About Michael O`Flaherty (Expert=8663) Expertise Did you know that the Bible does talk about the concept of the trinity? Did you know that Jesus did claim to be God, and that unless He washes you, you will not get into heaven? If you want a spirited debate about your beliefs in relation to the Bible, please ask. I will warn you; you might be challenged. Friendly debate only!
Expert: Michael O`Flaherty (Expert=8663) - 12/4/2005
Question Dear Michael, great email just awesome. allow me to follow up.
And of course spirited debate only!
I will try to clarify and hit the main points of our discussion, forgive me if I go to long, (I'll try not to).
I want to clarify first off that Jesus is the absolute head and absolute foundation of my church.
UNITY VS DISUNITY
Your Right! Paul does say there is differences within the Church Communites and their is debate among believers many problems and confusion at times (and there still is today!), However under no circumstances did Paul or any of the Apostles allow this to effect the fundamental unity of Jesus's Church in light of Doctrine. In other words, at the end of the day Unity is always upheld.
The True Church of Christ Is One
That the Church which Christ instituted for man's salvation must be one in the strict sense of the term, is already evident from its very nature and purpose; TRUTH IS ONE, Christ revealed the truth and gave it to His Church, and men are to be saved by knowing and following the truth. But the essential unity of the true Christian Church is also explicitly and repeatedly declared throughout the New Testament:
Speaking of His Church, the Saviour called it a kingdom, the kingdom of heaven, the kingdom of God (Matthew 13:24, 31, 33; Luke 13:18; John 18:36);
He compared it to a city the keys of which were entrusted to the Apostles (Matthew 5:14; 16:19),
to a sheepfold to which all His sheep must come and be united under one shepherd (John 10:7-17);
to a vine and its branches,
to a house built upon a rock against which not even the powers of hell should ever prevail (Matthew 16:18).
Moreover, the Saviour, just before He suffered, prayed for His disciples, for those who were afterwards to believe in Him -- for His Church -- that they might be and remain one as He and the Father are one (John 17:20-23); and
He had already warned them that "every kingdom divided against itself shall be made desolate: and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand" (Matthew 12:25).
These words of Christ are expressive of the closest unity.
St. Paul likewise insists on the unity of the Church.
Schism and disunion he brands as crimes to be classed with murder and debauchery, and declares that those guilty of "dissensions" and "sects" shall not obtain the kingdom of God (Galatians 5:20-21).
Hearing of the schisms among the Corinthians, he asked impatiently: "Is Christ divided? Was Paul then crucified for you? or were you baptized in the name of Paul?" (1 Corinthians 1:13).
And in the same Epistle he describes the Church as one body with many members distinct among themselves, but one with Christ their head: "For in one Spirit we are all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free" (1 Corinthians 12:13).
To show the intimate union of the members of the Church with the one God, he asks: "The chalice of benediction, which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread, which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord? For we, being many, are one bread, one body, all that partake of one bread" (1 Corinthians 10:16-17).
Again in his Epistle to the Ephesians he teaches the same doctrine, and exhorts them to be "careful to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace", and he reminds them that there is but "one body and one spirit-one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all" (Ephesians 4:3-6).
Already, in one of his very first Epistles, he had warned the faithful of Galatia that if anybody, even an angel from heaven, should preach unto them any other Gospel than that which he had preached, "let him be anathema" (Galatians 1:8).
Such declarations as these coming from the great Apostle are clear evidence of the essential unity which must be characteristic of the true Christian Church.
The other Apostles also persistently proclaimed this essential and necessary unity of Christ's Church (cf. 1 John 4:1-7; Apocalypse 2:6, 14-15, 20-29; 2 Peter 2:1-19; Jude 5:19). And although divisions did arise now and then in the early Church, they were speedily put down and the disturbers rejected, so that even from the beginning the Christians could boast that they were of "one heart and one soul" (Acts 4:32; cf. Acts 11:22; 13:1). www.newadvent.org/cathen/15179a.htm
Did you here that,Paul says those who follow a schism will not inherit the Kingdon of God the The 1st and 2nd century Christians also know this.
Ignatius of Antioch 110 AD (note, Ignatious was Bishop of Antioch and a disiple of John the Apostle)
"Be not deceived, my brethren: If anyone follows a maker of schism [i.e., is a schismatic], he does not inherit the kingdom of God; if anyone walks in strange doctrine [i.e., is a heretic], he has no part in the passion [of Christ]. Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the union of his blood; one altar, as there is one bishop, with the presbytery and my fellow servants, the deacons" (Letter to the Philadelphians 3:3–4:1 [A.D. 110]).
Justin Martyr 151 AD
"We have been taught that Christ is the first-begotten of God, and we have declared him to be the Logos of which all mankind partakes [John 1:9]. Those, therefore, who lived according to reason [Greek, logos] were really Christians, even though they were thought to be atheists, such as, among the Greeks, Socrates, Heraclitus, and others like them. . . . Those who lived before Christ but did not live according to reason [logos] were wicked men, and enemies of Christ, and murderers of those who did live according to reason [logos], whereas those who lived then or who live now according to reason [logos] are Christians. Such as these can be confident and unafraid" (First Apology 46 [A.D. 151]).
Irenaeus 189AD
"In the Church God has placed apostles, prophets, teachers, and every other working of the Spirit, of whom none of those are sharers who do not conform to the Church, but who defraud themselves of life by an evil mind and even worse way of acting. Where the Church is, there is the Spirit of God; where the Spirit of God is, there is the Church and all grace" (Against Heresies 3:24:1 [A.D. 189]).
And the Roman Catholic Church Holds to this Biblical and Unchangeable Christian Doctrine, That there is "No Salvation Outside the Church"
This does not mean that if one is not Roman Catholic they cannot be saved. Those who are "invincibley ignorant" of the Truth, , but still respond to the graces and reason God has blessed them with, through God's Mercy can be saved. (see above what Justin Martyr says)
Though if one realises the RCC is the true Church of Jesus Christ and still refuses to Join, they will not inherit the Kingdom of God (as Paul says). In the same way if one realizes that Jesus Christ is the True God and turn his back on Him and walks away from Him, this person will also not inherit the Kindgom of God.
Michael you may not agree, but this is entirely Biblical. And the RCC has the responsibility to preach and uphold and never compromise the Truth.
...
In regards to Matt 18:15-17 You say,
"You are inferring that the church here is referring to its leaders and not the body."
Your right!, I should have been more clear,the Church is the Body,
I was attempting to show the Chruch was a living and physical body and not just an "idea" as some say.
Then you say, "(E)ach church is autonomous"
This position can NOT be Biblically backed up.
...
In regards to Ephesians 4:11, You ask, Where is this structure today?
My point with this Scripture quote was to show the reality of a Heirarchy but of course I will answer you question.
Apostles and miracles,
As the apostles died, the task of shepherding the Church fell by default upon the highest-ranking ministers appointed by them. This group is known today as the bishops, who are the successors of the apostles as the highest shepherds of the earthly Church.
Apostolic succession thus involves in the bishops serving as successors to the apostles, not serving as apostles. The bishops are not simply a continuation of the office of apostle; they received the governance of the Church when that office ceased.The Pope is not an apostle. He is also a Bishop, first and foremost the Bishop of Rome.
