour and minute, the way to receive direct Revelation from God is also written down by the Holy Fathers of the Church -
And which repenting is do much of, mainly to do with the rebellion of my heart, but rather than being pure in heart - and repenting when not - being based on direct public revelation, is it based upon the reliable source of what the word of God, which is wholly inspired Scripture.Which record Christ-God's very words in that beautiful revelation of the Beattitudes: "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God." And we all know from John the Baptist and from Christ and from Peter that purification of the Heart is the very FIRST WORD of the Gospel of Jesus Christ: REPENT [Be Ye Repenting is more accurrate]. This word is a COMMAND - The Gospel of Jesus Christ is a Command and its justification - A COMMAND to be obeyed or not... It is the CALL given to man unto an OBEDIENCE freely given FOR the sake of his Salvation by God...
There we have no argument in the sense Scripture teaches, And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law? (Romans 2:27)The purification of the heart in repentance from evil and the calling on the Name of the Lord is the hallmark of Christian Life, and an illiterate person can normally do it better than the impoverished scholastic who has to prove every jot and tittle..
Which unquestionable esoteric-type of revelation is Gnostic, and makes Scripture subject to such, not vice versa. Which again is cultic.It is the Revelation that comes from God to those who are living lives of repentance in the ongoing purification of the heart so as to see God Who alone even HAS His Revelation to give to them, that IS the basis of scripture, and our confirmation of it... THAT Proof, you see, CANNOT be disproven,
THe Christian life is indeed war, and thus, rather than being established upon the the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial or ecclesiastical infallibility, then just as Moses had to overcome the competition of magicians who duplicated his first 3 miracles, so the NT had to overcome evil with God, establishing her Truth claims upon Scriptural substantiation, in word and in power, versus competing claims.but each and every miserable one of OUR OWN conclusions most assurredly CAN be reversed with some NEW line of thinking by the fallen reasoning of fallen man in a fallen world...
Indeed (with the Cup of Salvation being the means by which one obtains purifying of heart), but despite your proclivity to employing false dichotomies, the two are not only not opposed to each other. For instead one can hear and read how to obtain the washing of regeneration from Scripture (such as Acts 10:36-43) and as what God requires in the life or faith from the Scriptures, both of which a sound church effectually preaches.Your own private interpretation of the Holy Texts of the Faith of Christ is worthless without living a life of repentance from sin and calling on the name of the Lord and the taking of the Cup of Salvation...
And i have stiff arthritiic finger which makes results in typos in about rbery third word, and thus can takes hours to compile a substantial response. Thank be to God for auto misspelled word marking and correcting options.Thank You for clarifying . Yes you should be doing what you're doing if you care about truth and continue what you are doing . I respect that . I am frustrated that I have to type in each scripture by hand . I am not as savy to cut and paste I am slightly computer literate . Thats my problem
As far as what appropriates justification, one is only saved by grace thru faith, which purifies the heart (Acts 15:9) and is counted for righteousness (Romans 4:5) and renders one accepted in the Beloved (on His account) and positionally seated together which their Lord in Heaven, (Ephesians 1:6; 2:6) from where they await the Lord's return and His changing of our "vile body," that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body." (Philippians 3:21)We do not teach works righteousness ( which is not in the Catholic Catechism ) but obedience is required . My works alone will not save me unless it is underpinned by God's Grace and my faith .Grace , Faith ( a saving faith ) and works all work in unity . James 2:1-24" We are justified by works and not by faith alone.". Like a 3 legged stool , take one away it falls down. We cooperate with Christ working with him and must be in obedience . Do you believe in 'once saved always saved 'or do you believe a person can lose their salvation ?Let us stay with the topic of Justification . Do you believe we are saved by Faith Alone ?
Wrong: while some statement by modern V2 Catholicism are conciliatory, yet since her ecclesiology seems to be the work of a mixed multitude of liberals and conservatives, she also says,Finally in the Catechism we do recognize you as fully Christian and accept others Trinitarian Baptism and call you Churches ( CCC-818,819 ) We don't always get that respect back from some Orthodox or Evangelicals .
Essentially because she significantly left the NT church which i read and heard about from Scripture. While the absence of fellowship with people who had realized the profound basic changes of regeneration (basically finding only a rare few, and mostly in RC charismatic groups), with the resultant on-going hunger to know how to please God from the Scriptures was the most immediate motivation for my since prayer to God "If it be Your will to go to a different church, then I trust you will show me" - which He promptly quickly did, thanks be to God - yet I also was progressively seeing the contrast btwn the very evangelically active NT church (though i was working 60+ hours a week, I myself was trying to basically witness to others about Christ during and after hours, if not being very boldly or well equipped).Why did you leave the Catholic Church ?
