What Happens if Christians Ignore the Teachings of Jesus?

[calluna]

Another evasion.

I'm still waiting for you to post scripture that contradicts a doctrine of the Catholic Church.

Of course you are. Very predictably, you are.

 

[mattlock73]

So you are part of the political attempt to suppress the truth? Cut out the ludicrous excuses, and deal with this, poster, if it is possible:

All Roman distinctives contradict Scripture. Moreover, they all tend to remove initiative and control from private citizens to an invasive caste, who for over a thousand years was controlled politically.

Pick a dogma of Rome, anything you like, other than basic teachings. Let's see if I'm wrong.

I am not trying to hide the truth or anything else. I did not even say that I disagree with your assertion, there are many things in the Catholic church that are unsupported by scripture. The issue I take with you is that you are constantly attacking people with no substance. You say Calvinists and Catholics are one in the same with no evidence supporting your side. When I pointed out how very wrong you are, you ignored it and start to flame someone else. You compared the RCC to Holocaust deniers and made the claim that they are the worst people on Earth. You gave no supporting data to your statement. When asked to provide substance, you evaded the question entirely and heaped more ad hominem attacks on the RCC and another poster on this forum by his affiliation with that organization.

Your posts are predictable and inept. If you want to debate, then provide some evidence for your side of the issue. If you just want to flame and troll, then it won't be anything new, but realize that you are damaging not only your own credibility and witness, but the witness of every Christian on this board with your posts. Non-christians come here and read the things you write, maybe you should think about that the next time you post.

 

[calluna]

I am not trying to hide the truth or anything else. I did not even say that I disagree with your assertion, there are many things in the Catholic church that are unsupported by scripture. The issue I take with you is that you are constantly attacking people with no substance.

That is not only a falsehood, it is none of your business, and it is way off topic.

It serves to distract from the issue, though, which is the proposition that all Roman distinctives contradict Scripture. I take it that nobody is prepared to oppose that view, and the view that they all tend to remove initiative and control from private citizens to an invasive caste, which for over a thousand years was controlled politically. The continued favoritism displayed by many states towards the RCC and bodies of similar nature is contemporary and familiar evidence of this, and it also shows the hypocrisy of 'liberals' who make much of inequities in any other field but this one.

 

[chestertonrules]

That is not only a falsehood, it is none of your business, and it is way off topic.

It serves to distract from the issue, though, which is the proposition that all Roman distinctives contradict Scripture. I take it that nobody is prepared to oppose that view, and the view that they all tend to remove initiative and control from private citizens to an invasive caste, which for over a thousand years was controlled politically. The continued favoritism displayed by many states towards the RCC and bodies of similar nature is contemporary and familiar evidence of this, and it also shows the hypocrisy of 'liberals' who make much of inequities in any other field but this one.

Jesus established the authority of the church.

Why don't these verses apply to you?

Matthew 18

17If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

Luke 10
16"He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me."

John 20
21Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." 22And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."

2 Thes 2
15So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.

Matthew 16

17Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

 

[mattlock73]

That is not only a falsehood, it is none of your business, and it is way off topic.

It serves to distract from the issue, though, which is the proposition that all Roman distinctives contradict Scripture. I take it that nobody is prepared to oppose that view, and the view that they all tend to remove initiative and control from private citizens to an invasive caste, which for over a thousand years was controlled politically. The continued favoritism displayed by many states towards the RCC and bodies of similar nature is contemporary and familiar evidence of this, and it also shows the hypocrisy of 'liberals' who make much of inequities in any other field but this one.

As someone who has born the brunt of at least one of your attacks, I say you made it my business. If you want to discuss the issue, then bring some substance to the table.

Originally Posted by chestertonrules

Another evasion.

I'm still waiting for you to post scripture that contradicts a doctrine of the Catholic Church.
​

Of course you are. Very predictably, you are.

Another invitation to real discussion, and another evasion from you. Do you see a pattern here?

 

[chestertonrules]

mattlock,

I'm interested on your take on these verses as well.(more interested, actually!)

What do these verses mean from your perspective?

Matthew 18

17If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

Luke 10
16"He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me."

John 20
21Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." 22And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."

2 Thes 2
15So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.

Matthew 16

17Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

 

[calluna]

Jesus established the authority of the church.

If the first instinct of Catholic apologists was to duty and responsibility, and particularly to the gospel, one would surely approach them with greater interest. But the first word on their lips is 'authority'. Here we see evidence of this afore-mentioned arrogating of control to a few outsiders. Indeed, Catholic apologists generally know very few parts of Scripture that do not contain references to supposed authority, supposed support for tradition and Mary's supposed continued virginity, all of which topics give rise to teachings that place control in their own hands.

