Confused which is the true church

[Albion]

Not true. In the immediately preceding verse our Lord tells us that he will build his Church on Peter, and we know from Isaiah 22, for example, that the person who holds the keys has authority.

As for the first mistake there, BUILD ON does not mean rule over.

Peter was the one who first opened the Gospel to the wider world on Pentecost Sunday when people of many languages heard him preach in their own languages, and then thousands were converted. Keys open things, and here the kingdom was first opened to the world outside of Palestine. Now...That's building the church!

And in a miraculous way. That was quite a privilege given him by the Lord.

As for the second mistake, Isaiah speaks of a political position, not a religious one. And it was a KEY given in the Old Testament. By comparison, it was KEYS given to Peter. So the comparison is not at all accurate.

I note that you have not offered any plausible alternative as to the meaning of our Lord giving St. Peter the keys.

See the above.

 

[W2L]

It doesnt matter who had the keys, what matters is who has the Word. We all have bibles.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Bible Christians, or those who identify as such anyway, disagree on many core beliefs, some involving basic soteriological matters such as infant baptism and baptismal regeneration: involving whether or not baptism even regenerates.

Hardly. Outside of elitist cults like the "church of Christ," hardly any fund. evangelical denominations - which is the class of believers I was referring to, who exalt Scripture as the wholly inspired and accurate word of God over men, versus not cults or liberal Prots - believe in baptismal regeneration, including the largest denomination, while Prot churches that do believe in baptismal regeneration tend to be closest to Catholics, and overall liberal.

Which (liberal) Catholics are as well when we look at what they profess, and the testimony of those a church considers members has the greater weight as to what the supreme basis for belief should be, uninspired words of men or the inspired word of God.

And my comment was as regards what Catholics vs Bible Christians overall attest to.

Other bible Christians disagree on the deity of Jesus, Sabbath vs the Lord’s Day for rest/worship, and there's much controversy over John chap 6 and the real presence.

Once again you are resorting to using cults or mainline liberal Prots as "Bible Christians?" The latter are not whom the likes of "Catholic Answers" refer to, but more often as "Fundamentalists." Meanwhile cults tend to be like Rome, in which Scripture only authoritatively consists of and means what their exalted leaders determine, who are basically held to be as possessing protection from error, versus the veracity of teaching being subject to testing by Scripture, and established upon the weight of Scriptural substantiation. Which is how the NT church began.

And instead of disagreement on the deity of Jesus, and or Sabbath vs the Lord’s Day for rest/worship being what characterizes evangelical types, those belong to fringe groups and cults, against which the evangelical movement has historically contended (It was not a Catholic who wrote "The Kingdom of the Cults. ".) Which they do towards members who make known denial of such core beliefs.

In contrast, liberals - including are proabortion, prohomosexual public figures (like Ted Kennedy)- are manifestly considered members by Rome in life and in death, thus showing her interpretation of herself, including canon law, and are far far more likely to feel at home in the Catholic church than in a fund. evangelical church. And the majority of of Catholics polled do not even strongly affirm that Christ was sinless on earth.

As for controversy over John chap 6 and the real presence, where does that even exist except among churches like the Lutherans, even if not as much a fantasy as the Catholic "Real Presence" (which was apparently an Anglican term for their distinctive belief).

These are all things that the EO and RCC agree on, btw, and have agreed on before the NT was even written.

Wrong, for you can hardly claim to teach what the NT church believed, much less to be that church, when the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (including how they understood the OT and gospels) does not substantiate that !

Therefore Catholicism resorts to arguing that one cannot discover the contents of Scripture without faith in her, and that since "she gave us the Bible" then she is the final and sure supreme authority on what it means. Which logic leads to a damning conclusion.

So Tradition plays its role regardless of how one describes and defines the term, and that's a major point;

In which you have disagreement as to what it all consists of and means, which is also true of Scripture, the difference being in degrees.

while the RCC for its part formally recognizes the many agreements between the two churches, amazingly considering the centuries in isolation, certain commentators form the EO side seem to glory in emphasizing the differences, which often amount to differences in semantics only or to the lengths to which one (usually the RCC) may go in describing and defining some doctrines. A rose is a rose…

You can only wish that was all true. Some examples:

The Orthodox Church opposes the Roman doctrines of universal papal jurisdiction, papal infallibility, purgatory, and the Immaculate Conception precisely because they are untraditional." - Orthodox apologist and author Clark Carlton: THE WAY: What Every Protestant Should Know About the Orthodox Church, 1997, p 135.

Both purgatory and indulgences are inter-corrolated theories, unwitnessed in the Bible or in the Ancient Church.. — http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith7076

Roman Catholicism, unable to show a continuity of faith and in order to justify new doctrine, erected in the last century, a theory of "doctrinal development." Following the philosophical spirit of the time (and the lead of Cardinal Henry Newman), Roman Catholic theologians began to define and teach the idea that Christ only gave us an "original deposit" of faith, a "seed," which grew and matured through the centuries....On this basis, theories such as the dogmas of "papal infallibility" and "the immaculate conception" of the Virgin Mary (about which we will say more) are justifiably presented to the Faithful as necessary to their salvation. - http://www.ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/reading/ortho_cath.html

There is nothing Orthodox about the charismatic movement. It is incompatible with Orthodoxy, in that it justifies itself only by perverting the message of the Fathers, suggesting that the Church of Christ needs renewal, and indulging in the theological imagery of, Pentecostal cultism. With such things, one cannot be too bold in his language of condemnation and reprobation. - http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/charmov.aspx

Orthodoxy is not simply an alternative ecclesiastical structure to the Roman Catholic Church. The Orthodox Church presents a fundamentally different approach to theology, because She possesses a fundamentally different experience of Christ and life in Him. To put it bluntly, she knows a different Christ from that of the Roman Catholic Church.” — Clark Carlton, THE WAY: What Every Protestant Should Know About the Orthodox Church, 1997; http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=13-07-033-b.