You are enlarging the class I restricted this core assent and contention for to. Which was not Lutherans , presbyterians , Orthodox , Catholics. And not many (and none i know of) Pentecostals believe baptism is the baptism of the Holy Spirit, which instead they see as distinctive or at the same time (which is close to the RC position).I am proposing that even the core truths are not always held in common . Take Baptism there is no agreement that is is a core truth . For example Baptism . Some believe it is a Sacrament ( Lutherans , presbyterians , Orthodox , Catholics ). some believe it is only symbolic ( many Evangelicals ) others believe it is a baptism of the Holy Spirit ( many Pentecostals ). There can only be one right answer for this fundamental core truth . If it is only symbolic , why do it , if it is a sacrament it does do something (1 Peter 3:21 " baptism now saves us" ) and if it is a baptism of the Holy Spirit ( which pentecostals believe is a requirement for salvation). I think it is a core teaching which has implications for our very salvation.
The same reason i can say putting the ring on makes you married. Or when you put that ring on you entered into a covenant." What it symbolizes represents the real thing (thus the adulterer takes the ring off at work), and thus the symbol is used as the real thing.If it is only symbolic , why do it , if it is a sacrament it does do something (1 Peter 3:21 " baptism now saves us" )
Thanks for your kind response.Thanks for sharing your reply to me
Meaning who, and that such are necessarily beyond valid contradiction by the laity (at least)? By what supreme standard on earth do you know these followers are following Christ, at least in the issues at hand?And we are not to follow ourselves in our reading of the words written by others who are His followers...
Arsenios
Actually some of these are fair comments. I can show both from scripture and the quotes of the early Christians , to backup my claims that Christ created one church (RC) , not several churches . I am just reminding all of you that truth requires one answer to ever one question . So I believe I have effectively , from scripture, shown that Purgatory is scriptural and the fact early Christians believed it . Whether you like it or not Christ said " everyone will be salted with fire " including you . And fire will "1 test each ones work "1 Cor 10-17 and Paul prays for a dead friend 2 Tim 1:16-18 and that there is such a thing as people baptizing for the dead ... . So don't call it purgatory but it will happen . However i did give a good defense in the past , but because of your anti Catholicism you have no choice to deny the evidence , because that would make us right . You all do teach different things and interpret scripture differently which seem to also be denied . You will even deny that your denying it . Truth demands that there is only one interpretation and I can show you this using scripture .You are missing the point, which is that if you are going to invoke unity as evidence of validity then you must deal with your own divisions. And which is not simply those with the Orthodox, but the amalgam of variegated beliefs in your own church, which she implicitly sanctions. I can ask you questions about your own beliefs which could reveal that.
.
True, meaning what is important to understand is that the NT is not just denying certain Catholic belief but also to certain Orthodox beliefs. Where would you like to start?
No, that is not what I said, and putting words in my mouth will not help you. The only "one true church" is the church that was purchased with the sinless blood of Christ, (Acts 20:28) this being the general body of Christ, to which He is married, and is the "household of faith," (Gal. 6:10) for it alone always and only consists 100% of believers (there are even a few RCs in it).
Thus it cannot refer to any one particular visible organic church/denomination, which inevitably become amalgams of wheat and tares, with both expressing their faith in such.
I know of no particular visible organic church/denomination that has the purity, power and passion of the prima NT church, under matchless manifest apostles of God, "in all things approving ourselves as the ministers of God. (2 Corinthians 6:4-10)
But as a former RCs who, while being a weekly Mass-going RC, became truly born again thru personal deep contrite repentance and faith, and realized its profound basic changes in heart and life, and even remained a active weekly RC for 6 years, looking for fellowship with those who had realizd what i did;
then I can say that the evangelicals are overall the closest to the faith and fellowship of the Spirit of the NT church, whether it be Calvary Chapel types to conservative Baptists or Pentecostals. We certainly can disagree on things, but the unity we have centered on the person of Christ due to a shared conversion and the Scriptures as His living word is greater than our divisions. Which on street-level are usually more due to culture than doctrine.
However, this is not with all or even most, as it is a historical norm that a relative remnant shall be saved, while the prophesied latter day falling away (2Thes. 2) is increasingly seen.
I never said that, but said and showed that you all in Catholicism (not just Roman) also interpret scripture, tradition and even church teaching differently, with the difference being in scope and depth.
But that Scripture-esteeming, evangelical-types testify to being the most unified in basic beliefs versus Catholics.