The Gift of Miracles. Each apostle was endowed with the gift of miracles to enable him to perform signs validating his ministry as an apostle (2 Cor. 12:12). These manifestations provided motives of credibility showing the divine authority of the apostles and, by extension, those they appointed as successors. Bishops do not typically receive the gift of miracles.(www.catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0107bt.asp)
...
In Regards to Matt 16:18, you say,
The church that Jesus built is not a physical building. It is made up of born-again believers. It is an army of ambassadors who have sworn to live and die at Jesus' command. That is the church. It is made up of people who God asked to change sides in this great conflict. In exchange for allegiance to Jesus, God change his address by leaving the temple and moving into their hearts. In other words, he left that kind of legalism behind in the Jewish system.
To this I say Amen Brother!
You also state,
"It has nothing to do with tradition, statues, saints, grand buildings, pavement, pews, robes, monks, money, power, purgatory, mysticism, etc."
Mysticism, is "contemplative prayer" and very useful to some and in no way contradicts the faith.
Sared Tradition is spoken of By Paul in 2 Thess 2:15, "Therefore brethren , stand fast and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth of by letter"
It would be contrary to Paul's teaching to forbid all tradition.
(I am not referring to Man-made tradions which Our Lord teaches against.)
Statues, “Thou shalt make also two cherubims of beaten gold, on the two sides of the oracle. Let one cherub be on the one side, and the other on the other.”Exodus 25:18-19
Saints, You also said have "nothing to do with the Church" Are you sure?
As Scripture indicates, those in heaven are aware of the prayers of those on earth. This can be seen, for example, in Revelation 5:8, where John depicts the saints in heaven offering our prayers to God under the form of "golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints." But if the saints in heaven are offering our prayers to God, then they must be aware of our prayers. They are aware of our petitions and present them to God by interceding for us.
Monks,
The consecrated life has been part of the true religion since before the time of Christ. In the Old Testament there was an entire order of men and women known as Nazirites ("consecrated ones") who were specially consecrated to God. They took special vows of self-denial (Num. 6:2–4, 6–8) and had a distinctive appearance (Num. 6:5). John the Baptist was one of these (Luke 1:15), as were Samson (Judg. 13:5–6) and Samuel (1 Sam. 1:11). In addition, there were others leading the consecrated lifestyle, such as the prophetess Anna, who lived like a contemplative nun (Luke 2:36–37).
In the Christian age, Paul himself took a temporary vow (Acts 18:18), and recommended that others live celibate lives consecrated to God (1 Cor. 7:32–38), especially ministers (1 Tim. 2:3–4). He even set up an order of widows living the consecrated life after the deaths of their husbands (1 Tim. 5:3–12), warning that those were not to be enrolled in this order if they were in danger of leaving the consecrated life to get married and so "they incur condemnation for having violated their first pledge" (1 Tim. 5:12).
Based on this wealth of biblical material, the early Church perpetuated the consecrated life, and over the years it has taken a variety of forms. For a time, for example, there were separate orders of widows (a la 1 Tim. 5:12) from the orders of virgins of Christ (a la 1 Cor. 7:34), and from the order of deaconesses, who assisted in certain church duties, though they were not ordained (see the citation from I Nicea, below). Later, these were merged into the modern concept of the nun, while men living the consecrated life came to be known as monks.
Purgatory,
Paul tells us that, when we are judged, each man's work will be tried. And what happens if a righteous man's work fails the test? "He will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire" (1 Cor 3:15). Now this loss, this penalty, can't refer to consignment to hell, since no one is saved there; and heaven can't be meant, since there is no suffering ("fire") there. The Catholic doctrine of purgatory alone explains this passage. 2 Maccabees 12:43–45. also show the importance of praying for those deceased but Martin Luther thew out this book from the protostant bible, (I'll get to this subject at the end of my letter)
Robes, they are mentioned over 25 times in the Bible, mainly in the OT.
Pews, Well we have to sit somewhere and pews work very well. I cant imagine how pews could be offenseive to God.
Pavement, Helpful to those who have a hard time getting around and also not offensive to God, as far as I know.
Grand Buildings, I agree, the money can be better spend elsewhere. However with so many congragants, Large buildings are necessary to accomodate them all, especially in very Populated cities. And if the building is built well, it can last centuries.
Money, When used well it is a blessing, when not it is a hinderance to coming closer to God, though we all struggle with this to some extant.
I have seen RCC money go to very good things personally in India, and unfortuanately Ive also see it go to waste at times.
Power, the late John Paul II would agree with you, he mandated that all clergy could not accept any political positons.
...
About the Bible, You ask,
"Where does it say not to (believe in the Bible alone)?"
One example is 2Thess 2:15, telling us to hold to "traditions whether by word of mouth of letter" Not Just Letter.
You also say,
There are many books that claim to be the word of God. I have read some of them (Gospel of Thomas, Mary, etc.) What are you driving at? Do you have some book that you claim is from God?
No, All Inspired books are correctly in the New and Old Testament, books like the Gospel of Thomas and Mary, where correctly rejected as unauthentic. When I refer to early Christian writings, I am talking about the writings of the Bishops, such as Ignatious of Antioch, Clement of Rome who were taught directly from the apostles and martyed for their faith, and other faithful Christias who lived in the 1st 2nd 3rd 4th centuries. While these writings are not to be taken at "inspired," what they write is a powerful witness to Christianity while still in its infancy. And one thing all early Christian writers believed in was the Eucharist,This is history and you can read them at such websites as www.earlychristianwritings.com and www.newadvent.org/fathers/
You say,
The Bible more than adequately tells us about Jesus, how to live, what sin is, how to be saved, and how to run a church.
If the Bible alone explains itself so easily, then why is there so much confusion among "bible alone" Christians on matters of, for example, How to Worship, images, contraception, abortion, drinking, smoking, images role of bishops and decons and elders, how to be saved, baptism, and the list goes on and on.
And why then do thousands of "Bible alone Christians" come up with totaly different interpretations of scripture?
If the Bible alone could interpret itself all would come to the same conslusion.
In fact Bible alone ideology has caused division among Christians ever since it began in the 16th century.
...
You say,
Today, there are all sorts of traditions that are not found in the NT. How do you evaluate such traditions? To call a tradition a sacred thing is a slippery slope. Some traditions not found in the NT are pews, buildings and mortgages, wafers and little drink cups, passing of the basket in front of non-Christians, robes, song books, singing with your face forward and not to each other, tithing, instruments and choirs in the church, burning incense, statues, rituals for the dead, and on and on and on. So to call any of these sacred is wrong in my view.
No I wouldn't call all of them sacred,
We all, everyone has tradions to some extant, depending on where we are from our influences and the like.
Traditions to be reject, are anything that impede God's laws.
An example of, Sacred Tradition would be the church's teachings on Abortion, this is not in the Bible, but has been a constant teaching of the Church from the earliest days, and cannot be changed or rejected or comprimised.(Did you know every church was against abortion until 1933,the Catholic Church, on the other hand realises it does not have the authority to change this teaching.)
Even the NT in a very real way is Sacred Tradion, Jesus never told the Apostles to write anything down, but they did to help spread the word of God, And those apostles couldn't have known nor did they instruct that 300 years later those letters where to be included in the Bible, But the Church did.
...