Few Catholics realize that Eastern Orthodoxy, especially as represented by Palamite theology, represents a systematic and comprehensive attack upon Catholic doctrine. Catholic and Orthodox theology are not only in opposition to one another in their understanding of God (theology), but also in the various disciplines of philosophy – in Cosmology, Psychology, Epistemology, Metaphysics, Theodicy, and Ethics. They posit radically different views of God, of man, and of the relationship between God and His creation... Over the past 2,000 years there have been many heresies, schisms, and systems of thought comprehensively opposed to Catholicism. But none has carried the potential threat for corruption of all of Catholic dogma which Eastern Orthodoxy represents. — http://www.waragainstbeing.com/partiii

To be cntd.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Bible Christians, or those who identify as such anyway, disagree on many core beliefs, some involving basic soteriological matters such as infant baptism and baptismal regeneration: involving whether or not baptism even regenerates.

Hardly. Outside of elitist cults like the "church of Christ," hardly any fund. evangelical denominations - which is the class of believers I was referring to, who exalt Scripture as the wholly inspired and accurate word of God over men, versus not cults or liberal Prots - believe in baptismal regeneration, including the largest denomination, while Prot churches that do believe in baptismal regeneration tend to be closest to Catholics, and overall liberal.

Which (liberal) Catholics are as well when we look at what they profess, and the testimony of those a church considers members has the greater weight as to what the supreme basis for belief should be, uninspired words of men or the inspired word of God.

And my comment was as regards what Catholics vs Bible Christians overall attest to.

Other bible Christians disagree on the deity of Jesus, Sabbath vs the Lord’s Day for rest/worship, and there's much controversy over John chap 6 and the real presence.

Once again you are resorting to using cults or mainline liberal Prots as "Bible Christians?" The latter are not whom the likes of "Catholic Answers" refer to, but more often as "Fundamentalists." Meanwhile cults tend to be like Rome, in which Scripture only authoritatively consists of and means what their exalted leaders determine, who are basically held to be as possessing protection from error, versus the veracity of teaching being subject to testing by Scripture, and established upon the weight of Scriptural substantiation. Which is how the NT church began.

And instead of disagreement on the deity of Jesus, and or Sabbath vs the Lord’s Day for rest/worship being what characterizes evangelical types, those belong to fringe groups and cults, against which the evangelical movement has historically contended (It was not a Catholic who wrote "The Kingdom of the Cults. ".) Which they do towards members who make known denial of such core beliefs.

In contrast, liberals - including are proabortion, prohomosexual public figures (like Ted Kennedy)- are manifestly considered members by Rome in life and in death, thus showing her interpretation of herself, including canon law, and are far far more likely to feel at home in the Catholic church than in a fund. evangelical church. And the majority of of Catholics polled do not even strongly affirm that Christ was sinless on earth.

As for controversy over John chap 6 and the real presence, where does that even exist except among churches like the Lutherans, even if not as much a fantasy as the Catholic "Real Presence" (which was apparently an Anglican term for their distinctive belief).

These are all things that the EO and RCC agree on, btw, and have agreed on before the NT was even written.

Wrong, for you can hardly claim to teach what the NT church believed, much less to be that church, when the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (including how they understood the OT and gospels) does not substantiate that !

Therefore Catholicism resorts to arguing that one cannot discover the contents of Scripture without faith in her, and that since "she gave us the Bible" then she is the final and sure supreme authority on what it means. Which logic leads to a damning conclusion.

So Tradition plays its role regardless of how one describes and defines the term, and that's a major point;

In which you have disagreement as to what it all consists of and means, which is also true of Scripture, the difference being in degrees.

while the RCC for its part formally recognizes the many agreements between the two churches, amazingly considering the centuries in isolation, certain commentators form the EO side seem to glory in emphasizing the differences, which often amount to differences in semantics only or to the lengths to which one (usually the RCC) may go in describing and defining some doctrines. A rose is a rose…

You can only wish that was all true. Some examples:

The Orthodox Church opposes the Roman doctrines of universal papal jurisdiction, papal infallibility, purgatory, and the Immaculate Conception precisely because they are untraditional." - Orthodox apologist and author Clark Carlton: THE WAY: What Every Protestant Should Know About the Orthodox Church, 1997, p 135.

