In The Church

[Standing Up]

In order not to derail a different thread, I decided to start a new thread

Originally Posted by Standing Up

Interesting. An easy example was Arius who was a presbyter who taught a modified adoptionism (Jesus became Christ at his baptism), while a predecessor of his was a bishop. They were in the church. To compound your point, they of course, being in the church, also used scripture to bolster their opinion.
​

Originally Posted by Tzaousios

Should we conclude, then, that the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches both teach a false gospel?
​

Originally Posted by Tzaousios

He [SU] said that Arius taught heresy, was "in the church," and used Scripture. It is the contention of the RCC and the EO that the church does not teach error.


​

Arius was a presbyter in the church.

Lucian of Antioch was a presbyter in the church.

Paul of Samasoto c250, Bishop of Antioch, taught adoptionism (Jesus was adopted as Christ at his baptism).

Honorus was a pope at Rome who taught heresy.


Obviously these people were in the church.

Not sure what the problem is you're seeing.

 

[Rick Otto]

"Who's on first?"

Here's how I've seen this work:
Any Catholic teaching anything undisputably Catholic is The Church being its inerrant self.
Any Catholic caught teaching anything else is just a Catholic person speaking for himself.

 

[Standing Up]

"Who's on first?"

Here's how I've seen this work:
Any Catholic teaching anything undisputably Catholic is The Church being its inerrant self.
Any Catholic caught teaching anything else is just a Catholic person speaking for himself.

What's left the building.

 

[fhansen]

In order not to derail a different thread, I decided to start a new thread

Originally Posted by Standing Up

Interesting. An easy example was Arius who was a presbyter who taught a modified adoptionism (Jesus became Christ at his baptism), while a predecessor of his was a bishop. They were in the church. To compound your point, they of course, being in the church, also used scripture to bolster their opinion.
​

Originally Posted by Tzaousios

Should we conclude, then, that the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches both teach a false gospel?
​

Originally Posted by Tzaousios

He [SU] said that Arius taught heresy, was "in the church," and used Scripture. It is the contention of the RCC and the EO that the church does not teach error.


​

Arius was a presbyter in the church.

Lucian of Antioch was a presbyter in the church.

Paul of Samasoto c250, Bishop of Antioch, taught adoptionism (Jesus was adopted as Christ at his baptism).

Honorus was a pope at Rome who taught heresy.


Obviously these people were in the church.

Not sure what the problem is you're seeing.

The Church's teachings aren't derived from scripture; the gospel was taught before one word of the NT was written. So the use of Scripture, however expertly done, by Catholics or non-Catholics, in no way can guarantee accuracy in understanding. For this the Holy Spirit's guidance is of absolute necessity.

 

[Standing Up]

The Church's teachings aren't derived from scripture; the gospel was taught before one word of the NT was written.

Yes it was. But, like Moses' passing, what was done to preserve the truth? What did God command them to do?

Rom. 10:8, 11 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, [even] in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach; ... For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

So the use of Scripture, however expertly done, by Catholics or non-Catholics, in no way can guarantee accuracy in understanding. For this the Holy Spirit's guidance is of absolute necessity.

Yes indeed.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by Rick Otto "Who's on first?"

Here's how I've seen this work:
Any Catholic teaching anything undisputably Catholic is The Church being its inerrant self.
Any Catholic caught teaching anything else is just a Catholic person speaking for himself.

What's left the building.

I don't know is on third, and he is still in the building

The Destruction of Jerusalem - George Peter Holford, 1805AD

The day on which Titus encompassed Jerusalem, was the feast of the Passover ; and it is deserving of the very particular attention of the reader, that this was the anniversary of that memorable period in which the Jews crucified their Messiah!.......................

The Temple now presented little more than a heap of ruins ; and the Roman army as in triumph on the event, came and reared their ensigns against a fragment of the eastern gate, and, with sacrifices of thanksgiving, proclaimed the imperial majesty of Titus, with every possible demonstration of joy.

 

[Rick Otto]

quote=Standing Up;Yes it was. But, like Moses' passing, what was done to preserve the truth? What did God command them to do?

Join the church?

