Christian Forums

1 Corinthians 11:2
Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you.

2 Thessalonians 2:15
So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.

2 Thessalonians 3:6
Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from every brother who leads an unruly life and not according to the tradition which you received from us.




Again all of this boils down to authority.  If you deny  this authority it only leaves the issues in the hands of the subjective and if you embrace the subjective, it ends in pluralism.  









God bless

Ryan - Why is it we don't attempt to seek total agreement or attain to the unity of the faith but instead man the posts that we've pitched on the wastelands of our opinions? 

That God works in our life and is long suffering and loving to each and all is without doubt but in regards to our maturity it is vital that we stop seeking to justify our position but to find this Church of which HAS the authority to face these questions and declare them true or false. 

larry2 - Interesting, but if you'll believe God, and I believe God, it is then that we can have unity.

Romans 1:17  For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith. Do you believe that, or do you let someone else to add to the requirements of that?

Acts 2:21  And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved. Do you believe that? I do and if we agree we can have unity in that.

John 3:16  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. God said it, I believe it, and that's good enough for me. Do you believe you have everlasting or conditional life? We can have unity if you believe you have everlasting life.

QuoteRyan -[/b] Why is it we don't attempt to seek total agreement or attain to the unity of the faith but instead man the posts that we've pitched on the wastelands of our opinions?  

Well, how often have you seen someone actually admit that they are wrong?  I mean, did the baptists admit that their teachings on what baptism "is" is wrong and so join the Methodist camp or vice versa?  I was only making this statement to show that what we wind up doing is agreeing to disagree and then wind up calling this disunity unity. This can be quite tragic and I will explain in response to your other comment.  

You can't have to contradictory teachings and have them both be right and both can be wrong.   It's a wasteland of opinions because it's like Alice in Wonderland. You have one church saying dunk them and the other church saying sprinkle and the other still that Christ really meant xyz when he said this and zyx in still another.  How is this not disunity?  Is this not a wasteland and since two contradictory teachings can't be right doesn't this mean that one or both even HAS TO BE teaching opinion as truth? 

Quotelarry2 - Interesting, but if you'll believe God, and I believe God, it is then that we can have unity.

Well again I'll use your very statement as an illustration.  Here you says, "if you'll believe God, we can have unity".  Now, of course you have implied a certain KIND of unity.  You go on to cite the "salvation" issues as you know them.  However, your list is in contradiction with the list that others keep and more than this you also define "salvation" differently than your neighbors.  

It's like the tower of babel.  Everyone thinks they are working together but in reality they can't even agree on what a brick is let alone start building.  

QuoteRomans 1:17  For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith. Do you believe that, or do you let someone else to add to the requirements of that?

This again implies that you are "the just" and therefore "the church" and so have "the truth".  It also implies that if I agree with this statement then I too have the Kingdom but the problem is the way in which we view God's reality.  

As I mentioned in Hebrews 5-6 we see that these doctrines being described are the elementary teachings of Christ.  So those teachings basically teach you about who Christ is.  And everyone has their own version of who Christ is.  In the Eucharist post we have a debate over Christ being present in the Eucharist.  You have two basic camps.  One believes that Christ IS present and the other that the bread and wine are mere symbols.  So now we have, in all reality, two Jesus'.  One Jesus is present in the Eucharist and the other Jesus made bread and wine mere ordinances and a time to cognitively reflect.  

So you say to me in a very general way, "do you believe God and if so we can have unity" but my brother I must say in all seriousness that the reality is that we have created many different Jesus and gospels based on our opinions on what we believe the scriptures mean to say.  

While I believe we are to love even our enemies who reject The Savior, we can not reduce the identity of who Christ truly, truly is for the sake of appearing to be loving.  Because we are commanded to love regardless of our doctrines and teachings OF CHRIST.  

I capitalize "of Christ" because we have to understand that not only our teachings and doctrines answer in part the question that Jesus asked, "who do you say I am" but that we have to recognize His Church.  The very one that Christ's mentions in Matthew 18.  

If not, then all we are doing is agreeing to love one another which we are bound in chains of Love, to do anyway, regardless of our differences.  However, this does not mean that we should reduce The Truth to the subject.  We must, just like the Holy Trinity be indivisible in our distinctions.  

Christ himself says that if a person rejects The Church that this one should be considered a pagan and a tax collector.  This does not mean that we do not love them but it is important to recognize His Church and His authority through The Church.  

Quote
Acts 2:21  And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved. Do you believe that? I do and if we agree we can have unity in that.

Again, what it means to "call on the name of the Lord" varies more than the flavors of Ben and Jerry's ice cream.  More than this the implication is that this alone is what unity means.  But we read in the scriptures of being of ONE MIND and Christ's prayer in John 17 that we be brought to COMPLETE UNITY does not sound a mere reduction of general observations.  

Do you believe in One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church or do you reject that Church for the sake of gathering with another?  

When St. Paul says to beware of him that reject the traditions as they have taught them, are we to disobey and embrace them as true believers?  How do we synthesize all of these verses in the bible with our sentiment that just so long as we profess faith that we are all already "saved"?  It doesn't add up with the reality presented in the Holy Scriptures.  

I mean, how do you reconcile this?

Matthew 18:17
If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

Again I am not saying that this one who has refused to listen to "even" the church won't be "saved" but you must admit that it is preferable to be found in Christ's church.  Do you really think that the only church there is is the individual believer or just a body of this fellow and that fellow and him over there and that sister there.  How are we then to "tell it to the church"?

Seriously, I don't understand.  

Quote
John 3:16  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. God said it, I believe it, and that's good enough for me. Do you believe you have everlasting or conditional life? We can have unity if you believe you have everlasting life.[/size]

Well, again this is so general because what you say and what I hear are different.  And this is true from denomination to denomination.  

Which only begotten Son are you referring to?  The one that is present in the Eucharist and who is put on through Holy Baptism even by an infant?  The Jesus who does not come at the rapture but at his parousia.  The Jesus who established a visible Church on earth?  The Jesus whose bishops anoint with oil?  The Jesus whose Mother is called, God-bearer or Theotokos?  

You see what I am saying?  I am not trying to be divisive but the reality of the situation is that if we say that none of this matters then what we are truly saying is that who Christ is isn't as important as our notion of salvation of self.  To subject who Christ is to a pluralistic heresy embracing system that denies that His Church is the deposit of faith is not love but hate disguised as love.  

I am not saying that you are in your heart of hearts doing such a thing but when this reality comes between you and who Christ is, it's time to seek outside yourself and see if there isn't an actual, One True Church.  