Both purgatory and indulgences are inter-corrolated theories, unwitnessed in the Bible or in the Ancient Church.. — http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith7076

Roman Catholicism, unable to show a continuity of faith and in order to justify new doctrine, erected in the last century, a theory of "doctrinal development." Following the philosophical spirit of the time (and the lead of Cardinal Henry Newman), Roman Catholic theologians began to define and teach the idea that Christ only gave us an "original deposit" of faith, a "seed," which grew and matured through the centuries....On this basis, theories such as the dogmas of "papal infallibility" and "the immaculate conception" of the Virgin Mary (about which we will say more) are justifiably presented to the Faithful as necessary to their salvation. - http://www.ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/reading/ortho_cath.html

There is nothing Orthodox about the charismatic movement. It is incompatible with Orthodoxy, in that it justifies itself only by perverting the message of the Fathers, suggesting that the Church of Christ needs renewal, and indulging in the theological imagery of, Pentecostal cultism. With such things, one cannot be too bold in his language of condemnation and reprobation. - http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/charmov.aspx

Orthodoxy is not simply an alternative ecclesiastical structure to the Roman Catholic Church. The Orthodox Church presents a fundamentally different approach to theology, because She possesses a fundamentally different experience of Christ and life in Him. To put it bluntly, she knows a different Christ from that of the Roman Catholic Church.” — Clark Carlton, THE WAY: What Every Protestant Should Know About the Orthodox Church, 1997; http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=13-07-033-b.

Few Catholics realize that Eastern Orthodoxy, especially as represented by Palamite theology, represents a systematic and comprehensive attack upon Catholic doctrine. Catholic and Orthodox theology are not only in opposition to one another in their understanding of God (theology), but also in the various disciplines of philosophy – in Cosmology, Psychology, Epistemology, Metaphysics, Theodicy, and Ethics. They posit radically different views of God, of man, and of the relationship between God and His creation... Over the past 2,000 years there have been many heresies, schisms, and systems of thought comprehensively opposed to Catholicism. But none has carried the potential threat for corruption of all of Catholic dogma which Eastern Orthodoxy represents. — http://www.waragainstbeing.com/partiii

The NT was never intended to be some sort of catechism.

It testifies to that the catechism of the NT church was, while RCs tend to treat the CCC as if it were definitive over the NT.

One’s private interpretations can easily conflict with both RCC doctrine and the intended meaning of Scripture.

And RCC doctrine can easily conflict with Scripture, as well as teach as doctrine that which it does not.

To be cntd.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Additionally, scripture even tells us that there are many things unrecorded that Jesus said and did, and instructs to carry on both written and oral traditions/teachings.

Which can only presume that, contrary to Biblical history, in which God manifestly made writing His most-reliable means of preservation of what was written and oral traditions, (Exodus 17:14; 34:1,27; Deuteronomy 10:4; 17:18; 27:3,8; 31:24; Joshua 1:8; 2 Chronicles 34:15,18-19, 30-31) Psalm 19:7-11; 119; John 20:31; Acts 17:11; Revelation 1:1; 20:12, 15; Matthew 4:5-7; 22:29; Luke 24:44,45; Acts 17:11) then there is virtual bottomless body of amorphous oral teaching out of which Catholicism can channel binding doctrines as essential for the believer. Even the Assumption, over 1700 years after the alleged event occurred, which was so lacking in testimony from early tradition that chief Roman scholars opposed it as being an article of faith !
Before Mary's bodily Assumption into heaven was defined, all theological faculties in the world were consulted for their opinion. Our teachers' answer was emphatically negative... Altaner, the patrologist from Wurzburg¦had proven in a scientifically persuasive manner that the doctrine of Mary's bodily Assumption into heaven was unknown before the 5C; this doctrine, therefore, he argued, could not belong to the "apostolic tradition. And this was his conclusion, which my teachers at Munich shared.

But history is whatever Rome remembers it as.

But...subsequent "remembering" (cf. Jn 16:4, for instance) can come to recognize what it has not caught sight of previously ["caught sight of?" Because there was nothing to see in the earliest period where it should have been, before a fable developed] .." (Joseph Ratzinger, Milestones (Ignatius, n.d.), pp. 58-59; emp. mine).

For history, tradition and Scripture is only what Rome says it is in any conflict, Which reasoning no less than Manning resorted to:

It was the charge of the Reformers that the Catholic doctrines were not primitive, and their pretension was to revert to antiquity. But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine... I may say in strict truth that the Church has no antiquity....Primitive and modern are predicates, not of truth, but of ourselves...The only Divine evidence to us of what was primitive is the witness and voice of the Church at this hour. . — Dr. Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, Archbishop of Westminster, The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: Or Reason and Revelation, , pp. 227-228. ​

The Church simply held the things given to her from the beginning.

It is time here to say that if you want to make church teaching the supreme law, as per papal teaching, and Catholic tradition as being the word of God since the apostles orally preached it, then your popes and councils need to speak as wholly inspired of God, as men such as the apostles could do, and also provide new public revelation thereby.

In contrast, as 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. Thus the veracity of oral preaching subject to testing by Scripture, and not vice versa.

And thus the NT church did not begin upon the RC the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome (and basically in primary cults), and as essential to discovering what writings were of God, as RC theology vainly imagines, but with common souls both rightly ascertaining both men and teachings as being of God (essentially due to their Divine Scriptural qualities and attestation), and in dissent from the historical magisterium, (Mark 11:27-33; John 7:45-48) and thus contrary to the Catholic model.