Why don't these verses apply to you?

Matthew 18

17If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

Luke 10
16"He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me."

John 20
21Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." 22And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."

They apply to all- not in the way that Catholics interpret them, though, even after the full context of John 20 has been explained to them. What some Catholics fear is the authority of the Holy Spirit in their lives, which is of course mediated through humanity.

2 Thes 2
15So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.

That applies only to the recipients of the letter. It makes as much sense to quote this as quoting the command to fetch Paul's cloak. For people today, it means:

'So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, as found in Scripture.' It is in fact a command for sola Scriptura.

Matthew 16

17Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

'Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are rock, and on this Rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades (death) will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be what is bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be what is loosed in heaven."'

All who make the confession that Peter made are given 'the keys to the kingdom', which is metaphor for the Holy Spirit, as is 'the power to bind and loose', a power thought until then to be that of rabbis.

We see evidence in the well-known misinterpretation of this passage of the afore-mentioned arrogating of control to a few outsiders.

 

[mattlock73]

mattlock,

I'm interested on your take on these verses as well.(more interested, actually!)

What do these verses mean from your perspective?

Matthew 18

17If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

it means exactly what it says. In this passage Jesus is talking about what to do with a brother who refuses to repent of his sins. First go to him alone, then bring some witnesses and finally bring him before the church. The church here being the fellowship of believers, not a specific denomination or building.

Luke 10
16"He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me."

Again, not much in the way of room for interpretation here. The Lord is sending out the 70 in His name (as ambassadors) saying that if they are rejected, it is not just the ambassador but the one who sent them that is rejected as well, and as Christ is an ambassador of God in His role on earth, God is also being rejected.

John 20
21Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." 22And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."

The disciples (and others minus Thomas) receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. They become born again. Then Christ give them the authority to proclaim forgiveness of sins for the believer and warn of the penalty of sin to the unbeliever as authorized by the Holy Spirit.

2 Thes 2
15So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.

Not much room for interpretation here either. Do not listen to false gospels, but stand by what you have been taught.

Matthew 16

17Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

This is where we probably come to a disagreement. Peter cannot be the rock in this passage upon which the church was built. The contextual scope of this passage is too narrow, you really should include verses 13-23 for the true context to be seen.

Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, He was asking His disciples, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?" And they said, "Some {say} John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; but still others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets." He *said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." And Jesus said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal {this} to you, but My Father who is in heaven. "I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven." Then He warned the disciples that they should tell no one that He was the Christ. From that time Jesus began to show His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised up on the third day. Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him, saying, "God forbid {it,} Lord! This shall never happen to You." But He turned and said to Peter, "Get behind Me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to Me; for you are not setting your mind on God's interests, but man's."

Here are just some of the issues with Peter being the rock:

• Petros and petra reflect different genders—the former is masculine, the latter is feminine; thus a distinction is drawn.
• Petros generally is a smaller stone, a fragment; petra is a more massive, bedrock-like substructure.
• Christ distinguished between petros and petra by the use of pronouns of different person. Petros has a second person pronoun as a companion, while petra is used with a third person pronoun.
• In the symbolism employed by Jesus, Peter is designated as the one who opens the doors to the kingdom (which he did for Jew and Gentile—Acts 2; 10). It is not customary for an object to occupy two roles, e.g., the foundation and door-opener, at the same time in the same metaphorical illustration.
• Look at verse 23, Peter is called Satan and a scandal, hardly what one would consider a glowing report from Lord on whom He has just deposited the foundation of the church.
• Frequently the “church fathers” are appealed to as proof that the early Christians believed that Peter was the “rock” upon which the church was founded. However, as Dreyer and Weller point out in "Roman Catholicism in the Light of Scripture", “Only sixteen out of the eighty-four early church fathers believed that the Lord referred to Peter when He said ‘this rock’”
• If this conversation between Christ and Peter was intended to establish the fact that the church was to be built upon the apostle himself (with the implication of successors), it is strange indeed that Mark, who produced his Gospel record from the vantage point of Peter, totally omits the exchange (see Mk. 8:27-30).

 

[chestertonrules]

it means exactly what it says. In this passage Jesus is talking about what to do with a brother who refuses to repent of his sins. First go to him alone, then bring some witnesses and finally bring him before the church. The church here being the fellowship of believers, not a specific denomination or building.

