As Pope Benedict XVI continues with his highly publicized visit to the United States, some may wonder what the major differences are between Catholicism and Protestantism – the two main Christian bodies in the world.
-
(Photo: AP Images / Gerald Herbert)President Bush and Pope Benedict XVI walk down the Colonnade of the White House in Washington, Wednesday, April 16, 2008, following an arrival ceremony on the South Lawn.
Perhaps the biggest difference is their views on the sufficiency and authority of Scripture. Traditionally, Protestants believe that the Bible alone is sufficient in teaching man all that is necessary for salvation from sin, and contains the standard in which Christians should measure their behavior.
Catholics, however, do not believe that the Bible alone is enough, and instead hold that the Bible and sacred Roman Catholic traditions are equal in authority, as noted by Got Questions Ministries, which provides biblically-based answers on spiritually-related questions in its Web site, GotQuestions.org.
Roman Catholic doctrines, such as purgatory, praying to the saints, veneration of Mary, have little or no basis in the Scripture, but are based on Roman Catholic traditions.
Another major difference is the office and authority of the pope. There is no equivalent position to the pope in Protestantism because of the belief that no human being is infallible and that Christ alone is the head of the church. Protestants believe that the spiritual authority of the church is based on the Word rather than apostolic succession, and that all believers through the Holy Spirit can understand the Word.
For Roman Catholics, on the other hand, the pope is the “Vicar of Christ,” and stands in the place of Jesus as the visible head of the Church. Therefore, his teachings are considered infallible and effective over all Christians.
Because of the emphasis on the authority of the Church over the individual believer, Catholics believe that only the Roman Catholic Church can interpret the Bible. Protestants, on the other hand, believe that all Christians have the authority to interpret the Bible through the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
The issue of salvation is also a point of contention between the two Christian bodies. Protestants traditionally believe that a person is justified and saved only by faith in Jesus Christ alone. However, Roman Catholics believe it is faith in Christ plus good works that man can be saved. Part of the Catholic salvation process is the seven sacraments: baptism at birth, confirmation, the Eucharist, holy orders, anointing of the sick, matrimony and penance.
"To get access to the grace of God, Catholics have to go through the Catholic Church and the sacraments,” pointed out Tal Davis, interfaith coordinator in the Southern Baptist North American Mission Board (NAMB)’s evangelization group, according to Baptist Press.
“We Southern Baptists think that's unnecessary and, in fact, is a hindrance to God,” Davis said. “We go straight to Jesus Christ for salvation by faith alone. No works are involved. You can't save yourself and you can't add anything to God's plan of salvation."
To Catholics, faith in Christ is only the beginning of salvation, and the individual must engage in good works for eternal salvation. Purgatory, for example, is where man goes after death if he did not sufficiently pay for his sins.
While Protestants recognize the importance of good works, they believe good works is the fruit of their salvation and not part of the process to be saved.
“Simply put, the Roman Catholic viewpoint on salvation implies that Christ’s atonement on the cross was not sufficient payment for the sins of those who believe in Him, and that even a believer must atone or pay for his own sins, either through acts of penance, or time in purgatory,” wrote Got Questions Ministries in its Web site. Continue >>
"Again, if two men of goodwill and faith disagree upon a fundamental doctrinal teaching with both of them appealing to scripture and the Holy Spiritâ
A book cannot by itself be infallible. The Protestant acceptance of Sola Scriptura is what leads people to confusion. If everyone comes up with their own interpretation of scripture (as you can see on this site) it defies a first principle of logic...two opposites cannot be true at the same time, and the Holy Spirit knows all so he is not that dumb. Notice how Protestants throw out Bible verses each to their own interpretation and see what confusion it leads to. There is one person on this site who (read in a different area) who is honest and says (paraphrase) "how does he ever know his interpretation is correct (exactly--he doesn't) A Rabbi theologian knows that each scripture verse may be interpreted 6 different ways [ask one].
mysticalguy188 You must have just turned Catholic because you miss so much. Sex scandals: Found in all Churches to the same degree they are in society (about 4.7%, gays, pedophiles, etc)and not approved by any Church so your logic is wrong; this is called "sin." You may go to church and go home but good Catholics don't. You need to go to daily Mass and Communion. There were 250 at the Mass I attended last Tuesday. It all starts with you, teach CCD and make it better. This site will show you that Protestants are well-meaning but lack knowledge about Catholic faith so they repeat bunk fed to them ...like your example..."worshiping Mary." They don't know the difference between adoration and veneration. Baptists are returning home to the faith of their Fathers (Catholicism) are are great in their new faith. God Bless. (learn more about your faith - join Catholic Answers or Catholics returning home on inet. Thanks for bumping in.
Hey all! I just registed. You can call my Mystic. I'm Catholic and I serve a the Sacristan of my parish, an altar server, usher, and Eucharistic Minister. :-)
I noticed a discussion so I thought I might jump in.
Some things I don't like about the Church:
- the sex scandals, although I feel that they are highly exaggerated
- lack of education and motivation (Protestants spend the whole day at their church, whereas, Catholics go to Mass and go home. Also, CCD is terrible in the area I live)
- Don't do anything about Cultural Catholics
What I dislike about Protestant churches:
- I often meet Prods who use the Bible more like a rifle than a preaching tool. By shooting a verse at me only tells you your personal interpretation, then, I shoot a verse back that defends my point. It goes no where.
- I've met Protestants who think that clerical celibacy causes sex scandals. However, I think the sex scandals are an all-around Christian problem, not just a Catholic one.
- Many Prod clergy teach wrongly of the Church, especially when they say that the Church teaches to "worship" Mary.
There's a bit about me. I try to be equal and open-minded. Meaning, I never like to say, "I dislike this about the Methodist Church" unless I say something I dislike about my own church. :D
So, how is everyone? :D
Online,
Peter was the steward you say? I'm not sure I agree with this, but I'm pretty sure you're admitting that he has supremecy over the other apostles. :O
And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
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 perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works – 2Timothy 3:15-17.
Irenaeus,
R.T. France is a liberal Anglican theologian who subscribes to “higher criticism” as a lens to read the scriptures. Donald Guthrie says, “Is the rock therefore to be identified with Peter? It is incredible for Jesus to imply that the future success of Him mission depended upon one man. Peter merely the spokesman for the rest. “This rock” therefore had a wider basis than Peter alone; it referred to Peter as the representative confessor of the true nature of Jesus, without which there could be no church” – END QUOTE (Jesus the Messiah: An Illustrated Life of Christ; section – Testimony and Transfiguration 169).
George Buttrick was a liberal who was in clear violation of his ordination vows; that is rejecting the Bible to be the only infallible rule of faith and practice and also rejecting his church’s Westminster Confession. Craig S. Keener primarily focuses on the social-historical and rhetorical features of the Gospel rather than the texts themselves. He also is in the higher criticism camp which uses extra biblical literature to interpret scripture. Joachim Jeremias was a neo-orthodox German Lutheran who used liberal methods to interpret the Bible; that is he retained a mostly liberal view of the Bible as subject to error. Also, R. T. France’s exposition of Matthew 24, at least through verse 34, is almost exclusively seen as a prophetic depiction of what will happen to “this generation,” that is, the generation to whom Jesus was speaking. He subscribes to the preterist interpretation of prophecy; that is he sees the fulfillment of these and most prophetic events leading up to and including the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.
These scholars are from the liberal and higher criticism camp which in theory, the intent of Biblical Criticism is to enhance the appreciation of the Bible through fuller understanding of its literary history and message. In practice, however, Biblical Criticism destroys any confidence in the divine origin of the message of the Bible because it presupposes its writings to be merely a human literary production, error-ridden, and entirely conditioned by the culture of the time. The negative impact of Biblical Criticism can be seen in the increasing number of Bible scholars, preachers, and lay-Christians who have lost their confidence in the trustworthiness of the Bible. This seems to be a precursor to the great “falling away” spoken of in 2Thessalonians 2.
I personally cannot entertain scholars who contradict the clear teachings of scripture and directly or indirectly undermine its divine authority. They have done this by elevating their own philosophy as the ultimate authority instead of God’s Word. Finally, when the law of non contradiction is applied to statements made by the church’s hierarchy and the scriptures themselves; only the scriptures maintain an unblemished and consistent testimony.
O4H,
“My point is; making a connection between these two passages still does not support your supposition.”
I respectfully disagree. King Hezekiah is a Davidic king and a type of the Messiah. Eliakim is the chief steward and is entrusted with the keys of the house of David; i.e., delegated authority over the kingdom. Matt 16:19 is an allusion to Is 22. Jesus is a Davidic king and the Messiah. Peter is the chief steward (chief, or protos, apostle) and is given the keys of the kingdom of heaven.
O4H,
“There are numerous instances to show that in biblical and later Jewish usage handing over the keys implies full authorization. He who has the keys has full authority. Thus, when Eliakim is given the keys of the palace he is appointed the royal steward (Is. 22:22, cf 15). When Jesus is said to hold the keys of Death and Hades (Rev 1:18) or the key of David (3:7), this means that He is, not the doorkeeper, but the Lord of the world of the dead and the palace of God…
"Hence handing over the keys implies appointment to full authority. He who has the keys has on the one side contol, e.g., over the council chamber or treasury, cf. Mt. 13:52, and on the other the power to allow or forbid entry, cf. Rev. 3:7.
“Mt. 23:13 [‘ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men’] leads us a step further. This passage is particularly important for an understanding of Mt. 16:19 because it is the only one in the NT which presupposes an image not found elsewhere, namely, that of the keys of the kingdom (royal dominion) of God.” --J. Jeremias, "Kleis," in Gerhard Kittel, ed., and Geoffrey W. Bromley, trans. and ed., Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. 3, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1968), 749-750
O4H,
"What is suspect and problematic is trying to establish a dogma that Scripture does not teach. As far as these references, I will have to look into them and consider what they actually have stated. "
I will give you a couple of these, and then you can study these more at your leisure.
R.T. France says; “these terms (binding and loosing) thus refer to a teaching function, and more specifically one of making halakhic pronouncements (i.e. relative to laws not written down in Jewish Scriptures but based on an oral interpretation of them) which are binding on the people of God. In that case, Peter’s ‘power of the keys’ declared in (Matt) 16:19 is not so much that of a doorkeeper, who decides who may or may not be admitted, BUT THAT OF THE STEWARD whose keys of office enable him to regulate the affairs of the household.” (Matthew: Evangelist and Teacher, 1989. 247)
R.T. France, in another place says; “’Shall be bound & shall be loosed’ (as stated in Matt 16:16-19) are literally future perfects (i.e. shall have been bound, shall have been loosed), and as future perfect sounds as stilted in Greek as in English, the tense is apparently deliberate. In that case, it is not heaven that will ratify Peter’s independent decisions, but that Peter will pass on decisions that have already been made in heaven.” (The Gospel according to Matthew, an introduction and commentary).
Irenaeus,
“I never claimed that Matthew Henry or John Calvin believed that these passages support the papacy. Of course they believe they don’t, else they would have become Catholic. I merely stated that they made the connection between the two passages as if Jesus was alluding to the Isaiah passage in Matt. 16:19”
My point is; making a connection between these two passages still does not support your supposition.
“These passages support the doctrine of the Trinity and the unity of the human and divine natures in the single divine person of Christ, but these passages do not prove it.”
I respectfully disagree; the Scriptures sufficiently describe who Christ is and his nature.
“So let’s assume everybody is suspect in their scholarship if they believe that Matt 16:19 is alluding to Is 22:22. So do you have a problem with D. Guthrie, too, who makes the connection in his New Bible Commentary? Or George Buttrick The Interpreter’s Bible; Craig S. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary New Testament; J. Jeremias Theological Dictionary of the New Testament; Keil & Delitzsch, Isaiah; R.T. France, Matthew: Evangelist and Teacher; Lawrence O. Richards, The Revell Bible Dictionary; Barclay, Gospel of Matthew?”
What is suspect and problematic is trying to establish a dogma that Scripture does not teach. As far as these references, I will have to look into them and consider what they actually have stated.
O4H,
"As far as the other references; C.S. Mann was a textual critic, W.F. Albright was predominately an archeologist/textual critic more than a biblical scholar, he also was not a biblical literalist who claims in his book – Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan – that religion of the Israelites evolved from polytheism, F.F. Bruce was also a textual critic who said the book of Daniel had been written AFTER the events written therein took place..."
So let’s assume everybody is suspect in their scholarship if they believe that Matt 16:19 is alluding to Is 22:22. So do you have a problem with D. Guthrie, too, who makes the connection in his New Bible Commentary? Or George Buttrick The Interpreter’s Bible; Craig S. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary New Testament; J. Jeremias Theological Dictionary of the New Testament; Keil & Delitzsch, Isaiah; R.T. France, Matthew: Evangelist and Teacher; Lawrence O. Richards, The Revell Bible Dictionary; Barclay, Gospel of Matthew?
O4H,
I never claimed that Matthew Henry or John Calvin believed that these passages support the papacy. Of course they believe they don’t, else they would have become Catholic. I merely stated that they made the connection between the two passages as if Jesus was alluding to the Isaiah passage in Matt. 16:19, and this is noted in numerous Protestant translations via footnotes and cross-references. This is what you originally took exception to; that these passages are not related. I even found Matt 16:19 cross-referenced in a KJV family bible dating from the late 1800’s.
“To say that the Scriptures do not give a precise identity of Christ is an inaccurate statement; you may want to re-read those passages that I previously posted again.”
These passages support the doctrine of the Trinity and the unity of the human and divine natures in the single divine person of Christ, but these passages do not prove it.
To say that the Scriptures do not give a precise identity of Christ is an inaccurate statement; you may want to re-read those passages that I previously posted again.
Irenaeus,
Sorry for getting back so late; I had a busy weekend.
“In the very quote you provided from John Calvin’s commentary on Isaiah that you found on the internet, he references Matt. 16:19. Matthew Henry’s commentary on Matthew (not Isaiah) discusses the connection between the two passages albeit with the caveat that this does NOT refer to the papacy – but he still makes the connection. With regard to other commentaries or footnotes or crossreferences, The Anchor Bible: Matthew by W.F. Albright and C.S. Mann; The Hard Sayings of Jesus by F.F. Bruce; the NIV Study Bible; the Schofield Reference Bible; etc.”
If you re-read John Calvin’s quote again, he says. . . “For the same reason Christ calls the office of teaching the Word, (Matt.16:19,) “the keys of the kingdom of heaven”. . . “The reason is that ministers, by the preaching of the Word, open the entrance into heaven, and lead to Christ, who alone is “the way” – END OF QUOTE. He then closes by talking about Eliakim and his charge; there is no mention of PETER . . . no mention of a papal charge . . . no mention that Matt.16 pertains to a universal head within the church other than “Christ, who ALONE is “the way”.
Matthew Henry specifically says in his commentary on Matthew 16, “So that this is far from being a proof of such primacy and superiority of Peter above the rest of the apostles, as the Church of Rome ascribes to him. They will needs advance him to be a judge, when the utmost they can make of him, is, that he was but foreman of the jury, to speak for the rest, and that only pro hac vice – for this once; not the perpetual dictator or speaker of the house, only chairman upon this occasion” – END OF QUOTE.
As far as the other references; C.S. Mann was a textual critic, W.F. Albright was predominately an archeologist/textual critic more than a biblical scholar, he also was not a biblical literalist who claims in his book – Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan – that religion of the Israelites evolved from polytheism, F.F. Bruce was also a textual critic who said the book of Daniel had been written AFTER the events written therein took place, and I have already commented on the NIV (paraphrase) notes along with Schofield’s notes as being unreliable.
“All the heterodox views I presented do not deny the divinity of Christ at the complete expense of his humanity nor the other way around. Don’t get me wrong – I completely agree with you with respect to the divinity and humanity of Christ, but scripture is not precise on this matter.”
O4H,
“You can go back and re-read my posts and see that you chose to comment on certain quotations from the church fathers and others you did not…”
I can’t possibly address ever quote you cite, so not addressing a quote is not dismissing. I simply chose certain ones out of several for the sake of brevity, not evasion. If there’s one in particular, then please focus on that one.
“… but the most important issue at hand is Isaiah 22. I pasted Matthew Henry’s and John Calvin’s comments regarding this chapter and they say absolutely nothing about its connection with Matthew 16. The “footnotes” and “commentary” which you are referring to cannot be verified since you gave no specific quotation and reference.”
In the very quote you provided from John Calvin’s commentary on Isaiah that you found on the internet, he references Matt. 16:19. Matthew Henry’s commentary on Matthew (not Isaiah) discusses the connection between the two passages albeit with the caveat that this does NOT refer to the papacy – but he still makes the connection. With regard to other commentaries or footnotes or crossreferences, The Anchor Bible: Matthew by W.F. Albright and C.S. Mann; The Hard Sayings of Jesus by F.F. Bruce; the NIV Study Bible; the Schofield Reference Bible; etc.
“On the contrary; the scriptures “clearly” speak about the divinity of Christ and his human nature; the very title “Son of Man” is used repeatedly and soundly establishes his human nature and his divinity (Daniel 7:13); here are a “few” samples –…”
All the heterodox views I presented do not deny the divinity of Christ at the complete expense of his humanity nor the other way around. Don’t get me wrong – I completely agree with you with respect to the divinity and humanity of Christ, but scripture is not precise on this matter.
Irenaeus,
“You responded by saying that you do recall me dismissing a number of your quotes; please provide an example rather than merely saying, “I do.”
You can go back and re-read my posts and see that you chose to comment on certain quotations from the church fathers and others you did not but the most important issue at hand is Isaiah 22. I pasted Matthew Henry’s and John Calvin’s comments regarding this chapter and they say absolutely nothing about its connection with Matthew 16. The “footnotes” and “commentary” which you are referring to cannot be verified since you gave no specific quotation and reference.
“Scripture does not provide precise definitions in order to determine whether Jesus is fully God and fully man (the orthodox view) . . .”
On the contrary; the scriptures “clearly” speak about the divinity of Christ and his human nature; the very title “Son of Man” is used repeatedly and soundly establishes his human nature and his divinity (Daniel 7:13); here are a “few” samples –
“And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory” – 1Timothy 3:16.
See also Isaiah 9:6, John 1:1, 14, Hebrews 1:8, Colossian 1:15, 19, etc.
“Okay, you still have not answered the question. What if both men have claimed to have done this; namely, examine the canonical context of the entire Bible, the context of the entire book, the context of related paragraphs, and section context of the immediate passage, and still come to opposing positions?”
That is a good question; there are a couple of factors that determine how one understands and interprets scripture. Everyone has preunderstandings and presuppositions that they bring when studying the bible. These include parental influences, culture, family tradition, education, and experience, to mention a few. As Christians, we need to return to the source of absolute truth – the Word of God. So, how does one “objectively” interpret God’s Word? Allowing scriptural passages to speak for themselves without pouring our preconceived suppositions into the text is the best way to come to a sound conclusion. This can be challenging but an important aspect of answering your question is the law of non-contradiction. The Word of God does not and cannot contradict itself, so any attempt to manipulate or misinterpret a text can be reviewed and refuted by simply comparing it with the rest of scripture.
Another key for coming to a sound conclusion is simply doing what God himself has asked us not to do. That is not “ADDING” or “TAKING AWAY” from his Word – Proverbs 30:6, Deuteronomy 4:2, and Revelation 22:18, 19.
Now, the questions have to be asked; have the church fathers and statements by popes throughout history ever contradicted themselves or the scriptures? I say yes
O4H,
"Matthew Henry did not mention anything which connected Isaiah 22 with a papal system nor did John Calvin."
I never claimed that Matthew Henry or John Calvin supported the Catholic Church's teaching on the papacy using any scripture. What I said was that many non-Catholic Christians (especially those who have no sympathy for the papacy) make the connection that Jesus' statement in Matt 16:19-20 was an allusion to Is 22:22, and that this connection is not lost on many conservative Protestant scholars as noted in numerous Protestant commentaries and footnotes.
O4H,
You responded by saying that you do recall me dismissing a number of your quotes; please provide an example rather than merely saying, “I do.”
"There are many passages that 'CLEARLY' expound the doctrines of the Godhead and the 'divine and human nature of Christ.' "
Typically, they only appear to be “clear” when you come to read them after you have already been formed into that thinking, which is why the early church had to continually be more precise in its definitions on the identity of Christ. Although Scripture certainly teaches the truth regarding the Trune God, Scripture does not provide precise definitions in order to determine whether Jesus is fully God and fully man (the orthodox view), or that Jesus is fully God who merely appeared to be a man, or that Jesus is fully man who had God indwelling in him, or that God functions in one place as the Father and in another place as the Son, or various other formulae that have been proposed that appear to agree with scriptures.
“Good will/good intentions are not enough; as in someone can be sincere but sincerely wrong and having faith is only as good as the object in which it is placed – faith in what? Scripture must be read in its “CONTEXT” – that is – don’t isolate a passage from what comes before or after it in the text.
Instead, get the whole picture. To do this you will need to acquaint yourself with the context, the entire body of text surrounding the passage, which sheds light on its meaning. Example, Canonical context of the entire Bible, Context of the Entire Book, Section Context of related paragraphs, and section context of the immediate passage. You cannot isolate one passage and ignore the rest of scripture to build a case.”
Okay, you still have not answered the question. What if both men have claimed to have done this; namely, examine the canonical context of the entire Bible, the context of the entire book, the context of related paragraphs, and section context of the immediate passage, and still come to opposing positions?
Irenaeus,
“Nope… don’t recall dismissing any of these.”
I do.
“So you then are not comfortable in your belief in the Trinity, the hypostatic union of the human and divine natures of Christ, or the incarnation of the Second Person of the Triune Godhead?”
As my previous post already mentioned; “Allowing the passages to speak in their “CONTEXT” has nothing to do with western culture. We cannot read “INTO” the text our own preconceived notions. “Do not get “hung up” whether the explicit word or phrase is not present; sorry, I am not comfortable with establishing a doctrine that scripture does not “CLEARLY” support. We are not to “ADD or TAKE AWAY” from the scriptures – Deuteronomy 4:2, Proverbs 30:6, and Revelation 22:18, 19.”
There are many passages that “CLEARLY” expound the doctrines of the Godhead and the “divine and human nature of Christ.”
“I would say that justification, sanctification, and glorification are much more than merely connected with the gospel. They all pertain to salvation.”
Your original statement was “defining” the gospel not what is connected to it.
“You tell me? Again, if two men of goodwill and faith disagree upon a fundamental doctrinal teaching with both of them appealing to scripture and the Holy Spirit’s guidance to help them arrive at their opposing conclusions, which one, if any, is correct, and how do you know?”
Good will/good intentions are not enough; as in someone can be sincere but sincerely wrong and having faith is only as good as the object in which it is placed – faith in what? Scripture must be read in its “CONTEXT” – that is – don’t isolate a passage from what comes before or after it in the text.
Instead, get the whole picture. To do this you will need to acquaint yourself with the context, the entire body of text surrounding the passage, which sheds light on its meaning. Example, Canonical context of the entire Bible, Context of the Entire Book, Section Context of related paragraphs, and section context of the immediate passage. You cannot isolate one passage and ignore the rest of scripture to build a case.
Matthew Henry did not mention anything which connected Isaiah 22 with a papal system nor did John Calvin.
O4H,
“So, the Holy Spirit is not an “AUTHORTATIVE LEADER” - Interesting?”
Never said that.
“Can the Holy Spirit “TEACH” and “GUIDE” someone into truth?”
You tell me? Again, if two men of goodwill and faith disagree upon a fundamental doctrinal teaching with both of them appealing to scripture and the Holy Spirit’s guidance to help them arrive at their opposing conclusions, which one, if any, is correct, and how do you know?