Infallibility is nothing different from someone picking up the bible, reading and interpreting it, and then believing and telling others how to live their lives accordingly.

Wrong as defined by Rome, for instead it is a special charism uniquely possessed by whoever occupies the papal office, as well as bishops in union with him defining a matter to be held by all.

Thus to charge that "picking up the bible, reading and interpreting it, and then believing and telling others how to live their lives accordingly" is presuming infallibility is absurd, unless referring to a cult. Instead, the veracity of a teaching must rest upon the weight of Scriptural substantiation in word and in power.

But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God. (2 Corinthians 4:2)

I responded to the rest of your post, but CF software deleted the rest of my post when i tried to add it to what I posted, based on too many characters.

And I am not going to spend more hours reiterating what i said (been typing for over 6). I should have saved my draft.

 

[BrotherDave]

I have been born again and accepted Jesus Christ to my life 6 years ago. I am Catholic btw. Since that time while reading bible I found some contradictions with catholic teachings or confusion. I found that for me it's no difference in what church I am as I think The most important thing is our relationship with Jesus ,but not what church we attend. But also when I start reading bible I get confused with Catholic Church and i feel bad not knowing where is true anymore. It makes me feel like I don't belong neither in Catholic or other churches. I been studying in Vatican theology for a year,but still haven't mad me more clear although it does tract a catholic church as being one of the first and oldest churches ,but trough history there was some bad times where some teachings might changed..Where is the truth some one please help.

Kudos to you! I applaud the fact you are reading the (KJV) bible! Never stop that. That is where the truth resides (Gal 2:5,14, Eph 1:13) and it will set you free (John 8:32)!

You are correct that the most important thing is our relationship with Christ ! He tells us in that if know him we will keep his word (John 14:15,23, I John 2:3) and His Spirit will witness with ours (Ro 8:16, I Thess1:5). The Lord will direct our hearts into the love of God (2 Thess 3:5). We love scripture because we love the Lord (Johns 1:1,1:15, Eph 3:6,2 Thess 2:14). You only need the bible and God.

Here’s the situation as I see it. One of the things to keep in mind when considering how best to worship our Lord and glorify His name is to keep in mind that we are warned throughout the Bible that a time will come when man will not have sound doctrine (2 Tim 4:3) and God will work outside local churches giving congregations over to sin (II Thess 2:4,7) as part of the judgment process (I Peter 4:17). Churches have had the Bible for a long time and all claim to be “a house of God” so they should recognize false doctrines and flee from them (Mar 13:14). But they choose to trust in their understanding and place their eternal security in the church rather than Christ who is the pillar and ground of truth . This ultimately leads to their destruction as they are judged first (Matt 20:16) even though they truly believed they accepted the Lord, were saved and doing good works for God (Matt 7:22-23, Luke 13:27, I Th 5:3)

We know that God today is the same God as yesterday (Heb 13:8). All we have to reflect on is how He treated his people in the past. That was OT national Israel. They did their own thing and God’s judgement started in Jerusalem and Judah (Jer 25:18). God was patient with Israel (Judges, I&II Sam, I & II Kings) like He has been patient with NT churches. He completely destroyed Israel’s northern tribes in 709BC and the southern in 587 BC.

It is often said that we need to have some sort of spiritual overseer, guide or teacher. But recall what God said about His rule over the ant (Prov 6:6-8). Certainly He can rule over and care for His children who are indwelt by the Holy Spirit. Church was needed before the printing press and when not many could read. But now the Bible is everywhere, most everyone can read. Today’s churches lean more towards a social gospel, believing that the poor and oppressed need the most help. However as God shows us in the parable of the rich man and beggar Lazarus (Luke 16) it was the rich man who had nothing and Lazarus had everything as he was saved.

Other things to consider when looking into a church to attend. What are their views on:

Divorce (I Cor 7:39. Ro 7:1-3)
Pastors (I Cor14:34, I Tim 2:12, I Tim 3)
Type of Gospel: Signs and wonders (Rev 22:9-10,II Cor 11:13-14, II Thess 2:1-4,Matt 24:24), works –grace (Eph 1:4-10, 2:1-10,Ro 3:10-11,Matt 1:21,Rev 17:8
Sunday Sabbath (Is 58:14-14)
Fear of God (not just love): Acts 20:26-27)
Views on Homosexuality

Does everything agree with the Bible.

Not an easy task to figure out what do. The social aspect of being around kind of like-minded people can be difficult to ignore. But the determination of how best to study scripture and worship God is a serious one. To reiterate what others have suggested, best to pray about it, continue searching the bible and certainly do not put yourself in an environment where you are not comfortable with the beliefs, teachings, or focus. No matter what though, always challenge key teachings by getting into the details of the Bible during your own quiet time.

 

[MyGivenNameIsKeith]

Thank you have asked for clarification. I don't think that anyone is saying that Scripture is not authoritative. As an aside, Jesus is the mediator, not Scripture.

John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Scripture is revelation about Jesus.

2 Timothy 3:15-17 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

============
In the first 5 centuries after the Resurrection, we had many scroll of scriptures used in churches. We also had many, many interpretations of the faith. I find it extremely misleading to say that my or your translation of a particular translation of a particular scroll of Scripture is authoritative.