Authority,
You say,
"My Spiritual leader is Jesus. My relationship is with God through Jesus. There are no other layers in that chain. He placed certain brothers in charge to sheppard the local church. There are Elders. I am subject to them in the since that I am a fellow brother and a member of their church they are responsible for. But these same Elders are my brothers too (equal in the scheme of things) and it is also my responsibility to hold their feet to the same fire. He did not, however, expect me to place my soul in their hands, or to subject my soul or spiritual allegiance to some man thousands of miles away. I am responsible for my own relationship with God. He does not want any man in-between or making Spiritual decisions for me. John tells me to “test all things” to see if they are from God. He did not tell the body to follow this or that man. Paul states it best: 1CO 1:10
To this I say Amen Brother!
every one should have this relationship with God you speak of.
And the things in the Bible can be understood by us.
Though when it comes to Offical Doctrine, the Chruch is our guide.
Do I trust in the Men, No. But I do trust in Jesus, Promise to protect his Church. Matt 16:18, and 1 Tim 3:15 saying the "Church is the pillar and ground for truth"
And we must be careful,
Peter warns us of those who misinterpter scripure in 2Peter 3:16.
And Peter also stats no interpretation of Prophecies upto that point were form the private interpretion of man,2 Peter1:20-21.
And in Acts 8:30 the Ethiopian man, whan asked by Philip if he understands what he is reading, says, "How can I unless someone guides me"
Did the Biblical church go to just anyone when they had problems, no they went to the apostles who wrote back to them, or they went to the Church.
But they were not to follow those of a schism.
When I trust in the biblical Interpretation of the Church I am trusting in Jesus. and his promise. Matt 16:18 and 1 Tim 3:15
...
You say
There is nothing positive about a top-down hierarchy like the one you are espousing(about the Church). I say this because it only takes a little corruption to permeate then entire pyramid
I agree, unless that Hierarcy was established by the Lord of the Universe himself. That this Church has lasted 2000 years is itself testimoney and confirmaion of Jesus' promise that "the gates of Hell would not prevail against his church"Matt:16:18
You say,
"The people are responsible for each other, and Elders are part of that same family. That is why we are to choose men among us who are respected at home and in the public eye. Even the Apostles in Acts did not choose the Deacons. They told the people to appoint them."
Yes amen, in the RCC the Bishops to not choose deacons either, a deacon will take a few years of study then begin serving his church, what a bishop will do, is approve him by ordination to the deaconate.
You say,
"There are plenty discussion points about Elders and Deacons in the NT, but no discussion about how one Elder from one church is in charge of another church somewhere elseor how they are to choose who is to serve."
Neither do we see this in the RCC, though a bishop does have the responsibility to have oversight of the elders(priests. An elder(priest) can do whatever he deems best for his comminity as every community is different He can do whatever he wants as long as it doesnt contradict the faith.
A bishop would only steap in if that pastor was misleading the faithful, for example teaching false doctrine. Then that bishop has the moral obligaton to correct Him or remove him, so as to help keep the Body unified. Does not paul tell us to reject those divise people? (titus 3:10)
You say,
"And like I said, I believe the Apostles and Prophets had their place in the hierarchy in our history, but not now"
The Early christians, 1st 2nd 3rd century did not think like you.
And it would not make sense for the Apostles to work so hard for a unified church with bishops, deacons and the like, if it was meant to fall apart. Your position is unbiblical and also unhistorical.
...
About the Bible being compiled by the RCC,
You say, " I think this is a funny point you make. I disagree if you believe that God was not involved in this. It was certainly his book to make. You seem to imply that men made these decisions and God was not involved.Even the order you list them in infers that the Holy Spirit was at the Pope/Bishops disposal as some kind of guiding force that they wielded. No, I believe it was the other way around."
I should have made myself more clear, In all reality It would have been imposible for the Church to choose correctly the God inspired letters of the NT without the Holy Spirit.(I think you would agree)
The Church was(and is) the instrument in which all docrines are made,or in other words the church is the pencil in Gods hand, in term of Doctrine and leading the faitful in correct doctrine.
you say,"God could have used the very devil to write the Bible."
I suppose he could have, but he didnt, he chose his holy apostles.
You say,
"I have read some of the early writings. I have not seen anything yet that is not either duplicated or completely out there."
Well I have news for you, the Bible letters are duplicates also, the earliest copies that exist are in Greek and Hebrew and date to around 300AD.
You say
"For example, I seem to remember one story where Jesus torched a kid for knocking him down. Should that be in the Bible?"
I think that in the Gospel of Thomas and Jesus doesnt torch him, just wished him dead. But your right the Gospel of Thomas was correctly reject as being unauthentic.
you say
"There are many non-Biblical sources about Jesus. Whether they are true or not, they don't add anything to his message. Jesus came to this earth to suffer and die. I deserve what Jesus went through. He took my place of punishment. God was showing us what hell is like. Jesus went through that for me, it is a free gift, and all I have to do is accept it. What other books do I need to show me that? What can other books contribute to or improve that message"
To this I say Amen Brother! nothing can improve on the Books of the bible.
Like I said before, the writings of those who learned from the apostles though can give us witness to the faith. (though not books like the gospel of thomas as we dont know who wrote that book)
...
Council of Trent
You say,
"If you go back to some of the Catholic history or some of the mandates from the councils like Trent, would you agree that some of their teaching was not Biblical? For example, do you believe in purgatory or granting indulgences? Do you believe that Christ left the church the power to forgive sins? Are these teachings from the Holy Spirit or from men? Would the one true church (if you infer that non-Catholic churches are apostate and outside Christ) practice and teach such things? Ever? Should God's church behave and act differently today than it did in the book of Acts?
Apostates, are those who have left Jesus completely.
The Power to forgive sins,This sacrament is rooted in the mission God gave to Christ in his capacity as the Son of man on earth to go and forgive sins (cf. Matt. 9:6). Thus, the crowds who witnessed this new power "glorified God, who had given such authority to men" (Matt. 9:8; note the plural "men"). After his resurrection, Jesus passed on his mission to forgive sins to his ministers, telling them, "As the Father has sent me, even so I send you. . . . Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained" (John 20:21–23).
Since it is not possible to confess all of our many daily faults, we know that sacramental reconciliation is required only for grave or mortal sins—but it is required, or Christ would not have commanded it.
Indulgences which are used for the remission of pemporal punishment stem form the Authoriy to forgive sins. The problem in the 16th century was that some men were accepting money while dispensing indulgences.
...
More about councils
Did you know it was at the Council of Nicea in 325, that the doctrine of the Trinity was definded by the Pope and Bishops? (Of couse, by the inspiration of the Holy spirt!)
...
More on Unity,
You say,
"You are not going to tell me that the Catholic church is united are you?"
Yes, I am, the Catholic Church is totally and completely united in terms of doctrine. .
I have personally been to parts of Europe and Asia, and have seen this first hand.
Anything else is unacceptable.
You say,
I agree that we should strive for unity,
but not at the expense of what God states in the Bible.
I agree 100% and you will never see the catholic Church comprimise anything, in the Bible. in 2000 years we have never reversed or comprised a doctrine, not one.
Especially on Unity.
You say
"Jesus is what unites believers, not church membership.