O4H,
“I have use quotes from Gregory, Johann Joseph Ignaz von Dollinger – the most renowned Roman Catholic historian, and some of the church fathers.”
Nope… don’t recall dismissing any of these.
“Allowing the passages to speak in their “CONTEXT” has nothing to do with western culture. We cannot read “INTO” the text our own preconceived notions. “Do not get “hung up” whether the explicit word or phrase is not present; sorry, I am not comfortable with establishing a doctrine that scripture does not clearly support. We are not to “ADD or TAKE AWAY” from the scriptures – Deuteronomy 4:2, Proverbs 30:6, and Revelation 22:18, 19.”
So you then are not comfortable in your belief in the Trinity, the hypostatic union of the human and divine natures of Christ, or the incarnation of the Second Person of the Triune Godhead?
“We are discussing – what is the “gospel” as scripture defines it – justification, sanctification, and glorification are definitely connected but when we actually define the word itself in a nutshell, it is - glad tidings concerning salvation and the kingdom of God as announced to the world by Christ.”
I would say that justification, sanctification, and glorification are much more than merely connected with the gospel. They all pertain to salvation.
We are discussing – what is the “gospel” as scripture defines it – justification, sanctification, and glorification are definitely connected but when we actually define the word itself in a nutshell, it is - glad tidings concerning salvation and the kingdom of God as announced to the world by Christ. Reread Paul’s definition of the gospel –
Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: - 1Corinthians 15:1-3.
“On the contrary, the scripture asserts the need for authoritative leadership also – not just me. Also, I do understand the role of the Holy Spirit? Perhaps it is you who does not. Again, if two men of goodwill and faith disagree upon a fundamental doctrinal teaching with both of them appealing to scripture and the Holy Spirit’s guidance to help them arrive at their conclusion, which one, if any, is correct?”
So, the Holy Spirit is not an “AUTHORTATIVE LEADER” - Interesting? Can the Holy Spirit “TEACH” and “GUIDE” someone into truth?
“What are you talking about? Of course they were (are) all different. Certainly, there is some overlap, but they are certainly differences – often time very different. In fact, if you are correct, then we only need one of them – not 13; after all, you speak as if the epistles that were acquired were of no difference in content from the others. This is demonstrably untrue.”
The gospel message itself is presented in all of the epistles; that is my point. The “office” for a “universal – slash, slash, slash” is not supported by the NT.
Does the NT not teach the “priesthood of all believers’?
The key is put in the singular number for keys. Though "keys" are usually carried in the hands, yet he says that they are laid on the shoulders, because he is describing an important charge. Yet nothing more is meant than that the charge and the whole government of the house are committed to him, that he may regulate everything according to his pleasure; and we know that the delivering of keys is commonly regarded as a token of possession.
Some commentators have viewed this passage as referring to Christ, but improperly; for the Prophet draws a comparison between two men, Shebna and Eliakim. Shebna shall be deprived of his office, and Eliakim shall succeed him. What has this to do with Christ? For Eliakim was not a type of Christ, and the Prophet does not here describe any hidden mystery, but borrows a comparison from the ordinary practice of men, as if the keys were delivered to one who has been appointed to be steward, as has been already said. For the same reason Christ calls the office of teaching the word, (Matthew 16:19,) "the keys of the kingdom of heaven; " so that it is idle and foolish to spend much time in endeavoring to find a hidden reason, when the matter is plain, and needs no ingenuity. The reason is, that ministers, by the preaching of the word, open the entrance into heaven, and lead to Christ, who alone is "the way." (John 14:6.) By the keys, therefore, he means here the government of the king's house, because the principal charge of it would be delivered to Eliakim at the proper time – END OF QUOTE.
“The person and position are mentioned in Matt 16:19 – again, remove the 2000-years removed western culture mindset and think as a first century Jew. The title may not be mentioned for similar reasons as Jesus is not referred to as King Jesus, Son of David, or ruler over the house of Jacob in this passage. The concept is clearly there; do not get hung up on whether the explicit word or phrase is present or not. The terms ‘Trinity’, ‘hypostasis’, or ‘incarnation’ are nowhere to be found either, but the concepts are.”
Allowing the passages to speak in their “CONTEXT” has nothing to do with western culture. We cannot read “INTO” the text our own preconceived notions. “Do not get “hung up” whether the explicit word or phrase is not present; sorry, I am not comfortable with establishing a doctrine that scripture does not clearly support. We are not to “ADD or TAKE AWAY” from the scriptures – Deuteronomy 4:2, Proverbs 30:6, and Revelation 22:18, 19.
“You said the “gospel” is so much more; really? – “Jesus died for us, and if we believe in Him, we can be saved” – that is the gospel.”
Irenaeus,
“I don’t recall dismissing any authoritative Catholic source, and certainly a source coming from an ex-catholic is not a ‘catholic’ source.”
I have use quotes from Gregory, Johann Joseph Ignaz von Dollinger – the most renowned Roman Catholic historian, and some of the church fathers.
Matthew Henry –
Eliakim's advancement is further described by the laying of the key of the house of David upon his shoulders, Isa_22:22. Probably he carried a golden key upon his shoulder as a badge of his office, or had one embroidered upon his cloak or robe, to which this alludes. Being over the house, and having the key delivered to him, as the seals are to the lord-keeper, he shall open and none shall shut, shut and none shall open. He had access to the house of the precious things, the silver, and the gold, and the spices; and to the house of the armour and the treasures (Isa_39:2), and disposed of the stores there as he thought fit for the public service – END OF QUOTE.
Note: I have Matthew Henry’s Commentaries and nothing in his comments suggest that Isaiah 22:22 is a preview or basis for the papacy. I do not have Calvin’s Commentaries in my possession, so I relied upon the internet to post his thoughts on Isaiah 22 below.
John Calvin –
And the key of the house of David. - This expression is metaphorical, and we need not spend much time, as some do, in drawing from it an allegorical meaning; for it is taken from an ordinary custom of men. The keys of the house are delivered to those who are appointed to be stewards, that they may have the full power of opening and shutting according to their own pleasure. By "the house of David" is meant "the royal house." This mode of expression was customary among the people, because it had been promised to David that his kingdom would be for ever. (2 Samuel 7:13; Psalm 132:11, 12.) That is the reason why the kingdom was commonly called "the house of David."
O4H,
Matthew Henry makes the connection between Is 22:22 and Matt 16:19-20.
O4H,
“It is interesting to me that throughout our discussions you have continually asserted the need for a “bishop” or “head priest” to interpret and expound scripture; however, you clearly do not understand the role and purpose of the Holy Spirit.”
On the contrary, the scripture asserts the need for authoritative leadership also – not just me. Also, I do understand the role of the Holy Spirit? Perhaps it is you who does not. Again, if two men of goodwill and faith disagree upon a fundamental doctrinal teaching with both of them appealing to scripture and the Holy Spirit’s guidance to help them arrive at their conclusion, which one, if any, is correct?
“No; you speak as if the epistles that were acquired were any different in content from the rest.”
What are you talking about? Of course they were (are) all different. Certainly, there is some overlap, but they are certainly differences – often time very different. In fact, if you are correct, then we only need one of them – not 13; after all, you speak as if the epistles that were acquired were of no difference in content from the others. This is demonstrably untrue.
O4H,
“You said the “gospel” is so much more; really? – “Jesus died for us, and if we believe in Him, we can be saved” – that is the gospel.”
Not all of it. What about the creation of the new man as part of the gospel? What about our adoptions a sons with our spirit crying out to God, “Abba!” The good news is not merely the remission of our sins. It’s much more than that; it’s our sanctification, justification, and ultimate glorification. It’s being transformed by the renewing of our minds. It’s much more than our acquittal before a judge; it’s our being brought into the family of God through adoption. It’s much more than what we are saved from; it’s also what we are saved for. None of these truths are taught in Jn 3:16.
O4H,
“Making a parallel comparison between Eliakim and Peter to support the supposition of a “universal priest/bishop/steward/prime minister/office” is lacking; where is this title/position/person mentioned in the New Testament?”
The person and position are mentioned in Matt 16:19 – again, remove the 2000-years removed western culture mindset and think as a first century Jew. The title may not be mentioned for similar reasons as Jesus is not referred to as King Jesus, Son of David, or ruler over the house of Jacob in this passage. The concept is clearly there; do not get hung up on whether the explicit word or phrase is present or not. The terms ‘Trinity’, ‘hypostasis’, or ‘incarnation’ are nowhere to be found either, but the concepts are.
O4H,
“The multiple independent sources themselves also need to be evaluated; for example, there have been instances where I have quoted catholic sources during our discussions and you dismissed their comments as unreliable for various reasons, specifically mentioning on one occasion that so and so was an ex-catholic.”
I don’t recall dismissing any authoritative Catholic source, and certainly a source coming from an ex-catholic is not a ‘catholic’ source.
“So, I too can likewise dismiss certain sources such as Schofield who held to aberrant doctrinal positions in my opinion and I can also dismiss various non-Catholic Bibles for similar reasons. I guess the topic of Bible translations can be discussed at another time, my point is that “ALL” independent sources cannot be accepted at face value.”
The point is very different here. I told you that I DID evaluate the sources, which is precisely why I knew that I did not just stumble upon some aberrant idea or an isolated incident. I am talking about renowned theologians who make the connection between Matt 16:19-20 and Is 22:22, such as F.F. Bruce, W.F. Albright, C.S. Mann, etc. Even John Calvin made the connection in his commentary on Isaiah (who incidentally spoke explicitly that Eliakim was not a type of Christ in this same commentary).
The argument of when the epistles actually reached all the churches and needing a “bishop” in order understand them are two separate discussions.
One’s sound understanding of scripture can be attributed to a careful analysis of reading them in their “CONTEXT” and by the continual guidance of the Holy Spirit.
And there ran a young man, and told Moses, and said, Eldad and Medad do prophesy in the camp.
And Joshua the son of Nun, the servant of Moses, one of his young men, answered and said, My lord Moses, forbid them.
And Moses said unto him, Enviest thou for my sake? would God that all the LORD'S people were prophets, and that the LORD would put his spirit upon them! – Numbers 11:25-29.
The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit – John 3:8.
But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him – 1John 1:27.
But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his – Romans 8:9.
If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself – John 7:17.
“But wait, wouldn’t they need them ALL for the sake of sufficiency?”
No; you speak as if the epistles that were acquired were any different in content from the rest. The same Holy Spirit that delivered the former also delivered the same message in those that followed. There was NO gap in their authoritative teaching as you assert; to say the church was not “NECESSASRILY” receiving nor reading the epistles is most presumptuous. The epistles that followed were compared to the overall message contained in the OT, along with the ones already in possession.
You said the “gospel” is so much more; really? – “Jesus died for us, and if we believe in Him, we can be saved” – that is the gospel! I know that the scriptures declare much more but the “gospel” is exactly what you declared, give me another “BIBLICAL” definition of the “gospel/good news.” Let’s see how Paul defined the gospel –
Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: - 1Corinthians 15:1-3.
Therefore whether it were I or they, so we preach, and so ye believed – verse 11.
As far as expounding the scriptures:
It is interesting to me that throughout our discussions you have continually asserted the need for a “bishop” or “head priest” to interpret and expound scripture; however, you clearly do not understand the role and purpose of the Holy Spirit. It is “HE” that truly moves through the “PRIESTHOOD” of “ALL” believers. It is “HE” who Jesus said would come and teach us all things; Have you not read the following passages?
And the LORD came down in a cloud, and spake unto him, and took of the spirit that was upon him, and gave it unto the seventy elders: and it came to pass, that, when the spirit rested upon them, they prophesied, and did not cease.
But there remained two of the men in the camp, the name of the one was Eldad, and the name of the other Medad: and the spirit rested upon them; and they were of them that were written, but went not out unto the tabernacle: and they prophesied in the camp.
Irenaeus,
“I was not arguing for the accuracy and trustworthiness of the NIV as a translation. I was referring to the study notes provided in my various non-Catholic Bibles. And I agree that the study notes should be read with a grain of salt, but when multiple independent sources make the same cross-reference, then I would call into question your posturing to dismiss it so readily.”
The multiple independent sources themselves also need to be evaluated; for example, there have been instances where I have quoted catholic sources during our discussions and you dismissed their comments as unreliable for various reasons, specifically mentioning on one occasion that so and so was an ex-catholic. So, I too can likewise dismiss certain sources such as Schofield who held to aberrant doctrinal positions in my opinion and I can also dismiss various non-Catholic Bibles for similar reasons. I guess the topic of Bible translations can be discussed at another time, my point is that “ALL” independent sources cannot be accepted at face value.
“It says in Isaiah that authority was given over to Eliakim, that he is to be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah, that the key of the house of David is laid upon his shoulders… How many people under the Davidic king ever held this position simultaneously? Was the king not king of his kingdom? Would not the authority delegated to his prime minister be to his delegate alone? Who else fathered the people and held the keys of authority?”
Making a parallel comparison between Eliakim and Peter to support the supposition of a “universal priest/bishop/steward/prime minister/office” is lacking; where is this title/position/person mentioned in the New Testament? As I mentioned earlier, Paul who wrote 13 of the 27 books of the NT and says absolutely nothing of this office, John who wrote 5 books of the NT and says absolutely nothing of this office and Peter’s own 2 epistles say absolutely nothing. You cannot take one passage of scripture and build an entire papal system which is not even mentioned throughout the NT.
“But the scriptures need to be expounded, explained, interpreted correctly in order to be properly understood and applied for faith and practice. Two men of goodwill and faith who come to opposing views on some doctrinal point necessitates that at least one, if not both, is incorrect in his teaching. The gospel is so much more than that Jesus died for us, and if we believe in Him, we can be saved – as great and important as that is. If that were all that were needed for the sake of ‘sufficiency,’ then Jn 3:16 would be the totality of the gospel, and all the other thousands of NT verses would be unnecessary.”
O4H,
“Sorry, using Eliakim to support a “universal priest” in the New Testament is again, highly ingenious, but the connection cannot be made.”
First, I never said anything about a "universal priest." Chief steward or prime minister is more accurate. Listen, Matt 16:19 tells us that Jesus delegated the keys to Peter. Now this verse strongly parallels Is 22:19-22 and denotes a couple of things: first, keys symbolize AUTHORITY given to the chief steward (prime minister, vizier, etc) and second, the office implies dynastic succession since one is being vacated from the office and another to take his place. Note Is 22:19-22 where the keys of the Davidic kingdom are being delegated to the chief steward. The chief steward is to act in the authority of the king in the king’s absence until he returns. The king never relinquishes his authority; he merely delegates it to another in his absence. In the same way, Jesus (being a King of the line of David) delegated his authority to Peter to act as chief steward in His absence. Jesus never relinquishes His authority; He merely delegates it to another (Peter) in His absence until He returns. Secondly, the office of prime minister, or chief steward, was a successive office and would REMAIN SO as long as the Davidic Kingdom continued. Therefore, Peter’s office, that of being chief steward or prime minister, would be one of succession. The kings office was successive BY VIRTUE OF LINEAGE; the prime minister’s office was successive BY APPOINTMENT. Since Jesus resumes the kingship of the Davidic kingdom, then Jesus is allowed to delegate authority to a prime minister in his absence (as was the prerogative of the Davidic kings).
O4H,
“With that being said, that is why for me, the scriptures are sufficient in themselves to proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ.”
But the scriptures need to be expounded, explained, interpreted correctly in order to be properly understood and applied for faith and practice. Two men of goodwill and faith who come to opposing views on some doctrinal point necessitates that at least one, if not both, is incorrect in his teaching. The gospel is so much more than that Jesus died for us, and if we believe in Him, we can be saved – as great and important as that is. If that were all that were needed for the sake of ‘sufficiency,’ then Jn 3:16 would be the totality of the gospel, and all the other thousands of NT verses would be unnecessary.
“To say that the New Testament epistles were not circulating when the apostles were still alive is presumptuous.”
But wait, wouldn’t they need them ALL for the sake of sufficiency? Otherwise, there would be a gap in their authoritative teaching that they received? To say that ALL the New Testament epistles were circulating when the apostles were still alive is more presumptuous. Certainly, early on the epistles were not necessarily treated as circular letters, so the other churches were not even receiving, much less reading, these other letters. And specifically with your reference to Thessalonians, these were among Paul’s earliest letters, so had ALL the other epistles of Paul been treated as circular letters would be irrelevant to the Thessalonians at the time of Paul writing to them since these otheres were not even yet written.
O4H,
“Study notes must always be read with a grain of salt, they do not supersede the scriptures themselves. The NIV is not even a translation – word for word; it is intended to give a thought for thought paraphrase of what is being said – it is a poor one at that.”
I was not arguing for the accuracy and trustworthiness of the NIV as a translation. I was referring to the study notes provided in my various non-Catholic Bibles. And I agree that the study notes should be read with a grain of salt, but when multiple independent sources make the same cross-reference, then I would call into question your posturing to dismiss it so readily.
“Sorry, using Eliakim to support a “universal priest” in the New Testament is again, highly ingenious, but the connection cannot be made.”
It says in Isaiah that authority was given over to Eliakim, that he is to be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah, that the key of the house of David is laid upon his shoulders… How many people under the Davidic king ever held this position simultaneously? Was the king not king of his kingdom? Would not the authority delegated to his prime minister be to his delegate alone? Who else fathered the people and held the keys of authority?
leapfrog,
“You make it sound like their authority was Peter already as the Pope. I always took it as the people like Paul who would travel to them and give them the good news. Surely they would have written down the things that Paul said to them. Ultimately though Jesus Himself would be their authority as He is ours.”
Yes, Peter, and the Twelve, as well as the other leaders that were already in place were the authority. And Paul, too. Yes, Jesus was the ultimate authority, but His authority had been delegated to the apostles, who in turn had appointed other leaders. But look, they were trusting that all these men in authority were teaching in communion with one another. And when there arose a dispute and confusion over some teaching, such as with the Judaizers for example requiring Gentile converts to Christianity be circumcised, they didn’t merely go to the scriptures to determine what was the truth. They took it to the apostles and elders in Jerusalem. In fact, it is not even recorded that the apostles and elders ever appealed to the scriptures when ultimately resolving the issue.
The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit – John 3:8.
But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him – 1John 1:27.
“AMEN! I agree. So what was Paul’s solution since these churches at the time of Paul’s writings did not have the NT scriptures. What was to be their authority?”
To say that the New Testament epistles were not circulating when the apostles were still alive is presumptuous. Paul specifically told the Thessalonians not to be trouble by any word or LETTER that they had supposedly received – 2Thessalonians 2:2. Do a word such on the word “letter or letters” and you will see that they were being circulated – 2Corinthians 7:8, 10:9, 10, 11, Galatians 6:11, Hebrews 13:22, etc.
Paul continually “commended” believers to the “Word” and to the “Lord” – Acts 20:32, 1Thessalonians 2:13, & -
And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
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 perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works – 2Timothy 3:15-17.
For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart – Hebrews 4:12.
Irenaeus,
“Equating Isaiah 22 with Matthew 16 is highly ingenious but theologically and biblically inaccurate - According to who? O4H?”
Of course not, but through the entire testimony of the scriptures themselves; see – Isaiah 8:20, 28:10, John 10:35.
Study notes must always be read with a grain of salt, they do not supersede the scriptures themselves. The NIV is not even a translation – word for word; it is intended to give a thought for thought paraphrase of what is being said – it is a poor one at that. The NIV has many deficiencies in that it “omits” many passages from the original texts. As for the Schofield reference bible, well, he was one of many who accepted and promulgated the newly eschatological view of futurism. Not a good reference source for me.
Sorry, using Eliakim to support a “universal priest” in the New Testament is again, highly ingenious, but the connection cannot be made.
“No one ever claimed that they were "apostles" in the proper sense nor that they were infallible.”
With that being said, that is why for me, the scriptures are sufficient in themselves to proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ.
“The same way the church does now. The bishops teaching in communion with the bishop of Rome is one way it is ensured.”
No, it is ensured by the only person that is explicitly named - the Holy Spirit; who is the one that Jesus said would come in his name to “teach” and “guide” believers.
THE CATHOLIC CHURCH is a Visible Church --a society existing among men and instituted by God, and worshipping Him with external observances which have been developed into a complex ritual. (The Visible Church by Rev. John F. Sullivan, D.D.)
Let us reason out of the scriptures, as was Paul’s manner (Acts 17:2).
God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. John 4:24
But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtlety, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. 2Co 11:3
Irenaeus,
You make it sound like their authority was Peter already as the Pope. I always took it as the people like Paul who would travel to them and give them the good news. Surely they would have written down the things that Paul said to them. Ultimately though Jesus Himself would be their authority as He is ours.
O4H,
“With that said, not only can apostasy take place, it is prophesied to take place -
Paul actually warned the early church of men who would “arise” from the “bishops or elders” of the church and draw away disciples after them. For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears. And now, brethren, I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified – Acts 20:29-32.”
AMEN! I agree. So what was Paul’s solution since these churches at the time of Paul’s writings did not have the NT scriptures. What was to be their authority?
O4H,
“[I]t is one thing to say that the Apostles made PROVISION for leadership in the churches once they were gone and quite another to say that those so commissioned were to function AS IF they THEMSELVES were APOSTLES, that the successors of the Apostles would possess the same infallible doctrinal AUTHORITY as did the Apostles themselves.”
No one ever claimed that they were "apostles" in the proper sense nor that they were infallible.
“Given the fact that heretical teachers can and have risen within the Church, from within the very hierarchical eldership, how can Rome honestly maintain that her hierarchical succession is somehow proof that her doctrines are apostolic in origin?”
The same way the church does now. The bishops teaching in communion with the bishop of Rome is one way it is ensured. When a bishop teaches something that is not in concert with catholic and apostolic teaching, it is pointed out that he has departed from this teaching. We have a reference point from which to measure; scripture and apostolic tradition. If a bishop wants to proclaim that Jesus is not God Incarnate, he is not correct merely by virtue of him being a bishop.
O4H,
“Equating Isaiah 22 with Matthew 16 is highly ingenious but theologically and biblically inaccurate.”
According to who? O4H? Many Biblical scholars make the connection between Matt 16:19 and Is 22:22 – even many non-Catholic Christian scholars. Several of my KJV and NIV study bibles make this connection in the footnotes and cross-references; even my Schofield Reference Bible makes this cross-reference.
“The phrase is rather figurative for sustaining the government on one’s shoulders. Eliakim, as his name implies, is here plainly a type of the God-man Christ, the son of “David,” of whom Isaiah (Isaiah 9:6) uses the same language as the former clause of this verse. In Rev. 3:7, the same language as the latter clause is found (compare Job 12:14).”
King Hezekiah was the son of David; Eliakim was his chief steward or prime minister. King Hezekiah possessed the keys of the kingdom and the government were upon his shoulders; this is precisely the reason why he had the authority to delegate them to Eliakim. They belong to Hezekiah by right and virtue of his kingship; they ONLY belong to Eliakim by virtue of delegation. Similarly, the keys belong to Jesus by right and virtue of his kingship; they ONLY belong to Peter by virtue of delegation.
With that said, not only can apostasy take place, it is prophesied to take place -
Paul actually warned the early church of men who would “arise” from the “bishops or elders” of the church and draw away disciples after them. For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears. And now, brethren, I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified – Acts 20:29-32.
Paul also gives a similar warning in 2Thessalonians 2:2-12.
The only sure depository of absolute truth can found in the scriptures alone – God’s Word. So, since the New Testament is absolutely silent regarding the office of an absolute “universal bishop” – it should not be accepted.
Jesus said, “Scripture cannot be broken” – John 10:35.
“. . . NOT necessarily the first episcopos of Rome.”