Rom. 10:8, 11 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, [even] in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach; ... For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

Isaiah 49:23 And kings shall be thy nursing fathers, and their queens thy nursing mothers: they shall bow down to thee with their face toward the earth, and lick up the dust of thy feet; and thou shalt know that I am the LORD: for they shall not be ashamed that wait for me.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Join the church?

Isaiah 49:23 And kings shall be thy nursing fathers, and their queens thy nursing mothers: they shall bow down to thee with their face toward the earth, and lick up the dust of thy feet; and thou shalt know that I am the LORD: for they shall not be ashamed that wait for me.

Also know as Popes and Mary

Jer 44:9 Have you forgotten the wickedness committed by your fathers and by the kings and queens of Judah
and the wickedness committed by you and your wives in the land of Judah[Italy] and the streets of Jerusalem[Rome]?

Luke 11:31 `A queen of the south shall be resurrecting in the judgment with the men[RCs] of this generation and shall condemn them,
because she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and beholed! greater than Solomon here!

 

[fhansen]

Yes it was. But, like Moses' passing, what was done to preserve the truth? What did God command them to do?

Rom. 10:8, 11 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, [even] in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach; ... For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.



Yes indeed.

Arius was a bishop who wasn't even in a position to change church teaching-and he was eventually duly anathematized. Honorious was a heretic who did nothing to change, positively or negatively, official doctrine. And this is exactly what the doctrine of infallibility maintains: that no error will enter church teachings regardless of human frailties. And in similar manner Peter, at least the chief apostle by all accounts, needed to be corrected by Paul at one point.

Either way, neither Arianism or Monothelitism are absolutely implausible doctrines. They deal with theololoigal matters often beyond the ken or even needs of the average believer, especially in the case of Monthelitism, and were very popular in any case within the Christian world for centuries. People today reading scripture often come up with these very errors on their own. Which highlights the central point at hand here, I think. We've already established that scripture alone guarantees no one that they'll arrive at the truth simply by virtue of reading it-and that the Holy Spirit is of absolute necessity in coming to ascertain this gospel truth. But, if so, how do we know who, out of all the individuals and groups who claim to be Spirit-led, whether ourselves or some pastor or theologian or church or creed, to trust in this matter?

The CC, of course, maintains that her teachings have been given that guarantee while others don't claim infallibility and yet assert that they know the truth nonetheless. The CC also, BTW, maintains that the "church" is not defined by a building.

 

[Standing Up]

Arius was a bishop who wasn't even in a position to change church teaching-and he was eventually duly anathematized. Honorious was a heretic who did nothing to change, positively or negatively, official doctrine. And this is exactly what the doctrine of infallibility maintains: that no error will enter church teachings regardless of human frailties. And in similar manner Peter, at least the chief apostle by all accounts, needed to be corrected by Paul at one point.

All you're doing is pushing away from the definition of church. Paul of Samosoto was bishop of Antioch. Honorus pope of Rome. These men were "in the church". They were corrected. But there are other de fide dogmas, like assumption of mary, that have yet to be corrected. YET, we would agree you're still in the church.

Anyway, you're trying to redefine what that (church) is. In turn this also leads to the Great Schism, the filioque, papacy, etc. EO and RC and P are all in the church, last I figured. HOWEVER, if you're a pre Vat II RCer who abides Unam Sanctum, then I understand your redefinition (salvation is submission to the pope at Rome, the church).

Bottom line is that those men were in the church.

Either way, neither Arianism or Monothelitism are absolutely implausible doctrines. They deal with theololoigal matters often beyond the ken or even needs of the average believer, especially in the case of Monthelitism, and were very popular in any case within the Christian world for centuries. People today reading scripture often come up with these very errors on their own. Which highlights the central point at hand here, I think. We've already established that scripture alone guarantees no one that they'll arrive at the truth simply by virtue of reading it-and that the Holy Spirit is of absolute necessity in coming to ascertain this gospel truth. But, if so, how do we know who, out of all the individuals and groups who claim to be Spirit-led, whether ourselves or some pastor or theologian or church or creed, to trust in this matter?

The CC, of course, maintains that her teachings have been given that guarantee while others don't claim infallibility and yet assert that they know the truth nonetheless. The CC also, BTW, maintains that the "church" is not defined by a building.