The aposles did not of approve of Schisms as long as they believed in Jesus, they rejected all schisms that were not in total uniformity of doctrine as the Church Christ founded."
The idea of "just belive in Jesus" is not Biblical. It is a start, yes but not the fullness of faith, found only in the RCC.
...
More on heirarchy
You said
"If you are going to claim that the line of apostles started with Peter, and he was succeeded by other apostles down through the centuries, then where did their power go? Where are the miracles and Spiritual gifts? Apostles were more than just men who wrote their views, gave speeches, etc."
I think I coved this, check above on the topic heirarchy.
You said,
They did not dress in glamorous robes and hats with servants tending to their various whims. There were certainly not leaders of their own country, or holed up in some huge palace separated from the flocks. There were not world leaders and they certainly did not hoard wealth or treasure.
The church has failed, at times in history their is no queston of that,The Church is part divine and part Human, and the human side will always be lacking. There has been problems in the Church and there always will. Ever sense the beginning, Judas betrays Jesus, He is denied by Peter, and later abandoned on the cross.
One reason the church rose to Power is that after the Roman empire fell and with the beginning of the invasion of the Barbarians, the Church was the only stable institution. and thus filled the power vacuum.
Unfortunetly, at times this power was abused. Let us remember times were very, very different then. Im not trying to make excuses only I want you see the Church by the perspective of time.
Though though this Jesus protected His Church from teaching error of Doctrine thus Keeping his promise to protect the Chruch. Matt 16:18
You say.
"I know of no Apostle in the NT who ever declared someone to be a saint."
How could they, they were the first to be maryterd."
And they knew the church would always be here, 1Tim 3:15
You say,
"or to pray to someone other than God". Rev 5:8, shows our prayers being offered to God by the saints in heaven.
When we pray to saints we ask for their intercession in prayer, we ak them to pray for us. Just as I ask my Chritian friends to pray for me.
And did not Jesus speak to Moses and Elijah during the transfuguration, men who have already died and now partake in the heavenly vision of God.
Matt 17:1-9.
We are one body, the entire communion of saints, the living and the dead.
You say,
And where in the Bible does it say that one is to be appointed as Peter's replacement through the ages?
I dont think it does.
It does though show Our Lord creating the office of the Pope in Matt 16:18, "you are Peter(Peter means rock) and on this Rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hell will not prevail against it.
And in Acts Ch 1:20 Peter states about the death of Judas,"Let another take his office," and Matthias is elected to fill the vacant office.(this is the beginning of Apostolic succesion), The same is with the office of the Pope.
Read Isiah 22:20-23 and compare these verses with Matthew 16:18-19. The office Jesus creates in the Papacy is a unifing and Holy office.
You say
"In fact, does not the very term vicar in Latin mean “in place of Christ”?
Yes, it is one of the titles of the Pope, "Vicar of Christ"
In simple terms I'll explain it like this, Jesus was the earthly leader of the Church, then Peter, "in place" of the Acended Christ filled the void as leader of the earthly church, and Bendict XVI is the 264th succesor. The Pope is the spiritual leader of the earthy church, in place of Christ.
Now is Christ still the absolute leader of the earthly church, of couse He is.
You say,
"I can't accept that viewpoint because no man should ever replace or be between myself and God. That just does not exist in the Bible."
Your right, no one is between you and God.
But can you imagine, if while the apostle were teaching the faithful, if they said, I would listen to you, you are putting yourself between me and God!, of course not. Or if the Bishops were told this.
You say
Peter never replaced Jesus.
In the strict sense no, as no one can replace Jesus, but as the earthy leader of the church, yes he did.
You say
"Peter was a leader, yes, but God did not place all spiritual decisions in his hands."
Your right and the Pope does not make all spiritual decisions.
But like in acts 15, Peter will use his authority to settle a debate, and keep the church united.
One thing the Pope does is help to keep Christ's Church united.
You say
"He(Peter),like all believers after him, was led by the Holy Spirit. And we who are born again have that same capability.
Amen, your right, but just because one has the Holy spirt does mean all their ideas come from God.
Even Maritn Luter knew this.
“There are almost as many sects and beliefs as there are heads; this one will not admit Baptism; that one rejects the Sacrament of the altar(here martin Luther is referring to the eucharist, did you know he believed in that?); another places another world between the present one and the day of judgment; some teach that Jesus Christ is not God. There is not an individual, however clownish he may be, who does not claim to be inspired by the Holy Ghost, and who does not put forth as prophecies his ravings and dreams.”
This is one reason why Our Lord established His one unified Church, to stop confusion, as we know "the Church is the Pillar and ground for truth" Tim 3:15 (notice Timothy does not say the Bible)
You say,
"Yes, we all have various gifts and jobs, but we are all part of the same body. No one man here is the brain in that body"
I agree
...
Baptism
the last thing I will say about Infant Baptism, is that it was always accepted by the faithful for the first 1500 years of Christianity, even Maritn Luther believed in it. No one ever objected.
And while you say, your infant baptism only got your head wet,
I am thankful for the free gift of my baptism, and grateful for the graces I recieved on that day and for the eternal mark it left on my soul.
...
The missing seven books in the protostant Bible.
The Christian acceptance of the deuterocanonical books was logical because the deuterocanonicals were also included in the Septuagint, the Greek edition of the Old Testament which the apostles used to evangelize the world. Two thirds of the Old Testament quotations in the New are from the Septuagint. Yet the apostles nowhere told their converts to avoid seven books of it. Like the Jews all over the world who used the Septuagint, the early Christians accepted the books they found in it. They knew that the apostles would not mislead them and endanger their souls by putting false scriptures in their hands -- especially without warning them against them.
But the apostles did not merely place the deuterocanonicals in the hands of their converts as part of the Septuagint. They regularly referred to the deuterocanonicals in their writings. For example, Hebrews 11 encourages us to emulate the heroes of the Old Testament and in the Old Testament "Women received their dead by resurrection. Some were tortured, refusing to accept release, that they might rise again to a better life" (Heb. 11:35).
There are a couple of examples of women receiving back their dead by resurrection in the Protestant Old Testament. You can find Elijah raising the son of the widow of Zarepheth in 1 Kings 17, and you can find his successor Elisha raising the son of the Shunammite woman in 2 Kings 4, but one thing you can never find -- anywhere in the Protestant Old Testament, from front to back, from Genesis to Malachi -- is someone being tortured and refusing to accept release for the sake of a better resurrection. If you want to find that, you have to look in the Catholic Old Testament -- in the deuterocanonical books Martin Luther cut out of his Bible.
The story is found in 2 Maccabees 7, where we read that during the Maccabean persecution, "It happened also that seven brothers and their mother were arrested and were being compelled by the king, under torture with whips and cords, to partake of unlawful swine's flesh. . . . [B]ut the brothers and their mother encouraged one another to die nobly, saying, 'The Lord God is watching over us and in truth has compassion on us . . . ' After the first brother had died . . . they brought forward the second for their sport. . . . he in turn underwent tortures as the first brother had done. And when he was at his last breath, he said, 'You accursed wretch, you dismiss us from this present life, but the King of the universe will raise us up to an everlasting renewal of life'" (2 Macc. 7:1, 5-9).
