Two questions

[de Unamuno]

Likewise, Ref. Your stark honestly and deep scriptural knowledge were both impressed upon me from your other posts. I didn't jump into this friendly spar match expecting anything less than the spiritual tango you have provided.

In each other we find Him.

Your brother in Christ,

 

[Reformationist]

Without the Church, you would simply have hundreds of letters and books to reference.

Well, I'd say I agree but it is a bit of a non issue because we do have a church so it's only our guess as to what we would have without the church. If you mean to imply that God could not have chose a different means to deliver His Word, well, let's just say I disagree. If, however, all you mean is that God did, in fact, effect the compilation of His Word into a cohesive form through the church, well, I'd say I agree. Also, as important as it is to acknowledge the role of the church in compiling the revelation of God, it is of equal importance to acknowledge that they did not compile the Word of the Lord apart from His divine restraint so they cannot claim any credit for it's structure. The compilation of the Bible was the work of God, just as was it's inspiration.

The body of work existed in the sense that the chapters were already written, but which chapters would be accepted was left to the RCC.

Come on de Unamuno, you know full well that the RC church was not autonomous in it's ruling of the canon. Nothing, I repeat NOTHING, was "left to the RCc." The Catholic church may have been the agent that God providentially used to deliver His revelation but there is nothing to indicate that this unique protection translated into any form of everlasting infallibility. I've read Matthew 16:18 numerous times, as has any serious student of the Gospel, and it is ONLY the Roman Catholic who interprets that verse to mean that your church was given any level of infallibility, much less multiple levels of infallibility.

Also, it is fair to say the Church developed many of those works, since the RCC claims direct descension from the original Apostles, who themselves wrote much of the NT.

Well, as Protestants, at least the reformed Protestants, are Christianity's efforts to realign herself with the teachings of said Apostles, I guess that means we developed those works as well, right? Our claims are as viable as your own in that only you recognize your claims and we recognize ours.

(I'm sure you are throwing your computer across the room in disgust right now )

Why would I do that? I guess if there were any truth to this claim it would initially bother me but then, hopefully, the Lord would grant me the grace to overcome my pride and I'd convert.

Scary, isn't it?

Scary that you'd make such an unbiblical claim, yes.

I would specifically say that it is dependent in so far as the Church chose which works were indeed inspired by God. These books didn't have Jesus' signature on them, or glow with the holy spirit... they were read over... prayed over... argued over, and finally either accepted or rejected.

This was not an autonomous process any more than the original composition of God's Word was autonomous. Do you believe your church received that which was spiritually discerned apart from the Spirit? Were they just really, really smart and made logical choices? Yeah. I didn't think so. If the Lord providentially delivered the Gospel through the church then the church can claim no more credit for it's compilation of the Gospel than a prophet can claim for the visions he receives.

Some authority had to do that, and it was arguably the authority of the Church that Jesus established - the only authority that existed before the Bible.

Wow. You are deep in it, aren't you? Pray tell, are you actually contending that the first authority was the church and that apart from her the Spirit of the Almighty is impotent? Ooops...that can't be true. Prior to the appointment of the Apostles there was no Christian church. Was Abram just some really devout, holy guy that demanded the blessing of God? Oh, that's right...he was a pagan that worshipped idols. Should we, then, claim that the incarnation of God is the result of Abraham's authority?

And by the way, what did people do before the Church canonized the Bible? And I'm not talking before 400 A.D., I'm talking before the printing press in the 1,600s.

Just so I'm clear, we're limiting the scope of your question to "what did people do in the period of time between 400 A.D. and 1600 A.D.?"

Before and well after the Bible came to be, was Christianity based on so many letters being passed around?

Of course not.

Did Jesus not establish his Church on Peter, and pass the authority of God on earth to the Apostles?

Ahhh...I was wondering when you were going to invoke the favorite verse of Catholics. Good ol' Matthew 16:18. Well, I must, in all honesty, beg your grace in this area. I am divided as to the meaning of the verse and it's applicability to modern day Christianity. As for the authority of the Apostles, I would have no problem acknowledging them as an authoritative unit who were uniquely blessed by God to establish His church. I wouldn't even have a problem acknowledging that Peter was clearly the representative Apostle and a leader among them. I'm not sure how you think that gives your church any more authority but I'm sure that you think it does.

Did he not say the Church would last forever... that at no time would it not be?

de Unamuno, let me be clear that I fully agree that the church that Christ established has existed since it's inauguration and will last forever. That church is not the visible manifestation that you lovingly refer to as the Roman Catholic church but it does, most certainly, include many people who are members of that denomination. The invisible church is being made visible by the Lord's body, regardless of their Christian denomination. Thanks be to God Almighty that our salvation isn't dependent upon the accuracy of our beliefs or else none of us would be saved.

The Universalist church down the street opened in 1998. Did the authority that God left to us end at the death of the Apostles, leaving us to fend for ourselves? Or did they pass that authority on to Joe Somebody down the street to establish his own authority and ideas, independent from Sam Anybody who also claimed authority next door?

This is irrelevent to the disscussion. I've never said that we are free to interpret irresponsibly. However, as God's Word is the only source of revealed infallible truth it is the only source with the authority to bind the conscience of believers.