How would this work when a Methodist has a disagreement with a Baptist? I think this verse only makes sense if there is a united entity known as the Church, which is what Jesus desired for his followers.

Again, not much in the way of room for interpretation here. The Lord is sending out the 70 in His name (as ambassadors) saying that if they are rejected, it is not just the ambassador but the one who sent them that is rejected as well, and as Christ is an ambassador of God in His role on earth, God is also being rejected.

So then you agree that his Church, as ambassador to the world, has his authority?

The disciples (and others minus Thomas) receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. They become born again. Then Christ give them the authority to proclaim forgiveness of sins for the believer and warn of the penalty of sin to the unbeliever as authorized by the Holy Spirit.

Jesus gave the disciples the ability to forgive or not forgive sins. He wasn't giving them instructions for teaching, he was giving them spiritual authority. That's a huge difference. Your interpretation changes the clear meaning of the words in the passage.

Not much room for interpretation here either. Do not listen to false gospels, but stand by what you have been taught.

By word of mouth or letter. The Catholic Church holds to the apostolic teachings passed on by the Church that may not be explicitly described in scripture, like the Trinity and Infant Baptism. Most protestants reject much of the early Church's traditions even though these traditions were passed on as the truth by the apostles.


This is where we probably come to a disagreement. Peter cannot be the rock in this passage upon which the church was built. The contextual scope of this passage is too narrow, you really should include verses 13-23 for the true context to be seen.

Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, He was asking His disciples, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?" And they said, "Some {say} John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; but still others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets." He *said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." And Jesus said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal {this} to you, but My Father who is in heaven. "I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven." Then He warned the disciples that they should tell no one that He was the Christ. From that time Jesus began to show His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised up on the third day. Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him, saying, "God forbid {it,} Lord! This shall never happen to You." But He turned and said to Peter, "Get behind Me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to Me; for you are not setting your mind on God's interests, but man's."

Here are just some of the issues with Peter being the rock:

• Petros and petra reflect different genders—the former is masculine, the latter is feminine; thus a distinction is drawn.

There is no distinction in aramaic, which is the language Jesus spoke. Of course Peter's name will be giving the masculine gender when translated to Latin or Greek. This is a non issue.

• Petros generally is a smaller stone, a fragment; petra is a more massive, bedrock-like substructure.

Again, this is not relevant given that Jesus spoke aramaic.

• Christ distinguished between petros and petra by the use of pronouns of different person. Petros has a second person pronoun as a companion, while petra is used with a third person pronoun.

Wrong again, sorry.

• In the symbolism employed by Jesus, Peter is designated as the one who opens the doors to the kingdom (which he did for Jew and Gentile—Acts 2; 10). It is not customary for an object to occupy two roles, e.g., the foundation and door-opener, at the same time in the same metaphorical illustration.

Not accurate. The keys to the kingdom is well understood in Jewish history and a specific reference is found in Isaiah 22. The King in this case gave authority, ie. the keys, to a new sec. of state, more or less. The keys represent the kings authority and succession, because they can be passed on as they are in Isaiah 22.

• Look at verse 23, Peter is called Satan and a scandal, hardly what one would consider a glowing report from Lord on whom He has just deposited the foundation of the church.

All men are sinners. Peter was reconciled even after denying Jesus three times. Paul killed persecuted and even killed Christians before turning around. This has nothing to do with the Holy Spirit conveying truth to an individual. We know that God communicated directly to Peter at least twice about major doctrinal matters in the new testament. First, as we read here, regarding the divinity of Jesus. Second, Peter was given the revelation that resolved the issue of gentile circumcision at the first Church council in Acts 15.

• Frequently the “church fathers” are appealed to as proof that the early Christians believed that Peter was the “rock” upon which the church was founded. However, as Dreyer and Weller point out in "Roman Catholicism in the Light of Scripture", “Only sixteen out of the eighty-four early church fathers believed that the Lord referred to Peter when He said ‘this rock’”

I'll concede this point for now, although I doubt that it is accurate, but more importantly none of the early church fathers denied the role of Peter and his successors as leader of the Church. This is crucial to the Christian Unity that Jesus wants for us. Without a single point of authority to settle doctrinal disputes you will have a continuing schism, which is what we see in protestantism.

• If this conversation between Christ and Peter was intended to establish the fact that the church was to be built upon the apostle himself (with the implication of successors), it is strange indeed that Mark, who produced his Gospel record from the vantage point of Peter, totally omits the exchange (see Mk. 8:27-30).