One by one the sons die, proclaiming that they will be vindicated in the resurrection. "The mother was especially admirable and worthy of honorable memory. Though she saw her seven sons perish within a single day, she bore it with good courage because of her hope in the Lord. She encouraged each of them . . . [saying], 'I do not know how you came into being in my womb. It was not I who gave you life and breath, nor I who set in order the elements within each of you. Therefore the Creator of the world, who shaped the beginning of man and devised the origin of all things, will in his mercy give life and breath back to you again, since you now forget yourselves for the sake of his laws,'" telling the last one, "Do not fear this butcher, but prove worthy of your brothers. Accept death, so that in God's mercy I may get you back again with your brothers" (2 Macc. 7:20-23, 29).
This is but one example of the New Testaments' references to the deuterocanonicals. The early Christians were thus fully justified in recognizing these books as Scripture, for the apostles not only set them in their hands as part of the Bible they used to evangelize the world, but also referred to them in the New Testament itself, citing the things they record as examples to be emulated.
www.geocities.com/thecatholicconvert/deuterocanonicals.html
Ok Michael,thanks for reading everything
let me know if I left anything out, or not explained.
Peace be with you
Jeff
pps.
Now, here is why I believe in "Bible and Sacred Tradition" and not "Bible alone"
I was a Presbyterian minister for a few years, a graduate of an Evangelical seminary, and a very great respecter of the Westminster Theological Seminary tradition, and I still am, but I have one question today as I have for several years since I left the ministry and I gave up teaching at a Presbyterian seminary. It was a question raised to me by a former Catholic in the seminary in the middle of a seminar on creeds and confessions in the church. He asked me, where does scripture teach sola scriptura? And I panicked, I played around, I even said "That's a dumb question." and I never heard myself say that before in a classroom. And I realized going home that evening why I'd said it: it was because I wasn't prepared to answer it. I thought I'd just had a sudden bout with amnesia, but I thought about it some more, I consulted my books, I even called two or three of my professorsand I've had the privilege to study under some of the very greatest professors in the Evangelical world, and I thank God for them but I didn't come up with any satisfactory answer. That's critical; as one of the greatest Evangelical theologians of our day says, J. I. Packer, "The Reformers' whole understanding of Christianity depends on the principle of sola scriptura; that is, the view that the Bible as the only Word of God in this world is the only guide for conscience in the Church. It's the only source of true knowledge and of God's grace, and it's the only qualified judge of the Church's testimony and teaching. That's the view of a Protestant Evangelical theologian whom I respect very much. However, the only thing I disagree with Dr. Packer about is the Word 'only'. I do believe that the Bible is to be regarded by all Catholics as our guide, as our source, as our judge, as the living and active Word of God, alive in our lives, in addition to which the Church confesses a living tradition to which she is bound out of obedience to Scripture. For Scripture speaks of that living tradition very naturally,and very matter-of-factly, as we'll see in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 where Paul commends and commands the Thessalonian Christians to hold fast to what Christ passed on to him, to what he passed on to them, about tradition, whether it is written or whether it is spoken. Now Paul could take matter-of-factly, and he could state matter-of-factly the authority and existence of a living tradition. He didn't feel any need to argue for this living tradition; he assumed it and he assumed the Thessalonians knew what he was talking about, so I would ask my Protestant brethren, where is that living tradition and how is it that we are held fast to that living tradition and how is that living tradition distinct from my own individual interpretation of the Bible? Ultimately, after several years of struggle because I was very anti-Catholic as a Presbyterian. In fact me and my best friend were the only Presbyterian seminarians at Gordon Cornwell in the Presbyterian Fellowship who endorsed the old Westminster Confession which charged the Roman Catholic Church with being the Antichrist, and he opposed me vigorously when I was thinking about joining the Catholic Church. He now is also a member of the Roman Catholic Church and he's finishing his doctorate at Westminster seminary, ironically enough. I believe that the doctrine of sola scriptura, that the Bible alone is our only authority, is itself unscriptural. I can't find anywhere in scripture God telling his people that the Bible alone is their sole authority. It would have been very convenient for me in terms of my career to find it, and I looked and I tried, but I couldn't. Second Timothy 3:15-16 doesn't teach that. It teaches the inspiration of Scripture, but just because the Bible is inspired and profitable, it doesn't mean that only the Bible is inspired and profitable. Matthew 15 condemns tradition which is merely human and which contradicts the Word of God, but 2 Thessalonians 2:15 speaks about a tradition through which the Word of God is conveyed authoritatively. How can that be? St. Paul also commends the Corinthians in 1 Corinthians 11:2 for 'holding fast to the traditions that he had handed on to them'.
So I rejected sola scriptura because it was unscriptural. I also came to the conclusion that sola scriptura is unhistorical. That is, the Church was spreading for decades, long before the New Testament books were written, gathered and officially canonized, or collected in an authoritative collection. I believe that historians who are objective will see that the Church saw itself bound to the Word of God as it was handed down from Christ to the apostles and their successors in their doctrine, in their worship and in their morals apart from New Testament books. The New Testament books were in a certain sense occasional documents written to help certain congregations or certain area churches with particular questions, but nowhere does the Bible say, or does the New Testament regard itself, as a compendium that is sufficient for everything we need to know to live the Christian life. I should say that I believe the Bible has a lot more than most Christians realize, and there's a lot more to be gained than many Catholics and Protestants have actually acquired, but I think it's unhistorical to regard sola scriptura as true and binding upon the believer. I think it's also contrary to sound reasoning. It's illogical. How do you know what Scripture is? How do you know what books are inspired? Do we leave it up to each individual Christian to read all of the books that were possibly included or excluded? Have you read and studied The Shepherd of Hermas? The Epistle of Barnabas? The Book of Clement? The Epistles of Ignatius? All of these were circulated in such a way as that some regarded them as scriptural. Others didn't. The Church had to decide and, thanks be to God, Jesus Christ gave to his apostles his own authority to decide, and their successors carried on their authority so that we could have a New Testament today, But I believe it's illogical to suggest that the Bible alone is our authority when the Bible alone can't give to us what books are and aren't to be included in the Bible. How could it? If revelation included a list of every single book to be included we would only be able to trust that if we knew that revelation itself was inspired. But no book can confirm or authenticate its own inspired status.
I think it's also impractical. This is a very hard point to speak about, but I think that it almost results in a kind of anarchy within the church. Since the Protestant Reformation over four centuries ago we have literally thousands of denominations and splinter groups that are continually splintering over various interpretations of the Bible. Several Presbyterian denominations. We affectionately and somewhat complacently refer to ourselves as the 'split P's'' because we have so many Presbyterian groups. And then Methodists, and Lutherans and even Episcopalians, especially in the last ten or fifteen years. It hasn't brought greater unity into the Church, it's brought a very tragic disunity to impose the Bible as the sole authority so that every individual is left up to himself or herself to decide what doctrines are true. Can every believer be expected to understand and articulate the hypostatic union of the two natures of Christ? The Council of Calcedon passed on to us a legacy that we need to hold fast to, but very few lay people dare say very few seminarians could give a very articulate, detailed defense of that doctrine, which everybody at Westminster Seminary upholds, but very few people have actually generated on their own by interpreting the Bible by themselves. It's anarchistic. It would be like writing the U.S. Constitution only not establishing a judiciary or an executive or a legislative branch to apply that with authority. I would be like constitutionally investing individual citizens with the right to disagree with and rebel against judicial decisions handed down from any level of the court system. It would be up to them to interpret the Constitution with regard to any legislative decisions and executive enactments. You would have no nation; every man and woman would be a nation unto himself or unto herself.