Or perhaps Christianity was nurtured in a womb of non-authority? If so, how did the Catholic Church even come to be the sole voice of Christianity until Luther... 1,500 years after Christ?

Come on de Unamuno. You know full well there were various factions of belief in the early church.

Please, don't feel sorry for me. I appreciate your concern. I'll be alright.

By God's grace I hope you will.

Would you be more comfortable with 40,000? Or is 5,000 enough for you? I can use either without losing my point.

I'm fine with either of those. Your point is made moot because neither number represents variations in the truth of God. Though there were varied beliefs regarding non central issues among the original reformers it is unfair to lump every group that protests the authority of your church with the original reformers.

Ok, now you're spiraling into personal attacks. No offense taken though.

I apologize. The first portion of that quote came off wrong. I just meant to relate to you that I take solace in the reliability of God to do as He wills rather than my faith being reliant on the institutions of falible man.

So, do you deny the RCC's role in imparting that truth to you?

Well, that's a bit loaded of a question. I have no clue what you think the RCc's role was in imparting the truth but I am pretty sure, judging by your posts, that it is a lot more focused on the church than I would submit to. I do not deny that the Catholic church had a role.

If not for the Catholics keeping the Bible safe for so long, we wouldn't even have a Bible today.

Poor, poor God. How could He ever have revealed Himself to man if not for your church...Pah lease. de Unamuno, listen, I know you put a whole lot of stock in the leaders of your church and if that helps your faith I wish you well in that. However, these types of statements show me that, while you may be steeped in the traditions and teachings of the glory of your church, you know very little about the sovereignty of God. They don't contribute anything to the conversation except to diminish your credibility. These types of statements make work wonders when you and your Catholic friends are all standing around discussing the glory of your Pope or your church but they have as much relevence as any statement I could make regarding the undeniable God centered testimony of John Calvin. In short, they're pointless.

You forget that the Roman Catholic Church is the only church in the world that has survived since Christ

Ironically this is only according to the Roman Catholic church. Kinda quirky, don'tcha think? Even other Catholics who don't submit to your Pontiff wouldn't agree with this so what makes you think I would?

and it is the only Church that claims direct and sole authority from Christ (via Peter and the Apostles).

Well, thank God for such a visible lack of pride in the other churches today.

It was the only Christian institution around before the Bible, and it was the agent directly responsible for receiving God's word and then imparting the gospels to the people. Do you think that 5,000 people per day converted to Christianity based on the Acts of Andrew and other random readings, or was there a tradition in place, preceding the written word, that organized and shepharded that faith? Documents were painfully expensive and handwritten. They were as rare as a literate person back then. The Word was spread through tradition... not much room to argue there, but I welcome your ideas.

de Unamuno, I truly am your inferior when it comes to church history. As such, I will not belabor this issue other than to agree with you that I seriously need to study church history.

And I would hope that you do not have the same emotional blocks and fuzzy history as many of our Protesting brethren.

My ignorance is due lack of study not malice. Please pray that the Lord blesses me with the opportunity, inclination, and understanding to undertake such a pronounced venture.

The problem with this whole debate is that you do not recognize the Catholic Church's original and scriptural claim to receiving the infallible grace of Christ to shephard his empire on this earth.

I would have to agree.

I would strongly suggest to anyone that they spend some time catching up on Christian history, as well as the history of the Bible, so they can at least make the judgement call for themselves. Here is a great piece that was recently posted on another thread .

I'll take a look at this. Just one request, if I may...could you give me a little background on the site's credentials?

God bless, Reformationist, and keep up the good discourse. Your reasoning is valid and well thought out. Something we don't find everyday here.

Thank you for your kind words de Unamuno. You do our God proud.

My ultimate goal here is not to undermine other faiths. The Catholic Church believes that all Christians have God's grace. I simply want to expose what I see to be a general ignorance of history and to spark interest in researching for oneself the Christian's great and noble past.

A noble goal, indeed. I pray that I may follow your example and continue in this discussion with the grace and godliness that you have once again displayed.

God bless

 

[Benedicta00]

Come on de Unamuno, you know full well that the RC church was not autonomous in it's ruling of the canon. Nothing, I repeat NOTHING, was "left to the RCc." The Catholic church may have been the agent that God providentially used to deliver His revelation but there is nothing to indicate that this unique protection translated into any form of everlasting infallibility. I've read Matthew 16:18 numerous times, as has any serious student of the Gospel, and it is ONLY the Roman Catholic who interprets that verse to mean that your church was given any level of infallibility, much less multiple levels of infallibility.

1# No, it isn't only the Roman Catholics who interpret Matt as Peter being the foundational Rock of the Church.

2# If it wasn't just left to the RCC to compile the canon, who else was there?

3# Does it make sense that God would have this Church, the Church of falsely interpreting the gospels according to many, to be the ones who canonize His word?

 

[Benedicta00]

First:
Is there any verse in the Bible that directly says that the Bible itself is the word of God?

Yes, it says that all scripture is God breathed.

2nd:
Are there any verses that concern beastiality and/or zoosexuality? (And please, just give me an answer, I'm curious.)[/QUOTE]

yes, not committing sins against nature is mentioned. I take this to mean that.