Clement: “How then, some men ask, can Clement in his, letter to James say that Peter passed over to him his position as a church-teacher? The explanation of this point, as I understand, is as follows. LINUS AND CLETUS WERE, NO DOUBT, “BISHOPS IN THE CITY OF ROME BEFORE CLEMENT, BUT THIS WAS IN PETER’S LIFE-TIME.” (St. Clement, Addressed to Bishop Baudentis, from the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol lll. Roberts, Alexander and Donaldson, James, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series: Volume III)
Now, it is beyond question that the Fathers believed that there was a succession of teachers from the apostles--that the apostles commissioned men to lead the churches in their stead. Nevertheless, it is one thing to say that the Apostles made PROVISION for leadership in the churches once they were gone and quite another to say that those so commissioned were to function AS IF they THEMSELVES were APOSTLES, that the successors of the Apostles would possess the same infallible doctrinal AUTHORITY as did the Apostles themselves.”
NOTE: My intentions of quoting the church fathers in NOT promote their writings nor do I believe everything they wrote but to demonstrate that they have not ALL agreed with one another on various topics and thereby excluding themselves as the final source authority.
There is a statement by Irenaeus’ in his - Against Heresies – which we you should consider:
“For they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men; which men, if they discharged their functions honestly, would be a great boon [to the Church], BUT IF THEY SHOULD FALL AWAY, THE DIREST CALAMITY.”
Given the fact that heretical teachers can and have risen within the Church, from within the very hierarchical eldership, how can Rome honestly maintain that her hierarchical succession is somehow proof that her doctrines are apostolic in origin?
Irenaeus,
“So tell me, as a Protestant, why can you accept this arrangement within the Davidic Kingdom of the OT as demonstrated in Is 22, but not accept this arrangement of the reconstituted kingdom of David in the NT?”
Equating Isaiah 22 with Matthew 16 is highly ingenious but theologically and biblically inaccurate. Isaiah 22 is referring to Shebna whose irreligious faction disregarded the prophet’s (Isaiah’s) warnings and was replaced by Eliakim.
Isaiah 22:22 – “And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; So he shall open, and none shall shut; And he shall shut, and none shall open.”
Key — emblem of his office over the house; to “open” or “shut”; access rested with him. The phrase is rather figurative for sustaining the government on one’s shoulders. Eliakim, as his name implies, is here plainly a type of the God-man Christ, the son of “David,” of whom Isaiah (Isaiah 9:6) uses the same language as the former clause of this verse. In Rev. 3:7, the same language as the latter clause is found (compare Job 12:14).
To equate these two chapters to establish a reconstituted kingdom of David in the papacy is wishful thinking. Jesus explicitly says that the “Comforter which is the Holy Ghost” was to come in his name –
But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you – John 14:26.
Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you – John 16:7.
He also said;
And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you – Luke 17:20, 21.
O4H,
Again, Linus was the first successor to the episcopacy of Rome, not necessarily the first bishop as if he were not the successor of Peter.
"The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome] . . . handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus" (Irenaeus - Against Heresies 3:3:3 [A.D. 189]).
"Victor . . . was the thirteenth bishop of Rome from Peter" (The Little Labyrinth [A.D. 211], in Eusebius, Church History 5:28:3).
"Paul testifies that Crescens was sent to Gaul [2 Tim. 4:10], but Linus, whom he mentions in the Second Epistle to Timothy [2 Tim. 4:21] as his companion at Rome, was Peter’s successor in the episcopate of the church there, as has already been shown. Clement also, who was appointed third bishop of the church at Rome, was, as Paul testifies, his co-laborer and fellow-soldier [Phil. 4:3]" (Eusebius of Caesarea - Church History 3:4:9–10 [A.D. 312]).
O4H,
“Iraeneus: “The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric . . . . . (Source: Iraeneus Against Heresies, Volume I, Book III, Para 3).”
Notice that INTO THE HANDS OF LINUS WAS COMMITTED THE OFFICE OF THE EPISCOPATE. You are missing that Linus was the first SUCCESSOR to the episcopate of Rome, NOT necessarily the first episcopos of Rome. It is stated that the episcopate was handed over to Linus. Was it at that point that the office was created, or if it existed prior who occupied it before Linus? The office of ‘pope’ is tied to the successor of Peter who happened to be the bishop of Rome. Of course, Catholics would profess that Peter was still the first pope while he was bishop of Antioch. It could be that your confusion is with the term ‘bishop,’ since it could be argued that Linus was the first bishop, not that Peter was not a bishop, but that Peter was an apostle (and Linus was not).
“So, how could Linus be bishop of Rome while Peter was still alive if Peter was the first bishop of Rome? Papal succession occurs after a pope’s death right? Also, if Linus was bishop of Rome while Peter was alive, that would mean that Linus, not even an apostle, had Papal supremacy over both Peter and Paul – two living apostles.”
Linus was ordained to succeed Peter, AFTER Peter dies. Clement makes mention of this in general regarding all the early leaders of the church when he states, “Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, IF THEY SHOULD DIE, other approved men should succeed to their ministry" (Letter to the Corinthians 42:4–5, 44:1–3 [A.D. 80]).
O4H,
“The context of Matthew 16 does not even come close to speaking of a “universal office;” again this one text is misused to establish a system which has historically been proven to be anything but a “succession of unbroken popes.” You continue to give me references to the word “bishop” but I have been referring to a “universal bishop” which you claim is supported by scripture. Again, Peter’s two epistles never mention it, Paul who wrote 13 of the 27 books in the New Testament never mentions it, and the entire New Testament never mentions it.”
First, let’s demonstrate by noting the parallel: most scholars (including Protestant) agree that Jesus in Matt 16:18-20 was alluding to Is 22:20-24. We know that the king had to be of the line of David (succession by inheritance through lineage) as was Hezekiah in Is 22 and of course as was Jesus (Matt 1). The chief steward was appointed by the king (succession by appointment) as was Shebna and later Eliakim under King Hezekiah, and as was Peter under [King] Jesus. Compare Matt 16:18-20 and Is. 22:20-24. Also notice that in the second half of verse 21 in Is. 22, Eliakim would be a FATHER to those who live in Jerusalem. Now as a Protestant, you should object to these issues pointed out by Isaiah for a couple of reasons. Since Eliakim is not the king, he shouldn’t be considered to have authority over the kingdom (but he indeed does have authority over the kingdom as symbolized by the key of the house of David); Eliakim shouldn’t have an authoritative office of succession (but he does as takes the office from Shebna); and he definitely should not function as FATHER (‘Papa’ in Greek, where we derive the English word ‘Pope’), because the king functions as father to the kingdom (but Eliakim’s office does function as father since Isaiah tells us so). So tell me, as a Protestant, why can you accept this arrangement within the Davidic Kingdom of the OT as demonstrated in Is 22, but not accept this arrangement of the reconstituted kingdom of David in the NT?
BTW, there was only ONE office of chief steward of the kingdom, this was delegated to Peter by Jesus, the king, the son of David.
talldollars,
"Paul said that anti-Christ would not be revealed until there is first a "falling away" (from the truth). How do you know people becoming Catholics isn't indicative of apostasy in the end times? That would be my interpretation. "wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction and MANY there be which go in thereat" (Matt 7:13 KJV)"
I am curious; which of the three major views of eschatology do you subscribe to? If you wish to discuss this off the PC board, perhaps you can give me your email address?
? M y point is that your unity of essentials is non-existent. The only thing I have seen that ALL Protestants are unified is that the Catholic Church cannot be the authoritative church of Christ.
There is a minimum knowledge required to make one a Catholic. Jesus must be your only Lord and savior, and you must humbly submit your intellect and will to the teaching of the Church. There are many people who are “Cultural Catholics” who only give lip service to our Lord and to the Church. However, if and when they are ready to submit, there is one teaching authority , not a consensus of the “essentials” by various denomi nations.
I’d be happy to try private e-mailing. Not sure how that will work, but you can leave me your address.
lidiapurple,
I'm not going to go on much longer with this, as I told TAJ, but if you want to continue to debate via email, I'd be willing to.
Briefly, the Bible is not a manual, so it would not be expected that doctrines would be arranged in lists. I would say that the most important thing is to know how to become a Christian, which is why the Philippian jailer asked Paul "what must I do to be saved?" So the gospel is the bare minimum because the very least a person should know is how to get to heaven. Paul said "I determined not to know anything among you, except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified" (1 Cor 2:2). Paul knew a lot, but he obviously thought that there was a minimal amount of essential knowledge. Also, we have to know who this God is that we must reconciled to, so the nature of God is an essential (and something that Protestants and Catholics agree on). I could probably list more things, but in doing so I am not implying that the whole of the Bible isn't important. However, the thief on the cross next to Jesus did not need to know the whole Bible to be promised paradise.
Believing that the rapture takes place before the tribulation rather than after doesn't determine whether one is a Christian. But more importantly, what's your point in asking the question?
And how about you? Isn't there a minimum knowledge required to make one a Catholic? Is this so hard to understand? Do you know the Catholic Catechism by heart? The Council of Trent? Vatican II? Do most Catholics know any of these doctrines thoroughly? But you still consider them to be Catholics and have a basic unity over certain doctrines even if they are ignorant of these documents, right? What's your point?
I should have stated - who partake in homosexual activities - we hate the sin but love the sinner
talldollars,
My point isn't about numbers, it's to point out that as long as the Church remains unified in these difficult times that they will stand the test of time and remain influential as they have done for the last 2,000 years. I'm not sure where you are going with homosexuality, but it isn't church doctrine as in other faiths. As for sweeping it under the carpet, we don't actively persecute people who have homosexuality in the church, the teachings are very clear about it - enough said. Talldollars I appreciate your invitation to chat on another venue, but like to come here and defend my faith - which already takes up some of my spare time. Thanks for the offer - God Bless you too
TAJ,
I appreciate the interaction (seriously), but this might go on forever. My only response to your last post is that your implication is that numbers (church membership) is somehow reflective of truth when it isn't. Paul said that anti-Christ would not be revealed until there is first a "falling away" (from the truth). How do you know people becoming Catholics isn't indicative of apostasy in the end times? That would be my interpretation. "wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction and MANY there be which go in thereat" (Matt 7:13 KJV)
I'll add that some of the major splits of recent times had to do with homosexual agendas and other obviously ungodly agendas. The Roman Catholic Church doesn't split over sexual immorality, it just sweeps the issue under the carpet. So there is a cosmetic appearance of unity, but at the expense of doing the right thing. So, sometimes division is a good thing, unless you want to go down with a sinking ship. Moses' exhortation to the Israelites was "separate yourselves" from Korah and those with him in his rebellion.
But seriously, if you want to have a friendly interaction over doctrine, I would be happy to, and I'll give you my email.
God bless
Exult, exult! oh my soul ! said St. Bonaventure, who was so assiduous in proclaiming the praises of Mary, and rejoice in her, because many good things are prepared for those who praise her…(The Glories of Mary - Translated From the Italian of St. Alphonsus Liguori)
Concerning what we have just read, let us reason out of the scriptures, even as it was Paul’s manner (Acts 17:2).
Proclaim the praises of Mary? “But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should show forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light” (1Pe 2:9).
Rejoice in her? “Rejoice in the Lord always: and again I say, Rejoice” (Phil 4:4).
Good things prepared for those who praise her? “If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?” (Mt 7:11). “But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God” (1Co 2:9-10)
The reason evangelicals are even writing articles such as this is because they are asking themselves this question: who needs who? I think the Pope made it clear with his response to this question. Catholic leaders are not asking questions about what divides us because we are unified in the Catholic Church and know what we believe. I mean let's look at the question of this article: what divides Catholics (a united denomination) with ALL the other protestant denominations in the world. The Catholic Church is the standard to which other Christian denominations are compared against. It's not the Catholic Church that is doing this, it is protestant publications and protestant leaders. The Catholic Church doesn't compare itself to protestant denominations and that is what upset so many protestant leaders.
talldollars,
Don't get me wrong I have NO problem with all the different protestant denominations, mega churches, televangelists, etc.!
Let's take a look at one of the latest articles on CP? So. Baptists Now a 'Declining Denomination'. Southern Baptists are the #2 largest Christian denomination, far behind Catholics, and at one time they played a major role in shaping American society based on their beliefs. However, the splintering of protestant denominations has resulted in a GOOD thing for us Catholics. If the protestant churches were united would the Catholics be given so many privileges above other Christian denominations: Do you know if the US Federal government has diplomatic relations with any protestant denomination? how about the president going to the airport to meet them? how about giving them a government building for free? how about when their religious leader dies they order that the national flag to get lowered to half mast at Federal buildings? How about paying for some of the expenses when the leader comes to talk? The unity of the Catholic Church makes it easier to spread the Good News.
Protestants do have unity, and that's all that counts, but you would have to experience that to understand. Unity is not uniformity....keep doing what you are doing....I like the results in the last 30 years and hope it continues.
“Protestants acknowledge a unity on essentials that makes us brothers and sisters.”
Can you please show me where the bible lists the essentials ? Where it states which Christian beliefs are more essential than others? And where does it show us how to determine these things? How do we come to a consensus about it?
TAJ,
I have not consulted your listing on the alleged 40,000 Protestant denominations. Your points in your posts have been good, and you obviously know your Bible, but your claim of 40,000 denominations is just too silly to be taken seriously.
First, the criteria of simply "interpreting scriptural texts differently" is a very poor criteria for a different denomination and does not correspond to reality. Christians deal primarily with the New Testament, and I have not counted, but I am confident that there are nowhere near 40,000 VERSES in the NT. When you eliminate texts that don't deal with doctrine ("Jesus went here", "Paul went there"), then you are not left with anywhere approaching 40,000 texts to differ over, even if we differed over every single one of them!!
Furthermore, "different", does not not mean "contradictory". God has raised up many godly preachers and scholars over the history of the church who may different insights into a passage, but this does not constitute contradictory doctrine. Think about it: the church has been around for 2,000 years and millions of sermons have been given. In these sermons, there have been different things said all based on the same Bible (wouldn't it be lame if you heard the same sermon every time a certain passage was used?), but the range of contradictory doctrines is nowhere near what you're making it. The most divisive issues in Protestantism include Calvinism/Arminianism, eschatology (end times), church government and spiritual gifts. Within these areas there are only a handful of different opinions. I have had Bible studies over the years with Christians holding opposite points of view from mine in these areas without them affecting our fellowship, and that is the issue.
Thinking people will always differ, but Protestants acknowledge a unity on essentials that makes us brothers and sisters. Protestants do not believe that "they are all right" in the sense of being infallible, only the Catholic Church claims that. The Roman Catholic Church believes "they are all right" in their interpretations when they are obviously not. That's another point. The Catholic "solution" to the "problem" of different interpretations of passages is to entrust their eternal destinies to a man who is obviously wrong on many doctrinal issues. This produces uniformity, but uniformity might be a euphemism for "not thinking for yourself" or "the blind leading the blind". Protestants do have unity, and that's all that counts, but you would have to experience that to understand. Unity is not uniformity.
Taj,
Come on now; when are you going to stop focusing on me and address the real issues here? Catholicism has made many claims such as they alone are the one true church, that they have an unbroken line of apostolic successors, that salvation must come through them, that the pope is the vicar of Christ, etc. However, when closely scrutinized under the light of history and the scriptures many of these claims begin to crumble. I am willing to leave this comment board when these claims are no longer made and when the gospel is no longer molested by manmade dogmas.
Peace
TAJ,
None of the scriptures you quoted answered my question concerning praying TO people in heaven. My words: "Name one verse where a godly person in the Bible prays TO anyone else in the whole universe except for God". None of the verses you quoted show people on earth (which concerns us since that is where we are right now) praying TO Mary or Angels or anyone else. That angels play a role in offering these prayers to God does not change that.
For instance, if I pray to God for protection, He may send an angel to protect me, but that does not mean I should pray to the angel. Daniel 10:12-13 shows angels involved in delivering prayers to God and fallen angels trying to hinder those prayers, but Daniel still prays TO God, and is never exhorted to do otherwise. We are to pray TO God, and there are NO VERSES in the Bible that exhort me to pray to pray to anyone else. None of the verses you used show that. Passages showing Christians praying for other Christians do not show them praying TO people in heaven, only TO God with angels possibly playing a mediatorial role in delivering those prayers.
Further, you have not answered the implication of millions of Catholics praying to Mary simultaneously. To hear all of these prayers, Mary must having something approaching omniscience. What scriptural basis is there for attributing these powers to her? You say in one of your posts that Catholics simply ask Mary to pray for them. This is not a meaningful distinction because the same problem applies: How can she hear millions of Catholics asking her to pray for them simultaneously? Further, why do none of the Apostles ever clearly exhort us to do so?
The James verse you quoted (5:16) is not referring to praying TO people in heaven: "the effectual and fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much" . This principle is followed by the example of Elijah (5:17-18) who prayed and caused it to stop raining, and then again to start raining. In context he is obviously the "righteous man" who's prayer availed much (was "powerful and effective"). Elijah prayed while here on earth, during the reign of Ahab. The passage has noting to do with us praying to people in heaven.
Online,
You are the eternal critic. You had an issue with Catholicism, so you left and joined the Seventh Day Adventists then you had a problem with the divine revelations of Ms. White, so you left the SDA. Now you have a problem with the Christian Post being politically correct, so my question is when are you going to leave the CP comment board?
Paul actually warned the early church of men who would “arise” from the “bishops or elders” of the church and draw away disciples after them.
For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.
Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears.
And now, brethren, I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified – Acts 20:29-32.
Whenever we read the church fathers and church history in general, we see many contradictions; not so with the Word of God.
Clement: “There is a letter in which this same Clement writing to James the Lord’s brother, gives an account of the death of Peter, and says that he has left him as his successor, as ruler and teacher of the church; and further incorporates a whole scheme of ecclesiastical government. This I have not prefixed to the work, both because it is later in point of time, and because it has been previously translated and published by me. Nevertheless, there is a point which would perhaps seem inconsistent with facts were I to place the translation of it in this work, but which I do not consider to involve an impossibility. It is this. Linus and Cletus were Bishops of the city of Rome before Clement. How then, some men ask, can Clement in his, letter to James say that Peter passed over to him his position as a church-teacher? The explanation of this point, as I understand, is as follows. LINUS AND CLETUS WERE, NO DOUBT, “BISHOPS IN THE CITY OF ROME BEFORE CLEMENT, BUT THIS WAS IN PETER’S LIFE-TIME.” (St. Clement, Addressed to Bishop Baudentis, from the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol lll. Roberts, Alexander and Donaldson, James, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series: Volume III)
So, how could Linus be bishop of Rome while Peter was still alive if Peter was the first bishop of Rome? Papal succession occurs after a pope’s death right? Also, if Linus was bishop of Rome while Peter was alive, that would mean that Linus, not even an apostle, had Papal supremacy over both Peter and Paul – two living apostles.
What are your thoughts regarding this obvious “broken line of successors”?
A Jan. 18, 1947 news report from the Vatican states that "Pope Donus" was found to be "a person who never existed!" In addition, designation of sainthood was removed from Felix II, Liberius, Anastasio, Stephen III, Stephen V! And unsuspecting Roman Catholic people had been praying to these non-existent "saints" for centuries with the official approval of the same Roman Catholic Church that now says it was all a mistake!
A copy of the Jan. 18, 1947 news article from Vatican City can be obtained from any Public Library. It was carried on the front page of the Phila. Inquirer, and in the New York Times. It was titled, "VATICAN DROPS 6 NAMES FROM LIST OF POPES."
Irenaeus,
The context of Matthew 16 does not even come close to speaking of a “universal office;” again this one text is misused to establish a system which has historically been proven to be anything but a “succession of unbroken popes.” You continue to give me references to the word “bishop” but I have been referring to a “universal bishop” which you claim is supported by scripture. Again, Peter’s two epistles never mention it, Paul who wrote 13 of the 27 books in the New Testament never mentions it, and the entire New Testament never mentions it.”
Since you read scriptures through lenses of the church fathers instead reading GOD’S WORD to evaluate the church fathers writings; perhaps you will consider the following –
Iraeneus: “The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric . . . . . To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Sorer having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth. (Source: Iraeneus Against Heresies, Volume I, Book III, Para 3).
Note that Iraeneus clearly states that Linus was first bishop of Rome – not Peter. Iraeneus then gives us the identity of the first twelve Bishops of Rome: 1)Linus 2)Anacletus 3)Clement 4)Evaristus 5)Alexander 6)Sixtus 7)Ignatius (Telephorus) 8)Huginus 9)Pius 10)Anicetus 11)Sorer 12)Eleutherius
Hippolytus gives the same account with Linus being the first bishop of Rome – See – (Source: Hippolytus, Book XLIV; ON The Twelve Apostles Where Each OF Them Preached, And Where He Met His End.)
Just got home frne "Expelled". Great Documentary!
"St. Bernardine of Sienna says, that God did not destroy man after his fall, because of the peculiar love that he bore his future child Mary. (The Glories of Mary Translated From the Italian of St. Alphonsus Liguori)".
Well, that could very well have been one reason, because we know from Genesis 3:15 she was in his plans from the start. But that doesn't go against what scripture says in John 3:16.
In any case, Catholics are not bound to believe the private revelations of the saints.
St. Bernardine of Sienna says, that God did not destroy man after his fall, because of the peculiar love that he bore his future child Mary. (The Glories of Mary Translated From the Italian of St. Alphonsus Liguori)
Let us reason out of the scriptures, even as it was Paul’s manner (Acts 17:2).
For God SO LOVED THE WORLD, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. Jn 3:16
But God commendeth HIS LOVE TOWARD US, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Ro 5:8
Salvation is only through Jesus Christ. Jesus established only one church. Those who come to Christ in faith and baptism are incorporated into His Body, the church. It is in this sense that Catholics believe that salvation comes through the Church. In other words, Jesus is the efficient cause, while the church is the instrumental cause. This is precisely why it was devastating for the man in the Corinthian church who was sleeping with his stepmother to be excommunicated (separated from the body of Christ). And of course, since the Catholic Church teaches that the church on earth is pastored by the bishop of Rome, then the corollary is that those in Christ’s Church are also under the pastor (shepherd or bishop) that Christ has placed in his charge. So with respect to Boniface VIII and all submitting to the Roman Pontiff, this is merely a euphemism for all to come into the Catholic Church, since a non-Catholic cannot in reality submit to the Pope.
talldollars,
I understand that the NT preceded all of the early church fathers, but I think you missed my point, which is unless you are willing to accept that the entire church immediately fell into apostasy upon the death of the last apostle, then the early church fathers are much more valuable than what you credit.
“they must ultimately be judged in light of scripture, something Catholics refuse to do. So you can stick to the words of men, which you consider to be the "early church", who are fallible, I'll stick to the Word of God, which abides forever, and is earlier.”
The church fathers are judged in the light of scripture and apostolic tradition. Yes, they were fallible; no one disputes that. However, that does not necessarily mean they taught error. Let’s take baptismal regeneration for example. How do you interpret scripture on this issue? The early church fathers are unanimous on this one, so either baptismal regeneration is correct doctrine, or all of them without exception fell into error.
“As a side note, the "church fathers" did not agree on all doctrines, which leads to the practice of quoting them only when they support the view one is trying to promote.”
Certainly, there were church fathers who had differing opinions on various issues, sometimes going outside the boundaries of orthodoxy, but then these are not taught by the Catholic Church either. Consensus of the church fathers is one of the things evaluated in apostolic tradition.
steiner,
“But, In judgement, Christians that are saved are rewarded according to their works. That means that there will be Christians that although they have been saved, have built on Christs foundation with...hay, straw....(each ones work will become clear...because it will be revealed/tested by firet...hey will suffer loss, but they themselves will be saved ...1Corinthians 3:12-16.”
…as through fire.
