Foundation of the Church

[seebs]

Originally posted by VOW

Oh yeah. And I think he regretted that teaching as soon as he saw just how many "wrong" interpretations were floating around.

Well, to be fair, I think the Catholic Church has had a certain share of boneheaded decisions... But, in the end, forgiveness is still core doctrine of *all* Christian belief, so I guess that's no big deal. The only way I'd count it as a serious problem is if there were convincing evidence that mistakes were made for lack of concern, which I don't think is the case.

And today, you'll find that when Catholics explain Scripture, they preface everything with, "Now, the Church teaches..." If others agree with what the Catholic Church teaches, no problem. The fist-fights (especially here on Christian Forums) begin when they DISAGREE.

Oh, that's not a big problem. Lots of us disagree about various points of doctrine. The problem is when people say that the Church is lying to people, or whatever. It's one thing for me to say "I'm not sure I accept the Church's interpretation of this story." It's another thing entirely to continue "...because they are LYING to us to try to IMPOSE A NEW WORLD ORDER! LISTEN BEFORE ITS TOO LATE!!!!" and start frothing about the "close connections" between the RCC and the various communist parties.

My experience has been that almost everyone is pretty much okay with differences of interpretation. We all seek God's will, and sometimes we can't tell exactly what it is.

 

[VOW]

To Seebs:

No HONEST Catholic will deny the "bonehead" stuff in the Church history. However, as we have been trying to point out to Lion Heart and Stephen, those boneheads didn't DESTROY the foundation of the Church.

Further, even the "bad popes" served a VERY important function: they helped to maintain the line of Apostolic Succession. And to the Catholic Church, that is a VERY big deal!


Peace be with you,
~VOW

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by VOW

No HONEST Catholic will deny the "bonehead" stuff in the Church history. However, as we have been trying to point out to Lion Heart and Stephen, those boneheads didn't DESTROY the foundation of the Church.

Indeed. Failure to understand this, I think, implies rejection of the underlying fact of God's grace; we *are* forgiven our errors and mistakes. Even when "we" are the church. If mistakes and sin are to be taken to destroy the faith, we might as well all go home; even Peter denied Christ three times in one day.

 

[VOW]

To Seebs:

even Peter denied Christ three times in one day.

YESYESYESYESYESYESYES!!

And Catholics even say that Peter was the first Pope! You know, it is the VERY nature of Peter, as a screw-up, that endears me to the Catholic Church. Jesus gives him the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, and even AFTER Peter pulls his bonehead stunt of denying the Lord three times, Jesus never takes those keys BACK.

Peter was HUMAN. He SCREWED UP. But Jesus FORGAVE him, and still allowed him to keep the leadership role! And after that, Peter managed to do an exemplary job of leadership. After his infusion of the Holy Spirit at the Pentecost, Peter gains a strong voice, incredible wisdom and insight when dealing with the Pharisees, and he LEADS.

That tells me that yes, there WILL be problems with the Church. There have been since the very beginning, because Jesus said, "and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail." That means that the old, nasty netherworld sure will TRY. But through the protection of the Holy Spirit, the Church will persevere!

2000 years and counting!


Peace be with you,
~VOW

 

[Stephen]

>However, as we have been trying to point out to Lion Heart and Stephen, those boneheads didn't DESTROY the foundation of the Church.<

Anybody; when have I discussed this?

Stephen

 

[VOW]

To Stephen:

Can you prove that you didn't?



Peace,
~VOW

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by Stephen
&gt;However, as we have been trying to point out to Lion Heart and Stephen, those boneheads didn't DESTROY the foundation of the Church.&lt;

Anybody; when have I discussed this?

That's certainly the impression I've got from reading your posts; it's seemed pretty clear that you feel that the various failings constitute clear evidence that the Catholic Church is not, in fact, all that and a bag of chips. Your comments on how, confronted with certain views of history, people sometimes leave the RCC, suggest that you believe that these views of history would constitute a sufficient problem in the church to drive people away from it - and you seem to think that these views of history are accurate. (The only alternative would be to conclude that, knowing that they're inaccurate, you're presenting them anyway to do damage to the RCC.)