Indeed, and it requires more than saying your church has exclusivity to truth via the correct interpretation of scripture, tradition and history.
Which is what every cult says.
Why must you resort to unsubstantiated assertions? Go find me a church that claims that it alone possess the only correct interpretation of scripture in faith and morals and i will show you a cult. And or Rome.
What you merely believe simply does not make it true.
And what Catholics typically do is believe what scripture says as understood by the overall sparse selective writings of some so-called church "fathers" (which they were not) says as chosen by Rome. Unless you believe the CFs were infallible then your basis for assurance of Truth rests upon the premise of Roman ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility. You do not believe in the Assumption on the weight of what early Church Fathers testified concerning it do you, but instead your assurance rests upon Rome having declared it to be so. At least that is what Keating said.
Since the ECFs were not wholly inspired of God or infallible, thus would have to show you what Scripture says about Rome and the Papacy to prove your point, and which judge the ECFs.
But of course I would normally counteract if contrary to the weight of what we see in the only wholly inspired record of what the NT church believed (including how they understood the gospels), Acts - Rev.
We don't have a problem with Christ being the head . I will coment later .The Bishop of Rome or Pope is the visible head of the Church. Christ is the Head.
I'm not familiar with this requirement. Is this an Orthodox requirement only?
Doesn't really matter? It has to do with Peter
So if James happemed to be the first pope I doubt you would be ok with it.
You are missing the point, which is that if you are going to invoke unity as evidence of validity then you must deal with your own divisions. And which is not simply those with the Orthodox, but the amalgam of variegated beliefs in your own church, which she implicitly sanctions. I can ask you questions about your own beliefs which could reveal that.
.
True, meaning what is important to understand is that the NT is not just denying certain Catholic belief but also to certain Orthodox beliefs. Where would you like to start?
No, that is not what I said, and putting words in my mouth will not help you. The only "one true church" is the church that was purchased with the sinless blood of Christ, (Acts 20:28) this being the general body of Christ, to which He is married, and is the "household of faith," (Gal. 6:10) for it alone always and only consists 100% of believers (there are even a few RCs in it).
Thus it cannot refer to any one particular visible organic church/denomination, which inevitably become amalgams of wheat and tares, with both expressing their faith in such.
I know of no particular visible organic church/denomination that has the purity, power and passion of the prima NT church, under matchless manifest apostles of God, "in all things approving ourselves as the ministers of God. (2 Corinthians 6:4-10)
But as a former RCs who, while being a weekly Mass-going RC, became truly born again thru personal deep contrite repentance and faith, and realized its profound basic changes in heart and life, and even remained a active weekly RC for 6 years, looking for fellowship with those who had realizd what i did;
then I can say that the evangelicals are overall the closest to the faith and fellowship of the Spirit of the NT church, whether it be Calvary Chapel types to conservative Baptists or Pentecostals. We certainly can disagree on things, but the unity we have centered on the person of Christ due to a shared conversion and the Scriptures as His living word is greater than our divisions. Which on street-level are usually more due to culture than doctrine.
However, this is not with all or even most, as it is a historical norm that a relative remnant shall be saved, while the prophesied latter day falling away (2Thes. 2) is increasingly seen.
I never said that, but said and showed that you all in Catholicism (not just Roman) also interpret scripture, tradition and even church teaching differently, with the difference being in scope and depth.
But that Scripture-esteeming, evangelical-types testify to being the most unified in basic beliefs versus Catholics.
Indeed, and it requires more than saying your church has exclusivity to truth via the correct interpretation of scripture, tradition and history.
Which is what every cult says.
Why must you resort to unsubstantiated assertions? Go find me a church that claims that it alone possess the only correct interpretation of scripture in faith and morals and i will show you a cult. And or Rome.
What you merely believe simply does not make it true.
And what Catholics typically do is believe what scripture says as understood by the overall sparse selective writings of some so-called church "fathers" (which they were not) says as chosen by Rome. Unless you believe the CFs were infallible then your basis for assurance of Truth rests upon the premise of Roman ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility. You do not believe in the Assumption on the weight of what early Church Fathers testified concerning it do you, but instead your assurance rests upon Rome having declared it to be so. At least that is what Keating said.
Since the ECFs were not wholly inspired of God or infallible, thus would have to show you what Scripture says about Rome and the Papacy to prove your point, and which judge the ECFs.
But of course I would normally counteract if contrary to the weight of what we see in the only wholly inspired record of what the NT church believed (including how they understood the gospels), Acts - Rev.
Thanks for your kind response.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?