 

[Benedicta00]

Although some Christians might try to shoehorn a verse or two, there really is no verse in the NT that directly says the NT is the word of God. Only references to the OT are "black and white" about being the word of God. The NT was declared to be the word of God by the Roman Catholic Church when we canonized a selection of letters and books into "the Bible" cerca 400 A.D.

I don’t think that is true. The NT does not say that the bible is the only rule of faith, but it does say it IS the word of God.

 

[Benedicta00]

In light of your first question I found myself searching for an explicit acknowledgement that Holy Scripture is the Word of God. Due to the comments of an earlier poster I was, unfortunately, sidetracked in my efforts to the point of trying to find proof of a definitive statement as to the Bible's own witness of what is Scripture and what is not. Upon further consideration I realized that this is not actually what you asked, therefore making my quest much easier.

You see, regardless of our Christian denomination, we acknowledge and submit to the authority of the Gospel. The difference between the various professions is where that authority comes from. Even the Catholic church does not even claim that its authority to define Scripture is the product of its own intuition. They use a latin phrase which means "we receive." You see, the Bible cannot have more authority than the One who acknowledges it as authoritative. If that acknowledgement is the product of created man's proclamation, then the Bible's authority cannot supercede the church's authority and is, therefore, subordinate to the church's authority. If, however, that church simply acknowledges that the authority of Scripture is the authority of God Himself by rightfully limiting its role in the divine revelation of the canon by professing "we receive" rather than "we make it authoritative" then we, as the body of Christ, can safely and confidently submit to that Supreme authority.

So, as I, once again, consider the question you asked, "Is there any verse in the Bible that directly says that the Bible itself is the word of God?," I have realized that there is a verse that says that very thing, and says it explicitly:

2 Timothy 3:16,17
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.

I pray that God's own witness to the authority and divine origin of His Word is sufficient for you, apart from the stamp of approval of created man.

God bless

Wow Don... I am impressed. That was very good. You are correct, the Church does not believe their authority trumps that of the gospel. The Church realizes that the teachings of the Church must be compatible with the gospel.

 

[Reformationist]

LOL! I love the way you quote me:

"Originally Posted by: Don wrote:"

1# No, it isn't only the Roman Catholics who interpret Matt as Peter being the foundational Rock of the Church.

Oh, I thought you believed that. My apologies.

2# If it wasn't just left to the RCC to compile the canon, who else was there?

I didn't say that the Catholic church didn't compile the canon. I said it wasn't autonomous when it did so. Therefore, it wasn't "left to the RCc."

3# Does it make sense that God would have this Church, the Church of falsely interpreting the gospels according to many, to be the ones who canonize His word?

Well, I don't believe the body of Christ is confined within the borders of your denomination so this isn't really an issue to me. However, as to whether it makes sense, I really couldn't say. God did many things that confuse me. That doesn't mean that His actions were unwise. It just means that I, being finite, am unable to comprehend the fullness of His reason, i.e., Finitum non capax infinitum.

God bless

 

[Reformationist]

Wow Don... I am impressed. That was very good. You are correct, the Church does not believe their authority trumps that of the gospel. The Church realizes that the teachings of the Church must be compatible with the gospel.

Thanks Michelle.

God bless,
Don

 

[Benedicta00]

Reformationist Wrote:

Oh, I thought you believed that. My apologies.

No. There are many non catholic theologians who believe that running to the other end of the interpreting spectrum is a over reaction to the Church's doctrine of infallibility.

I didn't say that the Catholic church didn't compile the canon. I said it wasn't autonomous when it did so. Therefore, it wasn't "left to the RCc."

It was all done by God but one can not ignore that He did this through the RCC. Why? Maybe because it is the Church that He built with HIS hands. That would make a whole lot of sense.

Well, I don't believe the body of Christ is confined within the borders of your denomination so this isn't really an issue to me. However, as to whether it makes sense, I really couldn't say. God did many things that confuse me. That doesn't mean that His actions were unwise. It just means that I, being finite, am unable to comprehend the fullness of His reason, i.e., Finitum non capax infinitum.

I don't believe that the body of Christ is confound to the walls of the RCC either. The Church is where the fullness of truth resides because it's teachings come straight from Christ and the apostles. Christians who are re born in Christ are part of His body whether in the Church or out. The Church is visible, but it is also the invisible body. It is both, it isn't either, or. What is isn’t however is a morphed body of believers. It didn't just pop up. The Church was established and they went out and taught the world who Christ is and they were sent by God to that.

 

[Reformationist]

Have a great night Michelle.

God bless,
Don

 

[robl]

Mat 16:18 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.

First of all, lets take a look at the Greek used here. Jesus, speaking to Peter, says "thou art Petros , and upon this Petra I will build my church"
Petros, in addition to being the name of Peter, was a Greek word meaning pebble or small stone. Petra, was used to mean a large rock or a foundation. Peter had just answered Jesus' question "who do you say I am?" correctly by replying "Thou art Christ, The Son of the Living God". Jesus then tells him that he is blessed because "flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but my Father which is in heaven." OK, so Peter got one right, but it wasn't from himself or any other human that he received the answer from, but from God. The pebble is not what Jesus was refering to building His church on, but the truth of pebbles previous statement would be the foundation for the church. Peter himself reveals this further in 1 Peter 2:4-7 when Peter points out that we are living stones, but Jesus is the chief cornerstone. Jesus is the foundation upon which the churh is built, not Peter. Peter and the other apostles are stones in that foundation, but as Jesus points out, it is His church. If this was a proclomation of Peters "popeship" then it was very short lived. A few verses later, Peter goes from pope to satan and is an offence to Jesus. I thought the pope was morally infallible? Just an observation.
In His love,
Rob