2 Corinthians 11:4
For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough.


I believe that His Church preaches the same Christ that the Apostles preached because they have retained the teachings and traditions of the Apostles first-hand.  And I believe that His Church has the authority to decide on a lot of these "teachings" by forming councils just like in Acts and by interpreting the Holy Scriptures within the context of the life of The Church.  I believe that "the spirit" received must be received within The Church or "through" His Church.  Of course I am not saying that God is bound to save only those within His One, Holy, catholic and Apostolic Church because God is generous and loving and all merciful and just.  However, I can not either deny this Church for to reject the Apostles and those that came after the Apostles is to reject Christ, the Savior, who sent those Apostles that through them we might TRULY believe and have The Faith.  It is through His Church that we are taught and live in The Way.  

I believe in the good news (gospel) that the Apostles preached and transmitted and deposited into His Church.  

His Church is a place we enter into and that wherein we become that which we enter into.  However, we must first be "added" before we can become and I won't subject the scriptures to my notion of how that occurs because all I have to do is go to The Church and enter in with faith.  


As 2 Corinthians exhorts.  We must not put up with it *easily enough.  

If all these gatherings of contradictory teachers are true.  Why then don't they gather to decide amongst themselves to be led by the Holy Spirit to tell them if there is a pre-trib or mid-trib or post-trib rapture or if baptism is or isn't for children?  Why can't they face these issues?  If all they have to do is be taught by the Holy Spirit then why is it that the Holy Spirit would teach all different sorts of contradictory teachings?  Is this really the work of the Holy Spirit?  Why should I embrace such a disjointed and contradictory system and embrace such a pluralistic community?  


Of all the churches of different denominations who differ on the teachings of Christ which one is the Church that Christ mentions when he says to tell it to the Church?  What if that Church all taught the same thing and the faithful within that church all believed the same thing and had One mind and sought to be in complete communion with God without division, not only as individuals but in community with the other members of that church?  

For as many churches as there are, it often seems we have as many different version of who Christ is and that's not what I want.  What I want is to seek the face of God, to know and be known by him.  I have a feeling that those the Apostles deposited the faith into never went anywhere but instead continued on long after the books of the bible leave off.  That community still exists.  

Seek it out, enter in and then see if you are able to let go of your presuppositions and attain to the unity of the faith that the Apostles delivered that we might truly, truly believe.  


"" Men that seem worthy of confidence, yet teach strange doctrines, must not upset you. Stand firm, like an anvil under the hammer. It is like a great athlete to take blows and yet win the fight. For God's sake above all we must endure everything, so that God, in turn, may endure us. Increase your zeal. Read the signs of the times. Look for Him Who is above all time – the Timeless, the Invisible, Who for our sake became visible, the Impassible,  Who became subject to suffering on our account and for our sake endured everything"". -St. Ignatius of Antioch



ICXC

In love,
God bless Larry

Ryan - Do you believe in One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church or do you reject that Church for the sake of gathering with another? 

larry2 - Dear Ryan, no I do not believe in the Roman Catholic Church to be the only part of the Church or I would join myself to it. There is one Church and that is the body of Christ made up of everyone that believes on Jesus Christ.

As to John 3:16 I believe you know who the only begotten Son that is being talked of there. The question is whether you believe the truth of that verse.

Matthew 18:17. Am I to treat you as a Pagan for not believing the same truth as I do?
Are you saying you don't believe you are saved after reading John 3:16? Does that mean you haven't believed on Jesus? No sir, I wouldn't believe that for a moment.

Or may I just put it into context which you seem to be saying: there is an axiom commonly held by many Catholic Theologians that "Outside the Church No Salvation." Is it by your tradition that everyone not tied to the Roman Catholic Church is not a Christian?

Thanks Ryan and may God continue to bless you too in Jesus' name.

Quote from: Rob, PGK on Mon Apr 12, 2010 - 13:42:45

Quote from: mclees8 on Mon Apr 12, 2010 - 13:25:13

Quote from: pointmade on Mon Apr 12, 2010 - 10:50:19
Jimmy:But for what it is worth, I disagree with pointmade also.  We indeed have the indwelling Holy Spirit just as the apostles did and as do all who have received salvation.  We just have not received the filling that would enable us to work miracles as some did and to pass along that ability as only the apostles did "

What kind of an answer is this? "We indeed have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit as the apostles We just have not received the filling that would enable us to work miracles."   Well Jimmy.....as I said, this "indwelling was only promised to the men in the upper room." You, Larry, Frank, Mclees8 were not there! Nor were the one hundred and twenty mentioned in Acts 1:15. There is absolutely nothing in the text of Acts 2 that implies that the 120 were filled with the Holy Spirit.
In verse 8, Luke informs the reader: "And how do we hear EVERY MAN in our own tongue, wherein we were born?" Wouldn't the women in verse 14 be speaking in tongues if the Spirit fell on the 120? Luke tells us that "Peter stood up with the eleven" (apostles) in verse 14. So, let's keep our facts straight when we exegeses the text.

Jimmy, You say, "the filling was to work miracles." Absurd!  You are aware that the "twelve" had been working miracles since early in Jesus' ministry BEFORE the Spirit had been given (John 7:39)? You might look to Matthew 10:1 where Jesus "called the twelve and gave them power" for verification. You say,  "We indeed have the same indwelling Holy Spirit just as the apostles." OK....try this.....In the upper room the night Jesus was betrayed, He told the eleven men seated there with him: "whatsoever YOU shall ask in my name I will do it" (John 14:14). Would either of you "indwelled" gentlemen like to try this? I will wait for your reply.......

"Indwelled'? why neither of you could elementry comply with Jesus' words in the upper room: "But when the Advocate, which is the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall TEACH YOU ALL THINGS AND BRING ALL THINGS TO YOUR REMBERMANCE, WHATSOEVER I HAVE SAID UNTO YOU" (John 14:26). Please excuse my emphasizes by capitalization....but, please do not insult my intelligence by saying you have this total recall given to men who had been with him from the beginning (John 15:27). Nope, wasn't promised to you, the papacy or Benny Hinn...lol...lol

And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode both Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew, Philip, and Thomas, Bartholomew, and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas the brother of James. 14 These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.
15 And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty,
. Ac 1:13-15

And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. 2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. 3 And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. 4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
  Acts 2:1-4


well you might call it poor exegeses. But its looks purty plain to me. it says there were 120 in the upper room and it says they were all filled with the Holy Ghost. It did not say that the 12 were filled but it said all were filled.

If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone? or if he ask a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent? 12 Or if he shall ask an egg, will he offerc him a scorpion? 13 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?
Lk 11:11-13

Now if 120 were there waiting for the promise would the Lord deny the others

Now who do you think brought this scripture to me ?

God bless

The scripture was brought to you by the Catholic Church. They are the ones that canonized the Bible and compiled the scriptures into the book that we now know as the New Testament.

So, on behalf of the Catholic Church, you are welcome.