Luke 12:51 Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division:
1 Corinthians 12:5-6 And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord. 6And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all.

In Scripture, it the gathered Church that clarifies the meanings of Scripture.

I would like to see that verse.
John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
Nehemiah 8:8 So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading.

We are told that the apostles would hand down the Truth have the generations.

Also would like to see where you found this.

I do NOT believe that each of us should or is equipped to look to a current translation and authoritatively interpret Scripture to such a degree that we can question the interpretations of the Church over the millennia.

1 John 4:1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth
2 Timothy 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

There was truly a mess when the first few councils met (evener though the 8th century). However, the councils did sort a lot out. The councils clarified and decided with regard to the many differences in doctrine (calling those who disagreed "heretics"). The councils decided which scrolls were to be considered Scripture, the very WORD of God. More importantly, many scrolls were rejected. The councils gave us the creeds of the Church.

2 Corinthians 4:2 But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God
Mark 15:24 And when they had crucified him, they parted his garments, casting lots upon them, what every man should take.
Deuteronomy 4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

Obviously, the Roman church made errors over the centuries,

Matthew 23:9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
Luke 6:44 For every tree is known by his own fruit. For of thorns men do not gather figs, nor of a bramble bush gather they grapes.

with the Orthodox recognizing the break in about 1000. One should pray on the meaning of the word "reformation".

The Pharisee and Tax Collector

Luther, Calvin and later Wesley had no intention of fragmenting the Church, or disavowing many of the central doctrines as many modern day fundamentalists have done (following the lead of Zwingli from Reformation times).

We can point out the many differences between those who believe in Church and eucharist. One would expect that after a thousand years without an ecumenical council. However, there are many beliefs that the mainstream churches hold in common, many of which are not held by the fundamentalists.
==========

Matthew 7:13-14 13Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: 14Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
2 Timothy 2:14 Of these things put them in remembrance, charging them before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers.

So, sure, we argue about the details of our understanding some of the doctrines regarding scripture. We argue about the meanings of primacy and sufficiency. Roman and Orthodox have had their own councils and therefore believe that these councils are binding. However, the fundamentalist notion of solo scriptura is foreign to all of the mainline churches, all of whom follow the Tradition of the Early Church in treating Scripture and doctrine.

1 Corinthians 8:2 And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know.
Colossians 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

1 Timothy 6:3-5 If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; 4He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, 5Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.

Matthew 7:29 For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.

 

[W2L]

Hardly. Outside of elitist cults like the "church of Christ," hardly any fund. evangelical denominations - which is the class of believers I was referring to, who exalt Scripture as the wholly inspired and accurate word of God over men, versus not cults or liberal Prots - believe in baptismal regeneration, including the largest denomination, while Prot churches that do believe in baptismal regeneration tend to be closest to Catholics, and overall liberal.

Which (liberal) Catholics are as well when we look at what they profess, and the testimony of those a church considers members has the greater weight as to what the supreme basis for belief should be, uninspired words of men or the inspired word of God.

And my comment was as regards what Catholics vs Bible Christians overall attest to.

Once again you are resorting to using cults or mainline liberal Prots as "Bible Christians?" The latter are not whom the likes of "Catholic Answers" refer to, but more often as "Fundamentalists." Meanwhile cults tend to be like Rome, in which Scripture only authoritatively consists of and means what their exalted leaders determine, who are basically held to be as possessing protection from error, versus the veracity of teaching being subject to testing by Scripture, and established upon the weight of Scriptural substantiation. Which is how the NT church began.

And instead of disagreement on the deity of Jesus, and or Sabbath vs the Lord’s Day for rest/worship being what characterizes evangelical types, those belong to fringe groups and cults, against which the evangelical movement has historically contended (It was not a Catholic who wrote "The Kingdom of the Cults. ".) Which they do towards members who make known denial of such core beliefs.

In contrast, liberals - including are proabortion, prohomosexual public figures (like Ted Kennedy)- are manifestly considered members by Rome in life and in death, thus showing her interpretation of herself, including canon law, and are far far more likely to feel at home in the Catholic church than in a fund. evangelical church. And the majority of of Catholics polled do not even strongly affirm that Christ was sinless on earth.

As for controversy over John chap 6 and the real presence, where does that even exist except among churches like the Lutherans, even if not as much a fantasy as the Catholic "Real Presence" (which was apparently an Anglican term for their distinctive belief).

Wrong, for you can hardly claim to teach what the NT church believed, much less to be that church, when the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (including how they understood the OT and gospels) does not substantiate that !

Therefore Catholicism resorts to arguing that one cannot discover the contents of Scripture without faith in her, and that since "she gave us the Bible" then she is the final and sure supreme authority on what it means. Which logic leads to a damning conclusion.

In which you have disagreement as to what it all consists of and means, which is also true of Scripture, the difference being in degrees.

You can only wish that was all true. Some examples:

The Orthodox Church opposes the Roman doctrines of universal papal jurisdiction, papal infallibility, purgatory, and the Immaculate Conception precisely because they are untraditional." - Orthodox apologist and author Clark Carlton: THE WAY: What Every Protestant Should Know About the Orthodox Church, 1997, p 135.