 

[de Unamuno]

Well, I'd say I agree but it is a bit of a non issue because we do have a church so it's only our guess as to what we would have without the church. If you mean to imply that God could not have chose a different means to deliver His Word, well, let's just say I disagree. If, however, all you mean is that God did, in fact, effect the compilation of His Word into a cohesive form through the church, well, I'd say I agree. Also, as important as it is to acknowledge the role of the church in compiling the revelation of God, it is of equal importance to acknowledge that they did not compile the Word of the Lord apart from His divine restraint so they cannot claim any credit for it's structure. The compilation of the Bible was the work of God, just as was it's inspiration.

The RCC does not claim credit. All credit is God's. But through its divine agency, the formation of the Bible reinforces the Church's divine authority.

Come on de Unamuno, you know full well that the RC church was not autonomous in it's ruling of the canon. Nothing, I repeat NOTHING, was "left to the RCc." The Catholic church may have been the agent that God providentially used to deliver His revelation but there is nothing to indicate that this unique protection translated into any form of everlasting infallibility.

So let me get this straight... the RCC has been around since Christ, received the Truth of the Word, disseminated that truth to the world, expanded Christiandom thousand fold, acted as the supreme and sole authority of the Christian God on Earth for 1,500 years (continues through today), protected scripture for over 1,000 years, and you would reduce its role to delivery boy?

C'mon, really? That's it? You really believe that? You're not even going to give me a little here, are you?

I've read Matthew 16:18 numerous times, as has any serious student of the Gospel, and it is ONLY the Roman Catholic who interprets that verse to mean that your church was given any level of infallibility, much less multiple levels of infallibility.

It makes sense for everyone else to interpret it differently, since everyone else is protesting. If they interpreted it the same way, they would be Catholic and back in the loving arms of Christ's church.

Well, as Protestants, at least the reformed Protestants, are Christianity's efforts to realign herself with the teachings of said Apostles, I guess that means we developed those works as well, right? Our claims are as viable as your own in that only you recognize your claims and we recognize ours.

Point well taken, with the only difference that the RCC Bishops claim a direct lineage to the original Apostles. I use "claim" here because it can be argued otherwise due to lack of undeniable proof. Nevertheless, I'll concede this is not an argument I would ever build my house upon.

This was not an autonomous process any more than the original composition of God's Word was autonomous. Do you believe your church received that which was spiritually discerned apart from the Spirit? Were they just really, really smart and made logical choices? Yeah. I didn't think so. If the Lord providentially delivered the Gospel through the church then the church can claim no more credit for it's compilation of the Gospel than a prophet can claim for the visions he receives.

I suppose I should at least be happy that you have upgraded the RCC from delivery boy to prophet.

<--- "That'll be $13.95. You want bell peppers with that?"

Wow. You are deep in it, aren't you? Pray tell, are you actually contending that the first authority was the church and that apart from her the Spirit of the Almighty is impotent? Ooops...that can't be true. Prior to the appointment of the Apostles there was no Christian church. Was Abram just some really devout, holy guy that demanded the blessing of God? Oh, that's right...he was a pagan that worshipped idols. Should we, then, claim that the incarnation of God is the result of Abraham's authority?

Indeed I am saying the Church is the Spirit of the Almighty, not any more independent of it than the soul is independent of the body. Both were given us in the same moment by Jesus, so both have been with us from the beginning. One did not produce the other, rather both necessitate the other. Getting deeper.

Just so I'm clear, we're limiting the scope of your question to "what did people do in the period of time between 400 A.D. and 1600 A.D.?"

Specifically, until the invention of the printing press, how was the Word given to the world? Through tradition or through scripture? Through the Church, or through people like you and me sitting around reading our Bibles at the dinner table?

Ahhh...I was wondering when you were going to invoke the favorite verse of Catholics. Good ol' Matthew 16:18. Well, I must, in all honesty, beg your grace in this area. I am divided as to the meaning of the verse and it's applicability to modern day Christianity. As for the authority of the Apostles, I would have no problem acknowledging them as an authoritative unit who were uniquely blessed by God to establish His church. I wouldn't even have a problem acknowledging that Peter was clearly the representative Apostle and a leader among them. I'm not sure how you think that gives your church any more authority but I'm sure that you think it does.

It wouldn't make any difference to you at all unless you acknowledged that the Apostles handed down their authority to their successors. When Judas was gone, you will remember in Acts that they carefully chose his replacement. Why? If the authority of God was to die with the Apostles, why choose a successor to Judas? Why not just say, "we lost one" and leave it at that? The answer is that the Church was established with a specific structure. We needed Judas' position filled because we needed the authority that Jesus gave Judas in order to administer, heal, forgive sins, and generally shephard the flock. The appointing of Peter as the head and the Apostles as the positions of authoritative support leads us to acknowledge Jesus set up an ordered, hierarchical Church, within which not just anyone could perform the functions of the appointed members. This looks exactly like the RCC from the very earliest records. This looks nothing like Protestantism in any form.

de Unamuno, let me be clear that I fully agree that the church that Christ established has existed since it's inauguration and will last forever. That church is not the visible manifestation that you lovingly refer to as the Roman Catholic church but it does, most certainly, include many people who are members of that denomination. The invisible church is being made visible by the Lord's body, regardless of their Christian denomination. Thanks be to God Almighty that our salvation isn't dependent upon the accuracy of our beliefs or else none of us would be saved.