NOW WHEN YOU SAY THE CATHOLIC CHURCH YOU MEAN ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH. THE CHURCH IS CATHOLIC BY THE TRUEST MEANING OF THAT WORD. BUT IT  IS NOT ALL ROMAN CATHOLIC. NOR WAS IT ROMAN CATHOLIC AT THE TIME OF WRITING OF THE EPISTLES. NOW THE THE RCC MAY HAVE CANONIZED. BUT THEY DID NOT GIVE US THE NEW TESTAMENT. CHRIST AND THE APOSTLES GAVE US THE NEW TESTAMENT LONG BEFORE IT WAS CANNONED. AND WHO INSPIRED THEM. THE SAME SPIRIT OF GOD THAT WAS PROMISED TO ALL BELIEVERS. THAT IS THOSE WHO WANT THE HOLY SPIRIT. SO I SAY THE SPIRIT OF GOD BROUGHT THAT SCRIPTURE TO ME BECAUSE HE SPEAKS THE TRUTH AND SETS THE RECORD STRAIGHT.
GOD BLESS

SO IF YOU SAY ON BEHALF OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH ( ALL BELIEVERS) IM WELCOME. I SAY THANK YOU     

Quotelarry2 - Dear Ryan, no I do not believe in the Roman Catholic Church to be the only part of the Church or I would join myself to it. There is one Church and that is the body of Christ made up of everyone that believes on Jesus Christ.

I am not Roman Catholic.  I did ask however if you believe that Christ's Church is One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic.  

I mean, most people would at least agree to three out of the four.  And in the sense of the word, "catholic" it means "according to the whole".  

Would you say that Christ's Church is one?  Holy?  According to the whole?   And Apostolic?  

Quote
As to John 3:16 I believe you know who the only begotten Son that is being talked of there. The question is whether you believe the truth of that verse.

I'm not trying to say that you don't believe in Christ, the only begotten or that others don't either but in regards to the teachings of Christ that were mentioned in Hebrews, what do you make of those "elementary" teachings?  Do you find it odd that there isn't agreement on even the elementary teachings?

QuoteMatthew 18:17. Am I to treat you as a Pagan for not believing the same truth as I do?

Well, that's not really what I was referring to.  Christ did not say that if I Ryan don't believe as Larry does that I should be treated as a tax collector or a pagan.  Our Lord, dear brother, did not say that if we don't agree with Luther or Zwingli or Calvin or John Smyth or (insert individuals name here) that we should be treated as a pagan or a tax collector.  

However, and again please know this is said in love, that if Christ said that if we tell it to The Church and we don't listen even to The Church then we are to be treated as the pagan and or tax collector.  I'm not even sure how to treat a pagan or a tax collector other than to love but that's regardless of the issue.  

My point here is if we individuals are "The Church" then this doesn't make sense of the scripture.  If the Baptists disagree and the Methodists disagree to which "Church" do they take their grievances to?  How are they to be unified?  Where's the authority of the Church?  

Quote
Are you saying you don't believe you are saved after reading John 3:16? Does that mean you haven't believed on Jesus? No sir, I wouldn't believe that for a moment.

Well again we probably have different understanding of "saved".  Yes I believe that all humanity was saved in 33 AD.  However, we must respond to that great gift and so are being saved and God willing will be saved.  I have yet to obtain my resurrected body and so I do not presume to know what tomorrow might bring.   Like St. Peter when restored after denying Christ three times I can only say that, yes, Lord, you know that I philios you.  

The thing that I am asking here is if you see yourself as "the church" then how do you read Matt 18?   Are you to tell it to yourself?  

Do you believe that the elders of the Church that we read in the Holy Scriptures have authority?  If so then did that authority die with the Apostles?  Or did that authority continue on?  Are we not as Christians to obey those very elders we read about?

Quote
Or may I just put it into context which you seem to be saying: there is an axiom commonly held by many Catholic Theologians that "Outside the Church No Salvation." Is it by your tradition that everyone not tied to the Roman Catholic Church is not a Christian?

Well, I do believe that since Vatican II they've changed their doctrine that salvation outside The Church is possible.  Just don't want to pander to some of the notions against Rome here.  

However, I go to an Eastern Orthodox Church and the belief there is similar in that there may be salvation outside of the Church.   St. Paul did not judge those outside of The Church and The Church did not and does not judge those outside so that's kind of how they roll.  St. Paul is worthy of imitation on that issue.  

Neither do I believe that you are not a "brother".   However, what I am hoping to point your attention to is The Church outside of the concept that The Church is just made up of individuals that hold contradictory beliefs.  What if The Church has authority and that authority is Christ's through The Church?  What if The Church is visible and you go to it and "tell it" to The Church because it's not just you or some guy who has gathered like minds among him.  

What if to become The Church you must first enter into that which you must become?  

What if Church is more?

What then?  


I hope I didn't give you the impression that I believe that you are "unsaved" or anything like that.  I often don't explain myself as well as I can.  Forgive me there.  

Blessings

ICXC

Ryan - If you're saying apostolic in as believing in the apostles to be saved, no. My belief is built upon Christ, the solid rock I stand, and as the old hymn goes, all other ground is sinking sand.

larry2 - Do I believe what is written, yes I do but there is totally new revelation given to us by Christ that was hidden from the twelve apostles, and we're to follow that revealed gospel not shown to ages and generations before.

Ryan - I'm not trying to say that you don't believe in Christ, the only begotten or that others don't either but in regards to the teachings of Christ that were mentioned in Hebrews, what do you make of those "elementary" teachings?  Do you find it odd that there isn't agreement on even the elementary teachings?

larry2 - Yes I do Ryan, but when I left the Catholic Church it was due to the truth of my salvation being revealed to my heart for the first time in my life. I still did not know much scripture, but those words of John 3:16 rang over and over in my mind until they became real to my heart. "Everlasting Life." I didn't understand even all I was supposed to know of my Catholic religion, but I did know that I believed God's word and my giant Catholic Douay Bible said "For God so loved the world that He gave His only-begotten Son, that those who believe in Him may not perish, but may have life everlasting." I could understand that, I knew what the word "Everlasting" meant and no one was ever going to take that from me.

Now what did I do when I came to what seemed to conflict with that, or when other people told me that wasn't so? Some things took me back at time but I clung to what God made real to my heart that moment when I first knew had made that real to me.

I do not have membership in any organized church organization, though I assemble together with believers of like faith; we do not have a membership but contend that all who have believed on Christ to be members of the one true Church which is the body of Christ. The body of Christ is an organism, not an organization. I believe that is why we read in 1 Corinthians 3:4  For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal? That does not mean because you belong to some religious organization that you are not Christian, but that is not what it is to be. Christ is the only head we should have.