Both purgatory and indulgences are inter-corrolated theories, unwitnessed in the Bible or in the Ancient Church.. — http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith7076

Roman Catholicism, unable to show a continuity of faith and in order to justify new doctrine, erected in the last century, a theory of "doctrinal development." Following the philosophical spirit of the time (and the lead of Cardinal Henry Newman), Roman Catholic theologians began to define and teach the idea that Christ only gave us an "original deposit" of faith, a "seed," which grew and matured through the centuries....On this basis, theories such as the dogmas of "papal infallibility" and "the immaculate conception" of the Virgin Mary (about which we will say more) are justifiably presented to the Faithful as necessary to their salvation. - http://www.ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/reading/ortho_cath.html

There is nothing Orthodox about the charismatic movement. It is incompatible with Orthodoxy, in that it justifies itself only by perverting the message of the Fathers, suggesting that the Church of Christ needs renewal, and indulging in the theological imagery of, Pentecostal cultism. With such things, one cannot be too bold in his language of condemnation and reprobation. - http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/charmov.aspx

Orthodoxy is not simply an alternative ecclesiastical structure to the Roman Catholic Church. The Orthodox Church presents a fundamentally different approach to theology, because She possesses a fundamentally different experience of Christ and life in Him. To put it bluntly, she knows a different Christ from that of the Roman Catholic Church.” — Clark Carlton, THE WAY: What Every Protestant Should Know About the Orthodox Church, 1997; http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=13-07-033-b.

Few Catholics realize that Eastern Orthodoxy, especially as represented by Palamite theology, represents a systematic and comprehensive attack upon Catholic doctrine. Catholic and Orthodox theology are not only in opposition to one another in their understanding of God (theology), but also in the various disciplines of philosophy – in Cosmology, Psychology, Epistemology, Metaphysics, Theodicy, and Ethics. They posit radically different views of God, of man, and of the relationship between God and His creation... Over the past 2,000 years there have been many heresies, schisms, and systems of thought comprehensively opposed to Catholicism. But none has carried the potential threat for corruption of all of Catholic dogma which Eastern Orthodoxy represents. — http://www.waragainstbeing.com/partiii

To be cntd.

The Church of Christ isnt a cult. I went to one when i was young. They read the bible, prayed, sang songs, had the Lords supper. THey didnt teach anything strange except that they didnt believe in musical instruments in church. That doesnt make them a cult though.

 

[fhansen]

Hardly. Outside of elitist cults like the "church of Christ," hardly any fund. evangelical denominations - which is the class of believers I was referring to, who exalt Scripture as the wholly inspired and accurate word of God over men, versus not cults or liberal Prots - believe in baptismal regeneration, including the largest denomination, while Prot churches that do believe in baptismal regeneration tend to be closest to Catholics, and overall liberal.

Which (liberal) Catholics are as well when we look at what they profess, and the testimony of those a church considers members has the greater weight as to what the supreme basis for belief should be, uninspired words of men or the inspired word of God.

And my comment was as regards what Catholics vs Bible Christians overall attest to.

Once again you are resorting to using cults or mainline liberal Prots as "Bible Christians?" The latter are not whom the likes of "Catholic Answers" refer to, but more often as "Fundamentalists." Meanwhile cults tend to be like Rome, in which Scripture only authoritatively consists of and means what their exalted leaders determine, who are basically held to be as possessing protection from error, versus the veracity of teaching being subject to testing by Scripture, and established upon the weight of Scriptural substantiation. Which is how the NT church began.

And instead of disagreement on the deity of Jesus, and or Sabbath vs the Lord’s Day for rest/worship being what characterizes evangelical types, those belong to fringe groups and cults, against which the evangelical movement has historically contended (It was not a Catholic who wrote "The Kingdom of the Cults. ".) Which they do towards members who make known denial of such core beliefs.

In contrast, liberals - including are proabortion, prohomosexual public figures (like Ted Kennedy)- are manifestly considered members by Rome in life and in death, thus showing her interpretation of herself, including canon law, and are far far more likely to feel at home in the Catholic church than in a fund. evangelical church. And the majority of of Catholics polled do not even strongly affirm that Christ was sinless on earth.

As for controversy over John chap 6 and the real presence, where does that even exist except among churches like the Lutherans, even if not as much a fantasy as the Catholic "Real Presence" (which was apparently an Anglican term for their distinctive belief).

Wrong, for you can hardly claim to teach what the NT church believed, much less to be that church, when the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (including how they understood the OT and gospels) does not substantiate that !

Therefore Catholicism resorts to arguing that one cannot discover the contents of Scripture without faith in her, and that since "she gave us the Bible" then she is the final and sure supreme authority on what it means. Which logic leads to a damning conclusion.

In which you have disagreement as to what it all consists of and means, which is also true of Scripture, the difference being in degrees.

You can only wish that was all true. Some examples:

The Orthodox Church opposes the Roman doctrines of universal papal jurisdiction, papal infallibility, purgatory, and the Immaculate Conception precisely because they are untraditional." - Orthodox apologist and author Clark Carlton: THE WAY: What Every Protestant Should Know About the Orthodox Church, 1997, p 135.