Is that what Jesus Christ intended for the family of God that he died and was raised to build upon the Holy Spirit? I don't think so. I don't think so. I also think it encourages a subtle and unconscious and unintentional presumption, or tyranny. As we enforce church discipline in Protestant churches, I recall the very funny feeling that I had as I would argue and articulate my views and then face the prospect of disciplining members in the church just because I was able to get a consensus among my elders, or among the congregational members.
Is it really that way? No pastor presumes to be infallible in the Protestant tradition. No head of any denomination presumes such, but they all have to continually discipline people and in many cases excommunicate people on the basis of their own fallible and frequently erroneous interpretations. That seems somewhat dubious. I also believe that its inconsistent. The doctrine of sola scriptura is inconsistent. Everybody has some tradition. They might be Americans, or Westerners. They might think in an individualistic thought world. They might be Methodists; they might have come up in the Episcopal tradition or the Presbyterian tradition, but all of us have categories that we receive from our spiritual fathers and mothers, those who have nurtured us in the faith. They have transmitted to us thought categories about which we know little, and yet they influence our interpretation so much. The question is not whether or not an interpretation will be authoritative, the question is whether it's the tradition that Christ instituted through the apostles and maintains through the apostolic tradition in one holy Roman Catholic Church. Its also improbable. I believe that any doctrine without a single defender for the first thirteen centuries of the Church is questionable to say the least. The along came Wycliffe in the fourteenth century and he began to develop it rather defensively. Because he disagreed with the pope, he thought his interpretation of the Bible was sound, therefore, he concluded, the Bible alone must be authoritative. It wasnt until the Protestant Reformation that such an interpretation became widespread. In Wycliffe day his own university colleagues condemned the proposition. Is it really the case that for fourteen centuries the Holy Spirit could guide nobody to see what the Protestants regarded as the formal principle of the Reformation, the article on which the Church stands or falls, along with justification by faith? And finally I believe that practically speaking it becomes somewhat incoherent. We say, well, the Bible alone is our sole and exclusive authority, but we will listen to and respect tradition. Well, what do you think of somebody who says, "I will accept with respect the words of Jesus and follow them whenever I agree with them". That isn't lordship, and that isnt servanthood. If we submit to the living Word of Jesus Christ I believe that it will cause us to see the Apostolic Tradition that Jesus Christ handed down to his family through his apostles, his spiritual sons and through their successors, the grandsons and greatgrandsons. A binding, a divine, an authoritative tradition found in the liturgy of the Church, found in the Creeds, found in the writings of the Fathers, and exhibited in statements such as St. Paul makes in 2 Thessalonians 2:15, 1 Corinthians 11:2 and other places as well. My reasons, then, for accepting Tradition are mainly biblical. I don't believe that Scripture teaches sola scriptura; I believe it's unhistorical; I believe its illogical; I believe the Protestant doctrine is impractical, inconsistent, improbable and incoherent, whereas I feel and I believe and Ive come to see that Scripture teaches the authority of Sacred Tradition, that it is the context in which the Church came to recognize the gospels and the New Testament. As St. Augustine said, "I would not believe in the Gospels were it not for the authority of the Catholic Church." That authority is not tyrannical, it is not human, it's the life of Jesus Christ transmitted by the Holy Spirit through those successors that he has graciously overseen and guaranteed because of his love and his power manifested in his living Body, the Church of Christ. Thank you very much.
www.mindspring.com/~jdarcy/files/authorit.htm By Scott Hahn
I know I wrote alot
Do write back when you can, no need to respond to everything, I know i write to much sometimes.
I guess I also have insomnia its 4:45 am here
God bless
Jeff
Answer -
Hi!
First off, I will try my best to address everything. There is a lot of ground to cover.
*********** 1. If three men claim to have the Holy Spirit, and all disagree on an issue in the Bible. Who decides which person is correct, if any?
I would say that God does. Just because someone claims to have the Holy Spirit does not mean they do. If in your example that all three individuals disagree but are saved, then my question is whether it is a spiritual matter (which I believe you are inferring.) Paul states that there are differences within the brotherhood:
1CO 11:19 No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God's approval.
*********** 2 We see in scripture, that Our Lord founded and the apostles spread one church. This Church was without division and rejected anyone who was divisive in the Church. (John 17:22, 1 Cor 1:10, Titus 3:10)
You must be reading a different NT than I (ha!) For example, in the above verse, Paul was rebuking them for how they were handling communion. Here are a few more verses from that passage:
1CO 11:17 In the following directives I have no praise for you, for your meetings do more harm than good. 18 In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it.
There are many places where the Epistles address issues and questions in the church. The Corinthian church was a mess, and so were some of the others. Look at Jesus' comments in Revelations. And the book of Acts describes the debate between Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians. Jesus prayed for unity, yes, but that does not mean they were unified. The church was founded by Jesus but entrusted to man. The early church was young, vibrant, and energized, but it also had issues to deal with. Specifically the blending in the culture around them, Gnosticism, and separation from its Jewish roots.
*********** 3 This Church was also a living physical Church as we see in Matt 18:15-17, When the people are told to bring a brother that sins against them to the Church and the Church will decide what to do with him.
Sure! But each church is autonomous. If you look at the Greek used here, the word is referring to the congregation (house church), not a priest or governing body. You are inferring that the church here is referring to its leaders and not the body.
*********** 4 This Church also has a hierarchy (Ephesians 4:11), "And He appointed Himself and gave some to be apostles, some prophets some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers."
Sure, so that leads to a question then. If that structure still exists today, where are the apostles, prophets, and gifts of the Holy Spirit? For example, the apostles healed the sick, raised the dead, speak in tongues, etc. If there are true apostles and prophets today, I do not know of any. People were empowered to raise the dead, heal the sick, drive out demons, speak in tongues, etc. So if you expect me to accept some sort of argument that the Pope is somehow an apostle, then I would like to know why *they* do not have the same characteristics as the Apostles in the NT.
*********** 5 And this Church was sent the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, Acts chapter 2.
Agreed
*********** 6 And Jesus said the Gates of Hades(Hell) would net prevail against his church. Matt 16:18 ensuring that This church would not apostate or mislead the faithful.
I agree! The church that Jesus built is not a physical building. It is made up of born-again believers. It has nothing to do with tradition, statues, saints, grand buildings, pavement, pews, robes, monks, money, power, purgatory, mysticism, etc. It is an army of ambassadors who have sworn to live and die at Jesus' command. That is the church. It is made up of people who God asked to change sides in this great conflict. In exchange for allegiance to Jesus, God change his address by leaving the temple and moving into their hearts. In other words, he left that kind of legalism behind in the Jewish system.
*********** 7 So Michael, where is this one, united, Holy (because of Pentecost), Church that was started by the Apostles and Our Lord.
You can find them in the mission fields, hospitals, soup kitchens, and of course, the church. Many of them suffer and die for their views.
*********** 8 Catholics believe in Sacred Tradition and the Bible, While you say you believe in the Bible alone. Where in the Bible does it say to believe in the Bible alone?
