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.
What gets me is the "inerrency of man" and not enough faith in God's execution of His written word to trust in Him alone as being infallable. So wrong!.... Christ gave us people whom he ordained, who guided by the Holy Spirit, taught the faith faithfully and inerrently. The Bible is not the Word of God alone.
...
1900 years ago, there was very little written. It was mostly spoken. The reason Paul's letters, and the gospels were considered Scripture is that they were read during worship. The Catholic Church is who determined what was in the Bible. That's all there is to it. And to this day, we are the protector of Sacred Scripture.If the church could discern 1700 years ago, then it could 1900 years ago, then it could 500 years ago, then it can today. And, if it was discerning, then it is not tradition; and if it was done 1600 years ago, then tell me how that means your church exclusive holder or even continuing in holding truth and speaking it incontrovertibly.
Yeah, he did. They were inconvenient for his theology.Just goes to show infallibility of religious leaders and how you don't just take one man's word as gospel truth. Further, Luther rejected some OT books that the Protestants continue in today.
Actually, they're not. They've evolved, like an oak tree is the same as an acorn. But they're not a long way from a pope.The faith has never changed but the institution has. Overseerers are a long way from a pope
Yes, quite unwillingly. If you consider "Rome" a country, that is.Yah they kinda inherited their own country didn't they
They do.Catholic (capitalized) refers to the Christian sect. catholic (uncapitalized) means universal. If that wasn't true, why doesn't your sect refer to itself as "the catholic church"?
Yeah, he did, with the apostles (and their successors, as the leaders.Christ created one church, his body of all believers. He didn't create one hierarchical, corporate institution.
The Church is the Body of Christ, therefore infallible.Nowhere in scripture does it say that the [Catholic] institution is only infallible in matters of faith. Christ is infallible; no man-made institution is infallible.
So what?"If your brother sins, speak to your brother, if that doesn't work, take it to a few of your brothers, if that doesn't work, take it to the Church..." means take it to the body of believers, not to some corporate institution. "Church" is NOT capitalized.
You were doing great until you got to Constantine. The structure of the hierarchy preceded him by about 250 years...Our loyalty is to God through Jesus Christ by the Holy Spirit -- only -- not to some priesthood as there was in the Old Covenant, and was reconstructed by Constantine, the Roman emperor, with its massive architecture, hierarchical leadership, ornate symbolism, ritual, and regalia.
My pride is simply because it's Jesus' church. I have a need to keep telling myself that Jesus is right, and I will forever do that.Some people need to say "My church. Mine!" and work the name of it into every one of their posts. They need to feel better than other believers.
But if you've noticed, many members virtually never mention the name of their denomination, let alone crow about how it's the only one, the best one, the infallible one, whatever.
They apparently don't have a need to keep telling themselves that they are right.
The men Christ entrusted with inerrency have it because of Him, not because of them.What gets me is the "inerrency of man" and not enough faith in God's execution of His written word to trust in Him alone as being infallable. So wrong!
The bible is a volumn of God's words and deeds, satan's actions and mankind's words and deeds. Nowhere does God EVER ascribe inerrency to anything but His account of the truth.The men Christ entrusted with inerrency have it because of Him, not because of them.
Oh I'm sure they were quite willing to take over a country that was left to themYes, quite unwillingly. If you consider "Rome" a country, that is.
An overseer is not some nut that's gonna turn into a pope one day. That analogy is so far off it's wordless.Actually, they're not. They've evolved, like an oak tree is the same as an acorn. But they're not a long way from a pope.
To provide for the protection and needs of the people, yes. That was their responsibility.Oh I'm sure they were quite willing to take over a country that was left to them
Some nut that turns into a tree, friend. Peter was a sinful man who grew into the leader of the Catholic Church, as did the scared apostles who ran away, who turned into the martyrs and defenders of the faith of Jesus Christ.An overseer is not some nut that's gonna turn into a pope one day. That analogy is so far off it's wordless.
He looked at Peter and said "Get behind me Satan". He didn't say "Peter, you are Satan, and I need you to get behind me."
He said to Peter "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven."
Peter’s refusal to accept Jesus’ predicted suffering and death is seen as a satanic attempt to deflect Jesus from his God-appointed course, and the disciple is addressed in terms that recall Jesus’ dismissal of the devil in the temptation account (Mt 4:10: “Get away, Satan!”).
Some nut that turns into a tree, friend. Peter was a sinful man who grew into the leader of the Catholic Church, as did the scared apostles who ran away, who turned into the martyrs and defenders of the faith of Jesus Christ.
1900 years ago, there was very little written. It was mostly spoken. The reason Paul's letters, and the gospels were considered Scripture is that they were read during worship. The Catholic Church is who determined what was in the Bible. That's all there is to it. And to this day, we are the protector of Sacred Scripture.Yeah, he did. They were inconvenient for his theology.
As we are to mature in faith, but there's no hierarchy in that.Your analogies seem only intended to protect your church and never the Word. There's so much scripture that I could quote but I`m sure you know them all. However not being on the side of that scripture by placing yourself outside of the word and aligned with what... manmade words...Some nut that turns into a tree, friend. Peter was a sinful man who grew into the leader of the Catholic Church, as did the scared apostles who ran away, who turned into the martyrs and defenders of the faith of Jesus Christ.
Very mature answer.As my granddaughter says, "whatever!"
The Bible is only about the first generation of the Church. But Jesus made Peter the head of the apostles, and they showed it by the way they reacted to him.Where -- anywhere! -- does it say that Peter grew into the leader of the Catholic Church?? And now you're including those who were with Jesus when he was arrested: the apostles (not anybody else?)!
READ YOUR BIBLE! Sola scriptura!
That's right. First, the Jews determined their own Canon after the Church did. The Orthodox were, originally, part of "the Church". The Protestants came later, and detracted from the Bible."The Catholic Church is who determined what was in the Bible"? Those of the Jewish, Orthodox, and Protestant faiths had nothing to do with it? Ha ha ha! You are the protector of Sacred Scripture? Ha ha ha!
Stop with the excessive pride! As Jesus said, "Go and sin no more".
It's obvious that you have swallowed the Catholic doctrine hook, line, and sinker without any regard for what the Bible says, church history, or common sense. None of what you say is true.
You made a claim about the New Testament churches teaching a variety of contradictory doctrines. I asked for evidence and you weren't able to provide anything so there is nothing to discuss.
I stand by what the Bible says and only what the Bible says.
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?