O4H,
“and some of them list “Linus” as the first pope.”
No, they list Linus as the first successor of Peter.
“What about these passages?”
I agree - our pastors are not to exercise “lordship.” But to recognize a bishop (overseer, shepherd) for their authority is not the same thing as lordship.
O4H,
“I find it ironic that the scriptures never speak of such an “office” and yet “one” text (Matthew 16:18) is used to build the papacy. Peter’s two epistles never mention it, Paul who wrote 13 of the 27 books in the New Testament never mentions it, and the entire New Testament never mentions it.”
The whole context of Matt 16:18 speaks of an office. Take off your western-thought, 2000-yrs-removed glasses and put on your first-century, Jewish glasses… then it becomes more apparent. Also, the NT speaks of bishops. Bishops occupy a bishopric (or office). The Book of Acts speaks of Judas’s position of an apostle as an ‘office,’ and Matthias succeeded in his ‘office.’
“The church fathers which Catholics quote profusely do not even agree with one another on the interpretation of Matthew 16:18.”
A consensus of the fathers agree on Matt 16:18. One or two (I’m not even sure that there are two) out of a dozens or so hardly calls for doubt as to what was actually believed regarding primacy of the bishop of Rome. In fact, even the one who proposed some alternate interpretations did not deny the position held by the consensus of the fathers. What's more, the disagreement on the interpretation by this one church father did not demonstrate itself as a denial in the primacy of the bishop of Rome because in fact he defended it.
lidiapurple,
You are welcome; that statement is something to consider in light of these passages which declare that salvation is only through Jesus Christ - John 14:6, 1Corinthians 3:11, Acts 4:12.
Online,
Thank you for the references. I had not read the second one. I will study it and get back to you. But the first one does not say the same thing. For Catholics hold that all Christian churches who came out of the Catholic church at the time of the reformation and since are still a part of our family and part of that universal church whether or not they acknowledge it .
lidiapurple,
Pope Innocent III (circa 1160 - 1216 CE) is considered "one of the greatest popes of the Middle Ages..." 1 At the Fourth Lateran Council (a.k.a. the General Council of Lateran, and the Great Council) he wrote:
"There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which no one at all can be saved."
Pope Boniface VIII (1235-1303 CE) promulgated a Papal Bull in 1302 CE titled Unam Sanctam (One Holy). He wrote, in part:
“Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff."
"Behold, the handmaiden of the Lord. Be it done unto me according to your word". Luke 1:38. Mary gave herself completely to God. Do you think that Catholics believe Mary has any power that is not from Jesus? We do not. Anything that we attribute to her thru her intercession we know comes from God. We know that Jesus honors his mother now as he did on earth. We know that she is Blessed among women. We know that her prayers as a most righteous person will be heeded by her son. Jesu allows his angels to watch over us and protect us. Why wouldn't he allow his mothr to do the same?
To me that Hail Mary which you recite every evening bringeth great consolation, and you do well indeed; and you will find, as she is your advocate, that if you hold her in reverence and pray to her humbly, she will defend you and aid you in all your adversity, and deliver you from it. (Saint Bernardine of Siena Sermons, translated by Helen Josephine Robins)
Does our defense, aid and deliverance from adversity come from Mary? What saith the scriptures?
As the LORD liveth, who hath redeemed my soul out of all adversity, (2Sa 4:9)
Many are the afflictions of the righteous: but the LORD delivereth him out of them all. (Ps 34:19)
So that we may boldly say, The Lord is my helper, and I will not fear what man shall do unto me. Heb 13:6
Wilderness,
Because he is the only God-man and the Mediator of the New Covenant, Jesus is the only mediator between man and God (1 Tim. 2:5), but this in no way means we cannot or should not ask our fellow Christians to pray with us and for us (1 Tim. 2:1–4). If I asked you to pray for my sick child, would you say to me. “ No! There is only one mediator between God and man, the man Jesus. Go straight to Jesus?” Of course you wouldn’t. You’d probably be happy to pray for my child. Catholics believe that intercession and mediation are the same thing, and that we can go to Jesus thru you, wilderness, or thru the saints . In particular, we should ask the intercession of those Christians in heaven, who have already had their sanctification completed, for “the prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects" (Jas. 5:16). For we believe that death cannot separate us from the love of Christ, that those Christians who have gone before us are very much alive in Christ, and are still capable of interceding for us.
Online,
Can you please show me the Catholic teaching (either from the Catechism or from encyclicals) that states “ALL” must submit themselves to the pope in order to be saved”. Likewise with your statement that shows Catholic teaching has elevated the Pope to replace Christ? I must have missed those documents in my studies.
EvanCal,
When Catholics state that “ALL” must submit themselves to the pope in order to be saved, what do you think that means? It means first and foremost that they have elevated their pope in the place of Christ and are preaching another gospel. How does a “Reformed” pastor become so enthralled with Catholicism? What type of “Reforming” are you actually pursuing; this is an honest question?
You have said that I should be more loving, that I am being a poor witness, and that I have come to some very “odd conclusions from scripture.”
Yet, when I asked you to comment on the unloving ANATHEMAS that Rome pronounces upon those who trust in Christ alone; you gave NO answer. I asked you to ELABORATE upon “my odd conclusions from scripture” - you gave NO answer. I asked what kind of WITNESS you are giving by placating Catholicism and neglecting to preach the gospel; you gave NO answer.
Care to respond?
Irenaeus,
These are the "other" passages that I was speaking about -
But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them.
But it shall NOT be so AMOUNG YOU: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant:
Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many – Matthew 20:26-28.
And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors.
But YE shall NOT be SO: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve – Luke 22:25, 26.
Surely, these passages give a glimpse of what Jesus’ thoughts were concerning any idea of “lordship” or “dominion” over one another. Perhaps, that is why Peter speaks of a priesthood of believers –
Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ – 1Perter 2:5.
But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light; - 1Peter 2
What about these passages?
Irenaeus,
I find it ironic that the scriptures never speak of such an “office” and yet “one” text (Matthew 16:18) is used to build the papacy. Peter’s two epistles never mention it, Paul who wrote 13 of the 27 books in the New Testament never mentions it, and the entire New Testament never mentions it.
“Strengthen thy brethren” in Luke 22:31-32 says absolutely nothing concerning an “office” in which Peter was to sit over the Church.
“Feed my sheep” in John 21:15-17 also says nothing to establish a “papacy” or an “office” within the church. Peter denied the Lord “three times” and now he is being questioned about his love for the Lord; – “three times.” Peter had temporarily lost his faith and Jesus here is merely restoring him back into the ministry; nothing less and nothing more.
“For I suppose I was not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles – 2Corinthians 11:5.”
I THINK? This is no way for any of us to exegete a passage; we cannot suppose to THINK what scripture says; we are to compare scripture with scripture to gain an accurate and full picture of what is being said on any particular teaching. Paul is not speaking of validation here; he is speaking of NOT being “BEHIND” the very chiefest of apostles, nevertheless, the scriptures never speak of such an office.
Come on now; history repeatedly bears witness to the fact that there has NOT been an “unbroken chain of successors” as is claimed. The church fathers which Catholics quote profusely do not even agree with one another on the interpretation of Matthew 16:18 and some of them list “Linus” as the first pope.
I guess we can all continue to debate this until Jesus comes back but we should be willing to follow where the evidence is most convincing and rely upon the only “source” which has never contradicted itself and that source would be the WORD OF GOD.
To me that Hail Mary which you recite every evening bringeth great consolation, and you do well indeed; and you will find, as she is your advocate, that if you hold her in reverence and pray to her humbly, she will defend you and aid you in all your adversity, and deliver you from it. (Saint Bernardine of Siena-Sermons-translated by Helen Josephine Robins)
If indeed preached, is Mary our advocate? Should we pray TO her humbly? Let us reason out of the scriptures, even as it was Paul’s manner (Acts 17:2).
My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: 1Jn 2:1
Hearken unto the voice of my cry, my King, and my God: for unto thee will I pray. Ps 5:2
As for me, I will call upon God; and the LORD shall save me. Evening, and morning, and at noon, will I pray, and cry aloud: and he shall hear my voice. Ps 55:16, 17
Taj,
You make it sound like Protestants aren't in the trenches against the new age movement, islam, immorality, and secularism. I'll be the first to admit that not all do and that some denominations are even outright heretical. I do think that Protestants are followers of Jesus and are truly trying to go back to the early church which despite everything you and Irenaeus say is not Catholic. Basically, I'm not convinced. The evidence of the Bible is strongly against it. It's mostly just misinterpretation of Scripture. Of course you will accuse me of the same thing. Where does that leave us than? At an impasse of course. I pray you don't read this and think that I'm angry at you or anything of the sort. I just pray that you might see things in a different way. I believe you are in error in some ways. Although, it's not like we'll actually be able to convince each other anyways.
Scitsonga "No, not really, what it means is christians cant agree on what their religion says and means, thats one big reason to keep religion out of government. "
I would totally agree with you if you are referring to the protestant denominations, but the Catholic Church can agree and it is called the Catechism. Actually the funny thing about the continual divisions within the protestant denominations means that they continually have less influence on the US government. Some simple questions: does the US have diplomatic relations with the Vatican? the official residence of the Vatican in Washington DC - was it purchased or was it given to the Church by the Federal government? Was the US flag lowered to half mast at all Federal buildings when Pope John Paul II died? Is the Supreme Court mostly made up of Catholics? Was Pope Benedict the first head of State ever to be met by a US president at the airport?...... does it really matter that an evangelical like Pat Robertson endorsed Giuliani or does it matter when any evangelical/protestant minister endorses a candidate? it's kind of sad that they need that kind of reassurance that they hold some sort of weight within the gov't but it comes across as really pathetic. Actually this question of what divides the 1 Catholic church with all the protestant denominations in the world is actually a little pathetic too. Don't get me wrong our protestant brothers and sisters have some good music and some of their preachers are top notch, but when you discuss bigger issues their influence is minimal at best. Who will confront new age religions, secularism or Islam? The influential protestant denominations?? give me a break.
O4H,
“The passages in my last post (which you did not address) along with the following passages give evidence that the “universal bishop” simply does not exist.”
Peter as first, chief, or primos apostle does exist in scripture.
“Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven – Matthew 18:18
This passage was addressed to all the disciples; not just to Peter.”
Yes, because all the apostles have authority. But Matthew 16:18-19, Luke 22:31-32, John 21:15-17 was addressed to Peter alone. Do these not count?
“And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; - Ephesians 2:20.
This passage says that Jesus is the CHIEF corner stone and that the apostles (plural)along with the prophets is what the church is built upon.”
Amen! I agree with this passage, but keep in mind that various analogies are used in scripture to emphasize varying perspectives. In this particular instance, Jesus is the chief cornerstone with the apostles and prophets as the foundation upon which the church is built. Yet, in another passage, only Jesus Himself is the foundation. And in another analogy, Peter is the rock upon which the church is built, and Jesus is the Master Builder. ALL of these are true in one sense or another.
“For I suppose I was not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles – 2Corinthians 11:5.
Paul says he was not behind the chiefest apostles; how strange, perhaps he did not know that Peter had primacy over him. It is also strange that both epistles that Peter writes say nothing of this “office.” Again, the silence from New Testament of such an “office” is absolutely deafening.”
I think that Paul here is referring to false apostles. And even if he is referring to the Twelve, Paul is emphasizing to the Corinthian church that his apostolic ministry is just as valid as that of the Twelve. And I agree. The apostolic authority of my bishop, Daniel DiNardo, is just as valid as the bishop of Rome, Pope Benedict XVI.
Steiner,
“Irenaus, you are changing the subject from salvation, which requires repentance and faith in Jesus, to Gods judgement which has to be based on the works of men.”
No, I am not changing the subject. Works and salvation are related, so the passage I quoted speaks of works AND salvation. Paul states that God will give eternal life to those who persist in doing (working) good.
“As I said, those who are saved will be moved to do good works…Those good works are not done in order to repair for our sin, they are done because of our new nature in Christ…”
I agree that works must follow, but that does not mean works are meaningless.
“You and the RCC completely misunderstand this point…As you keep on mixing up works with salvation.”
Only in the same way that Paul mixes up works and salvation in Rom 2:6-8.
It's very difficult to answer the question: what divides Catholics and Protestants until we can quantify what we are discussing. The Catholic denomination is 1, now can anybody please quantify the protestant denominations?
sorry I meant denominations not churches. Anybody yet come up with a more accurate number of how many protestant denominations there are in the world?
steiner,
Once again you show your ignorance of the 1 Catholic Church and confuse it with the 40,000+ protestant churches. The Catholic Church does not teach that we receive initial justification by good works. However, works come out of faith. Take a look at James 2:24. Protestants are known for their slogan stating that we are justified by "faith alone," but the expression "faith alone" only appears once in the Bible-in James 2:24-where it is rejected. He is stating a fact, not offering a definition. James does not see anything wrong with the faith he is talking about. The faith isn't the problem; the fact it is alone is the problem.
Taj: The parable of the sheep and the goats (Matt. 25:31–46): How could we explain this passage in light of the doctrine of sola fide (faith alone)? Here in Matthew 25 was the clearest picture of the final judgment in all of Scripture, and the Lord was rewarding or condemning the people according to what they had done. This is not an isolated text (cf. Matt. 12:36–37; John 5:28–29; Rom. 2:6-8; 2 Cor. 5:10; 1 Pet. 1:17; Rev. 2:23; 20:13).
Once again Taj, you as the RCC are confusing salvation with judgement.
To be saved one needs to repent and faithfully accept Jesus. Nothing else is necessary.
But, In judgement, Christians that are saved are rewarded according to their works. That means that there will be Christians that although they have been saved, have built on Christs foundation with...hay, straw....(each ones work will become clear...because it will be revealed/tested by firet...hey will suffer loss, but they themselves will be saved ...1Corinthians 3:12-16.
steiner "In essence, because there are so many divisions, it shows that Christians value people"
Scitsonga "No, not really, what it means is christians cant agree on what their religion says and means, thats one big reason to keep religion out of government. "
Christians do agree on what Christianity says. That Christ has died to ransom us from the power of sin: death. That He has resurrected, so that we also have this resurrection hope to live with Him in eternity as sons of God in relationship with Him and each other, in great fellowship and great joy.
This ultimately is the Good News that all Christian denominations agree to. The specifics as to sin, fellowship, order of church and organization are what most of the arguments are about...
Yes, we allow these divisions because we value people. Our example is Christ . Jesus valued people, and as an example to us, Jesus died for us, not the other way round, as it is commanded in Islam and as it has been commanded by agnostic leaders such as Stalin, Mao...Pol Pot..etc.
Scitsonga, the agnostics have had their hand at nation building too, and they have enlightened the world as to their ability to rule, and their respect for human life.
Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Nazism, the French revolution … all wished to establish a new foundation for human beings. Mao died trying, but only after he was responsible for the deaths of over 60 million Chinese. Stalin also had to have over 15 million die before his experiment came to an end because of his death. Pol Pot…another mass murderer of millions. ..And the French Revolution, where the goddess of reason was built …they barely finished it before the leaders began to kill each other.
And it is not over yet. For in western societies where agnostics rule, we witness the greatest suicide rates, the greatest abortion rates and we see an educational system that has no future.
In these western countries where Christianity has been vilified by those who would respect all cultures and religions, because of their arrogance in making all cultures equal, islam is making gains and bringing along with it its terrible nightmare of death and destruction to liberty…Now not only are people who are not muslim systematically persecuted in every muslim nation that exists , but they are beginning to be persecuted by the same in western countries…
As Christians we are commanded to be heralds of a new life. God commands us to proclaim His Good News…that Christ has died in our stead and has resurrected, so that those who decide to follow Him, shall likewise find their lives in Him. Like Noah, who was commanded to preach to the multitudes, while he built an ark, and not to force others into submission to God, so Christ did not call us to force Christianity on anyone.
Neither should you fear Christianity forcing you to accept it. Jesus does not need or wish that the world be forced to submit to Him. His Word does not require the submission of the world to Him in order for it to come to pass. Jesus is compassionate…He sends out Word to those that would listen: to follow Him, as He has gone before us in all humility.
If you wish you can join, otherwise feel free to be what you please.
taj,
A copy of the Jan. 18, 1947 news article from Vatican City can be obtained from any Public Library. It was carried on the front page of the Phila. Inquirer, and in the New York Times. It was titled, "VATICAN DROPS 6 NAMES FROM LIST OF POPES."
I guess, no answer is an answer; so, much for the "unbroken line of successors."
As Pope Benedict stated in the US:
"I can only thank you for your love of the church, for the love of Our Lord and that you give also your love to the poor successor of St. Peter," he said.
"I will do all that is possible to be a real successor of the great St. Peter, who also was a man with his faults and some sins, but he remains finally the rock for the church," he said.
The pope prayed that he, too, with the grace of God, could be a worthy successor to St. Peter, even with what he said was his spiritual "poorness."
The Church and the Pope have weaknesses, but God continues to guide them both.
Sure..."Catholics generally regard the survival and success of such a flawed institution as evidence of divine favor. The church has managed to outlive all of its scandals -- and all of its critics". Matt 16:18 The Lord will keep his promise and has continued to protect the Church throughout the ages. It's the reason we are currently debating the division between tens of thousands of protestant denominations and 1 Catholic Church.
Taj,
I would think that you would be tired of hashing out the same old posts week afer week here. It matters not where I have been; where I am going is what is most important. Instead of focusing on me, can you give an explanation for the obvious "broken" line of suppoed successors to your church?
Online,
How long were you a Catholic before you converted to the Seventh Day Adventists? Were you ever aware of something called the Catholic Catechism? Catholics don't pray to saints they use Intercessory prayers, please tell me you learned that when you were a Catholic. Many times one finds the New Testament recommending intercessory prayer (cf. Col 1:9; 2 Thes 1:11; 2 Thes 3:1; Jas 5:16), and very few Christians seem to have a problem with seeking the prayers of a fellow believer. A difficulty appears to emerge only when that believer has left this earth. But what difference should that make to one who affirms the resurrection of the dead? After all, we read that all are alive in Christ (cf. 1 Cor 15:22).
To recap, then, Jesus Christ is the sole mediator between God and man. No other person in heaven or on earth can take His place. The role of Mary or any other saint is to lead the believer to Christ. This subordinate form of mediation derives its meaning and efficacy from the Lord Himself and is not something the saints possess on their own.
Intercessory prayer is a powerful expression of the beautiful doctrine of the Communion of Saints whereby the saints in heaven, the souls in purgatory, and the faithful on earth are involved and concerned with one another's eternal salvation. Intercessory prayer declares our love for one another in the Church, as well as our faith that the bonds to Christ and His Church forged in baptism cannot be dissolved by death.
A Jan. 18, 1947 news report from the Vatican states that "Pope Donus" was found to be "a person who never existed!" In addition, designation of sainthood was removed from Felix II, Liberius, Anastasio, Stephen III, Stephen V! And unsuspecting Roman Catholic people had been praying to these non-existent "saints" for centuries with the official approval of the same Roman Catholic Church that now says it was all a mistake!
A copy of the Jan. 18, 1947 news article from Vatican City can be obtained from any Public Library. It was carried on the front page of the Phila. Inquirer, and in the New York Times. It was titled, "VATICAN DROPS 6 NAMES FROM LIST OF POPES."
In 1876, an Apparition took place at Pellevoisin in France, and Our All-Merciful Mother amongst other things, said to her beloved servant Estelle: “The treasures of my Son are open; let them pray, and have confidence in me.” (The Apparitions and Shrines of Heaven’s Bright Queen Volume 1 by William J. Walsh)
If such an event took place, then let us reason out of the scriptures, even as it was Paul’s manner (Acts 17:2). The apparition said to have confidence in her, but what saith the scriptures?
1Jn 5:14 And this is the confidence that we have in him, that, if we ask any thing according to his will, he heareth us:
Pr 3:26 For the LORD shall be thy confidence, and shall keep thy foot from being taken.
Pr 14:26 In the fear of the LORD is strong confidence: and his children shall have a place of refuge.
Ps 118:8 It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man.
The parable of the sheep and the goats (Matt. 25:31–46): How could we explain this passage in light of the doctrine of sola fide (faith alone)? Here in Matthew 25 was the clearest picture of the final judgment in all of Scripture, and the Lord was rewarding or condemning the people according to what they had done. This is not an isolated text (cf. Matt. 12:36–37; John 5:28–29; Rom. 2:6-8; 2 Cor. 5:10; 1 Pet. 1:17; Rev. 2:23; 20:13).
The simple formula of "faith alone" does not do justice to the totality of Scripture. How could we reconcile Martin Luther’s doctrine of forensic justification and imputed righteousness with the clear teaching of the Bible?
Luther said, "No sin can separate us from him, even if we were to kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day" (Let Your Sins Be Strong, 1521). But Paul warned, "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God?" (1 Cor. 6:9).
Had Martin Luther really "rediscovered" the gospel? Or had he invented something new? What about the prosperity gospel being used today and many more examples...who is adding new interpretations?
steiner "In essence, because there are so many divisions, it shows that Christians value people"
No, not really, what it means is christians cant agree on what their religion says and means, thats one big reason to keep religion out of government.
steiner "But it seems that you give respect to anything as long as it has a following."
No I wouldn't say that, but what it looks like you are saying is your set of beliefs are superior to all others. Christians and Muslims share a common theme- they tend to villify each other. Both pick out the worse aspects of the others religion and proclaim theirs to be superior. I am an agnostic, I have no reason nor desire to believe in any particular religion, religious differences have lead to war in the past, and sadly continue to produce war today.
However, I want to add that the Catholic Church uses the bible plus tradition to discern some aspects since the Church traces its roots to the apostles.
leapfrog,
1) I answered your question using scripture that supports Catholic teaching. The idea that any Catholic teaching can't be supported by scripture is untrue. You might disagree with it like steiner but the verses are there to support it.
2) the fact that there are tens of thousands of protestant denominations and only 1 Catholic denomination is relevant when you examine it in reference to Matt 16:18 and the reason as to why the early Christian Fathers were very particular about there not being dissention. Every Protestant church is either a direct offshoot of the Catholic Church (as is the case with the Lutheran Church) or is an offshoot of an offshoot (Pentecostal churches are offshoots of Holiness churches, which are offshoots of the Methodist Church, which is an offshoot of the Anglican Church, which is an offshoot of the Catholic Church).
Truthandjustice1,
I'm not sure I follow when you say that Scripture supports Catholic teaching. You also seem to be focused on the numbers of different denominations. One question. Why does it matter? Maybe I'm not following what you are trying to mean by that.
steiner,
It sounds like you have issues with the bible....the scriptural verses I supplied are in the bible.
Roman Catholics making up 17 percent, Protestants 5.8 percent. Roman Catholics = 1 Protestants = tens of thousands. What divides 1 vs tens of thousands?
And wait there is more...will those who know the names of more of the dead people be able to get more requests in? hence, memorizing more and more of those names and lists will increase your spiritual clout...maybe than you can get more and more names to pray to, i mean ask...and more and more ....
And exactly what is being requested of the dead to do? and when your prayer is answered...whatever it may be...do you celebrate with the dead? do you thank the dead for getting through?
and so some of the dead, since they get so many different requests, prefer to intercede for a special few...do they prioritize, for example, for the pope over someone else....
and what if they start talking back to you...do you listen to what they say? will you do what they ask? will you do favors for them too?
truthandjustice1...said:
Fulton Sheen was right when he stated that protestants dislike what they think is Catholic teaching. The official position of the Roman Catholic Church that Catholics do not pray TO saints or Mary, but rather that Catholics can ask saints or Mary to pray FOR them. The official position of the Roman Catholic Church is that asking saints for their prayers is no different than asking someone here on earth to pray for you. This can be supported by the early Christian Fathers and was believed by all Christians prior to the protestant reformation and is consistent with Orthodox and some mainline protestant denomination teachings. A good reference is here:
http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/saints.html ...