Respectfully, that is only your belief (Calvenism?). Catholics, but more so many Protestants, believe that our salvation truly does hinge on our beliefs, and what God expects of us. That is the big problem in my eyes: no one can agree. The body is indeed all Christians, and the body is fractured. Many Christians deny the authority of the RCC, but they inevitably look to others (ministers, pastors, effective orators) for what they should believe. Ultimately, that authority is given to someone based on an emotional decision, and that religious relativism of "I like what he tells me so I will belong to his church" has led to material crimes against God's body of people: SEE: rampant divorce, homosexual ministers, sexual "freedom", contraception/abortion. Did God only give us his Word so that we would be saved? Or more so that we would live right and that the fruits of that faith would lift us all up? Our fractured body even coming close to achieving that goal? The institution of marriage is all but dissolving before our eyes. It seems to me the war is being lost because we can't get it together. Alas, I rant...

This is irrelevent to the discussion. I've never said that we are free to interpret irresponsibly. However, as God's Word is the only source of revealed infallible truth it is the only source with the authority to bind the conscience of believers.

I agree that I am getting off topic. But I would like to say one thing on this: Isn't irresponsible interpretation exactly what is happening today? Christianity has become a marketing machine for giving people what they want to hear. If you are gay, you can find a church. If you really want to divorce your wife, you can find a church. If you want to bomb abortion clinics, you can find a church.

Come on de Unamuno. You know full well there were various factions of belief in the early church.

By factions, do you mean schools of thought within the church, or do you mean heretical churches that were excommunicated and not considered to be Christianity? I have never heard of any stand-alone Christian factions other than the one recognized Roman Catholic Church... until, of course, the Reformation.

I'm fine with either of those. Your point is made moot because neither number represents variations in the truth of God. Though there were varied beliefs regarding non central issues among the original reformers it is unfair to lump every group that protests the authority of your church with the original reformers.

Why is it unfair to group the fruits of the Reformation? Thousands of denominations originally and necessarily come from only one or two protesting movements. They are all based on and fueled by the same idea that there is no longer a single source of interpretation. Isn't it akin to saying Alaskans shouldn't be called Americans because they didn't participate in the emancipation from England?

Poor, poor God. How could He ever have revealed Himself to man if not for your church...Pah lease. ... In short, they're pointless.

The point is not "could God have done it another way". The point is that he did do it this way. The Catholic Church sheparded the faith for the majority of Christianity, and continues to fill that role today. Unless you think God made a mistake, or simply made an arbitrary decision, the point, I think, is firm.

I'll take a look at this. Just one request, if I may...could you give me a little background on the site's credentials?

The author of this particular book was a former Presbyterian minister who converted to Catholicism. The book was written cerca 1911, if I'm not mistaken, and is widely considered one of the best written accounts of the history of the Bible. It is painfully Catholic-biased and "preachy", but if you can get past that, there are some hard facts that are all well founded and historical.

A noble goal, indeed. I pray that I may follow your example and continue in this discussion with the grace and godliness that you have once again displayed.

God bless

Indeed, this has been a very stimulating discussion, and (better yet!) not a tirade of total closed mindedness. We may never agree, but at the very least we come closer in brotherhood, and perchance learn something while we're at it. Peace be with you,

 

[Reformationist]

The RCC does not claim credit. All credit is God's.

Strange. Maybe my computer is acting up on me:

So, do you deny the RCC's role in imparting that truth to you?

If not for the Catholics keeping the Bible safe for so long, we wouldn't even have a Bible today.

Did those quotes only show up on my computer? Does that sound like you're giving all the credit to God? Yeah. I didn't think so.

But through its divine agency, the formation of the Bible reinforces the Church's divine authority.

Uh huh. So the Bible was given for the purpose of reinforcing the authority of the RC church? Got it. Well, good luck with that. You'll need a lot of luck for that theory to hold up. The Bible was given as God's revelation of Himself to His people. Your church has only the authority you and the other members of it give it. Your church has no authority over me. I submit to the authority that God has placed over me, or I at least try to. My pride often gets in the way. Regardless, there is not one iota of Scriptural support for your claims of your church's divine authority. You don't have the power to affect anyone's salvation.

So let me get this straight... the RCC has been around since Christ,

Strange. Only the Roman Catholics make the claim that the Roman Catholic church has been around since Christ. What makes your claim any more valid than the EO? For that matter, I am of the belief that the message that the reformers professed is the same as that of the Apostles so your claim that your denomination is the church that Christ established is no more valid than my own. There is no continuity between the teachings of your church and those of Paul. None. Is his authority just not included in the teachings of your church?

received the Truth of the Word, disseminated that truth to the world, expanded Christiandom thousand fold, acted as the supreme and sole authority of the Christian God on Earth for 1,500 years (continues through today), protected scripture for over 1,000 years, and you would reduce its role to delivery boy?