Both purgatory and indulgences are inter-corrolated theories, unwitnessed in the Bible or in the Ancient Church.. — http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith7076

Roman Catholicism, unable to show a continuity of faith and in order to justify new doctrine, erected in the last century, a theory of "doctrinal development." Following the philosophical spirit of the time (and the lead of Cardinal Henry Newman), Roman Catholic theologians began to define and teach the idea that Christ only gave us an "original deposit" of faith, a "seed," which grew and matured through the centuries....On this basis, theories such as the dogmas of "papal infallibility" and "the immaculate conception" of the Virgin Mary (about which we will say more) are justifiably presented to the Faithful as necessary to their salvation. - http://www.ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/reading/ortho_cath.html

There is nothing Orthodox about the charismatic movement. It is incompatible with Orthodoxy, in that it justifies itself only by perverting the message of the Fathers, suggesting that the Church of Christ needs renewal, and indulging in the theological imagery of, Pentecostal cultism. With such things, one cannot be too bold in his language of condemnation and reprobation. - http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/charmov.aspx

Orthodoxy is not simply an alternative ecclesiastical structure to the Roman Catholic Church. The Orthodox Church presents a fundamentally different approach to theology, because She possesses a fundamentally different experience of Christ and life in Him. To put it bluntly, she knows a different Christ from that of the Roman Catholic Church.” — Clark Carlton, THE WAY: What Every Protestant Should Know About the Orthodox Church, 1997; http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=13-07-033-b.

Few Catholics realize that Eastern Orthodoxy, especially as represented by Palamite theology, represents a systematic and comprehensive attack upon Catholic doctrine. Catholic and Orthodox theology are not only in opposition to one another in their understanding of God (theology), but also in the various disciplines of philosophy – in Cosmology, Psychology, Epistemology, Metaphysics, Theodicy, and Ethics. They posit radically different views of God, of man, and of the relationship between God and His creation... Over the past 2,000 years there have been many heresies, schisms, and systems of thought comprehensively opposed to Catholicism. But none has carried the potential threat for corruption of all of Catholic dogma which Eastern Orthodoxy represents. — http://www.waragainstbeing.com/partiii

To be cntd.

First of all Roman Catholicism defines the Roman Catholic faith, not any member or members even if they're a majority. Truth has nothing to do with majority vote. I.e. Catholicism is thoroughly prolife/ anti-abortion while not all Sola Scriptura adherents can or will say the same. Secondly, not all "inspired words of God" are interpreted the same by all "Bible Christians", and some "Bible Christians" do believe in baptismal regeneration. Any Sola Scriptura adherent would certainly consider themselves a "Bible Christian" anyway. The truth is that anyone who disagrees with someone else's interpretation is generally considered to be a heretic, or cultish, or liberal, or ignorant, or unspiritual, or whatever other nasty name or adjective we might want to apply.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

The Church of Christ isnt a cult. I went to one when i was young. They read the bible, prayed, sang songs, had the Lords supper. THey didnt teach anything strange except that they didnt believe in musical instruments in church. That doesnt make them a cult though.

The label “Church of Christ” is a broad term, but in general the fundamental class is likely to affirm that their group of believers constitute the one true church, or at least exclude evangelical church from being true churches if they believe one has been forgiven by faith in the Lord Jesus to save him by His sinless shed blood, before he is baptized.

And thus require rebaptism of such.

As one disciple reports , while countering it,

While I don’t personally know of any person in Churches of Christ who would openly maintain that position (although I’m sure they exist), I do think that belief is prevalent whether overtly stated or not. The thought process goes something like this: We believe the Bible teaches that baptism is an essential part of salvation (Acts 2:38; 1 Pet. 3:20-21; Rom. 6:1-7; et. al.). The purpose of baptism is for the remission of sins. Therefore, if one is not baptized for remission of sins, they have not been baptized scripturally and their baptism is invalid. Since most denominations do not baptize for remission of sins, most baptisms practiced today are invalid. Subjects should be baptized again with the understanding of the true baptism “for remission of sins.”

Basically it is that scorning elitism that is at least cultic, and not representative of evangelicals overall.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

First of all Roman Catholicism defines the Roman Catholic faith, not any member or members even if they're a majority. Truth has nothing to do with majority vote. I.e. Catholicism is thoroughly prolife/ anti-abortion

Nonsense. What one believes is Scripturally determined by what they do and effect, (James 2:18; Matthew 7:20) and regardless of official paper professions, Rome effectually conveys that proabortion, prohomosexual or lesser liberal . views are not contrary to being a Catholic, making Ted Kennedy Caths your brethren, not ours. And fosters more of them.

This amalgamation is the one true church you want us conservative evangelicals to be part of?

while not all Sola Scriptura adherents can or will say the same.

Far, Far Far, more will than those Rome considers members in life and in death! Thus attesting to the Fact that those who most strongly esteem Scripture as the wholly inspired and accurate word of God are the most faithful to at least the basic Truths we both profess.

In contrast, even the majority of RC Bible scholarship is much liberal, even relegating historical OT account such as Jonah and the fish to be fables. This is the one true church you want us conservative evangelicals to be part of?