So, if this is the case that you can ask the saints to pray for you...how do you know that indeed they are the ones talking back to you...and that they are in fact saved? and how is asking different from praying if you cannot see, or know whether they are there? Are they able to hear more than one person at the same time? 1000 people at the same time? 1000000000 people at the same time? 100000000000000 at the same time....wait, doesnt this make them out to be more than just human beings...hence gods, if they can listen to so many at once? and if you keep on asking and asking...is that not prayer...
And do you have church with them...so you and 100000 of them are in your house..Is that a church?
leapfrog,
Actually the bible college (Calvary bible college and the seminary) where the president of this site attended is known for being anti-Catholic, so one can make their own opinion about the objectivity of the site. Actually one blogger I respect was educated at that seminary and later converted to Eastern Orthodoxy, outside of Catholicism it is the only other Christian religion that I respect. As he states: The Orthodox have changed in the little t of tradition not the big T of Tradition. Meaning the great feasts, the great mystery’s (sacraments) of the church, have not changed. The things that have changed are little t’s, like weather people kiss the Chalice or not after receiving communion, or allowing non Orthodox to take part in the service after the deacon proclaims the doors.
Yes the Church has changed but in such small ways that if you go from one Orthodox tradition to the next you will still recognize the services. The customs might be different though. We still you the same services handed down by the apostles. The most common St. John Chrysostom 1600 yrs but in some services St. James’s Liturgy is used 2000 yrs.
Tell me does the reformed faith you practice today look anything like the faith Calvin practiced?"
(http://phoenixpreacher.com/cms/?p=2230)
I can see his point, but will remain Catholic. I'm very hopeful about the dialog that has been taking place between the Orthodox and Catholic Churches. For me, the protestant denominations and new age faiths just don't have the same relevance.
Scitsonga,
Christians are not imposing their views on you. In fact the very nature of the arguments here revolve around the freedom to believe, and to think on ones own.
In essence, because there are so many divisions, it shows that Christians value people..and especially the God given right to think for one self. Unlike you, we are not committed to respect of ideas, as much as we are committed to their discussing them.
I dont respect just any culture, especially cultures that do not allow discussions of their vital beliefs, like Islam. But it seems that you give respect to anything as long as it has a following.
You are failing to do your duty to question, and to discuss with others their views, and possibly help them overcome some very basic problems.
Accepting and respecting other beliefs does not help democracy...it brings it down. The arrogance of the pretense of respect of other cultures is ruining the west.
Ideas must be questioned, they must be brought to the light and scrutinized, otherwise those that hold them will think they are beyond scrutiny, beyond questioning...this gives them power to impose their views on unsuspecting weak people.
So instead of feeling contempt for the many different views that Christians hold, you should be glad that we are willing to discuss them...a principle that is a fountainhead for scientific progress.
Yet again, if you wish to accept everything as equal, you are unwilling to think, unwilling to challenge ideas, than you should pack up and go and live in Saudi Arabia...where no dissenting views or scrutiny is allowed. That ultimately is where your respect will lead you and is leading many in the west.
Thanks Leapfrog,
Actually the statement I used about the Catholic official position was taken from that site. Why did I take it from an anti-Catholic site? because they honestly reveal that there are many Catholics who don't know the official teaching. As the web page you sent states: "However, through observation, it is abundantly clear that many Catholics do in fact worship Mary. This is the result of the Roman Catholic Church not doing a good job of teaching and explaining its doctrines. Many Catholics are completely ignorant of what Catholic doctrines and practices truly mean and signify". I totally agree and believe the Church needs to be a better job, but the Church is so huge that sometimes the teaching at the local level isn't every good. However, the site makes the distinction that Catholics are not Christian which is completely ludicrous. I don't mind posting on this evangelical site because they are 100% correct that Catholics are indeed Christian. Even look at the last statement in this article: Christians make up one-third of the world’s population, with Roman Catholics making up 17 percent, Protestants 5.8 percent, Orthodox 3.5 percent, and Anglicans 1.3 percent. Obviously the Catholic Church is always under the microscope because it is the main Christian faith. I mean look at this article: what divides Catholics and Protestants? Protestants represent tens of thousands of different denominations. Catholicism is 1. As I mentioned before it's the equivalent of stating what is the difference between Tiger Woods and all the other golfers in the world? There are always going to be things that Tiger Woods and the Catholic Church can improve upon in Golf or the teaching of the Good News, but the bottom line is that this is who or what you are compared against. The fact that we discuss the Catholic Faith and the Pope in comparison to ALL the other protestant denominations clearly not only indicates the importance of the Church's teachings but the importance of the Church throughout the ages.
Holito8
Repentance is not a work. It is a recognition of our state. It is brought about by the Word of Christ, the nudging of the Holy Spirit, and the recognition of the sinner. The thief called out to Jesus for help, knowing that he was unable to help himself.
When we are saved, we will do works, but not works of reparation for our sins. They do nothing to cover our sins. These are phenotypical of our new nature that is being perfected in us by the Holy Spirit and His Word.
Once again, these works are not works of reparation to sin. Christ has done that once and for all at the cross, and as a result has quickened us with His Holy Spirit and is perfecting us. We are dead to the law. We are alive in Christ.
Dead, not in the sense that we will not observe it, but in the sense that the power of the law has no more effect on our new nature. The power of the law is death. John points out.. My dear children these things I write to you, so that we dont sin, but if we do..we have an Advocate...He himself is the propitiation for our sin..(1John 2) In our new nature.
The RCC has tried to use works as a means to reparation, and as a means to control Christians through indulgences...etc(guilt) This is because it has failed to understand that we are born again in Christ. We are new creatures, and when we sin we are already covered in Christ as John points out.
The purpose of the church is to inspire/sanctify us with His Word (not to bring in new gospels...and accept other spirits) and use the gifts that each new creature has to help it grow together in Christ. As new creatures we require to be fed by HIs/sanctified by His Word, and His Spirit, in order to perfect the new nature. A nature that is not driven to sin as our old nature, but is by is driven by the Holy Spirit to do good works.
Truthandjustice1 I would advise you to just go to this site and read down the list. They are highly Biblically accurate in regards to the Catholic church. Of course you will just take away from it that it's "wrong." Or that the Bible is misinterpreted. The site was eye opening to me. I pray it will be for you as well.
http://www.gotquestions.org/Catholic-questions.html
Fulton Sheen was right when he stated that protestants dislike what they think is Catholic teaching. The official position of the Roman Catholic Church that Catholics do not pray TO saints or Mary, but rather that Catholics can ask saints or Mary to pray FOR them. The official position of the Roman Catholic Church is that asking saints for their prayers is no different than asking someone here on earth to pray for you. This can be supported by the early Christian Fathers and was believed by all Christians prior to the protestant reformation and is consistent with Orthodox and some mainline protestant denomination teachings. A good reference is here:
http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/saints.html
Catholics agree with 1 Timothy 2:5: "For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." But in the preceding four verses (1 Tim. 2:1-4), Paul instructs Christians to pray for each other, meaning it cannot interfere with Christ’s mediatorship: "I urge that prayers, supplications, petitions, and thanksgivings be made for everyone. . . . This is good, and pleasing to God our Savior."
We know this exhortation to pray for others applies to the saints in heaven who, as Revelation 5:8 reveals, intercede for us by offering our prayers to God: "The twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and with golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints.
Since the Hail Mary is a prayer to Mary, many Protestants assume it’s unbiblical. Quite the contrary, actually. Let’s look at it.
The prayer begins, "Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee." This is nothing other than the greeting the angel Gabriel gave Mary in Luke 1:28 (Confraternity Version). The next part reads this way:
"Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus." This was exactly what Mary’s cousin Elizabeth said to her in Luke 1:42. The only thing that has been added to these two verses are the names "Jesus" and "Mary," to make clear who is being referred to. So the first part of the Hail Mary is entirely biblical.
The second part of the Hail Mary is not taken straight from Scripture, but it is entirely biblical in the thoughts it expresses. It reads:
"Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death. Amen."
Let’s look at the first words. Some Protestants do object to saying "Holy Mary" because they claim Mary was a sinner like the rest of us. But Mary was a Christian (the first Christian, actually, the first to accept Jesus; cf. Luke 1:45), and the Bible describes Christians in general as holy. In fact, they are called saints, which means "holy ones" (Eph. 1:1, Phil. 1:1, Col. 1:2). Furthermore, as the mother of Jesus Christ, the Incarnate Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, Mary was certainly a very holy woman.
Some Protestants object to the title "Mother of God," but suffice it to say that the title doesn’t mean Mary is older than God; it means the person who was born of her was a divine person, not a human person. (Jesus is one person, the divine, but has two natures, the divine and the human; it is incorrect to say he is a human person.) The denial that Mary had God in her womb is a heresy known as Nestorianism (which claims that Jesus was two persons, one divine and one human), which has been condemned since the early 400s and which the Reformers and Protestant Bible scholars have always rejected.
1) I already gave you a link that proves that there is approx. 40,000 protestant denominations. I hope we don't have to argue about facts. The whole point is that there are 40,000+ protestant denominations interpreting scriptural texts differently, and of course they are all right. That's why it is almost laughable when people start putting scriptural verses on here because for the 40,000 + they could mean something totally different. That's why your comment "it should be noted that anything can be justified if a person is wiling to misuse the Bible" is very important and makes clear why there are new denominations being formed EVERY day.
2) Praying to saints? easy
Psalm 103 we pray, "Bless the Lord, O you his angels, you mighty ones who do his word, hearkening to the voice of his word! Bless the Lord, all his hosts, his ministers that do his will!" (Ps. 103:20–21). And in the opening verses of Psalms 148 we pray, "Praise the Lord! Praise the Lord from the heavens, praise him in the heights! Praise him, all his angels, praise him, all his host!"
Not only do those in heaven pray with us, they also pray for us. In the book of Revelation, John sees that "the twenty-four elders [the leaders of the people of God in heaven] fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and with golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints" (Rev. 5:8). Thus the saints in heaven offer to God the prayers of the saints on earth.
Angels do the same thing: "[An] angel came and stood at the altar [in heaven] with a golden censer; and he was given much incense to mingle with the prayers of all the saints upon the golden altar before the throne; and the smoke of the incense rose with the prayers of the saints from the hand of the angel before God" (Rev. 8:3–4).
Jesus himself warned us not to offend small children, because their guardian angels have guaranteed intercessory access to the Father: "See that you do not despise one of these little ones; for I tell you that in heaven their angels always see the face of my Father who is in heaven" (Matt. 18:10).
Because he is the only God-man and the Mediator of the New Covenant, Jesus is the only mediator between man and God (1 Tim. 2:5), but this in no way means we cannot or should not ask our fellow Christians to pray with us and for us (1 Tim. 2:1–4). In particular, we should ask the intercession of those Christians in heaven, who have already had their sanctification completed, for "[t]he prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects" (Jas. 5:16).
truthandjustice1,
I don't think the burden of proof is on me to determine how many Protestant denominations there are, or that the number approaches anywhere near 50,000. You made the statement, not me, so back it up. A good question to ask is what criteria is being applied to make something a different denomination.
More to the point, Bible-believing Christians understand a basic unity among all true believers in spite of differences. Unity does not mean uniformity. Protestants have unity on the the nature of God, Christ, the gospel, salvation, etc. in other words, the basic things that make one a Christian. I can have a disagreement with someone while recognizing that God may still be using them to bear fruit for the kingdom. So the fact that there is basic unity of Christians does not make different expressions of faith invalid, it's what you would expect among thinking people, given different gifts, different callings, different times in history, different cultures, etc.
As for your remark that all of the Catholic doctrines I mentioned can be backed by scripture, it should be noted that anything can be justified if a person is wiling to misuse the Bible. The question is, do the arguments the CC uses hold water when judged by scripture? Let's just take one rather than generalizing: Name one verse (JUST ONE) where a godly person in the Bible prays to anyone else in the whole universe except for God. Just one verse please, either by exhortation or by the example of someone doing it. Further, by praying to Mary (as devout Catholics do), the understanding is that she can hear potentially millions of prayers at the same time, which would have to make her omniscient, an attribute unique to God. This is not a minor issue.
Please write back with a scripture to justify praying to Mary. Also, name the 50,000 (or 40,000) denominations since you came up with those numbers, not me.
talldollars,
All the doctrines can be justified by the bible, you might take issue with the scriptural verses but they can be justified. As for the THOUSANDS of protestant denominations - how many THOUSANDS of protestant denominations do you estimate there are?? I'd be happy to use your estimate. I guess 40,000 might be a more accurate estimate: http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/a120.htm
If you can find another estimate then please let me know. 40,000 vs. 1 as for now, unless you come up with a different total.
talldollars,
Well said!
Steiner " People like you that have nothing but contempt for Christianity, even while you live off the very culture that has made you free. And it is people like you that are undermining our democracies by stifling free speech, and accepting all other cultures as equals. "
people like me, hmmmmm, waht does that mean exactly. Anyway, the problem I have with christians is they believe their view is the correct one, everyone else is wrong, you say as much in your post. Its the christian community that discourages free expression by supporting laws that encroach on freedom of free expression. As an agnostic, I oppose censorship. The US would be a better place if religious folks keep their religion at home and in the church. As an agnostic, I respect other cultures and religions such as Islam, Buddhism and Hinduism. I respect other's religions, including Christians, as long as they dont impose their beliefs on me.
Pls reread my commnet again steiner; You missed it totally.
I did not say this: suppose you were hanging up there on the cross alongside the two thieves, and despite the fact that you did not believe in Jesus as Lord, you decided to make fun of the second thief who repented, by repeating exactly the same thing that the repentant thief said.
1. Tell the other thief to be quiet...
2. Tell Jesus that he is innocent...
3. Tell Jesus to remember him...
could the roman Catholic church declare you saved because of your works?
Would Jesus tell you: Assuredly, today you will be with me in paradise.?..
Or suppose that you were a mute thief, hanging on the cross...and without ability to show tears...but in your mind you recognized Jesus and in your head you called upon Jesus to save you....would this fellow be denied heaven because he did no works according to you?
I said:
He did do works. He rebuked the other theif. He declared he was a sinner and should die for his sins. He Confessed that Jesus was his Lord who was innocent.
One of the first works a person does is to confess the Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior before others. That is a testimony. one of the definition of testimony is supporting evidence: Proof. Proof: evidence that establishes the truth of validity of something. The theif understood his judgement that was given. He acknowledge it was just.
Truthandjustice1,
Your comment about the President of of ETS becoming Catholic simply highlights a consistent problem with Catholics: The authority and worldly stature of a person simply carries too much weight for you. Sadly, he (and I guess you too) will base your eternal destiny on fallible men, who in turn based their opinions on other fallible men (the church fathers) who (while they did much good) were obviously mistaken on certain doctrines. I prefer to believe the Bible which thoroughly repudiates prayers to Mary or any other departed saint, purgatory, the Catholic priesthood, the Mass and the papacy. If you simply believed the Bible, you would not be led to accept any of these doctrines.
I will not respond to your absurd statement that there are "50,000" Protestant denominations, but I will wait for you to list them for me in your next email post before admitting that you are right.
Irenaeus,
I think you missed my point on the church fathers. I simply stated that some of the church fathers quoted by Catholic apologists lived in the middle ages, I am aware that some lived earlier than that. More importantly, as I said, the New Testament era (ca. 30 - 95 AD) preceded ALL of the people that you would call church fathers. My point is that the Bible (NT) goes back farther than what you are calling the "early church". The writings of Ireneaus (your namesake!), Polycarp, etc. are valuable, but they must ultimately be judged in light of scripture, something Catholics refuse to do. So you can stick to the words of men, which you consider to be the "early church", who are fallible, I'll stick to the Word of God, which abides forever, and is earlier. As a side note, the "church fathers" did not agree on all doctrines, which leads to the practice of quoting them only when they support the view one is trying to promote.
Irenaeus,
The passages in my last post (which you did not address) along with the following passages give evidence that the “universal bishop” simply does not exist.
Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven – Matthew 18:18
This passage was addressed to all the disciples; not just to Peter.
And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; - Ephesians 2:20.
This passage says that Jesus is the CHIEF corner stone and that the apostles (plural)along with the prophets is what the church is built upon.
For I suppose I was not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles – 2Corinthians 11:5.
Paul says he was not behind the chiefest apostles; how strange, perhaps he did not know that Peter had primacy over him. It is also strange that both epistles that Peter writes say nothing of this “office.” Again, the silence from New Testament of such an “office” is absolutely deafening.
Most strongly religious folks I know believe that their views and interpretations are the correct ones, others are flawed and deemed incorrect. Christians cant among themselves agree about the "correct" interpretations of the Bible, I suppose thats why there are hundreds if not thousands of christian denominations. Thus, the reason to keep religion out of goverment, courts and the public schools. As an agnostic, I find it very interesting to watch the debates among christians as to what the "correct" views are.
Dear agnostic,
Western Christian culture by its very nature encourages discussion. It is directly responsible for the success of the West over any other culture in regards to Law, Science, Mathematics...
If you wish to preside or simply join with those that do not discuss...please feel free to move to Saudi Arabia, and practice there.
It is people like you that place western culture in danger of being undermined by ideologies like Stalins, or Maos, or Pol Pot, or Hitlers..or Islam...
People like you that have nothing but contempt for Christianity, even while you live off the very culture that has made you free. And it is people like you that are undermining our democracies by stifling free speech, and accepting all other cultures as equals.
Irenaus you said:
Yes, but “… who WILL RENDER TO EACH PERSON ACCORDING TO HIS DEEDS: to those who by perseverance in doing (working) good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life; but to those who are selfishly ambitious and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, wrath and indignation.” Rom 2:6-8
“… for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified.” Rom 2:13
So apparently, we need to understand from what perspective Paul is speaking of works with regard to salvation.
Irenaus, you are changing the subject from salvation, which requires repentance and faith in Jesus, to Gods judgement which has to be based on the works of men. As I said, those who are saved will be moved to do good works…Those good works are not done in order to repair for our sin, they are done because of our new nature in Christ; As we feed on His Word, we are sanctified, we grow spiritually and do works that reflect that nature.
We have been born again…hence initially we are children/babies in the faith…if we sin, because we are in Christ, we are dead to the law, and hence don’t have to do works to make reparation, since Christ has done that for us , but is allowing us to grow as we feed on these spiritually.
As we grow, we continue to grow our new nature in Christ and by our very nature we avoid sinning. But how can we lose our salvation? How can we stop growing, or how can we starve ourselves to death? By not feeding on His Word and His Spirit…By accepting other gods, and other gospels in place of Christ…
You and the RCC completely misunderstand this point…As you keep on mixing up works with salvation. What you are doing is rejecting that in fact we are new creatures in Christ, and therefore are not bound to the law anymore to do works of reparation for our sins (if we sin) since as new creatures we are dead to the law. Yet, if we sin, we look to Christ as our sacrifice, and continue to grow in His Word, through His Spirit…being perfected daily.
O4H,
The quotes I provided don't seem to imply that he accepted is office as "first among equals." He clearly states that Peter was the CHIEF apostle, and to him was the CARE and PRIMACY of the WHOLE CHURCH is committed.
The second quote I provided indicates that he was quite humble regarding the office he held, which would be in line with the scripture verses you cited.
Irenaeus,
As I mentioned earlier, it is evident that he considered himself as one of many equals within the church; nothing like what the papacy now claims. He says, “For my honour is the honour of the universal “CHURCH”: my honour is the solid vigour of my brethren. Then am I truly honoured when the honour due to ALL and EACH is not denied THEM. For if your Holiness calls me Universal Pope, you deny that YOU are YOURSELF what you call me universally....”
Using the language as he did here indicates that he was speaking about the claim of “universal bishop” not just addressing John of Constantinople. He says, “ANYONE” who accepted it was a precursor to “antichrist.” ANYONE really means ANYONE. Care to address these passages?
Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven – Matthew 18:4.
But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them.
But it shall NOT be so AMOUNG YOU: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant:
Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many – Matthew 20:26-28.
And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors.
But YE shall NOT be SO: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve – Luke 22:25, 26.
Surely, these passages give a glimpse of what Jesus’ thoughts were concerning any idea of “lordship” or “dominion” over one another. Perhaps, that is why Peter speaks of a priesthood of believers –
Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ – 1Perter 2:5.
But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light; - 1Peter 2:9.
O4H,
Sure it makes sense once you understand that what you mean by 'universal bishop' and what John the Faster meant by the term is not the same thing. And if Pope Gregory did not understand his office as one of primacy, then how do you explain his statements below?
"It is clear to every one who knows the Gospel that the CARE of the WHOLE CHURCH has been committed to the blessed PETER, CHIEF of the Apostles. For him it is said: [quotes from John 21:15-17; Luke 22:31-32; and Matt 16:18-19]. Behold, he receives the keys of the kingdom of heaven; to him is given the power of binding and loosing; to him the CARE and PRIMACY of the WHOLE CHURCH is committed; and yet he is never called the Universal Apostle. But that most holy man, my fellow-bishop John, wishes to be called the Universal Bishop. I am compelled to exclaim, O tempora! O mores!" (Pope Gregory - Letter to Emperor Maurice)
"Your most sweet holiness, [Bishop Eulogius of Alexandria], has spoken much in your letter to me about the chair of Saint Peter, prince of the apostles, saying that he himself now sits on it in the persons of his successors. And indeed I acknowledge myself to be unworthy . . . I gladly accepted all that has been said, in that he has spoken to me about Peter’s chair, who occupies Peter’s chair. And, though special honor to myself in no wise delights me . . . who can be ignorant that holy Church has been made firm in the solidity of the prince of the apostles, who derived his name from the firmness of his mind, so as to be called Peter from petra. And to him it is said by the voice of the Truth, ‘To you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven’ [Matt. 16:19]. And again it is said to him, ‘And when you are converted, strengthen your brethren’ [Luke 22:32]. And once more, ‘Simon, son of John, do you love me? Feed my sheep’ [John 21:17]" (Pope Gregroy - Letters 40 [A.D. 597]).
Talk about a strong Protest(ant) viewpoint and interpretation. Since there is not enough room to properly debate this issue, try reading Peter Kreft, or even Saint John Crystosom (John the Golden Mouth) and then consider with an open mind what you have learned. Then you will see the fullness of truth and what it really means to believe in the holy Apostolic and Catholic Church.
"What Divides Catholics and Protestants?"
Most strongly religious folks I know believe that their views and interpretations are the correct ones, others are flawed and deemed incorrect. Christians cant among themselves agree about the "correct" interpretations of the Bible, I suppose thats why there are hundreds if not thousands of christian denominations. Thus, the reason to keep religion out of goverment, courts and the public schools. As an agnostic, I find it very interesting to watch the debates among christians as to what the "correct" views are.
Faith is not a fashion.
Enjoy the popularity contest for Christ, I hope you all win.
And I never said Protestents didnt have some issues of their own, and I'll admit, the current pope seems to be a good guy so far, but i refuse to say he's a better human being than anyone else.
Catholicism
http://polemos.net/Catholicism.html
I posted this:
The ten commandments are our guidelines toward salvation. I would like to point out that the first three of the ten commandments (nine if you are protestant :D) Are about your relationship with God. The last seven are about how you act. So seventy percent of what you do for salvation is about what you DO! Just throwing that out there.
TAJ-
Nice point about the protties distancing themselves from the church at and before the crusades. They are then distancing themselves from Jesus really... Oh yea... and there are two catholic churches... let's not forget our brothers of the East.
HA KOOL-AID! XD mmm this is pretty goo- urgh *ack* uuuhhhgghh *gack* XD
Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many – Matthew 20:26-28.