Of course not. Your church is just a denomination that teaches doctrine contrary to what was taught by the Apostles. It doesn't make you a delivery boy. It just makes your church one of many church's that teaches contrary to the Gospel. You're no worse. You're no better. You're just servants of God trying to figure out how to do His will. Granted, you're pretty far of the path but I don't doubt your church is trying.

It makes sense for everyone else to interpret it differently, since everyone else is protesting. If they interpreted it the same way, they would be Catholic and back in the loving arms of Christ's church.

Why would it be better for us to all interpret it incorrectly? Don't worry for us. We're in the "loving arms of Christ's church" regardless of our protestation of your church's erroneous teaching. Thank God that His church is not defined by the walls of a denomination.

I suppose I should at least be happy that you have upgraded the RCC from delivery boy to prophet.

<--- "That'll be $13.95. You want bell peppers with that?"

LOL! Well, my goal was never to downplay the fact that you are my Christian brothers and sisters. However, my goal also wasn't to make you feel as if the title of prophet gives you any right to boast as you do. True prophets of God recognized that their unique role in God's plan should make them more humble. Due to their relationship with the God of the universe their own sin became to them as if under a microscope and their boasts were reduced to pleas for forgiveness. I don't see a whole lot of that from the members of your church. It's more like "We must be right. We're the biggest church," or, "We've been around for 2000 years so we have to be right," or, "If it weren't for us you wouldn't even have a Bible, much less be saved." Hopefully you get my point.

Indeed I am saying the Church is the Spirit of the Almighty, not any more independent of it than the soul is independent of the body. Both were given us in the same moment by Jesus, so both have been with us from the beginning. One did not produce the other, rather both necessitate the other. Getting deeper.

Well, um...I'll just pass on commenting on this one.

Specifically, until the invention of the printing press, how was the Word given to the world? Through tradition or through scripture?

Scripture. Granted, the Scripture wasn't available to the common Christian but hopefully the early church actually taught from the content of Scripture. Or did the early church just make it up as they went?

Through the Church, or through people like you and me sitting around reading our Bibles at the dinner table?

Definitely through the church, though it was probably the most defining portion of people's lives outside of church as well.

It wouldn't make any difference to you at all unless you acknowledged that the Apostles handed down their authority to their successors.

Authority, possibly. Infallible government, not likely.

When Judas was gone, you will remember in Acts that they carefully chose his replacement. Why? If the authority of God was to die with the Apostles, why choose a successor to Judas? Why not just say, "we lost one" and leave it at that? The answer is that the Church was established with a specific structure.

Okay. Why don't we have the office of Apostle today? Or is that what you call your Pope? And if so, what about the succession of the other Apostles? Are those successive appointments all in your church as well?

We needed Judas' position filled because we needed the authority that Jesus gave Judas in order to administer, heal, forgive sins, and generally shephard the flock.

Wow. See, the wierd thing is that Protestant churches administer the Word, help effect the healing work of God's sanctifying presence and shepherd the flock. As for forgiving sins, neither your church nor my own has that authority. I know, I know. You think they do. However, it is only you and your church who think your ministers have that power. Unfortunately that's a big thing for you guys. I don't need your ministers or my own to forgive my sins. The Lord obtained the forgiveness for my sins on the Cross at Calvary. It is nice when my Pastor reminds me that I'm forgiven but he doesn't do any of the forgiving.

The appointing of Peter as the head and the Apostles as the positions of authoritative support leads us to acknowledge Jesus set up an ordered, hierarchical Church, within which not just anyone could perform the functions of the appointed members. This looks exactly like the RCC from the very earliest records. This looks nothing like Protestantism in any form.

You're off your rocker de Unamuno. Have you ever attended a Protestant church? Are you saying we don't adhere to church government or did I just misunderstand that?

Respectfully, that is only your belief (Calvenism?).

Really? Only Calvinists believe that the Roman Catholic church is NOT the embodiment of Christ's establishment of His body and that the visible church doesn't represent the actual invisible church body? Care to place a small wager on that?

Catholics, but more so many Protestants, believe that our salvation truly does hinge on our beliefs, and what God expects of us.

de Unamuno, I know that Catholics are used to believing that might means right and if a majority of people believe something then it must be right but, fortunately, that's not the case. As learned as you seem to be in the doctrines of your church you are not representative of the normal Catholic, or Protestant. Most Christians are content with being lukewarm at best. If they truly believed that their salvation hinged on doing the right things then they would do the right things. On the whole, most Christians I know, to include Catholics, are pretty ignorant of what God wants them to do.

That is the big problem in my eyes: no one can agree. The body is indeed all Christians, and the body is fractured. Many Christians deny the authority of the RCC, but they inevitably look to others (ministers, pastors, effective orators) for what they should believe. Ultimately, that authority is given to someone based on an emotional decision

I agree completely.

and that religious relativism of "I like what he tells me so I will belong to his church" has led to material crimes against God's body of people: SEE: rampant divorce, homosexual ministers, sexual "freedom", contraception/abortion.

Sure. There are problems in the body of Christ. The body of Christ, though redeemed is made up of fallen sinners who often act in a carnal manner. You act as if your church is exempt from these struggles. Your church is runs rampant, from the lowest to the highest position, with sinfulness. Does this mean that you're not a Christian church? Of course not. But it also doesn't do a whole lot to validate your claims of being THE church that Christ established.