Secondly, not all "inspired words of God" are interpreted the same by all "Bible Christians",

Nor are the words of Catholic popes and councils interpreted the same by all Catholics, while were did I ever claim complete comprehensive unity, which you cannot either? It is the overall effect of Scripture being the supreme standard as the wholly inspired and accurate word of God versus the "one true church" that is the issue and contest as regards Biblical unity!

and some "Bible Christians" do believe in baptismal regeneration.

Hardly, and far more Catholics disagree on core issues, whom Rome affirms as members, and as said, liberals are far far moire likely to feel at home in Rome than in conservative evangelical churches.

Any Sola Scriptura adherent would certainly consider themselves a "Bible Christian" anyway. The truth is that anyone who disagrees with someone else's interpretation is generally considered to be a heretic, or cultish, or liberal, or ignorant, or unspiritual, or whatever other nasty name or adjective we might want to apply.

The issue is what is to be the standard by which such is determined, the uninspired words of men or the wholly inspired and accurate word of God? Rome says what the church says is supreme, and in turn she makes Scripture and Tradition equal based upon her sure and supreme judgment of what both consist of and mean. And which premise is supported by the the fallacious argument that being the historical stewards of Scripture makes them so. Argue that if you want.

My argument is not against ecclesiastical authority, but its nature, and what the sure and supreme doctrinal authority is to be for believers. Merely denying SS (whatever you think that means) is not going to deal with that.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

I have been born again and accepted Jesus Christ to my life 6 years ago. I am Catholic btw. Since that time while reading bible I found some contradictions with catholic teachings or confusion. I found that for me it's no difference in what church I am as I think The most important thing is our relationship with Jesus ,but not what church we attend. But also when I start reading bible I get confused with Catholic Church and i feel bad not knowing where is true anymore. It makes me feel like I don't belong neither in Catholic or other churches. I been studying in Vatican theology for a year,but still haven't mad me more clear although it does tract a catholic church as being one of the first and oldest churches ,but trough history there was some bad times where some teachings might changed..Where is the truth some one please help.

The Catholics claim to be original and first and so do the Orthodox. The Baptists even claim their origin in John the Baptist, predating the Catholics and the Orthodox. This is not a debate we are going to solve, but it is a great way for the enemy to sow more division and strife.

Just follow Jesus. If you are in a church that looks even remotely like the First Century Church, then start there and get into His Word and He will show you where to be.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

The truth you are looking for is in the Catholic Church. Note that I say that as an Orthodox Christian. Wherever valid sacraments exist, there is the original Church.
Now that you have read the bible, continue on with the canons of the ecumenical councils. You'll eventually find that you are already in the original Church.

The Catholics claim everyone. You are either in the RCC, or "separated brethren".

 

[Jude1:3Contendforthefaith]

OP I ‘m literally stuck in the middle of all the different denominations. That’s the reason it has been a challenge to find the right Theology College to attend.

I like stuff in Orthodox, Catholic, Baptist , Pentacostal and Non Denominational Churches. But I also find stuff that I don’t agree with in them.

The Apostles’ Creed and Nicene Creed are what they all have in common though.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

OP I ‘m literally stuck in the middle of all the different denominations. That’s the reason it has been a challenge to find the right Theology College to attend.

I like stuff in Orthodox, Catholic, Baptist, PentacastAl and Non Denominational Churches. But I also find stuff that I don’t agree with in them.

The Apostles’ Creed and Nicene Creed are what they all have in common though.

Does it matter?

Just follow Jesus and His Word. You'll see where you belong. We will all get there.

 

[Albion]

What church are you affiliated with? That ought to play a major part in your decision about schooling.

 

[Jude1:3Contendforthefaith]

Does it matter?

Just follow Jesus and His Word. You'll see where you belong. We will all get there.

I just want to be at a school that has the closest to my theology.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

I just want to be at a school that has the closest to my theology.

Some people went to the worst possible school, and gave thanks and praise to Yahweh (God) The Creator for some of the methods they learned there that permitted them later to become the most successful healers, even though the school had no intention of that, and never would permit that to happen , whenever they can stop it.

The discipline without accepting the wicked motives , without agreeing to sin,
the discipline to accomplish more than anyone else ever had (or has since),
was learned while at the VERY worldly school --- oh,
it is NOT recommended to anyone of weak faith, anyone who might give in and be persuaded to do the devil's work while pretending not to (even being given over to their own delusions, because of lack of faith or unbelief, if/when God gives/gave them over to be deceived because of their own sin).

 

[Afra]

As for the first mistake there, BUILD ON does not mean rule over.

Peter was the one who first opened the Gospel to the wider world on Pentecost Sunday when people of many languages heard him preach in their own languages, and then thousands were converted. Keys open things, and here the kingdom was first opened to the world outside of Palestine. Now...That's building the church!

And in a miraculous way. That was quite a privilege given him by the Lord.

As for the second mistake, Isaiah speaks of a political position, not a religious one. And it was a KEY given in the Old Testament. By comparison, it was KEYS given to Peter. So the comparison is not at all accurate.


See the above.

The supposed distinctions you raise are irrelevant. If one key symbolizes authority then multiple keys also symbolize authority. And the key in Isaiah symbolizes authority, be it "political," "religious," "spiritual" or whatever other categories you would like to raise.

 

[Afra]

This is dangerous. You rarely see exegesis here that takes into account everything we know about the author and context.

Is it excellent exegesis when someone agrees with you?