And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors.
But YE shall NOT be SO: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve – Luke 22:25, 26.
Surely, these passages give a glimpse of what Jesus’ thoughts were concerning any idea of “lordship” or “dominion” over one another. Perhaps, that is why Peter speaks of a priesthood of believers –
Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ – 1Perter 2:5.
But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light; - 1Peter 2:9.
“The Church did not orchestrate the forgeries.”
Sorry, I just don’t buy that. Nevertheless, the silence from New Testament of such an “office” is absolutely deafening.
Ireneaus,
“Gregory condemned John's definition of 'universal bishop,' but he did not condemn the idea of a chief bishop.”
That does not make any sense in light of the fact that he spoke of this title “universal bishop” as “blasphemy” and anyone who accepted it as a precursor to “antichrist.”
It is evident that he considered himself as one of many equals within the church; nothing like what the papacy now claims. He says, “For my honour is the honour of the universal “CHURCH”: my honour is the solid vigour of my brethren. Then am I truly honoured when the honour due to ALL and EACH is not denied THEM. For if your Holiness calls me Universal Pope, you deny that YOU are YOURSELF what you call me universally....”
“Also, some 150 years prior, Pope Leo stated, "Although bishops have a common dignity, they are not all of the same rank. Even among the most blessed apostles, though they were alike in honor, there was a certain distinction of power. All were equal in being chosen, but it was given to one to be preeminent over the others. . . . [So today through the bishops] the care of the universal Church would converge in the one See of Peter, and nothing should ever be at odds with this head."
Let us take a look at what Jesus said –
Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven – Matthew 18:4.
But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them.
But it shall NOT be so AMOUNG YOU: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant:
Who led the crusades? Who burned people at the steak? What church has a reputation for molesting Children? What church has a history of hateing the Jews?
Crusades - Protestant Reformation - 1517 - Well I guess you want to distant yourself from Christians prior to the reformation - like the apostles, early Christian Fathers, .... oh yeah they don't count because of ties to the Catholic Church.
As for molesting children - there were no other denominations that had people in positions of power who did that - how's the kool aid tasting? Hating the Jews?? When the Pope was in the US he was warmly welcomed at a prominent Jewish synagogue and if you ever go to Israel you will see the warm relationship between the Catholic Church and the Jewish people. Can you please name me 1 protestant faith that is well established in Israel???
Christians make up one-third of the world’s population, with Roman Catholics making up 17 percent, Protestants 5.8 percent. Catholics = 1, Protestants - 50,000 denominations.
and by the way, I forgive your church for their persecutions against the protestant reformers.
"and the gates of hell would not prevail against it?"
Who led the crusades? Who burned people at the steak? What church has a reputation for molesting Children? What church has a history of hateing the Jews?
steiner,
"Good works will not save, they are meaningless without Christ having saved us first."
That is not necessarily true. Cornelius offered prayers and alms PRIOR to him professing faith in Jesus, and it was these very works (through the grace of God of course) which God acknowledged as pleasing. Cornelius responded to God's grace and acted on the natural law written on his heart to love God and his neighbor. Sounds to me that these works were not meaningless.
steiner,
"If you read Ephesians 2, 8-9. You will see that we are saved by grace through faith alone...NOT of WORKS.
There is no work..."
Yes, but “… who WILL RENDER TO EACH PERSON ACCORDING TO HIS DEEDS: to those who by perseverance in doing (working) good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life; but to those who are selfishly ambitious and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, wrath and indignation.” Rom 2:6-8
“… for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified.” Rom 2:13
So apparently, we need to understand from what perspective Paul is speaking of works with regard to salvation.
bobbyfrankyTue
If you read Ephesians 2, 8-9. You will see that we are saved by grace through faith alone...NOT of WORKS.
There is no work...
The example of the thief on the cross clearly made obvious that the thief was saved by grace and repentance. not repentance and work. (REPENTANCE is not a work)
And spiritually we are very much like that thief on the cross. His hands outstretched and not able to do anything to save himself, but utter and call upon Christ to save us as we hear His Word...
Good works will not save, they are meaningless without Christ having saved us first...Yet, they are a sign, a symptom of the growth in our faith as we become more intimate with our saviour.
I guess we could say the major difference between Catholicism and Protestantism is that Catholics believe Scripture when Jesus said that He would found a Church (Mt. 16:18) with a single set of beliefs (Eph. 4:5) and that the gates of hell would never prevail against it.
The real question is "what would you do if you found out that what you are protesting against as a Protestant is the Church that Jesus founded?" Friend, there is a still, small voice that bids you "come home," and the voice is that of Jesus.
O4H,
"If Catholicism was the only true church as many claim, why did they deem it necessary to forge many false documents to prove their identity?"
The Catholic Church did not orchestrate the forgeries. Perhaps certain individuals did. But ss noted by the two quotes I just provided below, primacy of the bishop of Rome was taught and understood centuries before the alleged forgeries. And many more quotes (of which these are not forgeries) could be provided.
O4H,
"I understand that Gregory in his own words condemned the idea of a “universal bishop” which the Scriptures never mentioned; perhaps it is because the Christian Church recognized that Christ alone was the head of the Church and that the only person ever mentioned by name, that would represent him was the Holy Spirit."
Gregory condemned John's definition of 'universal bishop,' but he did not condemn the idea of a chief bishop. Again, we know this because Gergory himself appealed to this and exercised the primacy himself.
"Your most sweet holiness, [Bishop Eulogius of Alexandria], has spoken much in your letter to me about the chair of Saint Peter, prince of the apostles, saying that he himself now sits on it in the persons of his successors. And indeed I acknowledge myself to be unworthy . . . I gladly accepted all that has been said, in that he has spoken to me about Peter’s chair, who occupies Peter’s chair. And, though special honor to myself in no wise delights me . . . who can be ignorant that holy Church has been made firm in the solidity of the prince of the apostles, who derived his name from the firmness of his mind, so as to be called Peter from petra. And to him it is said by the voice of the Truth, ‘To you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven’ [Matt. 16:19]. And again it is said to him, ‘And when you are converted, strengthen your brethren’ [Luke 22:32]. And once more, ‘Simon, son of John, do you love me? Feed my sheep’ [John 21:17]" (Pope Gregroy - Letters 40 [A.D. 597]).
Also, some 150 years prior, Pope Leo stated, "Although bishops have a common dignity, they are not all of the same rank. Even among the most blessed apostles, though they were alike in honor, there was a certain distinction of power. All were equal in being chosen, but it was given to one to be preeminent over the others. . . . [So today through the bishops] the care of the universal Church would converge in the one See of Peter, and nothing should ever be at odds with this head."
argyle86,
"My main point is I think we need to focus more on the the teachings of Christ more rather than argue over traditions of men, and overall we need to teach true repentence, I myself fell victim to the idea that just because i trust in Jesus, and pray so often i am saved."
I don't think that it is an either/or proposition. My main point regarding baptism is how Christians cannot even agree on something this fundamental? Hebrews 6:1-2 states that this is elementary (along with repentance), so why the disparity in proper understanding and lack of agreement among Christians?
Not long after the Donation, there appeared in the late eighth or in the ninth century another forgery, or rather, collection of forgeries, which was widely accepted as genuine, and which also served to greatly strengthen the power and prestige of the papacy. The False Decretals were a collection of forged letters or 'decretals' purporting to have been written by earlier bishops of Rome. These decretals made vast and far-reaching claims of power and authority for the bishop of Rome that were made to appear as though they had long been established in antiquity.
Phillip Schaff writes of these Decretals,
Fictitious documents, canons, and decretals were nothing new; but the Pseudo-Isidorian collection is the most colossal and effective fraud known in the history of ecclesiastical literature.
History of the Christian Church, by Phillip Schaff, Volume IV, Chapter IV, § 60
Irenaeus,
I understand that Gregory in his own words condemned the idea of a “universal bishop” which the Scriptures never mentioned; perhaps it is because the Christian Church recognized that Christ alone was the head of the Church and that the only person ever mentioned by name, that would represent him was the Holy Spirit.
Again, Gregory says, “Away with words that inflate vanity and wound charity” & “And yet not one of them would ever use this title” – it is evident that such a title was not used. There were also bishops who represented Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople and Jerusalem. So, to claim a “universal bishop” which Scripture never speaks of, along with statements like Gregory’s would indicate that this was a self appointed title which gradually arose within the Church.
If Catholicism was the only true church as many claim, why did they deem it necessary to forge many false documents to prove their identity?
It was in the latter half of the eighth century that there appeared a document purported to be a legal title granted by the emperor Constantine, in the fourth century, to Sylvester bishop of Rome. It granted to the Roman bishop, among other things, "…supremacy... over the four chief seats Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople and Jerusalem, as also over all the churches of God in the whole world." Before this document the papacy could not effectively assert itself, because the Church had only the Scriptures and the documents of the various councils—none of which established or supported any such office as the papacy. But here emerged a forgery, that was received everywhere as genuine, that exalted the Roman See not only above the other four principal Sees, but over the entire Church.
The Donation of Constantine provided the bishop of Rome with what appeared to be a legal claim to everything he had sought, but to which he previously had no right. He was now 'rightfully' acknowledged to be the sole and supreme spiritual ruler over the entire Church, as well as the temporal ruler over a large swath of Italy that became known as the Papal States. The Donatio was proven to be a forgery by Lorenzo Valla in 1440 in his Declamatio. But, by that time the structure of the papacy was set in place, and its adherents were well under its control, and largely either unable or unwilling to forsake it.
Quecat,
"Is the RCC as unified as it claims?
http://www.sxws.com/charis/apol44.htm
"No doubt the same Roman Catholic apologists who so gleefully cite the erroneous 25,000-(Protestant) denominations figure, and who might with just as much glee cite the revised 8,196-denominations figure, would reel at the notion that there might actually be 223 distinct denominations within Roman Catholicism!
It would appear that "unity" is not all it is presented to be."
How was the 223 reckoned? Is this counting a diocese in the U.S. to be a separate church from a diocese in Canada? Also, is it counting rites separately?
I was told before by a Catholic that only a Catholic water baptizim was ok. So I accept my correction on that note.
My main point is I think we need to focus more on the the teachings of Christ more rather than argue over traditions of men, and overall we need to teach true repentence, I myself fell victim to the idea that just because i trust in Jesus, and pray so often i am saved.
I dont hate Catholics, one of my best friends and closest friends in Christ is a Roman Catholic, I just feel that many denominations are too focused on flesh and visible things rather than the personal spiritual relationships we are to have with our God, no one knows anything for sure, we are even taught not to swear by things. I was in a dark place and was blind to it, I didn't deserve grace where I was but itwas given to me, since then I do what I can to be as Christ like as possible, I personally find organized churches as a place to worship in unity with other people in a way that feels right to me, I don't belive in signing up for a particular set of rules that a person set up because they feel God said it was right and everyone else who says otherwise is a liar, I don't wish to worship in vain, as many Christians (including catholics) I have my own opinions on what Christ wanted that are different from the person in the next pew, only God knows for sure. I have reason to think that may people who claim to be saved are not, I place my old self there in that group, only God knows, but I do know that after I gave up many of the things i did in the past that my life has gotten better, I think all Christians are a work in progress, maybe I will be a Catholic some day, only God knows, maybe I'll quit this repenting quest ive been on tomarrow, I hope not, and doubt it. at every stumbling block I see how my life used to suck, and this hasn't been easy, I do miss the quick relief a ciggaret once gave me, I don't like the fact that almost every beautiful girl I meet in the future will have to be removed from my life should they try to tempt me with premarital sex, my friends don't like me as much now because I don't "party", I don't like the uncertainty of what might happen to me if i go through with a blind leap of faith into missionary work that ive been considering lately, but this life is ment for so much more, I love my God, he was responsible for all the existance I experience every day, every time I give in and let go of my own trust and knowlege, he shows me how real he is, He doesnt care about my past mistakes, when I am afraid He comforts me. If He wants me to be a Catholic some day, it will happen, as of right now, all i consider myself is a follower of Christ, a lost lamb that was found, and I only wish I was worth the love he gives me. I know my redeemer lives... regardless of what any organization tells me. Im tired of people casting stones at each other, Who has athorty to condemn? Only God.
JOHN 17:21 – "That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me."
The modern ecumenical movement has taken John 17:21 as one of its theme verses, claiming that the unity for which Christ prayed is an ecumenical unity of professing Christians which disregards biblical doctrine. The context of John 17 destroys this myth. In John 17 the Lord plainly emphasizes that the unity He desires is one based on salvation and Truth. It is not a unity of true Christians with the false. It is not a unity which ignores doctrinal differences for the sake of an enlarged fellowship. (1) The unity of John 17 is a God-created unity (John 17:11). There is nothing in Christ's prayer to indicate that man is to do anything whatsoever in an attempt to create the unity described herein. John 17 is a prayer addressed to God the Father, not to men. It is not something man needs to do; it is something God has already done. The prayer was answered almost 2,000 years ago. It is a spiritual reality which was created by God among genuine believers who are committed to the Scriptures, not a possibility which must be organized by man. (2) The unity of John 17 is a unity in truth (vv. 17,19,6,8,14). Christ repeatedly stated that He was praying for those who love and obey the Word of God. This is certainly not a prayer which contemplates the modern ecumenical crowd which downplays and ignores the Word of God for the sake of a broad, lowest-common-denominator unity.
http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/john17.htm
Is the RCC as unified as it claims?
http://www.sxws.com/charis/apol44.htm
"No doubt the same Roman Catholic apologists who so gleefully cite the erroneous 25,000-(Protestant) denominations figure, and who might with just as much glee cite the revised 8,196-denominations figure, would reel at the notion that there might actually be 223 distinct denominations within Roman Catholicism!
It would appear that "unity" is not all it is presented to be.
truthandjustice1,
"What divides the 1 Roman Catholic Church with 50,000+ Protestant denominations? A lot!!! The fact that the title is what divides Catholics and Protestants is funny. It's like asking what divides Tiger Woods from every other golfer in the world? it already lets people know who every golfer in the world is compared against."
Romans 12:3
For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith.
argyle86,
You do realize that the Catholic Church recognizes the baptisms of Protestant denominations as valid (provided that the baptism is performed using the Trinitarian formula), correct? Blessed water is not required.
double stated a typo in the last sentence in the first paragraph, my bad...
Im just curious what you think would happen in this situation?
Since the scarements are required and are only holy if they are from the catholic church provided by a person blessed by God what happens in this situation?
A person is ready and saved by grace in Jesus, now he has to take part in Genuine Catholic works, EX baptisim, now, ithe local bishop/preist a day before this event learns of a death in his family, he is distraut and decided that he no longer has faith in the Catholic church or God, but he still wants to keep his job till he can find a good time to resigne and relocate, being a non beliver he cares not to tell people or get a "real" bishop to take over for him. Its the day of the baptisim and the preist says to himself, screw the blessing ritual for the water, as the person is baptized they have no idea, this guy is just using unblessed tap water and is only reciting words with no faith behind them. The holy network of power from God-Preist-water/prayer-paitently waiting new convert is broken off, and this person only thinks they we sacredly baptized. this person grows old, does good things prays and eventually dies, BUT he was never ACTUALLY given a HOLY CATHOLIC WATER baptizim, because God was not behind the preist who preformed this, Does this poor soul go to hell because he wasnt really baptized. Does he go through purgetory innocently for something he thought he did right. Hehad faith, but not all the required works. Its not probable but possible for this to happen. You can't say that his faith in his own baptizm makes it real, otherwise anyone could make their own baptizm without the use of a church, or preist. What is it that makes a catholic church baptizim more Holy than another church. What makes your traditions, and your flesh-world traditions more spiritual than that of the protestants.
I do agree alot of protestants use grace as an excuse for salvation without works, but who decides that one thing is more holy than another, Is it really for any Human to decide whats best for God. The problem protestants have with catholics is it appears that specific works are mor important than faith all together, without faith, what is Salvation? Is a human tradition more important then faith led by spirit?
May God have mercy on us all who put trust in Jesus Christ, who died innocently so by grace all who truely believe and repent are saved.
talldollars,
"The writing of the church fathers may be useful, but you're mistaken to believe that their views are necessarily representative of the early church. Many "church fathers" quoted by Catholic apologists lived in the middle ages."
Typically, Catholic apologist quote from the EARLY church fathers, which were prior to the start of the Middle Ages. And since they are EARLY church fathers, they provide for us information of the teaching and practice of the early church.
talldollars,
There was a person who was the leader of one of the most prominent evangelical associations in the world - the Evangelical Theological Society. As it states on its website: "The ETS is devoted to the inerrancy and inspiration of the Scriptures and the gospel of Jesus Christ". Last year the PRESIDENT of the society after years of comparing scripture to the early Christian Fathers did something remarkable - he converted to CATHOLICISM. If it was good enough for the early apostles and the early Christian Fathers, it is good enough for me.
What divides the 1 Roman Catholic Church with 50,000+ Protestant denominations? A lot!!! The fact that the title is what divides Catholics and Protestants is funny. It's like asking what divides Tiger Woods from every other golfer in the world? it already lets people know who every golfer in the world is compared against.
Bobbyfranky,
The writing of the church fathers may be useful, but you're mistaken to believe that their views are necessarily representative of the early church. Many "church fathers" quoted by Catholic apologists lived in the middle ages. That some have (unfortunately) become Catholics by reading their writings says nothing of the validity of those writings. Many have become Mormons through reading the book of Mormon (which claims to be from God), but everything must be checked against the scriptures. More importantly, many rejected the Catholic Church by reading the Bible at the time of the Protestant Reformation. Many of these people were reading the Bible for the first time since Catholic church greatly suppressed Bible reading in the Middle Ages. The early church is depicted in the Bible and PRECEDES any church father you can quote. IF ANYONE WANTS TO UNDERSTAND THE EARLY CHURCH HE SHOULD READ THE BIBLE. Anyone who does that with a pure heart will be lead to reject prayers to Mary and other departed "saints", purgatory, the Mass, the Catholic priesthood and the papacy.
“Look at the Star . . Call on Mary.” St. Bernard. (The Apparitions and Shrines of Heaven’s Bright Queen Volume 4... by William J. Walsh)
After hearing Bernard’s advice, we must ask ourselves, “What saith the scriptures?” In doing so, we will find that we should call on the Lord and look to Him, not biblical Mary or any other Mary.
Rev 22:16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.
2Sa 22:4 I will call on the LORD, who is worthy to be praised: so shall I be saved from mine enemies.
For example, all this unlearned talk of works vis-a-vis Catholics on this board.
The Truth: The Catholic Church teaches and HAS ALWAYS taught that we are saved by His GRACE alone through faith and works done in charity inspired by the Holy Spirit.
We refer to Ephesians 2:8,9 "For by grace you have been saved through faith..."
It is a misunderstanding to say we believe we are saved from works. Protestants cannot find in the Catholic catechism or official Catholic papers anything that says we are saved by works. It is simply not true that we believe this. At the Council of Trent this belief was actually condemned, not embraced, as many Protestants for some reason believe.
The problem is that so many Protestants know nothing of true Catholic beliefs. They attack a straw man. On Protestant minister told a member of his ministry NOT to study the early Church fathers, and when asked wh, answered that 'you will become Catholic." Fact is, Luther and his contemporaries had a dispute with the (Catholic) Church and on their won authority changed doctrine, threw out books from the Bible, etc. The Catholic Church of today is the same as that of the early Church fathers, and knowledgeable Protestants know this and hide it from their flock (at great sin to themselves to which they will be held account for knowingly teaching error - but that is another matter.)
Many leading Protestants, once they study the early fathers of the Church, become Catholic. This is the fact. To deny the early Church was Catholic is to deny Truth itself.
Certainly, those that are faithful are moved by His Spirit and Word to do good works as a natural consequence of the New Life that one lives in Christ in His Word and Spirit.
steiner,
“As I read your posts I see that although we are discussing salvation...you have changed the subject.”
I have changed the subject?… I have merely been answering your questions. If I have changed the subject, it is only as a result of me following the subject change of all your questions.
“The thief was not saved by his work. You must agree to this first before we continue with our conversation. Do you agree that no work was done? the thief simply had to repent, and have faith in Christs Word. Do you agree? yes or no...”
It’s not simply a yes/no question unless we first define our terms. The thief was not saved by any works IF you mean that the repentant thief did not earn his salvation by something that he did; i.e., God was not indebted to the thief to save him as a result of some work. Agreed. The thief was indeed saved by grace through faith. BTW, many non-Catholics here would say that repentance is a work and is not necessary for salvation.
You still have not answered - Had the thief been saved from physical death and gone on to live, would he have had to live a life of obedience to the Lordship of Christ, or could he have returned to his previous life of unrepentant sin?
Irenaus,
Certainly one is liable to lose their salvation because of their slide in unfaithfulness, or unbelief...because of sin. Which works cannot remove, but only true repentance can.
Irenaeus,
As I read your posts I see that although we are tdiscussing salvation...you have changed the subject. The thief was not saved by his work. You must agree to this first before we continue with our conversation. Do you agree that no work was done? the thief simply had to repent, and have faith in Christs Word. Do you agree? yes or no...
steiner,
I have already answered a number of your questions. Please return the favor.
If a person came up to you and said that they believe in one God who is almighty, omniscient, omnipresent, creator of heaven and earth, merciful, gracious, and just, and will render judgment upon all men on that Day, what God do you believe this to be?
Irenaus, you said:
If a person came up to you and said that they believe in one God who is almighty, omniscient, omnipresent, creator of heaven and earth, merciful, gracious, and just, and will render judgment upon all men on that Day, what God do you believe this to be?
My question was specific: Do you believe to be praying to the same spirit as that of Islam But having a different name in the RCC. Please supply an answer…
steiner,
I think you misunderstand what the Catholic Church means when we speak of works in the context of salvation. FIrst, Catholics agree with Paul that man is justified by faith APART FROM THE WORKS OF THE LAW. But the phrase ‘justified by faith APART FROM THE WORKS OF THE LAW’ does NOT mean ‘justified by faith apart from ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING.’ It only means that we are justified by faith apart from WORKS OF THE LAW, whatever ‘works of the law’ are. So what are these works of law that they must not be added to faith? Paul explains in what context he is addressing the issue of works. What Paul means by ‘works of the law’ are works that are performed with a view toward OBLIGATING God to reward us for them, as if God owes us recompense, as if God is indebted to us under a contractual obligation. We know that this is what Paul meant because he introduces this concept of obligation in Rom 4:4 when he uses the example of an employer being OBLIGATED/INDEBTED (the Greek work is a form of the word ofeilhma) to his employee to pay for work done. The employer is not gratuitous by paying the employee for the work the employee has done; he is obligated to do so. Paul is stating that if we attempt to obligate God to reward us for our good works, then we place ourselves under the system of law. And under the system of law, God will hold us against the strict edicts of the law, which will show us how distant we are from the perfection that the law demands. However, by faith we are placed under the system of grace by which we can please God our Father as his adopted children. Under the advocacy of God’s grace, our works are viewed as acceptable to God because they perfect, or complete, our faith. This being so, God ‘declares’ that we are just, but He makes this declaration because he has MADE us just; God does not merely call (declare) us as just if we are not intrinsically just. We are a new creation in Christ; God does not just pretend that we are a new creation.
Recall that the same person who stated that we are justified by faith apart from works of the law also stated that God will render to every man according to his deeds: he will give eternal life to them who by persistence in doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality.
steiner,
You still have not answered - Had the thief been saved from physical death and gone on to live, would he have had to live a life of obedience to the Lordship of Christ, or could he have returned to his previous life of unrepentant sin?
Holito8,
You said:
He did do works. He rebuked the other theif. He declared he was a sinner and should die for his sins. He confesed that Jesus was his Lord who was innocent.