Did God only give us his Word so that we would be saved?

Saved as in eternal salvation? Of course not. Our salvation is not ours because we read the Word. Our salvation is ours because the Lord has atoned for us. He actually accomplishes the salvation of those that God chose in Him before the foundation of the earth.

Or more so that we would live right and that the fruits of that faith would lift us all up?

Are these the only two choices that you are contending the Law was given? The Gospel should, most certainly, create in us a desire to do what the Lord tells us to do. Reading it regenerates the mind and renews our heart.

Our fractured body even coming close to achieving that goal?

As close as the Lord would have us be currently. It must be very tough going through life believing that things are happening contrary to the way God had eternally intended. I would never enter the Lord's rest if I believed as you do. I have a rough enough time knowing that God is sovereign over the government of His righteous and immutable plan. I have no clue how you even get out of bed in the morning. He loves me, he loves me not. He's happy with me, He's not happy with me. I'm saved, I'm not saved. My salvation depends on how well I keep His law. I have grace if I'm inherently holy. When I do something that a group of created men say is really bad well, I've lost that grace when I need it the most. Did I feed the homeless and visit a widow today? Oops. I'm lost yet again. How terrible.

I agree that I am getting off topic. But I would like to say one thing on this: Isn't irresponsible interpretation exactly what is happening today?

Absolutely.

Christianity has become a marketing machine for giving people what they want to hear. If you are gay, you can find a church. If you really want to divorce your wife, you can find a church. If you want to bomb abortion clinics, you can find a church.

I agree that all of these things are indicative of the widespread apostacy of the church. However, just because a large portion of people who claim to be faithful followers of Christ seemingly sin without restraint doesn't mean that man is autonomous. Think of the story of Joseph. I'm sure that, from an outside perspective, that may have seemed to be outside of the sovereign control of God. We both know it was not. Such is the case with our current situation in the Body.

By factions, do you mean schools of thought within the church, or do you mean heretical churches that were excommunicated and not considered to be Christianity? I have never heard of any stand-alone Christian factions other than the one recognized Roman Catholic Church... until, of course, the Reformation.

By "factions" I meant schools of thought. At that time we weren't the Roman Catholic church. We were just the Catholic church.

Why is it unfair to group the fruits of the Reformation? Thousands of denominations originally and necessarily come from only one or two protesting movements. They are all based on and fueled by the same idea that there is no longer a single source of interpretation.

That's ridiculous. The reformation is no more to blame for heresy than the Roman Catholic church is. These church's with heretical doctrine aren't the fruit of the reformation. If you're looking to blame someone you could start with your own church. It's a good possibility that that which spawned the reformation, which, by the way, is different than revolution, caused people to lack faith in the faithfulness of the church. None of the reformers has the power to force someone to cecede from the false teaching of Rome so you have no basis for blaming them.

Isn't it akin to saying Alaskans shouldn't be called Americans because they didn't participate in the emancipation from England?

Are you asking me if it's a viable analogy to compare the Catholic church with the corrupt rulership of a Catholic controlled England and then, further, is it proper to reject the national citizenship of Alaska because they weren't settled as an American colony in the period of recognized cessation. de Unamuno, you needn't use Alaska in your analogy. You could substitute any territory that wasn't settled during America's struggle for independence. Should we not call the inhabitants of Texas Americans? How about the citizens of Nevada? Florida? The list is quite long, even for someone as ignorant of American history as I am.

Well, there are a few problems with that analogy. First, Alaska submits to the rulership of the Federal government of the United States. This is one of those weird little rules of our Federal government which basically states, "if you're going to be part of the united states, you must submit to her government." Now, this is clearly not the case with the non reformed Protestant denominations. Only those who submit to the rulership of churches that adhere to the teachings of the original reformers should be lumped as "their fruits." Secondly, even though I am a reformed Christian I didn't participate in the reformation. Does that, then, mean that I am not considered liable for their actions, even though I abide by their tenets? Your church says that very thing if I'm not mistaken.

The point is not "could God have done it another way". The point is that he did do it this way.

So you say. Additionally, if "he did do it this way" then it should create in you a sense of abounding humility at the grace and mercy and favor the Lord has shown you. Unfortunately, I see very little of this in your denomination. More often than not, it seems like a contest as to who can brag about your church the most.

Unless you think God made a mistake, or simply made an arbitrary decision, the point, I think, is firm.

God never makes mistakes, though He definitely allows them to bring His plan to pass. For this very reason I count you and your fellow Catholics as my beloved brethren. Now, if I can just learn to love you guys more than I love myself...

The author of this particular book was a former Presbyterian minister who converted to Catholicism. The book was written cerca 1911, if I'm not mistaken, and is widely considered one of the best written accounts of the history of the Bible. It is painfully Catholic-biased and "preachy", but if you can get past that, there are some hard facts that are all well founded and historical.

LOL! Well, at least you're being honest about it. I commend you for that. Many Christians would seek to downplay that bias so as not to seem prejudiced.

Indeed, this has been a very stimulating discussion, and (better yet!) not a tirade of total closed mindedness. We may never agree, but at the very least we come closer in brotherhood, and perchance learn something while we're at it. Peace be with you,

I agree. The peace of our Lord be with you as well.