Ryan - I believe that all humanity was saved in 33 AD.

larry2 - That is a common belief of Universalism that I do not believe in the slightest degree. I believe all men must be born again, or born of God through the acceptance of the blood of His Son Jesus shed for them. We read in Hebrews 9:22 ". . without shedding of blood is no remission." Being saved is the deliverance from the judgment to come, and that occurs the moment you believe on the Lord Jesus' Christ.
 
Ryan - I am hoping to point your attention to is The Church outside of the concept that The Church is just made up of individuals that hold contradictory beliefs.

larry2 - The Lord made provision for that for instance when He had Paul tell us in
Romans 14:1-6 below. Dear Brother Ryan., you are going to be amazed at all the Roman Catholics, Lutherns, Baptists, etc. in heaven. Will they all attain unto the same reward? Very doubtfull when we read the judgments of the churches in Revelation Chapters Two and Three.
 
1   Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.
2   For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs.
3   Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him.
4   Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.
5   One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.
6  He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.
 
We read back in 1 Corinthians 3:6  I (Paul) have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase. Don't sell your brethren in Christ short, because it is God in us that causes us to will, and to do of His good pleasure. Different ones will grow in grace and knowledge of our dear Savior and others won't. Certainly in that case one will be under bondage to not eat certain things while another eats all things, but they remain our brethren because the belong to Christ, and He is able to make them stand.

God bless you Brother Ryan in the blessed name of Jesus.

Quote
Ryan - If you're saying apostolic in as believing in the apostles to be saved, no. My belief is built upon Christ, the solid rock I stand, and as the old hymn goes, all other ground is sinking sand.

I want to reply to this only because it appears as if I said this and didn't.  It is your reply but with my name attached to it.  I also want to say that to reject the Apostles is to reject Christ.  I think to be obedient to the Apostles is to be obedient to Christ because through them we believe as the scriptures say.  

Just as The Father sent The Son so to did The Son send the Apostles.

Quote

larry2 - Do I believe what is written, yes I do but there is totally new revelation given to us by Christ that was hidden from the twelve apostles, and we're to follow that revealed gospel not shown to ages and generations before.

I have no idea what you are talking about here.  All that Christ was given he gave and kept no secret and likewise did the Apostles not keep any secret.  All was delivered and kept.

QuoteI do not have membership in any organized church organization, though I assemble together with believers of like faith; we do not have a membership but contend that all who have believed on Christ to be members of the one true Church which is the body of Christ. The body of Christ is an organism, not an organization. I believe that is why we read in 1 Corinthians 3:4  For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal? That does not mean because you belong to some religious organization that you are not Christian, but that is not what it is to be. Christ is the only head we should have.

Well, I agree that Christ is the head but again how do you make sense of Matthew 18 wherein he says to tell it to The Church?  Do you not see that Christ is head of The Church and The Church has authority?

QuoteRyan - I believe that all humanity was saved in 33 AD.

larry2 - That is a common belief of Universalism that I do not believe in the slightest degree. I believe all men must be born again, or born of God through the acceptance of the blood of His Son Jesus shed for them. We read in Hebrews 9:22 ". . without shedding of blood is no remission." Being saved is the deliverance from the judgment to come, and that occurs the moment you believe on the Lord Jesus' Christ.

I'm sorry I didn't make myself more clear.  You only quoted the first thing I said and didn't quote my entire response.  I'm not universalist and I think you misunderstand me when I say "saved".  Do I think all humanity and creation was saved in 33 AD?  Yes.  However, do I think all will be saved?   No.  We must accept that salvation in order to be saved but non the less Christ accomplished it that it is there free for the taking.  Just like Adam and Eve were free to eat from the tree of life, again we are free to eat from the tree of life but not everyone will do so.  We must respond.  

Quote
larry2 - The Lord made provision for that for instance when He had Paul tell us in
Romans 14:1-6 below. Dear Brother Ryan., you are going to be amazed at all the Roman Catholics, Lutherns, Baptists, etc. in heaven. Will they all attain unto the same reward? Very doubtfull when we read the judgments of the churches in Revelation Chapters Two and Three.

I won't at all be surprised but again I think you are seeing what you see as "salvation" (being bound up in the idea of going to heaven) and what I am talking about regarding Christ's Church as being synonymous but again, look at Matt 18 wherein Christ says to "tell it to the Church and if he does not listen to even The Church treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector".  

If The Church is just the self and a group of selves how are we to "tell it to The Church"?
 
 

QuoteWe read back in 1 Corinthians 3:6  I (Paul) have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase. Don't sell your brethren in Christ short, because it is God in us that causes us to will, and to do of His good pleasure. Different ones will grow in grace and knowledge of our dear Savior and others won't. Certainly in that case one will be under bondage to not eat certain things while another eats all things, but they remain our brethren because the belong to Christ, and He is able to make them stand.

I am not selling my brothers short but only encouraging them to seek out The Church that they might not be subject to every wind of doctrine and place themselves under the authority of the Lord's Church that The Church might instruct them in the faith, prepare them for the Kingdom and remind them of the faith that Christ through the Apostles delivered to the Saints for our benefit and maturity.  


Thank you for the replies Larry.  

ICXC

larry2 - Do I believe what is written, yes I do but there is totally new revelation given to us by Christ that was hidden from the twelve apostles, and we're to follow that revealed gospel not shown to ages and generations before.

Ryan - I have no idea what you are talking about here.  All that Christ was given he gave and kept no secret and likewise did the Apostles not keep any secret.  All was delivered and kept.

larry2 - I'm sorry Ryan for having not went further with this, or at least giving scriptures. To start with the words Paul issue are the revealed words of risen Christ.

Galatians 1:11  But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.

Galatians 1:12  For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

Then Paul tells us that he was given by Christ to fulfill or complete the gospel that was hidden from previous ages and generations. None of the twelve apostles had the finished gospel of Christ. They were in fact looking for the kingdom millennial period to start right away.

Colossians 1:25  Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfill the word of God;

Colossians 1:26  Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints:

Peter wrote of Paul's epistles this way in 2 Peter 3:16.  As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

I'll leave off with this answer on this one reply to keep it from becoming too long and will address the other parts of you reply on subsequent replies.

Thanks in Jesus' name.   

larry2 - I do not have membership in any organized church organization, though I assemble together with believers of like faith; we do not have a membership but contend that all who have believed on Christ to be members of the one true Church which is the body of Christ. The body of Christ is an organism, not an organization. I believe that is why we read in 1 Corinthians 3:4  For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal? That does not mean because you belong to some religious organization that you are not Christian, but that is not what it is to be. Christ is the only head we should have.

Ryan - Well, I agree that Christ is the head but again how do you make sense of Matthew 18 wherein he says to tell it to The Church?  Do you not see that Christ is head of The Church and The Church has authority?

larry2 - Well that has to do with justification between brethren, and if you'll notice it is the brethren judging a matter. When we were told not to judge lest we be judged it pertained to righteousness, and here it is personal forgiveness. Also notice the binding of other than Peter being said in heaven here. An example might suffice in the dealing with a fornicator at Corinth in 1 Corinthian 5:1 where the church was to put away that man from them. After he had suffered for awhile in 2 Corinthians 2:1-13 they were to allow him back, forgive and comfort him in v.7. He was still their brother in Christ.