Now tell me this Hoito8...
suppose you were hanging up there on the cross alongside the two thieves, and despite the fact that you did not believe in Jesus as Lord, you decided to make fun of the second thief who repented, by repeating exactly the same thing that the repentant thief said.
1. Tell the other thief to be quiet...
2. Tell Jesus that he is innocent...
3. Tell Jesus to remember him...
could the roman Catholic church declare you saved because of your works?
Would Jesus tell you: Assuredly, today you will be with me in paradise.?..
Or suppose that you were a mute thief, hanging on the cross...and without ability to show tears...but in your mind you recognized Jesus and in your head you called upon Jesus to save you....would this fellow be denied heaven because he did no works according to you?
Hence my questions to Irenaeus...please explain
1. Irenaeus, is it then true that catholics and muslims worship the same god, except islam does not have the same understanding of god and the same worship as the RCC…but the spirit whom they both worship is the same? …
2. If the repentant thief did not do any works to be saved, why do you believe that to be saved one must do works? And what exactly does it mean to believe in Jesus…?
3. Irenaeus, do you still believe in purgatory?
4. If the pope, the head of the Roman Catholic church can go to hell, what happens to the church that follows his teachings and examples?
steiner,
“Irenaeus, is it then true that catholics and muslims worship the same god, except islam does not have the same understanding of god and the same worship as the RCC…but the spirit whom they both worship is the same? …”
If a person came up to you and said that they believe in one God who is almighty, omniscient, omnipresent, creator of heaven and earth, merciful, gracious, and just, and will render judgment upon all men on that Day, what God do you believe this to be?
“If the repentant thief did not do any works to be saved, why do you believe that to be saved one must do works? And what exactly does it mean to believe in Jesus…?”
The repentant thief did do works, not to earn his salvation, but he submitted in obedience, as much as he was able since he was affixed to a cross to die. He repented of his sins, confessed his guilt and acknowledged that he was suffering the just punishments for his crimes, admonished the unrepentant thief, turned to Jesus in trust, etc. Just for clarification, works are necessary for salvation, but they do not earn salvation.
“Irenaeus, do you still believe in purgatory?”
Yes.
“If the pope, the head of the Roman Catholic church can go to hell, what happens to the church that follows his teachings and examples?”
A pope can go to hell for being unrepentant for his sins (just like anybody else); however, the pope would be preserved from teaching error in his capacity as chief pastor.
O4H,
With regard to II Timothy 3:16, 17, you stated, "I disagree, but you are right in the sense that this passage does prove too much."
Not sure what you mean by this. What I meant was that if you want to appeal to this verse in support of sola scriptura, then this would demonstrate that you do not need the NT since this passage in its immediate context refers to the OT.
O4H,
You have to understand the sense in which Pope Gregory condemned the expression "universal Bishop" – i.e., you must understand the sense in which John the Faster intended it. John meant that he should be declared ‘sole’ bishop, with all the other bishops simply being his agents, if you will. In other words, the other bishops would not have any authority over their local churches (dioceses) but would be considered bishops in name only. It is this understanding of ‘universal bishop’ that Pope Gregory is condemning for any bishop to assume, including himself. Now, we certainly know that this doesn’t mean the Pope Gregory understood his role as chief bishop, for he appealed to this often in his own writings. So the question is how can Pope Gregory reject the term or title of ‘universal bishop’ as you supposedly define it if in fact Pope Gregory not only appealed to it, but actually exercised it.
There are numerous statements that Gregory made that should prove this to you, but only one should suffice. Pope Gregory’s letter to Emperor Maurice:
"It is clear to every one who knows the Gospel that the CARE of the WHOLE CHURCH has been committed to the blessed PETER, CHIEF of the Apostles. For him it is said: [quotes from John 21:15-17; Luke 22:31-32; and Matt 16:18-19]. Behold, he receives the keys of the kingdom of heaven; to him is given the power of binding and loosing; to him the CARE and PRIMACY of the WHOLE CHURCH is committed; and yet he is never called the Universal Apostle. But that most holy man, my fellow-bishop John, wishes to be called the Universal Bishop. I am compelled to exclaim, O tempora! O mores!"
This should demonstrate that what you imply by the title ‘universal bishop’ is not what Pope Gregory is rejecting. Gregory is rejecting John’s definition and implication of the title.
Whoever is in the night of sin, let him cast his eyes on the moon; let him implore Mary. Pope Innocent III. (The Apparitions and Shrines of Heaven’s Bright Queen…Volume 4...By William J. Walsh). Concerning pope Innocent’s advice, let us reason out of the scriptures, even as it was Paul’s manner (Acts 17:2). In doing so, we shall find that we SHOULD NOT follow the advice of pope Innocent III.
Ac 2:21 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.
Luke 13:3 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.
Heb 7:25 Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.
sorry for the typo (because) in the last comment
Irenaeus,
You are doing some great outreach work with the protestants here. Please continue because to answer their questions. What divides the 1 Roman Catholic Church with 50,000+ Protestant denominations? A lot!!! The fact that the title is what divides Catholics and Protestants is funny. It's like asking what divides Tiger Woods from every other golfer in the world? it already lets people know who every golfer in the world is compared against.
2. If the repentant thief did not do any works to be saved, why do you believe that to be saved one must do works? And what exactly does it mean to believe in Jesus…?
He did do works. He rebuked the other theif. He declared he was a sinner and should die for his sins. He confesed that Jesus was his Lord who was innocent.
One of the first works a person does is to confess the Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior before others. That is a testimony. one of the definition of testimony is supporting evidence: Proof. Proof: evidence that establishes the truth of validity of something. The theif understood his judgement that was given. He acknowledge it was just.
1. Irenaeus, is it then true that catholics and muslims worship the same god, except islam does not have the same understanding of god and the same worship as the RCC…but the spirit whom they both worship is the same? …
2. If the repentant thief did not do any works to be saved, why do you believe that to be saved one must do works? And what exactly does it mean to believe in Jesus…?
3. Irenaeus, do you still believe in purgatory?
4. If the pope, the head of the Roman Catholic church can go to hell, what happens to the church that follows his teachings and examples?
"Also, in the immediate context, II Timothy 3:16, 17 is referring to the OT, so this passage proves too much;"
I disagree, but you are right in the sense that this passage does prove too much.
…though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority, which in three places is the See of one. For he himself exalted the See [Rome] in which he deigned even to rest and end the present life. He himself adorned the See [Alexandria] to which he sent his disciple as evangelist.
He himself stablished the See [Antioch] in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for seven years. Since then it is the See of one, and one See, over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside ... .Epistles of Saint Gregory the Great, Book VII, Epistle XL. To Eulogius, Bishop.
So, alignment with Scriptural teaching, not apostolic succession, is the determining factor of the trueness of a church. What is mentioned in Scripture is the idea that the Word of God was to be the guide that the church was to follow (Acts 20:32). It is Scripture that was to be the infallible measuring stick for teaching and practice (2 Timothy 3:16-17). It is the Scriptures that teachings are to be compared with (Acts 17:10-12). Apostolic authority was passed on through the writings of the apostles, not through apostolic succession.
Irenaeus,
I know full well what it means; it (the New Testament Church) is not something that should be overlooked, the scriptures clearly defines the early church and what it believed. The Christian church once again did NOT teach apostolic succession or transubstantiation; these dogmas which Catholicism proclaims cannot be supported by the Scriptures. Transubstantiation was officially proclaimed in 1215 by Pope Innocent III, so to say that the first Christians taught this is a fallacy. Apostolic succession has not and cannot be proven based upon God’s Word; it is completely absent from its pages. Since you are not convinced by what scripture says, perhaps you will consider what an earlier pope once declared -
Gregory I (the Great), bishop of Rome 590 - 604, offers us clear proof that there was nothing like a papacy in or previous to his day. When John bishop of Constantinople attempted to assert for himself the title of "universal bishop", Gregory, in several letters to John as well as to others, pleads against the arrogance. He claims that such a title had been offered to the bishop of Rome by the Council of Chalcedon, and by others afterwards, but that none of his forebears had ever consented to so profane a title, even when offered it. And he refused to allow others to call him by such a title. He called such a title "blasphemy", and any who would accept it "the precursor of Antichrist".
For my honour is the honour of the universal Church: my honour is the solid vigour of my brethren. Then am I truly honoured when the honour due to all and each is not denied them. For if your Holiness calls me Universal Pope, you deny that you are yourself what you call me universally.... Away with words that inflate vanity and wound charity.
And, indeed, in the synod of Chalcedon and afterwards by subsequent Fathers, your Holiness knows that this was offered to my predecessors. And yet not one of them would ever use this title ... Epistles of Saint Gregory the Great, Book VIII, Epistle XXX. To Eulogius, Bishop of Alexandria.
Gregory argued that Christ alone is the Head of His Church, and that there is none besides—neither apostles nor any other.
big german,
"Its easy to see why the Catholic church wants people to believe their interpretation of scriptures."
Yes, the Catholic Church wants people to believe her interpretation of scriptures precisely because the Catholic Church believes that hers is the correct one. Sounds logical, doesn't it?
"If people read them for themselves they would see that everything that the Catholic Church says leads to salvation is counter to what the Lord Jesus says is what does lead there."
No, the Catholic Church recognizes that when left to private and individual interpretation, multitudes of erroneous ones arise. Again, without even considering the Catholic Church in the mix, non-Catholic Christian denominations and sects cannot even agree on such a fundamental teaching as baptism.
Its easy to see why the Catholic church wants people to believe their interpretation of scriptures.If people read them for themselves they would see that everything that the Catholic Church says leads to salvation is counter to what the Lord Jesus says is what does lead there.Many will call Lord,Lord and there will be false teachers,but salvation can be found in no other name than Jesus Christ.
O4H,
"It is a blessing to hear you declare this; so, that being true, why then do you continue to debate and defend all the extra biblical doctrines that Catholicism teaches?"
Because all doctrine is not explicitly contained in scripture. Of course, doctrine not explicitly revealed in scripture cannot be opposed to scripture. But then apostolic succession, if not explicit, is at least implicit in scripture... and it certainly is not contrary to scripture. Similarly for the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, baptismal regeneration, etc. which just so happens to be what the disciples of the apostles and those first successors were teaching in the early church.
O4H,
“Sorry, I cannot take the New Testament Church as described in Scripture and merely say, “but with that aside.” This is exactly my point, the first century church was not Catholic; they were merely Christians, period.”
Come on, you can dialogue better than that. You know good and well that when one states ‘with that aside,’ it means to momentarily remove that particular issue from the discussion in order to narrow down the topic of discussion. It does NOT mean that it is immaterial. And if the early church was only Christian, I accept that... this 'Christian' Church was teaching apostolic succession, the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, baptismal regeneration, etc. I recognize this church.
“I disagree, to say, “That the scriptures did not intend to” is to assume to know the mind of God himself.”
I disagree, to say, “That the scriptures did intend to” is to assume to know the mind of God himself. Also, in the immediate context, II Timothy 3:16, 17 is referring to the OT, so this passage proves too much; i.e., if it means what you want it to mean, then we do not need the NT.
“Anyone who has done any research on ecclesiology can easily see that many doctrines that are existent today cannot be found in Scripture. So, knowing that God’s Word is inspired, why should I accept doctrines that developed much later and place them on equal par with it?”
Because scripture is not exhaustive with regard to every doctrine. Please show me where in scripture that it states that every teaching on faith and morals must be explicitly found within the pages of scripture. Please cite chapter and verse. By the way, for the sake of brevity, let’s only focus on the first 250-300 years of the church (pre-Constantine). This church, as I stated prior, was already teaching apostolic succession, the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, baptismal regeneration, etc. This is historically verifiable.
Ephesians 2:8-9: For by grace ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.
continued:
“I do support the material sufficiency of the scriptures; that is, that they contain all the truth necessary for salvation.”
It is a blessing to hear you declare this; so, that being true, why then do you continue to debate and defend all the extra biblical doctrines that Catholicism teaches? This same question can also be asked of all Protestants as well.
Irenaeus,
“Of course, we would disagree with each other regarding the NT church, but with that aside. . . “
Sorry, I cannot take the New Testament Church as described in Scripture and merely say, “but with that aside.” This is exactly my point, the first century church was not Catholic; they were merely Christians, period.
“The problem with relying only upon the scriptures for acclesiology is that the scriptures did not intend to leave a detailed analytical account of church structure and governance.”
I disagree, to say, “That the scriptures did not intend to” is to assume to know the mind of God himself; let us allow the scriptures to give us some insight here –
“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 perfect, THOROGHLY FUNISHED unto all good works – 2Timothy 3:16, 17.
It was God himself that gave us the “inspired – God breathed” Word. We need to place God’s Word where it belongs, at the top; that is above every other statement.
Anyone who has done any research on ecclesiology can easily see that many doctrines that are existent today cannot be found in Scripture. So, knowing that God’s Word is inspired, why should I accept doctrines that developed much later and place them on equal par with it? We have been plainly told by the Lord himself that we should never “add” or “take away” from that which is written – see, Proverbs 30:6, Deuteronomy 4:2, Revelation 22: 18, 19.
Taj,
It would be beneficial for everyone here if we continue to demonstrate our beliefs from Scripture instead of, as someone else has said, “slamming the statistics.” As I mentioned earlier, TRUTH has and never will be determined by the “number” of adherents that a group has. All “claims” and “doctrines” must be compared to and supported by Scripture. Why, because Jesus himself left us an example to follow by utilizing this saying, “It is written”, he never once said, “As tradition holds.”
Enough, with the up and down thumbs comments; I only own one computer, so if you have a problem with others giving me or anyone else kudos, you should be addressing them instead of me.
Promises of Our Lady to those who devoutly recite the Rosary: He who calls on me through the Rosary shall not perish. E. DE M. (The Apparitions and Shrines of Heaven’s Bright Queen…Volume 1... by William J. Walsh)
Will calling upon Mary through the rosary keep one from perishing? We must ask ourselves, “What saith the scriptures?”
“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life” (John 3:16).
“For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved” (Ro 10:13).
With just a little reasoning from a few scriptures, all should be in agreement that such a promise from “Our Lady” is in violation of truth.
Steiner,
“As a Roman Catholic do you believe in the statement above, that islam holds the faith of Abraham?”
I believe that Islam CLAIMS to hold the faith of Abraham.
“and do Catholics adore the same god that muslims do?”
This is a matter of theological perspective. In one sense, it could be said that we worship the same God in regards to monotheism; i.e., they claim the one and only God who is the creator of the universe, and is infinite, majestic, almighty and transcendent. This seems to be the context of Lumen Gentium from which that quote is taken. But the caveat would be that Muslims misunderstand whom they worship since they do not recognize the Fatherhood of God nor the triune nature of the Godhead. Since some of these people could be descendents of Ishmael, then this would also be reflective of their heritage with the same God, although their religion obviously mischaracterizes God and they do not worship Him the way He desires to be worshipped.
“When the repentant thief on the cross believed in Jesus, what work did he do to be accepted into heaven, since Jesus said, verily I say unto thee, today shalt thou be with me in paradise...Luke 23.39. ?”
None. But had the thief been saved from physical death and gone on to live, would he have had to live a life of obedience to the Lordship of Christ, or could he have returned to his previous life of unrepentant sin?
“Is it possible for a Pope to go to Hell (and to stay there)? This is a serious question with many implications...therefore please answer.”
First, if anybody goes to hell, they stay there – pope or not. Now, is it possible for a Pope to go to Hell? Yes, and if some of the notorious public sinners of history past did not sincerely repent, then it’s not merely a possibility, but they are there now.
Iranaeus , FullG T&J1 (check your maths...33% does not equal 17% +5.8%....is the other denomination Orthodox?)
Please answer my questions:
In one of the previous posts StreetReach wrote regarding islam and the RCC...
I, too, believe that Catholicism is a false religion and its adherents should seek repentance. One most notable point is paragraph 841 of the catholic catechism. Here is a direct quote and a source link...
The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."
http://www.carm.org/catholic/muslims.htm
The RCC claims to worship the same god as the muslims!
I don't know of any true Christians who would claim that.
If the RCC claims to worship the same god as the muslims...i am not surprised, since history shows that they have approached many things in the same way. The pope promised paradise to those who lead crusades against heretics...just as islams god promises the same to those that die fighting and killing for muhammed...
but my questions :
1 & 2. As a Roman Catholic do you believe in the statement above, that islam holds the faith of Abraham? and do Catholics adore the same god that muslims do?
3. When the repentant thief on the cross believed in Jesus, what work did he do to be accepted into heaven, since Jesus said, verily I say unto thee, today shalt thou be with me in paradise...Luke 23.39. ?
4. Is it possible for a Pope to go to Hell (and to stay there)? This is a serious question with many implications...therefore please answer
5. Jesus told the disciples that he would send the Holy Spirit...What is the responsibility of the Holy Spirit?
As a Reformed Minister I find a lot of these emails troubling and I find this article way off the mark. Many of Catholic docrines including Purgatory, praying to the Saints can be found in the bible, but many fundamentalists on this board simply cannot get beyond their bias to see it.
The more we talk to the Catholics the more we come to understand that we have way more in common than we thought and that although we are both Christians, we speak a different Christian language. The more I study Catholicism the more I see their doctrines as being reasonable. I am not saying that I would be open to them, but I can honestly say that nothing that I can see in their doctrines takes away from Christ and ALL of their doctrines I can find both explicitly and implicitly, much like what TAJ has said and MSN.
Let us all pray for understanding of one another and may only the Truth lead us to Unity and not overlook our differerences for the sake of unity either. As the Catholics know that the Jews are our elder brothers in God of Abraham, so are the Catholics and Orthodox our elder brothers in Christ. This is just a fact!
Iranaeus , FullG T&J1 (check your maths...33% does not equal 17% +5.8%....is the other denomination Orthodox?)
Please answer my questions:
In one of the previous posts StreetReach wrote regarding islam and the RCC...
I, too, believe that Catholicism is a false religion and its adherents should seek repentance. One most notable point is paragraph 841 of the catholic catechism. Here is a direct quote and a source link...
The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."
http://www.carm.org/catholic/muslims.htm
The RCC claims to worship the same god as the muslims!
I don't know of any true Christians who would claim that.
If the RCC claims to worship the same god as the muslims...i am not surprised, since history shows that they have approached many things in the same way. The pope promised paradise to those who lead crusades against heretics...just as islams god promises the same to those that die fighting and killing for muhammed...
but my question :
As a Roman Catholic do you believe in the statement above, that islam holds the faith of Abraham? and do Catholics adore the same god that muslims do?
When the repentant thief on the cross believed in Jesus, what work did he do to be accepted into heaven, since Jesus said, verily I say unto thee, today shalt thou be with me in paradise...Luke 23.39. ?
Is it possible for a Pope to go to Hell (and to stay there)? This is a serious question with many implications...therefore please answer.
leapfrog,
Immediately from the start, the early church faced many heresies, most of which used the NT scriptures to support their positions. It was the church (through the bishops (overseers) and councils) who had to appeal to apostolic tradition (which included both oral teaching and the scriptures) to present the orthodox position over and above the heterodox positions being proposed by heretical sects. I discovered that sola scriptura was never promulgated because it was never held by the early church. Besides, it would not have done any good because, like I said, heretical groups also used the scriptures to support their claims, too. So, if I was a Christian in the late first century (say, about A.D. 100), and I lived in the vicinity of Antioch for example, I would have been bombarded with several different heresies, but of course, I would not necessarily know which view was heretical. All the sects were using the scriptures to support their views. How would you know who was correct. The only way I could know that I had not been deceived into following a false teaching was to ensure that I knew what the bishop (overseer) was teaching (in this case, the Bishop of Antioch was Ignatius). By holding fast to the teachings that were promulgated by the bishop and knowing that he was not self-appointed, but had been placed there by someone who had apostolic authority, I could be more assured that I was submitting myself to the authentic apostolic faith.
This is just ONE of the main issues, and of course, it is rather abbreviated here as this is not the place for long stories (and I'm limited on number of characters).
leapfrog,
I don’t know where to begin regarding my ‘conversion’ to Catholicism. I had already whole-heartedly believed that Jesus is my Lord and Savior and that he died for my sins. I was heavily involved in Campus Crusade for Christ and many other Christian ministries. I’m not real fond of the term ‘conversion’ as I believe that I was a Christian prior to entering the Catholic Church. I prefer to think of it as reconciling and coming into full communion with the Catholic Church. One of the main areas for me was the issue of authority. It’s easy for someone to state that the Bible is my authority, but that does not solve the problem when more than one person of faith and goodwill oppose each other in regards to some teaching while both appealing to the scriptures. So this got me to thinking. What if I were a new Christian who had been persuaded by some itinerant preacher that Jesus was the Christ, the Savior of the world, and I placed my faith in Him. And what if I was taught that He established a church. My next move would be to find out where this assembly met. Today, if I open the Yellow Pages looking for the Christian Church, I would be in a world of trouble and confusion. What would I have done in the first century? So I began to study early church history to find out what the early disciples of the first apostles were actually teaching and practicing; i.e., how did they interpret and apply the scriptures? I figured they would have a more clear understanding than myself as I am far-removed from them geographically and culturally, and 2000 years removed from them in time. As one in the Baptist persuasion, I had trouble reconciling my Reformed theological position which accepted infant baptism. Of course, as a Baptist, this did not go over well, but one of these positions had to be wrong. How could Christians not have this basic, fundamental teaching clearly defined and understood?
Iranaeus,
"You are wrong. If I hadn't been persuaded of the biblical and historical basis of the Catholic position after some years of much prayer and study, I would still believe as a Baptist; actually, as a Baptist that very much leaned towards Reformed theological position on various issues."
Interesting, so you were once a Baptist and converted to Catholocism. What were the main issues or things that drove you to that? What were things that you studied? Books you read? I ask because I myself am highly curious.
"And I have not been slinging mud... not sure what you have been reading. I thought that I had been forthright and had not been derogatory."
I apologize I didn't mean you in particular. I just didn't want it to come to mud slinging. That happens to often in Christian forums and whatnot. You have been very forthright and dare I say passionate with your responses.
"Actually, leaving Catholicism out of the picture, this could also be said within Protestantism. In fact, with the exception of papal primacy, almost every other teaching that is distinctive to the Catholic Church can be found somewhere in at least one other non-Catholic Christian denomination or sect."
I actually agree with this. After the "schism" from the Catholic church a lot of it's traditions were kept. I still see some of it myself. Granted, I don't know everything that there is to know about Catholocism. I don't agree with some teachings though. I'll leave that for another comment.
leapfrog,
"Irenaeus, it seems that you definately have a catholic upbringing. I would like to see some of these claims of scripture backing catholic teaching. I think history proves otherwise. I'm not here to argue though. Your defense is adamant but I fear it's unfounded. This is just turning into a mud slinging contest anyways."
You are wrong. If I hadn't been persuaded of the biblical and historical basis of the Catholic position after some years of much prayer and study, I would still believe as a Baptist; actually, as a Baptist that very much leaned towards Reformed theological position on various issues.
And I have not been slinging mud... not sure what you have been reading. I thought that I had been forthright and had not been derogatory.
"Both Catholics and Protestants could site sources and use the same Bible verses to back their claims."
Actually, leaving Catholicism out of the picture, this could also be said within Protestantism. In fact, with the exception of papal primacy, almost every other teaching that is distinctive to the Catholic Church can be found somewhere in at least one other non-Catholic Christian denomination or sect.
