Basic logic. It doesn't make sense to apply it to the church.
It's not about what individual people believe but what the church teaches.
Basic logic? So only individuals are judged according to what they do and effect and not bodies of individuals, which instead are only to be judged by what they profess, when in practice they count and treat as members those who publicly are known to deny official teaching, and overall fail to discipline them. What judge would uphold that?
What insolence! And thus Rome cannot be charged with this failure and producing a morally liberal near-majority since on paper she opposes such. But those who sat in the seat of Moses could be charged with acting contrary to what they professed.
Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands? He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. (Mark 7:5-7)
You are have a tendency to define logic, based on whether is conforms to your illogical reasoning.
Faulty analogy, as you are avoiding the key aspect that the congregation continually affirms as members those engaged in sodomy and does not engage in any real discipline. If this was the case then most certainly it would warrant the conclusion that the congregation (or leadership) overall believed sodomy was acceptable, or at least they did not see it as warranting Biblical discipline.
Even if every single person in the church believed sodomy was acceptable it still wouldn't change the teaching of the church.
You are simply reiterating your attempted damage control that what was refuted. If said church counted and treated such as members then Biblically that is what she truly believes, or as said, at least does not see such as warranting Biblical discipline.
I will shew thee my faith by my works. (James 2:18)
For the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power. (1 Corinthians 4:20)
Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. (Matthew 7:20)
What kind of nonsense is this? You seem bound to defend Rome as much as some of its members do. You mean that if a team fails to overall discipline players for continued disregards of rules and treats such as members in good standing, regardless of what official policy states, then it says absolutely nothing about them?!
Those who want to follow Jesus do so through the Church he founded.
Which statement as applying to Rome, besides not answering the question, is simply begging the question. And your statement excludes all you are not Catholic, and which excludes you as wanting to follow Jesus if you are not (but lets forget the charade of you calling yourself a Protestant), yet which exclusion contrary to other Caths.
They follow what the Church teaches and that teaching isn't effected by the actions of any individuals within that church. If individuals do bad things all it shows is there are sinners in the church, not that Jesus' Church is bad.
Read your Bible. It is what one does and effectually produces that constitutes the evidence of what persons or institutions believe.
Dude, the text you seemingly object to a word study,...
Catholics do not worship Mary.
Which is more mere profession, and contrary to what Scripture reveals, in which one would have a hard time in Bible times explaining kneeling before a statue and praising the entity it represented in the unseen world, beseeching such for Heavenly help, and making offerings to them, and giving glory and titles and ascribing attributes to such which are never given in Scripture to created beings (except to false gods), including having the uniquely Divine power glory to hear and respond to virtually infinite numbers of prayers individually addressed to them
Which manner of adulation would constitute worship in Scripture, yet Catholics imagine they avoid crossing the invisible line between mere "veneration" and worship.
"Moses, Moses, put down those rocks! I was only engaging in hyper dulia, not adoring her. Can't you tell the difference? "
"If your knowledge of Catholicism is that deficient, there is nothing I can do to help you and I will not be able to discuss Catholicism with you until you first learn the basicsof what the Catholic Church teaches. "
You continues to resort to this, but as shown, it is because I know what basics of what the Catholic Church teaches, as well as her attempted supports for her
traditions of men, that i oppose such in the light of Scripture, by the grace of God.
This shows you haven't read the writings of members of the NT church.
Really? The writings of members of the NT church is that of the NT, and in which where Rome is substantially missing and contrary to.
You must not know very many people. There are plenty of people who believe in Jesus but are unwilling to repent. They won't be saved because faith alone isn't enough.
You must not know very many Scriptures which reveal saving faith as only being that which effects characteristic obedience of faith, "things that accompany salvation." (Heb. 6:9) Those who are impenitently are contrary to this do not have true faith, as explained and shown. Repeatedly reiterating what has been refuted will not make it true.
But therefore a person who truly believes with Biblical saving faith, which James helps describe, will not refuse to repent, as that would be inconsistent with believing. Thus,
But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel. (1 Timothy 5:8)
This Protestant tradition of your can't be found anywhere in scripture.
Actually you have only treated Protestantism as being contrary to this, and which is no mere tradition, but is manifestly revealed in Scripture. In which saving faith is that which effects confession of the Lord in word and in deed, not only in tongue and in baptism, (Acts 8:12; 10:47) but in worship, prayer, learning, works of faith, and esp. as towards the brethren.