In Jesus' name.

Ryan - I believe that all humanity was saved in 33 AD.

larry2 - That is a common belief of Universalism that I do not believe in the slightest degree. I believe all men must be born again, or born of God through the acceptance of the blood of His Son Jesus shed for them. We read in Hebrews 9:22 ". . without shedding of blood is no remission." Being saved is the deliverance from the judgment to come, and that occurs the moment you believe on the Lord Jesus' Christ.

Ryan - I'm sorry I didn't make myself more clear. You only quoted the first thing I said and didn't quote my entire response.  I'm not Universalist and I think you misunderstand me when I say "saved".  Do I think all humanity and creation was saved in 33 AD?  Yes.  However, do I think all will be saved?   No.  We must accept that salvation in order to be saved but non the less Christ accomplished it that it is there free for the taking.  Just like Adam and Eve were free to eat from the tree of life, again we are free to eat from the tree of life but not everyone will do so.  We must respond. 

larry2 - I can see what you're saying though I fail to agree with it concerning salvation in its fullness. What Jesus did there at the cross was paying the price of our sin, and it was the atonement, or reconciliation of mankind. The Bible talks of salvation in four different applications that I use, and there may be more, but nevertheless I'll just paste an excerpt from a book I wrote concerning them.

First - It is provisional. If you accept Jesus as your savior, you will be saved. (Romans 10:9-10) "If you say with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved, (10) For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation."

Second - When you become saved, it is at this time that you are born again and have overcome the penalty of sin, or become saved from the great white throne judgment and the resulting lake of fire. (Repeating John 5:24), "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life." In (Romans 8:1) "There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus."

Third - The working out your own salvation referred to in (Philippians 2:12) is learning to overcome the habit of sin in our lives. This is the experiencing part of our salvation and is another step in our growth as a Christian. (2 Peter 1:5-7) tells us to "Add to your faith virtue, knowledge, temperance, patience, godliness, brotherly kindness and charity." To realize this growth in our lives, we must learn to begin counting our old man dead. (Romans 6:6) "Knowing this, that our old man (The Adamic nature) is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.

And what of the elders who had the authority to decide on matters that were binding to the whole Church?  The Apostles ordain elders and only those who were ordained by them could ordain and anoint with oil.  Did the elders lose their authority when the Apostles died?  Did The Church we read about in acts not continue on? 

How do you interpret this? 

Ryan - And what of the elders who had the authority to decide on matters that were binding to the whole Church?  The Apostles ordain elders and only those who were ordained by them could ordain and anoint with oil.  Did the elders lose their authority when the Apostles died?  Did The Church we read about in acts not continue on? 

How do you interpret this? 

larry2 - Would you agree that the seven churches John was told to write to in Revelation was all of the body of Christ? There were different judgments, and different rewards passed out, yet they were all the one Church.

Now order is to reign in a meeting thus the order prescribed as how to worship, the manner of the use of gifts, etc, and yes even to judging members of the body, but we don't even see that order kept according to the word of God else why are some calling themselves Lutherans, etc?

Now when they were to be as a heathen and a publican, was that to mean they were not of the body of Christ? I now have to join myself to some religious headed organization to accept the salvation of Christ, and to remain safe in Him?

That must have been the thinking that faced Paul when He had to withstand Peter to the face for his show of legalism in Galatians 2:11. But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.

And then in Galatians 2:4  And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage: What bondage would they have liked to see Paul under: rules of the Church? He had liberty; he knew what it was to live by faith.

Quotelarry2 - Would you agree that the seven churches John was told to write to in Revelation was all of the body of Christ? There were different judgments, and different rewards passed out, yet they were all the one Church.

Well, this is the problem with your position.  You are supposing that the churches mentioned in revelation are not subject to the authority of The Church.  

It's plain in the scriptures that Christ gives to the Apostles not only authority and the command to go out and to preach and baptize but to also loose and bind.  And herein the Apostles do ordain elders and overseers.  Elders are bishops and overseers priests and only those who have been ordained through the laying on of hands may lay hands on others and ordain.  More than this they are given specific functions to perform within their office such as the anointing of oil.  They also have the duty of making decisions that are binding not only to their local churches but also to all of the churches that make up The Church.  

Any group or individual that broke away from this reality is not mentioned favorably in the scriptures and history reveals that these groups were heretical so much so like the gnostics and others who sought to gather like minds that they only purposed to pervert and detract from that which belongs to The Church which Christ established.  

And this is where your revelations example falls short.  Because you do not recognize this binding authority evident in The Church you juxtapose modernity onto Revelations.  You only assume that these churches in Revelation were like protestants are just sort of making a go at it in their own independent way.  It's not that the churches in revelation reject the Apostles or the elders or overseers but that in some cases the disposition of their hearts threatened their very salvation.  That Christ says he wants to spit so and so out is not just a group of ancient baptists or lutherans or non denominational make-it-up as you go according to your private notions.  No, these were taught the faith and were in communion with The Church.  

You have to show me in revelation where these churches have no ties to the apostles and were not under the authority of The Church.  

QuoteNow order is to reign in a meeting thus the order prescribed as how to worship, the manner of the use of gifts, etc, and yes even to judging members of the body, but we don't even see that order kept according to the word of God else why are some calling themselves Lutherans, etc?

But to reduce "order" to a simple notion of "be orderly" and ignore the hierarchy that is evident in the scriptures is an overspiritualization of that which is visible and concrete.  

Again, though you see the passage where Christ says, "tell it to the church" as merely moral, the Holy Scriptures lend themselves to a reading that show actual authority over the individual.  

In short The Church is something that we enter into and we drop our presuppositions at the door because it is The Church that Christ has, through the Apostles, deposited the faith into The Church.  

Quote
Now when they were to be as a heathen and a publican, was that to mean they were not of the body of Christ? I now have to join myself to some religious headed organization to accept the salvation of Christ, and to remain safe in Him?

Well, I will put it to you like this.  If the Lord's Apostles were sent and crossed your paths would you not do all that they said?  If they ordained an elder and overseer over you would you not then be subject to their rule as if you are dealing with the Apostles themselves?  Would you not deal with the Apostles as if you were dealing with Christ himself?  The issue here is not that the Apostles and overseers/elders are Christ but that Christ! sent the Apostles and through the Apostles ordained overseers and elders.  

Would you reject The Church that Christ established and rest soley on a promise of salvation if you "have faith" or "believe" in Christ?  No!  If you crossed paths with the Apostles and overseers and elders were ordained to oversee The Church, your faith in Christ would have you not forsake The Church and so would enter in.  