God bless,
Don

 

[de Unamuno]

Well Ref, it seems to me our tête-à-tête is finally twisting into circular arguments as all good debates must eventually do. If I might humbly suggest homework for you, I would strongly suggest you study up on church history. I can't argue much more without giving a much longer history lesson than either one of us cares to endure. The link I gave you earlier would certainly be a good start.

As for me, I welcome any homework that you might suggest? A general list of authors won't do, since I lack the self-initiative to go out and guess at which books to read, so maybe you've got an online source that would be a good toe-in-the-water opener for me?

For the sake of clarity, I'll try to clear up some direct statements about Catholic theology (and some of my own opinions)...

The office of the Apostle exists today in the Bishops, who claim direct lineage from the original twelve Apostles.

The RCC claims authority neither through boasting nor pride. It simply is as God intended and always has been so. Moreover, it is a source of shame, not pride, that the Church was in such a state immediately preceding the Reformation that so many of its flock left. Please do not mistake me, as I believe the Reformation was regretably justified in every sense.

Nothing happens by chance, and the Reformation happend for a reason. I believe that God allowed it to happen so that we may cure the injustices in the Church and come back together again with renewed spirit. That day of reconciliation is coming.

Whether you know it or not, your understanding of Catholic faith and justification is almost totally based on Protestant rumor that has been passed down for 500 years. This is the kind of thing I had hoped to rectify in this debate, but I don't think it's something we will solve in one thread. Feeding the homeless and visiting widows?! LOL.... I love it!!

Peace be with you, brother!

 

[Reformationist]

Well Ref, it seems to me our tête-à-tête is finally twisting into circular arguments as all good debates must eventually do.

Unfortunate as this is, I agree that this is a good stopping point because I'd hate to see such a profitable discussion cease to be edifying. I sincerely appreciate the investment of time and energy you have made. I am not aware that I have ever encountered a more learned or engaging Catholic brother on this forum, with the exception of maybe Wolseley and KC Catholic (and in case you are not familiar with them, that is as good a compliment as I could give you).

If I might humbly suggest homework for you, I would strongly suggest you study up on church history.

A wise suggestion that I hope to undertake with the assistance of one of your fellow Catholics that Michelle (shelb5) has recommeded me to.

I can't argue much more without giving a much longer history lesson than either one of us cares to endure. The link I gave you earlier would certainly be a good start.

Thank you for that. I think you'd quickly begin to speak over my head anyway. Maybe we can pick this back up when I have studied and overcome some of my ignorance.

As for me, I welcome any homework that you might suggest? A general list of authors won't do, since I lack the self-initiative to go out and guess at which books to read, so maybe you've got an online source that would be a good toe-in-the-water opener for me?

I'll see what I can come up with. I always enjoy Center for Reformed Theology and Apologetics.

For the sake of clarity, I'll try to clear up some direct statements about Catholic theology (and some of my own opinions)...

The office of the Apostle exists today in the Bishops, who claim direct lineage from the original twelve Apostles.

Is there somewhere where I can view this list today? I am interested in seeing who fills the various offices of the original Apostles.

The RCC claims authority neither through boasting nor pride. It simply is as God intended and always has been so.

In retrospect, my statement regarding this was more harsh than I had intended. I can only ask for your forgiveness and plead the case of unfamiliar waters. I am not usually blessed with the opportunity to converse with members of your church that are as restrained as you are and have, unfortunately, developed the habit of striking first. Again, my deepest apologies for any offense.

Moreover, it is a source of shame, not pride, that the Church was in such a state immediately preceding the Reformation that so many of its flock left. Please do not mistake me, as I believe the Reformation was regretably justified in every sense.

Nothing happens by chance, and the Reformation happend for a reason. I believe that God allowed it to happen so that we may cure the injustices in the Church and come back together again with renewed spirit. That day of reconciliation is coming.

Well, I pray we are united in that hope. I hope I can view our separation as an experience that will create in us a deep seated love for unity of the children of God, rather than the animosity that pervades the strained relationship of today.

Whether you know it or not, your understanding of Catholic faith and justification is almost totally based on Protestant rumor that has been passed down for 500 years.

That's what I keep hearing from your fellow Catholics. Maybe, if you're persistant, you can prevail where they have not.

This is the kind of thing I had hoped to rectify in this debate, but I don't think it's something we will solve in one thread.

May the Lord give you His own patience. That's probably what it will take (if I'm being honest).

Feeding the homeless and visiting widows?! LOL.... I love it!!

I actually got that from one of your fellow Catholics.

Peace be with you, brother!

And you as well,
God bless

 

[de Unamuno]

Thanks Ref! I'll see what I can dig up on the Apostolic succession questions. Thanks for the link, I'll definitely be visiting the site. If you think of any specific sources, manifestos or online essays, I would love to bookmark a few of them.

On the comment of pride, I really don't take any offense to it. It is very easy to look at Catholics as prideful, because we believe so strongly in the historical establishment of our church. But I know you get the same kinds of "abuse" with the rampant and gross misunderstanding of the Predestination doctrines. For both of us, we believe our tenets are rooted in facts, not our own egos (at least, we'd like to think so!). So, again, no offense taken.

Best regards,

-jerrod