I may be misinterpreting you, but... if enough people are misinterpreting you, you should consider working harder to speak clearly.

Certainly, a recurring problem is your tendency to hint, sidestep, and dodge. If someone asks what you mean, don't say you thought it was clear enough; *EXPLAIN* it. Break it down to single-syllable words if you have to... but it's easy to conclude that your intent is not honest communication, because you won't come out and say exactly what your opinions are on a topic. That's counterproductive, and it looks willful.

 

[Stephen]

>That's certainly the impression I've got from reading your posts<

Impression? Either I have discussed this, or not. Kindly provide a quote if you wish to disagree with me.

Stephen

 

[Stephen]

>Can you prove that you didn't?<

For those interested, click 'Stephen' in blue, under 'User info' find and click 'Search for all posts by this user'.

Stephen

 

[VOW]

To Stephen:

YOU were the one who was interested.

Kinda like our *discussion* where I referred you to the Catechism of the Catholic Church.


Peace,
~VOW

 

[Stephen]

>YOU were the one who was interested.<

Yes, because I knew there was a mistake, and I know the answer without looking it up. If you look it up you may find that your memory slipped just a little!

>Kinda like our *discussion* where I referred you to the Catechism of the Catholic Church.<

Why can't you give the answer yourself? Why should people go out and buy the Catechism?

I may dig out the Catechism, quote the relevant part, and give a comment. You may then want to comment on that.

Stephen

 

[GreenEyedLady]

I am getting more disturbed about the whole tradtion thing.
It seems to me that people on this site are quoting MEN, what man said and what men say and what they thought instead of what the bible says.
But doesn't the Bible say, "Let God be true and EVERY man a liar?"


The written word of God, the scriptures, have always been available to true believers. Not only that, the written word has always been operative in God's dealing with mankind. The Ten Commandments were written in stone! It wasn't this memory business. The Jewish people were the careful custodians of the written scriptures:

What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God. Romans 3:1-2
Most of us know how carefully the written word was kept by God's chosen people, Israel.

God has always emphasized the importance of keeping His written word:

This BOOK OF THE LAW SHALL NOT DEPART OUT OF THY MOUTH; but thou shalt meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is WRITTEN therein... Joshua 1:8
Psalm 119 is the longest chapter in the Bible and it is ALL about the importance of knowing the scriptures.

But what about in the New Testament? Jesus read from the BOOK Isaiah in the synagogue:

Luke 4:17 And there was delivered unto him the BOOK of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was WRITTEN,
Paul read the gospel of JESUS IN THE WRITTEN WORD! Listen:

1 Corinthians 15:3-4 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins ACCORDING TO THE SCRIPTURES; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day ACCORDING TO THE SCRIPTURES
We know Timothy had the WRITTEN word of the gospel as a child:

...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. 2 Timothy 3:15
The Bereans didn't just listen to what the apostles said, but they compared their teaching to the SCRIPTURES to see if those things were so.

These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. Acts 17:11
We are told in the New Testament to study the word and RIGHTLY divide it. That means don't be misinterpreting! Tell the truth about the Bible, not lies:

Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. 2 Timothy 2:15
Well, what is the truth? Jesus told us:

Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth. John 17:17

The apostles' WRITTEN epistles were read to the churches (e.g., James, Hebrew, Thessalonians, Colossians, etc.)
Peter referred to Paul's epistles as SCRIPTURE.
The Ethiopian eunuch was READING THE SCRIPTURES when Philip came up to his chariot!

GEL

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by GreenEyedLady
I am getting more disturbed about the whole tradtion thing.
It seems to me that people on this site are quoting MEN, what man said and what men say and what they thought instead of what the bible says.