Where does it say not to? There are many books that claim to be the word of God. I have read some of them (Gospel of Thomas, Mary, etc.) Though I would never say that God could not write or have man write another book to augment or replace the gospel, I don't believe that God needs to. It is the message that is important, and the Bible more than adequately tells us about Jesus, how to live, what sin is, how to be saved, and how to run a church. What are you driving at? Do you have some book that you claim is from God?
And Jesus was quick to condemn Jewish tradition in some cases because they placed that over what was right.
Today, there are all sorts of traditions that are not found in the NT. How do you evaluate such traditions? To call a tradition a sacred thing is a slippery slope. Some traditions not found in the NT are pews, buildings and mortgages, wafers and little drink cups, passing of the basket in front of non-Christians, robes, song books, singing with your face forward and not to each other, tithing, instruments and choirs in the church, burning incense, statues, rituals for the dead, and on and on and on. So to call any of these sacred is wrong in my view.
*********** 9 You said,
"(t)he only way to receive the Holy Spirit is to repent and be baptized into Jesus. There is no other way in scripture that I am aware of."
What about Acts 8:15-17 Here we read of men who had been baptized and only recieved the Holy Spirt when the Apostles laid hands on them.
Also Acts, 9:17, 19:6 and Hebrews 6:2
(We call this confirmation)
Yes, I was aware of this one. Sorry, my point was that in order to be saved, you must be born of water and Spirit. Peter understood this in Acts 2:38. What I believe about Acts 8 is that God did not want to shower these particular people with the Spirit (especially spiritual gifts) until the Apostles arrived. But that is my opinion. Regardless, these people were immersed and received the Holy Spirit.
*********** 10 You said,
"I will state that God wants you and me to enter a direct relationship with him. That is why the Bible was written in a common language. We do not need a priest, bishop, pope, elder, saint, or deacon to explain God's word or to tell us how to live."
Michael,this seems contrary to the bible, you will find that we ought to obey God, the Gospel (Rom. 10:16), and the teaching of the apostles (Phi.
2:12, 2Th. 3:14). Children are to obey their parents and servants their masters (Eph 6.1, 5). Are believers to "obey" church leaders? If they are, the New Testament doesn't say so.
But not so fast-what about the text in Hebrews 13:17 which says "obey your leaders?" This text is interesting, because it gives us an insight into the positive side of the New Testament's understanding of leadership.
Paul also states in Romans that we should obey civil authority too. My Spiritual leader is Jesus. My relationship is with God through Jesus. There are no other layers in that chain. He placed certain brothers in charge to sheppard the local church. There are Elders. I am subject to them in the since that I am a fellow brother and a member of their church they are responsible for. But these same Elders are my brothers too (equal in the scheme of things) and it is also my responsibility to hold their feet to the same fire. He did not, however, expect me to place my soul in their hands, or to subject my soul or spiritual allegiance to some man thousands of miles away. I am responsible for my own relationship with God. He does not want any man in-between or making Spiritual decisions for me. John tells me to “test all things” to see if they are from God. He did not tell the body to follow this or that man. Paul states it best:
1CO 1:10 I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought. 11 My brothers, some from Chloe's household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. 12 What I mean is this: One of you says, "I follow Paul"; another, "I follow Apollos"; another, "I follow Cephas"; still another, "I follow Christ." 13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into the name of Paul?
There is nothing positive about a top-down hierarchy like the one you are espousing. I say this because it only takes a little corruption to permeate then entire pyramid. I believe that the pyramid is inverted in God's church. The people are responsible for each other, and Elders are part of that same family. That is why we are to choose men among us who are respected at home and in the public eye. Even the Apostles in Acts did not choose the Deacons. They told the people to appoint them. There are plenty discussion points about Elders and Deacons in the NT, but no discussion about how one Elder from one church is in charge of another church somewhere else, or how they are to choose who is to serve. And like I said, I believe the Apostles and Prophets had their place in the hierarchy in our history, but not now.
*********** 11 WE NEED TO take our ideas of leadership in the church from the New Testament and not from the world. Thus, we should begin not with a worldly concept of authority.
Totally agree!
*********** 12 It's also interesting you say you do not accept Authority when if fact you already have, let me explain
In the early Church there were many letters being past around the Churhes, not only the 27 letters of the now accepted New Testaent but other letters such as ,The Shepherd of Hermas, The Epistle of Barnabas The Book of Clement The Epistles of Ignatius, These men were all early Christian writers and all of these were circulated in such a way as that some regarded them as scriptural. Others didn't. The Church had to decide what is and what wasnt inspired. Some Letters such as 1 Corinithians and 2 Timothy seem obviously inspired by God. But tell me what is so obvious in Philemon to indicate that it is inspired? And what is so obviously unorthodox in The Shepherd or the Didache or Clement's letter or any of the other first-and second-century Christian writings?
It was just because of this confusion that the Church eventually decided to define what was and wasn't the Inspired Word of God. Which was completed in 397 AD.
>So it was the Catholic Church, the Pope and Bishops, with the guidance
>of the Holy Spirit who decided what 27 letters
would and would not make up the New Testament.
>
> If one believes in the authenticity of the Bible, It therefore
>logically and really means that they have accepted the
Authority
>of the Catholic Church, Popes and Bishops (whether they like it or not).
I think this is a funny point you make. I disagree if you believe that God was not involved in this. It was certainly his book to make. You seem to imply that men made these decisions and God was not involved. I have read some of the early writings. I have not seen anything yet that is not either duplicated or completely out there. (I haven't read everything, so I don't want to pretend to know it all.) For example, I seem to remember one story where Jesus torched a kid for knocking him down. Should that be in the Bible? God could have used the very devil to write the Bible. Even the order you list them in infers that the Holy Spirit was at the Pope/Bishops disposal as some kind of guiding force that they wielded. No, I believe it was the other way around.
There are many non-Biblical sources about Jesus. Whether they are true or not, they don't add anything to his message. Jesus came to this earth to suffer and die. I deserve what Jesus went through. He took my place of punishment. God was showing us what hell is like. Jesus went through that for me, it is a free gift, and all I have to do is accept it. What other books do I need to show me that? What can other books contribute to or improve that message?
*********** 13 For it was though
>this Church that came the Bible as you and I know it today.
>
> If I did not trust in the Authority of the Catholic Church it would
>follow that I would be morally obligated to reject the New testament.
>
> But as I do believe in the 27 inspired letters of the New Testamet as
decided with the guidence of the Holy Spirit by the Pope and Bishops of the
>Catholic Church in the 4th century. It does then make sense that The
>Holy
Spirt is working in this Church.
If you go back to some of the Catholic history or some of the mandates from the councils like Trent, would you agree that some of their teaching was not Biblical? For example, do you believe in purgatory or granting indulgences? Do you believe that Christ left the church the power to forgive sins? Are these teachings from the Holy Spirit or from men? Would the one true church (if you infer that non-Catholic churches are apostate and outside Christ) practice and teach such things? Ever? Should God's church behave and act differently today than it did in the book of Acts?
*********** 14 You say,"Our church has Elders and Deacons, yes, but there is no centralized church authority to tell us how to think, act, etc."
We Catholics are not told how to think or act either, however when it comes to doctrine, we are to be completely united as it is stated in the
Bible 1 Cor 1:10. Complete unity is a fundamental aspect of the Churc
Answer Hi Jeff!