QuoteThat must have been the thinking that faced Paul when He had to withstand Peter to the face for his show of legalism in Galatians 2:11. But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.

The problem here again is that you are mixing the legalism wire with the wire that God established offices with certain functions within the church. I am not talking about modern churches but The Church in the context of the scriptures.  The one where in order to have a certain office and perform certain functions it must be done so within the continuity of Christ's sending the Apostles out in conjunction with the elders and overseers.  

The reason this is hard to discern is because we have to recognize The Church coming out of Judaism and this sort of tearing out is captured in the epistles and in Acts.  We see the Apostles in The Temple (of which there was only one) and we see them confronting their former way in the light of the good news.  

The issue with St. Peter is that he was being found to keep company among those who would have us keep circumcision and other certain things that The Church was no longer bound to.  

When the Apostles and the elders decide what seems right to them and the Holy Spirit in regards to circumcision and other issues those who St. Peter was keeping company with would not have agreed to subject themselves to the authority of those decisions.  

Acts 16:4
As they traveled from town to town, they delivered the decisions reached by the apostles and elders in Jerusalem for the people to obey.

The point here is that the group that St. Peter was keeping company would not obey such decisions delivered.  The Church is the place where those decisions were deposited.  

Again, we know that this is not legalism but obedience to the Authority of Christ through the Apostles and elders and overseers by the Holy Spirit.  

Quote
And then in Galatians 2:4  And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage: What bondage would they have liked to see Paul under: rules of the Church? He had liberty; he knew what it was to live by faith.[/size]

The bondage here is not referring to the authority of The Church but he is speaking of the circumcision sect here wherein they seek basically to keep us in the shadows of the law.  What was taking place was that The Church was rising up out of the shallow wells of what today we call Judaism.  It was Christianity that was the purest expression of Judaism because it is found in the person of Christ.  It is Christ that casts the very shadows of the law but being disobedient to the authority of The Church some stayed behind to dwell in the shadows when they could have attained to the fullness of Christ's Church.  

Hebrews 13:17
Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you.

To say that these leaders once had authority and now do not does not make sense.  To say that we once had to obey our leaders and now do not does not make sense.  

And the difference between Christ's church and the Lutheran, Calvinist, Baptist, non-denominational, Methodist, Wesleyan, Church of England, Anglican, Episcopalian, on and on and on is that Christ's Church has the authority of Christ who through the Apostles and elders and overseers watch over us.  

Who am I to say that I will go my own way and not obey the leaders that were given a specific office and function from the very start of the great commission.  For one to stand up and ordain themselves is outside the reality presented in the holy scriptures.  Where did Wesley get his authority to ordain?  Who ordained him?  Was it an elder or an overseer who had been ordained by the Apostles?  If not, he has no authority and only has his opinion.  

This is also true of individuals who in an attempt to avoid what looks like institution, begin their own non-denominational church.  These churches too have a structure and they place themselves in authority over matters as to how to conduct themselves.  Yet who has ordained these men and women?  The Apostles?  The elders and overseers that we read about in the Holy Scriptures?  No.  They are ordaining themselves in their own authority.  And in this they do not realize that the scriptures that they claim is their only authority are only in context within the life of Christ's Church.  

If this were not so, the letters and gospels would not have been written to those that the Apostles knew.  But now that everyone can read a copy for themselves, we feel like we can side step the very community through which Christ himself has established through his Apostles and elders and overseers and prophets.  

Ephesians 2:19-20

19Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God's people and members of God's household, 20built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone.

Two observations about the verse above.  

One is that this letter Ephesians is written to the Church recognized by the Apostles.  Also, they have been ordained and obey the decisions made by The Church because they are of The Church.  Not in some intangible way but even by the very laying on of hands.  So for every group that reads this verse and doesn't realize that this is written to The Church will mistake that this is within the context of The Church and so juxtapose their own circumstances onto the texts.  But doing this is to reject the very community of Christians that we are all so very familiar with in reading.  But this "community" still exists.  There are still elders and overseers who were ordained by those who were ordained by the very Apostles and elders and overseers whose letters are now called Holy.  

The second observation is that the Apostles are mentioned as part of the foundation.  Now if the Apostles are the foundation of "God's household" then surely we must pay careful attention to that which they did and what they taught.  And in order to do this we must seek out that community that they deposited The Faith into.  

1 Corinthians 11:2
Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you.

Do we really think that the community "forgot" what the Apostles were given by Christ himself to deliver?  If we admit that the elders had binding authority with the Apostles then using the tenants of sola scriptura how can you then go outside of the scriptures and say that this authority no longer exists?


2 Thessalonians 2:15
So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.

Do we really believe that all of the communities of The Church from Egypt to Syria to Jerusalem forgot or lost that which they were taught?  Where in our scriptures does it read that these dear brethren did not stand firm and hold to the traditions which were taught to them?

2 Thessalonians 3:6
Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from every brother who leads an unruly life and not according to the tradition which you received from us.

How does using your theory that people were not in concert with the Apostles and still were "the church" measure up to this verse?  How is it that this epistle which every protestant group recognizes as authoritative does not live up to the very standard set up in 2 Thessalonians?  Which of the protestant denominations received "the tradition" from the Apostles?  If only the scriptures are authoritative in protestantism then doesn't this verse reject the very notion of sola scriptura when it speaks of receiving from the Apostles personally?  

These are hard questions, passages and historical realities to reconcile.  When I was a protestant I put up a good fight but then I wound up in a place like this:




ICXC

Christ is risen 

Quote from: RyanElders are bishops and overseers priests...

Backwards, Ryan. 

Quote from: desertknight on Tue Apr 13, 2010 - 09:07:00

Quote from: RyanElders are bishops and overseers priests...

Backwards, Ryan.  

Good eye!  

& Nice save.  





Thanks!


Oh.  Wait.  Not it's not.  Elder is prebyter where we get episkipos (bishop) from.  But the two were kind of synonymous in NT times.  No?  Might have to look this up again cause I haven't had much sleep here and am not even sure what my name is at the moment   

I mean, if elders weren't bishops then when we look at the "council" in Acts we would see overseers in the elders places instead of the elders who along with the Apostles and the Holy Spirit did what seemed right to them. 

I always confuse the two anyway

Either way. Thanks!

Quote from: Ryan2010 on Tue Apr 13, 2010 - 09:21:42

Quote from: desertknight on Tue Apr 13, 2010 - 09:07:00

Quote from: RyanElders are bishops and overseers priests...

Backwards, Ryan.  

Good eye!  

& Nice save.  





Thanks!

The terms elder, bishop, overseer and shepherd are used interchangeably in the NT.