We having the same spirit of faith, according as it is written, I believed, and therefore have I spoken; we also believe, and therefore speak; (2 Corinthians 4:13)
Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do
shall he do] also; and greater
works than these
shall he do; because I go unto my Father. (John 14:12)
If ye know that he is righteous, ye know that every one that doeth righteousness is born of him. (1 John 2:29)
In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother. (1 John 3:10)
And like new converts and David, repenting when convicted of not acting consistent with faith.
And many
that believed came,
and confessed, and shewed their deeds. (Acts 19:18)
For Godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of: but the sorrow of the world worketh death. For behold this selfsame thing, that ye sorrowed after a godly sort, what carefulness it wrought in you, yea, what clearing of yourselves, yea, what indignation, yea, what fear, yea, what vehement desire, yea, what zeal, yea, what revenge! In all things ye have approved yourselves to be clear in this matter. (2 Corinthians 7:10-11)
In contrast,
...the eyes of the Lord run to and fro throughout the whole earth, to shew himself strong in the behalf of them whose heart is perfect toward him. Herein thou hast done foolishly: therefore from henceforth thou shalt have wars. Then Asa was wroth with the seer, and put him in a prison house; for he was in a rage with him because of this thing. And Asa oppressed some of the people the same time. (2 Chronicles 16:9-10)
But therefore a person who truly believes with Biblical saving faith, which James helps describe, will not refuse to repent, as that would be inconsistent with believing. Thus, But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel. (1 Timothy 5:8)
Interpretation error. Denying the faith doesn't mean he never believed. Peter denied his faith yet he still believed.
Wrong: the subject was what characterizes saving faith, and thus what is inconsistent with believing, not whether one once believed. And since the negligence here meant that one denied the faith, thus it proves my point that obedience is consistent with believing, and thus a true believer will repent when convicted of not doing so, though God may need to use strong persuasion.
For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world. (1 Corinthians 11:31-32)
The only reason I see for this objection is an unwillingness to follow Christ. Scripture clearly says Jesus promised to build His church upon Peter as the foundation. The behavior of individual members of His church is not an excuse to disobey God.
Wrong in all three statements. It is obedience to Christ that should make one unwilling to be part of a church which, in addition to being substantially missing from and contrary to the NT church in teachings, has for decades has and does treat even proabortion, prosodomite public souls as members in life and in dead, without any real discipline.
But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat. For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within? But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person. (1 Corinthians 5:11-13)
In addition, rather than the Lord Jesus promising to build His church upon Peter as the foundation, in contrast, The verse at issue, Mt. 16:18, cannot be divorced from that which preceded it, in which the identity of Jesus Christ is the main subject. In the next verse (17) that is what Jesus refers to in telling blessed Peter that “flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee,” and in v. 18 that truth is what the “this rock” refers to, with a distinction being made between the person of Peter and this rock.
This is the only interpretation that is confirmed, as it must be, in the rest of the New Testament. For in contrast to Peter, that the LORD Jesus is the Rock (“petra”) or "stone" (“lithos,” and which denotes a large rock in Mk. 16:4) upon which the church is built is one of the most abundantly confirmed doctrines in the Bible (petra: Rm. 9:33; 1Cor. 10:4; 1Pet. 2:8; cf. Lk. 6:48; 1Cor. 3:11; lithos: Mat. 21:42; Mk.12:10-11; Lk. 20:17-18; Act. 4:11; Rm. 9:33; Eph. 2:20; cf. Dt. 32:4, Is. 28:16) including by Peter himself. (1Pt. 2:4-8) Rome's current catechism attempts to have Peter himself as the rock as well, but also affirms: “On the rock of this faith confessed by St Peter, Christ build his Church,” (pt. 1, sec. 2, cp. 2, para. 424) which understanding some of the ancients
concur with.
And finally, the behavior of individual members of His church is indeed not an excuse to disobey God in failing to separate from such impenitent gross violators, and from a church in which such abounds and that fails to exercise Biblical discipline, as commanded.
Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. (2 Corinthians 6:14-16)
I might reply to your other posts later if I have time but I don't see the value in continuing discussion. I think you would learn more by reading some good books that can explain the basics of the Christian faith and other church teaching.
Your continued recourse to this vain charge, in contrast to what has been substantiated from Catholicism and refuted, is an admission of defeat.