Irenaeus, it seems that you definately have a catholic upbringing. I would like to see some of these claims of scripture backing catholic teaching. I think history proves otherwise. I'm not here to argue though. Your defense is adamant but I fear it's unfounded. This is just turning into a mud slinging contest anyways. Both Catholics and Protestants could site sources and use the same Bible verses to back their claims. I myself have been raised in a Protestant background and always found the teachings of Catholics to be blunt iffy. Most of you are sighting sources that mean nothing to the person you are talking with and expect other people to hop on. I doubt we'll change anyone's mind commenting back and forth. I am highly curious as to what everyone "Really" thinks and believes though.
ShuckCreations,
"Purgatory, Confession, Sacraments...to name a few ."
These are not "extra doctrine law," and they certainly are not against anything in scripture, and in fact have at least implicit scriptural support.
DRJ,
“I wish you could understand - apart from your rigid training - that there is a priesthood of believers.”
The teaching of the priesthood of all believers does not preclude having a ministerial priesthood so this cannot be cited as proof that there is no ministerial priesthood. After all, Israel had all three in the Old Covenant. You may say, “We don’t need a (ministerial) priesthood; we are all priests, and we have one High Priest.” I agree that as Christians we are part of the universal priesthood – the priesthood of believers, and Jesus is our one High Priest. But again, that does not preclude the New Testament church from having a ministerial priesthood any more than Israel having a universal priesthood precluded them from having a ministerial priesthood. Korah and his followers probably thought the same thing when he rebelled against Israel’s ministerial priesthood. He probably thought, “Hey, we are all priests in accord with the universal priesthood; therefore, I can offer incense too.” Well, he was wrong about that - as recorded in Num 16:1-11.
argyle86,
“Church is where 2 or more are gathered in HIS name, look up the verse yourself.”
Church is not necessarily where two or more are gathered in his name, although Christ is in the midst of them. Indeed, they are MEMBERS of the church universal and even a local church. But a church (or gathering of the church), even when speaking regarding a local church body, requires an authorized leader. Otherwise, when Jesus provides counsel for dealing with an offending brother that two or three should be gathered to establish the facts before witnesses, he states that if this proves ineffective bring it TO THE CHURCH. But wait, how can that be if two or three already constitute a church and had already gathered to address this issue? Because two or more gathered in his name does not necessarily constitute a church.
"What do you mean by ‘extra doctrine laws?’"
Purgatory, Confession, Sacraments...to name a few
SchuckCreations,
“Can you please explain to me as to why when Paul talks soooo increidbly much about no longer being held under the law is the Catholic doctrine imposing so much belief into extra doctrine laws?”
What do you mean by ‘extra doctrine laws?’
O4H,
“I know many Catholics read and look to the church fathers as a way to solidify their church’s teachings, however, it should be noted that many of the church fathers were highly influenced by Gnostic and Hellenistic beliefs which are not supported by scripture. I am not condemning them for this but simply stating that many philosophical influences permeated the times in which they lived. We have covered this already and so I do not want to repost many of their statements which give clear evidence of this but it would also take a lot of space and time. If asked to, I will.”
Yes, we have covered this, but I still disagree with you. How is it that ALL of the pre-Constantine church fathers got it wrong? Not only that, but they got it wrong the same way. And I don’t buy the Gnostic influence, since many of them actually defended orthodoxy against the Gnostics.
“With that being said, I think it essential that we go back to the original church as described in scripture and determine whether our doctrines – Catholic/Protestant - are supported by what they (the apostles) taught. So, this is why I say that these doctrinal claims are lacking; if it cannot be explicitly supported by scripture, I cannot accept it.”
That’s a good approach except that nine of the apostles never wrote a thing, so how do you know that you are teaching what the apostles taught? And nowhere in scripture does it state that all doctrinal claims must be explicitly found in scripture. I do support the material sufficiency of the scriptures; that is, that they contain all the truth necessary for salvation. But they are not formally sufficient in formulating much of the detail of certain doctrine, and certainly not for basis of all moral conduct and practice. The scriptures simply did not address everything.
O4H,
“I apologize if my point was not clearly presented; my point is this; the “Roman” Catholic Church did not exist prior to Constantine’s reign – so that being the case, it cannot be identified as the New Testament Church that we read about in Scripture.”
Of course, we would disagree with each other regarding the NT church, but with that aside, your argument still does not hold. To state that the "Catholic Church did not exist prior to Constantine’s reign – so that being the case, it cannot be identified as the New Testament Church that we read about in Scripture" makes no logical connection. There is a 250 or so year gap. How can you make the claim that if the Catholic Church did not exist in year, say A.D. 310, then it also did not exist in year, say A.D. 210, or A.D. 110, or A.D. 90. That makes no sense.
“Let me clarify what I mean when I give references to the New Testament Church; I am speaking of the church that is described in “scripture” and what they taught, specifically, the church that is described in the book of Acts and the rest of the New Testament epistles.”
The problem with relying only upon the scriptures for acclesiology is that the scriptures did not intend to leave a detailed analytical account of church structure and governance. That doesn’t mean that one did not exist, but merely the occasion to bring it up in writing did not necessarily arise. Keep in mind that the NT epistles for the most part were authored to address a specific concern, clarify a certain teaching, resolve a conflict or misunderstanding, etc. It wasn’t written with the intent of being a charter laying out every organizational detail. But history tells us how the early church was organized, how the worship was structured, what the church taught, etc. While these certainly are not infallible inspired records, why would they not be reliable even from a purely historical perspective?... especially when there exists corroborating evidence of similarities between various church rites hundreds and hundreds of miles apart? How do you account for the similarities of ancient church structure, teaching, and liturgies in India, North Africa, and eastern and western Europe if there was not a common origin?
What happened in Luke 23:39-23:43? As I recall there was a justly condemmend sinner next to Jesus being crucified. This guy never stated what denomination he belonged to, heck there was no "church" yet. What did Jesus say to this man of sin after he reconized and said to our Lord that He was being punished unjustly, and asked for mercy. Jesus said to this criminal, who knowingly lived a life of sin, yet felt remorse, reconized the Godly charecter of Jesus, and pleaded to be remembered by God: "HE REPLIED, "TRUELY I WILL TELL YOU, TODAY YOU WILL BE WITH ME IN PARADISE."" (Luke 23:43) This man was not catholic, not protestant, he simply came before God before his death admitting he deserverd his punishment, and that Jesus was God and that He was crucified as an innocent man, he desired mercy and claimed responsibilty for his own wrong actions, I think tis man if he had been letdown, he would walk in life more over a changed man. Repenting to our God, Christ, and walking in His ways is the way to heaven. I may go to a particular church, but its not that church that grants me salvation, Jesus ONLY knows my heart, and only he will give me my salvation. Its because of this awsome gift and second chance that i live to do works that honer God, I don't have to be perfect, cause im not God, im imperfect, He knows, He made me after all, but because He has given me such an awesome gift, "I" feel I should, do my best to own up to it and give back what I can. I was a wretch, and all He asked was "follow ME" (not a pope, or pastor, or TV evangalizer) and thats what I plan to do with my life now. Church is where 2 or more are gathered in HIS name, look up the verse yourself. you might find more answers as you look.
Your brilliant versage is a tribute to your Catholic heritage! However, the commission of every believer requires of them and bestows upon them the keys to the kingdom. I wish you could understand - apart from your rigid training - that there is a priesthood of believers. Each believer has the responsibility and the power (Holy Spirit) to share the plan of salvation with every person on earth. That is God's plan. The earth is passing away and time with it! We could all sit around singing KUMBAYAH and thinking wonderful thoughts about our faith, but that isn't God's plan. THe souls of men are the fruit of our labors for God. THe treasures we are laying up are new believers in Jesus! Now you know that I am a Baptist...a follower of the Lord Jesus, the Savior of the world.
With the honesty and humbleness with which you responded I feel that you are indeed a brother in Christ even though we are denominationally divided. God Bless...I really have to go...
I graduated from Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth back when it was one of the most conservative Southern Baptist Seminaries available. THe Southern Baptist Convention was established as a split-off in 1845. THe Baptist Convention voted to exclude plantation owners who had slaves from serving as foreign missionaries. At that time the decision was made by several leaders to leave the Convention and found the Southern Baptist Convention. THere may be many differences between the Northern and Southern Baptist Conventions that I am not aware of...however, I am not persuaded to follow any doctrines that are not substantiated by the Word of God. My purpose is to use what God has given me to glorify Him and to increase His kingdom until He comes.
and one last thing before I go:
In Aramaic you can use kepha in both places in Matthew 16:18. In Greek you encounter a problem arising from the fact that nouns take differing gender endings.
Beyond the grammatical evidence, the structure of the narrative does not allow for a downplaying of Peter’s role in the Church. Look at the way Matthew 16:15-19 is structured. After Peter gives a confession about the identity of Jesus, the Lord does the same in return for Peter. Jesus does not say, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are an insignificant pebble and on this rock I will build my Church. . . . I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven." Jesus is giving Peter a three-fold blessing, including the gift of the keys to the kingdom, not undermining his authority. To say that Jesus is downplaying Peter flies in the face of the context. Jesus is installing Peter as a form of chief steward or prime minister under the King of Kings by giving him the keys to the kingdom. As can be seen in Isaiah 22:22, kings in the Old Testament appointed a chief steward to serve under them in a position of great authority to rule over the inhabitants of the kingdom. Jesus quotes almost verbatum from this passage in Isaiah, and so it is clear what he has in mind. He is raising Peter up as a father figure to the household of faith (Is. 22:21), to lead them and guide the flock (John 21:15-17). This authority of the prime minister under the king was passed on from one man to another down through the ages by the giving of the keys, which were worn on the shoulder as a sign of authority. Likewise, the authority of Peter has been passed down for 2000 years by means of the papacy.
Peace
DRJ,
Don't get upset, I'm just asking because the CP had an article about how the southern Baptists wouldn't attend the Northern Baptist convention with Clinton etc. As a Catholic I honestly don't know the difference between northern and southern Baptists and why they don't get along.
As for Peter = Rock...this is where history and the language Jesus spoke is on the Catholic side.
"We know that Jesus spoke Aramaic because some of his words are preserved for us in the Gospels. Look at Matthew 27:46, where he says from the cross, ‘Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?’ That isn’t Greek; it’s Aramaic, and it means, ‘My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?’
In Paul’s epistles—four times in Galatians and four times in 1 Corinthians—we have the Aramaic form of Simon’s new name preserved for us. In our English Bibles it comes out as Cephas. That isn’t Greek. That’s a transliteration of the Aramaic word Kepha (rendered as Kephas in its Hellenistic form).
"And what does Kepha mean? It means a rock, the same as petra. (It doesn’t mean a little stone or a pebble. What Jesus said to Simon in Matthew 16:18 was this: ‘You are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my Church.’
"When you understand what the Aramaic says, you see that Jesus was equating Simon and the rock; he wasn’t contrasting them. We see this vividly in some modern English translations, which render the verse this way: ‘You are Rock, and upon this rock I will build my church.’ In French one word, pierre, has always been used both for Simon’s new name and for the rock."
It is interesting that you want to stereotype my faith by delegating me to one or another type of Baptist Convention. If it will help you, I am a follower of Jesus, and I live in the South. I follow His commandments and His commission to tke His Gospel to the ends of the earth. The Gospel I share is that the God of Creation loves every person He has created and desires a personal, eternal relationship with them through His Son, Jesus.
DRJ, as a Baptist, can you please explain to me the difference between the northern and southern Baptists?
Thanks
To whom it may concern: When Jesus said, "Upon this rock I will build my church..." He was not creating the pastorate of Peter. The "rock" about which He spoke is the foundational belief that He is the "Christ, the Son of the Living God." Jesus even differentiated between Peter's name and the foundational rock of truth. Peter, who was crucified upside down rather than be compared to the Lord Jesus, must be completely embarassed by the position the Catholic Church has placed upon him...as must Mary the mother of Jesus.
Are you a Northern Baptist or a Southern Baptist?
The original question asked in this session is "What divides Catholics and Protestants?" I am neither a Catholic nor a Protestant. As far as my Biblical teaching goes the Protestants didn't quite PROTEST enough when they broke with the Pope in the 16th C. There are some major philosophical differences between the two groups. As a Baptist (a follower of the WAY, Jesus Christ) I see one basic difference between my belief and the other two. Let's call it a difference in simplification. Jesus made the truth so simple that even a child can believe on Him and receive eternal life - apart from brainwashing chatechism or brainwashing reformed indoctrination. That makes the undertaking of His mission of global evangelism within the grasp of every believer. THose who are not carrying out Jesus' mission are not followers of ths WAY...they may be wonderfully religious people with seriously complex doctrines, but they are not Christian according to Jesus' definition.
SC,
There were no new sins. The Cardinal who was making the statement stated quite clearly that the media took his comments out of context and the Church was merely reemphasizing that people are responsible for each other and the environment.
The Newsweek article just came out 30 min ago (http://www.newsweek.com/id/133078) and it discusses an impromptu comment the Pope made that I think most Catholics believe the role of the Pope is:
"I will do all possible to be a real successor to Peter, who also was a man with all his faults and sins but who remains finally the rock for the church," Jesus is our Lord and Savior, but Peter is who he wanted to start the Church. Like I said the Church brought the Protestant reformation on themselves, but the Church is still the Church.
focusing their eyes on the LORD
...sorry don't know where learn came from. lol
t&j1,
Can you please explain to me as to why when Paul talks soooo increidbly much about no longer being held under the law is the Catholic doctrine imposing so much belief into extra doctrine laws?
Paul explains in Colossians 2 that the laws are things we can handle, taste and touch and then in Colossians 3 that sin is what lurks within you. He asks us in those passages why we are still following rules of the world and human teachings. He says we need to be more concerned with our evil desires vs. earthly things. An example of this would be the brand new list of sins the Catholic church has just issued. I think they are too concerned with such things instead focusing their eyes on the learn.
ShuckCreations,
I have no doubt that you are trying to follow the Lord to the best of your ability just as I am wilderness, online, etc are. The problem is that when you make your scriptural defense it might mean something totally different to another person. Everybody certain that they have the truth and pointing in different directions. Did you ever notice that when God was happy there was a unity? Even Jesus with the 12 disciples together and after he was crucified he appeared to them together. Do you really think Jesus wants divisions like exists within the protestant denominations? Now I can agree that it was the Church's fault that there was a division in the first place (protestant reformation), but that still doesn't decrease the importance of the Catholic Church.
Just to clarify the Pope was ASKED by the head of the UN to come and address it. You might not know this, but the UN is located in the US.
It doesn't seem strange to me because the Lord stated that he will protect his Church and as we know from Peter and the early apostles to this day he has done exactly that. There was a time in the US when Catholics and the Pope were despised, but now the opposite is occurring. The Lord wants the Church to grow and multiply it must be a light in a dark world to lead people to the gospel. The Pope is our shepherd on earth and keeps his flock together or we would be scattered like the 50,000 + protestant denominations and start following strange new practices as the CP discusses on a regular basis here in articles about various denominations starting new approaches, lifestyles, etc. I feel bad for many Christians who joined a denomination at one time based on certain beliefs, but now their denomination looks foreign to them.
truthandjustice1, please stop spamming the statistics. We get it, it's on the posts below. In regards to those, I follow no denomination...just the Lord!
1 Corinthians 3:10-11
Because of God’s grace to me, I [Paul] have laid the foundation like an expert builder. Now others are building on it. But whoever is building on this foundation must be very careful. For no one can lay any foundation other than the one we already have—Jesus Christ.
1 Corinthians 3:21-23
So don’t boast about following a particular human leader. For everything belongs to you— whether Paul or Apollos or Peter, or the world, or life and death, or the present and the future. Everything belongs to you, and you belong to Christ, and Christ belongs to God.
Has anyone noticed how much pomp and circumstance was afforded the Pope's visit to America? He is a very, very important man...perhaps a little TOO important!!! Jesus said that "He who would be greatest among you must become the servant of all." The price tag on the Pope's visit (whether paid in part or in full by the Catholic Church or by our tax dollars) probably reached into the billions! That would have bought a lot of food, medicine, insurance, etc. for thousands of under-privilidged children! If you will notice further, Jesus said that the world would HATE His followers as it hated and killed Him. Does it seem strange to anyone how POPULAR the Pope is? Of course these remarks are just the tip of the iceberg concerning what is WRONG with Catholicism doctrinally. "If a man says he has no sin, he is a liar!"
MATT 16:18
"Christians make up one-third of the world’s population, with Roman Catholics making up 17 percent, Protestants 5.8 percent".
Roman Catholics - 17% - 1 denomination
Protestants 5.8% - 50,000 + denominations
Online,
Unfortunately for you the CP doesn't agree with you and I doubt too many other people do as well - no matter how many thumbs up you give yourself. I like your excuse for why the CP doesn't agree with you - politically correct. I figured it was going to be either that or end times again. Well the Pope had a successful visit to the US and the word was spread on CP and by other media outlets. When God is for us, who can be against??
ronwilson4u,
Good morning to you; consider reading 2Thessalonians 2 once again:
Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye “HAVE BEEN TAUGHT”, whether by word, or our epistle – 2Thessalonians 2:15.
The first thing we note is that this is a command to stand firm and hold fast to a single body of traditions which had "ALREADY BEEN DELIVERED TO THE BELIEVERS”. There is nothing FUTURE about this passage at all. Does Paul say to stand firm and hold fast to traditions that WILL BE delivered? Does he say to hold on to interpretations and understandings that have not yet developed? NO, this oral teaching which he refers to has “ALREADY BEEN” delivered to the entire church at Thessalonica. So, traditions that are not found in scripture are not binding upon the Christian conscience.
Roman Catholics - 17% - 1 denomination
Protestants 5.8% - 50,000 + denominations
TRUTH has and never will be determined by "numbers" but the WORD OF GOD.
I am a Portestant; however, I have attended mass many times with a close Catholic friend. 2 Thessalonians 2 says "Stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle," so I have great respect for Catholic Traditions, so long as they are part of a Catholic's personal relationship with Christ Jesus.
Hope Page: http://itsallaboutjesusnotme.blogspot.com
http://www.contenderministries.org/catholicism.php
Some interesting info there...I don't know if Catholicism is condemned or not. That's only for God to decide. However, I'm going to stick with what I read in the Bible and know that my relationship with Christ is much more important than some rules laid down by the papacy. If we are no longer held to the law why is Catholic (not catholic) doctrine any different?
Hey truth & justice1...
Check your higher math...
And by the way...with all the popes: the adulterous popes, murderous popes, homosexual popes, paedopheliac popes, and what not popes...and priests...one had no choice but to be forced to sit, be part of such a charade and then be forced to defend it...
a bit like those that have no choice but to sanctify all of mohammeds sins...like murder, thievery, rape, paedophelia...and what not...and get offended by the obvious Truth
at least we can avoid all the above, and choose a church that remains committed to His Word, rather than remain and bear it all, and partake of its sins...following the above to the deepest hell ...
Hey truth & justice1...
Check your higher math...
And by the way...with all the popes: the adulterous popes, murderous popes, homosexual popes, paedopheliac popes, and what not popes...and priests...one had no choice but to be forced to sit, be part of such a charade and then be forced to defend it...
a bit like those that have no choice but to sanctify all of mohammeds sins...like murder, thievery, rape, paedophelia...and what not...and get offended by the obvious Truth
at least we can avoid all the above, and choose a church that remains committed to His Word, rather than remain and bear it all, and partake of its sins...following the above to the deepest hell ...
"Blessed are they who are bound by love and confidence to these two anchors of salvation Jesus and Mary: They certainly shall not be lost." St. Alphonsus Ligourie.
After reading what Ligourie said, we must ask ourselves, “What saith the scriptures?” In doing so, we will find that biblical Mary (or any other Mary) is not a co-anchor of salvation. Prayerfully and humbly read the following scriptures:
“Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved” (Ac 4:12).
“Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them” (Heb 7:25)
“Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time” (1Pe 1:5).
“Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith…” (Heb 12:2).
"Christians make up one-third of the world’s population, with Roman Catholics making up 17 percent, Protestants 5.8 percent".
Roman Catholics - 17% - 1 denomination
Protestants 5.8% - 50,000 + denominations
Gal 3:27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
Irenaeus,
I apologize if my point was not clearly presented; my point is this; the “Roman” Catholic Church did not exist prior to Constantine’s reign – so that being the case, it cannot be identified as the New Testament Church that we read about in Scripture.
“No one claimed that it referred to a building.” “If the Catholic Church did not exist prior to Constantine, then what church was it?”
You asked me to describe which “church” was it; I wanted to highlight the fact that the “church” was merely believers in Jesus Christ. Let me clarify what I mean when I give references to the New Testament Church; I am speaking of the church that is described in “scripture” and what they taught, specifically, the church that is described in the book of Acts and the rest of the New Testament epistles.
I know many Catholics read and look to the church fathers as a way to solidify their church’s teachings, however, it should be noted that many of the church fathers were highly influenced by Gnostic and Hellenistic beliefs which are not supported by scripture. I am not condemning them for this but simply stating that many philosophical influences permeated the times in which they lived. We have covered this already and so I do not want to repost many of their statements which give clear evidence of this but it would also take a lot of space and time. If asked to, I will.
With that being said, I think it essential that we go back to the original church as described in scripture and determine whether our doctrines – Catholic/Protestant - are supported by what they (the apostles) taught. So, this is why I say that these doctrinal claims are lacking; if it cannot be explicitly supported by scripture, I cannot accept it. That has always been my contention and interest when discussing Christianity and theological doctrines. So, I am not discrediting everything that others throughout history have said, what matters most, is that their statements and all other statements are supported by God’s Word.
i believe ALL popes are burning in hell, by God's order due to their choices
each pope carries the 250,000,000+ murder 1 charges against christians for possessing the "Textus Receptus" and for not accepting the Vulgate(Catholic black bible) as the true bible, among many other things i cannot even begin to list here.
each new pope, is guilty of all the same sins and will suffer the same punishment as his predeccesor.
ML,
"However, let it be stated that Roman Catholicism is a salvation by works & sacriments oriented religion, and undeniably again[st] what Christ and Paul and others taught."
The Catholic Church is not teaching against Christ and Paul, and others. FIrst, Catholics agree with Paul that man is justified by faith APART FROM THE WORKS OF THE LAW. But the phrase ‘justified by faith APART FROM THE WORKS OF THE LAW’ does NOT mean ‘justified by faith apart from ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING.’ It only means that we are justified by faith apart from WORKS OF THE LAW, whatever ‘works of the law’ are. So what are these works of law that they must not be added to faith? Paul explains in what context he is addressing the issue of works. What Paul means by ‘works of the law’ are works that are performed with a view toward OBLIGATING God to reward us for them, as if God owes us recompense, as if God is indebted to us under a contractual obligation. We know that this is what Paul meant because he introduces this concept of obligation in Rom 4:4 when he uses the example of an employer being OBLIGATED/INDEBTED (the Greek work is a form of the word ofeilhma) to his employee to pay for work done. The employer is not gratuitous by paying the employee for the work the employee has done; he is obligated to do so. Paul is stating that if we attempt to obligate God to reward us for our good works, then we place ourselves under the system of law. And under the system of law, God will hold us against the strict edicts of the law, which will show us how distant we are from the perfection that the law demands. However, by faith we are placed under the system of grace by which we can please God our Father as his adopted children. Under the advocacy of God’s grace, our works are viewed as acceptable to God because they perfect, or complete, our faith. This being so, God ‘declares’ that we are just, but He makes this declaration because he has MADE us just; God does not merely call (declare) us as just if we are not intrinsically just. We are a new creation in Christ; God does not just pretend that we are a new creation.
Recall that the same person who stated that we are justified by faith apart from works of the law also stated that God will render to every man according to his deeds: he will give eternal life to them who by persistence in doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality.
Oops. The first quote that I provided below was from Ignatius (bishop of Antioch), not Irenaeus (bishop of Lyons).
O4H,
"