My OCD is acting up here.  lol

Here:

A bishop is an ordained  or consecrated member of the Christian clergy who is generally entrusted with a position of authority and oversight. Within the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox Churches, in the Assyrian Church of the East, in the Independent Catholic Churches, and in the Anglican churches, bishops claim Apostolic succession, a direct historical lineage dating back to the original Twelve Apostles. Within these churches, bishops can ordain clergy including other bishops. Some Protestant churches including the Lutheran and Methodist churches have bishops serving similar functions as well, though not always understood to be within Apostolic succession in the same sense.

The office of bishop was already quite distinct from that of priest in the writings of Ignatius of Antioch (died c. 107),  and by the middle of the second century all the chief centres of Christianity were headed by bishops, a form of organization that remained universal until the Protestant Reformation.

History

The earliest organization of the Christian churches in Jerusalem was similar to that of Jewish synagogues, which were governed by a council of elders (presbyteroi). In Acts 11:30 and 15:22, we see this collegiate system of government in Jerusalem, and, in Acts 14:23, the Apostle Paul ordains elders in the churches he founded.

Presbyters were apparently identical to overseers (episkopoi, i.e., bishops), as in Acts 20:17, Titus 1:5,7 and 1 Peter 5:1.[2][3] The earliest writings of the Apostolic Fathers, the Didache and the First Epistle of Clement for example, show the church recognized two local church offices—elders (interchangeable term with overseer) and deacon.

The beginnings of a single ruling bishop can perhaps be traced to the offices occupied by Timothy and Titus in the New Testament. We are told that Paul had left Timothy in Ephesus and Titus in Crete to oversee the local church (1 Tim. 1:3 and Titus 1:5). Paul commands them to ordain presybters/bishops and to exercise general oversight, telling Titus to "rebuke with all authority" (Titus 2:15).

Various Christian communities would have had a group of presbyter-bishops functioning as leaders of the local church. Eventually this evolved into a monarchical episcopacy in certain cities.[4] The monarchical episcopacy probably developed in other churches in Christianity before it took shape in Rome. For example, it has been conjectured that Antioch may have been one of the first Christian communities to have adopted such a structure.[4] The emergence of a single bishop in Rome probably did not arise until the middle of the second century. Linus, Cletus and Clement were probably prominent presbyter-bishops but not necessarily monarchical bishops.[5] Eventually, Rome followed the example of other Christian communities and structured itself after the model of the empire with one presbyter bishop in charge ..."[6] The organizational structure subsequently evolved into the present form of one bishop supported by a college of presbyters.[4]

It is certain that the office of bishop and presbyter were clearly distinguished by the second century, as the church was facing the dual pressures of persecution and internal schism, resulting in three distinct local offices: bishop, elder (presbyter) and deacon. This is best seen in the 2nd century writings of St. Ignatius of Antioch.

The bishop was understood mainly as the president of the council of presbyters, and so the bishop came to be distinguished both in honor and in prerogative from the presbyters, who were seen as deriving their authority by means of delegation from the bishop. Each Episcopal see had its own bishop and his presence was necessary to consecrate any gathering of the church.

Eventually, as Christendom grew, individual congregations no longer were served directly by a bishop. The bishop in a large city (the Metropolitan bishop) would appoint a presbyter to pastor the flock in each congregation, acting as his delegate.

Of course all of that has little to do with what the NT says about the elder.

Quote from: Jimmy on Tue Apr 13, 2010 - 10:15:29
Of course all of that has little to do with what the NT says about the elder.

Well, the point is to show that the community that we read about in our bibles continued on and that those offices and functions within those communities continued to respond to the problems they faced.  If we agree that the elders had authority then this remains true even after the epistles were written.  

If you lived back then and you wound up obtaining a hard bound copy of the scriptures for yourself would you then just disobey the leadership in place and make the scriptures your only authority or would their leadership continue on?  

This is the fundamental difference between the more ancient faiths and the protestants.  Where protestants continually attempt to make their gatherings look like what they believe the NT church looked like the more ancient faiths believe that that actual community already exists and so there is no need to continually re-arrange the furniture.  

If you brought the reformers back and even Wesley you have to admit that they would probably have to protest the very churches that bare their names.  

Where was this NT Church when Luther and Zwingli couldn't reach agreement on something so central as the Eucharist?  Where was their Holy Spirit led council of elders?  Why is that instead of becoming unified and taking on the very attributes of the pilar and ground of truth, did they instead merely agree to disagree and embrace the pluralism that subjects the very Truth that The Church is written to be?  

The protestant notion of authority only existed in the prerogative of the one using the scriptures to their own ends but in doing so rejected every authority except their own opinion of what they believe the scriptures to say and so their manta of "scripture alone" became the norm.  

And because the very mechanism at work to preserve their pluralistic system is bound up in sola scriptura, to walk away from it is to cease to belong to (in the protestants mind) the One True Church wherein each individual acts as their own pope, bishop, elder, priest, shephard, deacon (fill in the blank).  Every individual is their own authoritative Church.  The very church of self that we read about in Matt 18?

If the only thing that is valid is where the Christians left off in the scriptures then we'll never get our noses out of the good book and into the community of those very Christians. The reality is also cyclical.  The reform-that-which-came-before-us approach only promises to birth children of rebellion.  This is why every Christian over the age of 60 that's been a lifelong member of any denomination has a hard time recognizing the church of their youth.  The church only winds up looking like the inside of the new generations head, cultural saturation and all.  

At my old church they've decided to take down crosses because they are patterning themselves after Willow Creek, a megachurch and according to this Mega Church, the cross is considered "offensive".  And this is a Methodist Church!  You have an Anglican Bishop in good standing that denies the resurrection and the other "high" churches are in a similar state of doing all kinds of wild stuff.   And these are supposedly the high churches.  To what end?  

But can you and I if we are not an elder anoint with oil or gather a council like we read in Acts and issue our decisions as authoritative?  Bind and loose all of Christendom to our decisions?  

If you look at protestantism as a whole can you really reconcile what you see with what you read or is something missing?

Titus 3:10-11

10Warn a divisive person once, and then warn him a second time. After that, have nothing to do with him. 11You may be sure that such a man is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned.

How can we applaud all the divisions and further divisions in protestantism in the light of even the Holy Scriptures?  Do we reduce this scripture only to a vague sense of morality?  Is this how the early Christians who so many groups claim to emulate handled scriptures like this?  Or were they truly in one accord?  Where they seeking to be in complete agreement and obtain complete unity?  

When and why do we agree to embrace pluralism and on what scriptural basis?

I don't know.  This I know.  





ICXC

larry2 - Would you agree that the seven churches John was told to write to in Revelation was all of the body of Christ? There were different judgments, and different rewards passed out, yet they were all the one Church.