I suspect it is very easy. It is your relationship to GOD. Hearing His voice. The sheep know His voice. He knows us, has called us. Today, if you hear His voice and don't harden your heart, ...

At the same time, yes, there are elders. But there is also 2000 years of history. For my part I try to use scripture and very early tradition.

 

[fhansen]

All you're doing is pushing away from the definition of church. Paul of Samosoto was bishop of Antioch. Honorus pope of Rome. These men were "in the church". They were corrected. But there are other de fide dogmas, like assumption of mary, that have yet to be corrected. YET, we would agree you're still in the church.

Anyway, you're trying to redefine what that (church) is. In turn this also leads to the Great Schism, the filioque, papacy, etc. EO and RC and P are all in the church, last I figured. HOWEVER, if you're a pre Vat II RCer who abides Unam Sanctum, then I understand your redefinition (salvation is submission to the pope at Rome, the church).

Bottom line is that those men were in the church.



I suspect it is very easy. It is your relationship to GOD. Hearing His voice. The sheep know His voice. He knows us, has called us. Today, if you hear His voice and don't harden your heart, ...

At the same time, yes, there are elders. But there is also 2000 years of history. For my part I try to use scripture and very early tradition.

How do you define "church"?

 

[Standing Up]

How do you define "church"?

Keeping it sweet and simple, I'd answer, the called-out ones.

Ek---out from/of within (the world)
klesis---called/gathered (into His Body as born-again believers through faith by grace)

You know ...

He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?

And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed [it] unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

The church is those living stones being built together who confess (rock), to whom God the Father has revealed, that Jesus is the Christ, so made up of the born-again from above, from Adam to the present.

 

[fhansen]

Keeping it sweet and simple, I'd answer, the called-out ones.

Ek---out from/of within (the world)
klesis---called/gathered (into His Body as born-again believers through faith by grace)

You know ...

He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?

And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed [it] unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

The church is those living stones being built together who confess (rock), to whom God the Father has revealed, that Jesus is the Christ, so made up of the born-again from above, from Adam to the present.

So IOW the Church consists of those who e with you?

 

[bbbbbbb]

Keeping it sweet and simple, I'd answer, the called-out ones.

Ek---out from/of within (the world)
klesis---called/gathered (into His Body as born-again believers through faith by grace)

You know ...

He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?

And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed [it] unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

The church is those living stones being built together who confess (rock), to whom God the Father has revealed, that Jesus is the Christ, so made up of the born-again from above, from Adam to the present.

Absolutely!

BTW, I don't see anything in your post about having to agree with you. I am sure we probably disagree on many things, but we do agree as to what constitutes the church.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by Standing Up

Keeping it sweet and simple, I'd answer, the called-out ones.

​

So IOW the Church consists of those who e with you?

Wat dat?

 

[Standing Up]

So IOW the Church consists of those who e with you?

Agree with me? No, not me, the ones who God calls.

"And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed [it] unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. "

Hard to believe God is doing it? One rock at a time for the last 2000 years.

 

[Standing Up]

Absolutely!

BTW, I don't see anything in your post about having to agree with you. I am sure we probably disagree on many things, but we do agree as to what constitutes the church.

I suspect after the Father has revealed his Son to us, we can probably do our best to let Him finish the work.

 

[Rick Otto]

I e with you.

 

[fhansen]

I suspect after the Father has revealed his Son to us, we can probably do our best to let Him finish the work.

OK, so to understand this you would say, I think, that a true believer hears the gospel, whether from scripture or via preaching, understands it, and then receives or accepts it. Given the many different theologies or understandings of the gospel or of the nature and will of God, do you think there's any need for a "depositorium", so to speak, a place where the the correct understanding is held, protected, and proclaimed? Or do you think the the gospel is spread strictly word of mouth, from believers who hold it in their hearts, or via scripture, with the HS ensuring that true sheep won't be led astray? In Catholicism, both of these scenarios are viewed as necessary parts of Gods plan.

I e with you.

Since you use Firmillians sentiment regarding the RCCs position on Easter I'm curious to know, do you observe Easter according to Fermillians prescription?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by fhansen So IOW the Church consists of those who e with you?

I e with you.

Guess I do too