I finally have had a chance to sit down and go through your last post. I am self-employed and have been blessed lately with a lot of work. Unfortunately it takes away my free time. I apologize.
Well certainly you have exposed your viewpoint well. If I were to sum this up, you are espousing that the RCC is the only true and right church; that in order to be saved you must or should be a member of the RCC at some time; that membership into the RCC is done by sprinkling, sacraments, etc.; that the RCC is totally united; that mistakes and abuses of power in the RCC past did occur; and that to be a member of this church, you would be under the authority of the hierarchy, with the Pope being the chief *bishop* at the top. Is this a fair characterization?
From my side, I am stating that membership in a particular world church is not required, but that in order to be saved, you must repent and be immersed for the forgiveness of your sins (Acts 2:38 for example), and that by doing so, you receive the free gift of the Holy Spirit. So whether the sign on the building states something like Church of Christ, the Church at Galatia, Mars Hill, etc. the idea is that membership into God's church is done the same way. But in doing so, you are under no obligation to be a member of the church you were saved at. Hopefully I have made that position clear.
So let me distill some of what was said in your last post and continue.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And the Roman Catholic Church Holds to this Biblical and Unchangeable Christian Doctrine, That there is "No Salvation Outside the Church" This does not mean that if one is not Roman Catholic they cannot be saved.
Perhaps you could explain this one. Are you saying that if I have repented of my sins to God and I have been immersed (but I am not nor ever been a member of the RCC), that I am saved? (Of course, I am not asking you to play God – I am trying to understand your statement because they seem contradictory to me.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Though if one realizes the RCC is the true Church of Jesus Christ and still refuses to join, they will not inherit the Kingdom of God (as Paul says). In the same way if one realizes that Jesus Christ is the True God and turn his back on Him and walks away from Him, this person will also not inherit the Kingdom of God. Michael you may not agree, but this is entirely Biblical. And the RCC has the responsibility to preach and uphold and never compromise the Truth.
Where does Paul state that the RCC is the true church?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then you say, "(E)ach church is autonomous"
This position can NOT be Biblically backed up.
I believe it can. In Paul's missionary journeys, he established churches in various places. For example:
TIT 1:5 The reason I left you in Crete was that you might straighten out what was left unfinished and appoint elders in every town, as I directed you.
I also believe when Jesus was writing to the individual churches in Revelations, each one had its own set of issues and praise. Autonomous. Jesus didn't mention anything about hierarchy or Pope – he could have and ended the entire debate right there.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But if the saints in heaven are offering our prayers to God, then they must be aware of our prayers. They are aware of our petitions and present them to God by interceding for us.
I had to single this one out. You tend to argue a position with supposition. When you say “they must be aware”, you and making up something in the scripture that is not there. Do you have a scripture to back up your viewpoint here? I would be happy to debate or discuss in that context.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the Christian age, Paul himself took a temporary vow (Acts 18:18), and recommended that others live celibate lives consecrated to God (1 Cor. 7:32–38), especially ministers (1 Tim. 2:3–4).
Regarding this whole section, my question to you is this. Why is it a requirement to be celibate to be a priest? And if it is, where in scripture does it say that?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robes, they are mentioned over 25 times in the Bible, mainly in the OT.
Agreed. But not in the NT. Jesus condemned those who were religious on the outside, but on the inside were worthless. That is not to say that one cannot be religious on the inside and the outside, but nowhere in the NT do you find that we are required to wear anything (other than to dress modestly.) (You could make an argument that women should cover their heads too, but I do not believe that applies today.)
So why is it a requirement in the RCC to wear robes and collars?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pews, Well we have to sit somewhere and pews work very well. I can't imagine how pews could be offensive to God. Pavement, Helpful to those who have a hard time getting around and also not offensive to God, as far as I know. Grand Buildings, I agree, the money can be better spend elsewhere. However with so many congregants, Large buildings are necessary to accommodate them all, especially in very populated cities. And if the building is built well, it can last centuries.
My point is that these things are not necessary and were added by men. Whether they are offensive to God or not I don't know. It just seems to me that churches (including the RCC) tend to think that the bigger and grander the building, the more attractive to people they are. The early church in the NT had none of these things – they were added by men. For example, do you consider an intricately carved, wooden pew a requirement, or does a simple chair do? What do you sit on at your local RCC? I will never forget a friend of mine in Sweden who went to the Vatican – she was disgusted by the amount of wealth that was showcased because she was so familiar with the poor and suffering in some of the places she was in around the world. That is the point I was trying to make – there is a fair amount of things in the church that God neither authorized nor told us to collect money for.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------One example is 2Thess 2:15, telling us to hold to "traditions whether by word of mouth of letter" Not Just Letter.
Since most people could not read in Biblical times, and since the Bible did not exist, this fits and makes total sense. Let me cut to the chase on this point by asking a question – why did the RCC insist on the Latin translation only, and why were people who tried to translate the Bible into a different language killed? Wycliffe I believe is one example, and even his bones were dug up and burned he was so hated.
…You will never see the catholic Church compromise anything, in the Bible. in 2000 years we have never reversed or comprised a doctrine, not one. Especially on Unity.
Sorry, I am running out of time today, so I had to hack out some big chunks. If there is anything you want to *resurrect* (no PUN intended!), bring it back up. I pulled this one out because I think it is interesting. I will have to do some more homework – on the surface, I would disagree with this statement, but I do not have a specific example to offer at the moment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unfortunetly, at times this power was abused. Let us remember times were very, very different then. Im not trying to make excuses only I want you see the Church by the perspective of time.
Though though this Jesus protected His Church from teaching error of Doctrine thus Keeping his promise to protect the Chruch. Matt 16:18
If God wanted the church to be a top-down structure, and if the top of that structure got corrupt, is that still God's true church? Is it the true church only when it is not corrupt, or is it always?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When we pray to saints we ask for their intercession in prayer, we ask them to pray for us. Just as I ask my Christian friends to pray for me.
And did not Jesus speak to Moses and Elijah during the transfiguration, men who have already died and now partake in the heavenly vision of God.
Matt 17:1-9.
We are one body, the entire communion of saints, the living and the dead.
I have never asked any of my Christian friends who are in heaven to intercede for me, or to make petitions to God. I think this is totally unbiblical, especially given the language in the NT about how the Spirit petitions God on my behalf. You will have difficulty convincing me of this one, especially since I see nothing in scripture about it. However, please try – I will try to keep an open mind.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baptism
And while you say, your infant baptism only got your head wet,
I am thankful for the free gift of my baptism, and grateful for the graces I received on that day and for the eternal mark it left on my soul.
Just to be clear, I do not believe it is possible to be saved without the individual repenting and being immersed for the forgiveness of their sins. So if you were sprinkled as a child only, then I do not believe you are born again. We can agree to disagree, but nowhere in the Bible is sprinkling or infant baptism taught, even though you infer that it is. Baptism and repentance are linked at the hip so to speak; they are done together. It is not membership into a physical church that saves – it is repentance, immersion, and faith that one gains entrance into God's church.
Again, if there is anything you want to bring back up that I missed, please do so. If you don't write before the holidays, I hope you have a great Christmas and a happy new year!