Well... Look at the amount of dispute people can get into over how to understand the Bible. There are multi-hundred page books on single passages. We could all just be wrong on lots of stuff, but some amount of consensus and research certainly makes sense!

 

[edpobre]

Originally posted by VOW
To JohnP:

Jesus is the Head of the Church....however, He left. And he appointed Peter to take over for Him while He's gone.


Peace be with you,
~VOW

VOW,

Your statement is NOT supported by the Bible.

After Jeus died, there was a dispute among Christian Jews and Christian Gentiles regarding circumcision. The Christian Jews believed that Christian Gentiles cannot be saved unless they are circumcised (Acts 15:1).

Apostle Paul and Barnabas and certain others decided to bring the matter to the APOSTLES and ELDERS who were in Jerusalem (Acts 15:2).

When they got to Jerusalem, the APOSTLES and ELDERS came together to consider the matter (Acts 15:6).

When there was much dispute among the apostles and elders, Apostle Peter stood up and talked to them (Acts 15:7-11).

After Peter finished talking, the multitude fell silent and also listened to Barnabas and Paul (Acts 15:12).

After they have stopped talking, Apostle James COMMANDED everyone to LISTEN to him (Acts 15:13).

And in Acts 15:19, we see Apostle James MAKING the JUDGMENT on the matter and his decision was FINAL.

This makes Apostle James - NOT Peter - the highest ranking apostle IMMEDIATELY after Jesus went to heaven.

Therefore, Catholics ERR in thinking that apostle Peter was the first Pope.

Ed

 

[VOW]

Thank you so much for your correction, Ed.

I'll send a telegram to Rome right away.


~VOW

 

[kern]

Edpobre:

Your statement is not supported by Apostolic Tradition.

-Chris (knife cuts both ways?)

 

[VOW]

The Ethiopian eunuch was reading Isaiah.

That's OT.



Peace,
~VOW

 

[edpobre]

Originally posted by kern
Edpobre:

Your statement is not supported by Apostolic Tradition.

-Chris (knife cuts both ways?)

Chris,

Listen to what apostle Paul wrote to the CHRISTIANS of his time:

"But as for you, continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing FROM WHOM you have learned them, and that from childhood you have KNOWN the HOLY SCRIPTURES, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus" (2 Tim. 3:14-15).

"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is PROFITABLE for DOCTRINE, for REPROOF, for CORRECTION, for INSTRUCTION in righteousness, that the man of God may be COMPLETE, thoroughly equipped for every good work" (2 Tim. 3:16-17).

These words of apostle Paul is still apply to all TRUE Christians in these last days.

Thus, NEITHER Apostolic Tradition, NOR the Book of Mormon, NOR the Watchtower Awake, NOR the writings of Ellen White NOR anything else, will ever take precedence over what is written in the Holy Bible.

Ed

 

[kern]

Originally posted by edpobre
Thus, NEITHER Apostolic Tradition, NOR the Book of Mormon, NOR the Watchtower Awake, NOR the writings of Ellen White NOR anything else, will ever take precedence over what is written in the Holy Bible.

Please do not write all of your responses in a QUOTE box. That means responders have to copy and paste your text into their reply.

Catholics would agree with you entirely that the Apostolic Tradition does not take precedence over the Bible. It complements it, not replaces or supercedes.

And Paul was talking about the Old Testament. Some of the NT books weren't even written yet when 2 Timothy was written.

-Chris

 

[Wolseley]

Thus, NEITHER Apostolic Tradition, NOR the Book of Mormon, NOR the Watchtower Awake, NOR the writings of Ellen White NOR anything else, will ever take precedence over what is written in the Holy Bible.

So, now you're equating Catholicism with the Mormons, the Jehovah's Witnesses, and the Christian Scientists, eh, ed?

Can you give me any assurances that the Iglesia Ni Cristo isn't a fringe cult like the ones you named?