Not really. This truth was so ingrained as to be irrelevant. There was no doubt in the early Church about the hierarchy.


Here are two more quotes related to John 21 that summarizes the early Church understanding:

In 387, St. John Chrysostom writes:

"And why, then, passing by the others, does He converse with Peter on these things? (John 21:15). He was the chosen one of the Apostles, and the mouth of the disciples, and the leader of the choir. On this account, Paul also went up on a time to see him rather than the others (Galatians 1:18). And withal, to show him that he must thenceforward have confidence, as the denial was done away with, He puts into his hands the presidency over the brethren. And He brings not forward the denial, nor reproches him with what had past, but says, 'If you love me, preside over the brethren,' ...and the third time He gives him the same injunction, showing at what a price He sets the presidency over His own sheep. And if one should say, 'How then did James receive the throne of Jerusalem?,' this I would answer that He appointed this man (Peter) teacher, not of that throne, but of the whole world." (Chrysostom, In Joan. Hom. lxxxviii. n. 1, tom. viii)


Another reference to Peter's primacy in John 21, from St. Cyprian, who writes:

"....Again He (Christ) says to him (Peter) after His Resurrection: "Feed my sheep." On him He builds the Church, and to him He gives the command to feed the sheep; and although He assigns a like power to all the Apostles, yet He founded a single Chair, and He established by His own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were what Peter also was; but a primacyis given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one Chair."
​

​

 

[Uphill Battle]

Another evasion.

I'm still waiting for you to post scripture that contradicts a doctrine of the Catholic Church.

no, you're not. You're waiting for someone to raise an objection that has been raised 100 times before, so you can preach the RC party line about how they have the answers, and if it isn't coming from the Catholic perspective, it's neccessarily in error.

don't be dishonest in your prostelyzing. Just admit that you refuse to beleive anything other than the Catholic rhetoric. It will save time.


BTW, in answer to the OP

"What happens when a Christan ignores the commands of Christ?"

someone will come along and tell you that THEY are following the commands of Christ. (let's, for the sake of argument, call this someone Chesterton.) and that YOU aren't. And that you're likely to go to hell for it. See what the scripture says! (of course, RC's dont "judge" such things. Really. No really. I mean it. I'm not judging at all.)

 

[chestertonrules]

no, you're not. You're waiting for someone to raise an objection that has been raised 100 times before, so you can preach the RC party line about how they have the answers, and if it isn't coming from the Catholic perspective, it's neccessarily in error.

don't be dishonest in your prostelyzing. Just admit that you refuse to beleive anything other than the Catholic rhetoric. It will save time.


BTW, in answer to the OP

"What happens when a Christan ignores the commands of Christ?"

someone will come along and tell you that THEY are following the commands of Christ. (let's, for the sake of argument, call this someone Chesterton.) and that YOU aren't. And that you're likely to go to hell for it. See what the scripture says! (of course, RC's dont "judge" such things. Really. No really. I mean it. I'm not judging at all.)

I'm still waiting....

Something for you to consider:

Matthew 18

17If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

 

[Uphill Battle]

oh, look... repetition. Colour me unsuprised!

 

[chestertonrules]

oh, look... repetition. Colour me unsuprised!

Given your inability to respond, I assumed you missed it.

Why can't you defend your dogma?

 

[Uphill Battle]

which dogma?

 

[chestertonrules]

which dogma?

Your man made dogmas of sola fide and sola scriptura.

 

[Uphill Battle]

I hold no such dogmas.

 

[calluna]

no, you're not. You're waiting for someone to raise an objection that has been raised 100 times before, so you can preach the RC party line about how they have the answers, and if it isn't coming from the Catholic perspective, it's neccessarily in error.

Maybe you're right. Sometimes people like a bit of time to think up an answer, on occasions when their questioner constitutes a real threat their position. Another thing they do is ignore the real issues and hope for a post that has weak arguments against their own so they can distract attention from their defeat. It could be that they have stooge posters to provide escape by that method.

 

[calluna]

Your man made dogmas of sola fide and sola scriptura.

Love so amazing, so divine
Demands my soul, my life, my all.

 

[chestertonrules]

Love so amazing, so divine
Demands my soul, my life, my all.

Exactly.

Faith alone is not enough.

 

[calluna]

Exactly.

Eating bread of a 'Sunday' is pretty pathetic, then.

Like the response of Catholics to posts that expose Catholicism as total invention.