Ryan - Well, this is the problem with your position. You are supposing that the churches mentioned in revelation are not subject to the authority of The Church. 

larry2 - Or possibly subject to Christ since it is Him having John write those letters to them. But you've got to make the call in that so that your conscience is good and I'm fine with your choice. If you feel that way you should join them.

Ryan - You have to show me in revelation where these churches have no ties to the apostles and were not under the authority of The Church.

larry2 - Why would I do that? They were set up by the apostles and certain disciples, and they were all subject to Christ. If you will notice John addresses them as the "The church of Ephesus", "The church at Smyrna", the church at Pergamum", "The church at Thyatira", etc. It is one church which is the body of Christ.
 
Ryan - And this is where your revelations example falls short.  Because you do not recognize this binding authority evident in The Church you juxtapose modernity onto Revelations.  You only assume that these churches in Revelation were like protestants are just sort of making a go at it in their own independent way.

larry2 - You assume wrong.

Ryan - And this is where your revelations example falls short. Because you do not recognize this binding authority evident in The Church.

larry2 - Binding authority as to what? Are you just ignoring all scripture to make that work. Where do we get our walking orders? Did God use the Catholic Church to protect scripture all through the years to be ignored by us? Maybe you should go preach to the choir because I do not believe that.

Ryan - In short The Church is something that we enter into and we drop our presuppositions at the door because it is The Church that Christ has, through the Apostles, deposited the faith into The Church.   

larry2 - Wow, where do you come up with these things? Winds of doctrine by listening to man instead of God's word lead to this. Romans 10:17 says "Faith then depends on hearing, and hearing on the word of Christ. Even then it is God according to Romans 12:3 Who has apportioned to each one the measure of faith.

Ryan - Well, I will put it to you like this.  If the Lord's Apostles were sent and crossed your paths would you not do all that they said? 

larry2 - Well I'll ask the since Paul was an apostle, and the following contention took place between Barnabas and Paul, is Barnabas lost to God?

Acts 15:36  And some days after Paul said unto Barnabas, Let us go again and visit our brethren in every city where we have preached the word of the Lord, and see how they do.
Acts 15:37  And Barnabas determined to take with them John, whose surname was Mark.
Acts 15:38  But Paul thought not good to take him with them, who departed from them from Pamphylia, and went not with them to the work.
Acts 15:39  And the contention was so sharp between them, that they departed asunder one from the other: and so Barnabas took Mark, and sailed unto Cyprus;
Acts 15:40  And Paul chose Silas, and departed, being recommended by the brethren unto the grace of God.

Ryan - Who am I to say that I will go my own way and not obey the leaders that were given a specific office and function from the very start of the great commission.

These are hard questions, passages and historical realities to reconcile.  When I was a protestant I put up a good fight but then I wound up in a place like this:

larry2 -    

Quote
larry2 - Would you agree that the seven churches John was told to write to in Revelation was all of the body of Christ? There were different judgments, and different rewards passed out, yet they were all the one Church.

Ryan - Well, this is the problem with your position. You are supposing that the churches mentioned in revelation are not subject to the authority of The Church. 

larry2 - Or possibly subject to Christ since it is Him having John write those letters to them. But you've got to make the call in that so that your conscience is good and I'm fine with your choice. If you feel that way you should join them.

Well here's where I am trying to make a point.  I agree that we are subject TO Christ.  We are subject TO Christ THROUGH his apostles and elders and overseers.  It's not that I am saying we are subject to St. Paul or to Elder so and so but that it is Christ IN them that we obey.  It is Saint Paul who says:

Galatians 2:20
"I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me.

You see?  So when they decide on matters in the council in Jerusalem it is not a council of "men" but the Authority of the Holy Spirit that issues that which we are called to be obedient to. 

Quote
Ryan - You have to show me in revelation where these churches have no ties to the apostles and were not under the authority of The Church.

larry2 - Why would I do that? They were set up by the apostles and certain disciples, and they were all subject to Christ. If you will notice John addresses them as the "The church of Ephesus", "The church at Smyrna", the church at Pergamum", "The church at Thyatira", etc. It is one church which is the body of Christ.

Maybe I have not made myself clear.  I am not saying that these churches were not part of The Church.  My point is that they were unlike what we have in protestant approach to authority in that they were obedient to their overseers and elders.  Their overseers and elders were known by the Apostles and were ordained from the top down.  An individual did not just start up a church in Ephesus and St. John just bumped into him and decided to write him a letter.  The overseers and elders all had their "apostolicity" in common.  They "received" from those that received from the Apostles or had received from the Apostles first hand. 

Quote
That community still exists.  That's what lead me to say the following:
 
Ryan - And this is where your revelations example falls short.  Because you do not recognize this binding authority evident in The Church you juxtapose modernity onto Revelations.  You only assume that these churches in Revelation were like protestants are just sort of making a go at it in their own independent way.

larry2 - You assume wrong.

And the reason why I say that I do not assume wrong is because you reject the bishops and priests who are connected that very community we read about in our bibles.   

QuoteRyan - And this is where your revelations example falls short. Because you do not recognize this binding authority evident in The Church.

larry2 - Binding authority as to what? Are you just ignoring all scripture to make that work. Where do we get our walking orders? Did God use the Catholic Church to protect scripture all through the years to be ignored by us? Maybe you should go preach to the choir because I do not believe that.

The binding authority I am speaking about is The Church established by Christ through his apostles and elders and overseers.  The binding authority I am speaking about is in the traditions that the Apostles and the elders and overseers deposited into The Church.  I of course am not ignoring scripture because Holy Scripture itself was written in the context of the life of The Church.   

QuoteRyan - In short The Church is something that we enter into and we drop our presuppositions at the door because it is The Church that Christ has, through the Apostles, deposited the faith into The Church.   

larry2 - Wow, where do you come up with these things? Winds of doctrine by listening to man instead of God's word lead to this. Romans 10:17 says "Faith then depends on hearing, and hearing on the word of Christ. Even then it is God according to Romans 12:3 Who has apportioned to each one the measure of faith.

When I say "The Faith" I am not referring to an individuals "faith" but to the common faith and the doctrines and teachings and prayer life of The Church.  The Way, The Faith, as the Apostles taught it.  The doctrines of the Apostles.   

Acts 2:42

42and they were continuing stedfastly in the teaching of the apostles, and the fellowship, and the breaking of the bread, and the prayers.

We see this term, "the Faith" in the Holy Scriptures and this "Faith" is deposited to The Church. 

Matthew 24:10
At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other

Acts 6:7
So the word of God spread. The number of disciples in Jerusalem increased rapidly, and a large number of priests became obedient to the faith.

Acts 14:22
strengthening the disciples and encouraging them to remain true to the faith. "We must go through many hardships to enter the kingdom of God," they said.

Acts 16:4-5

4As they traveled from town to town, they delivered the decisions reached by the apostles and elders in Jerusalem for the people to obey. 5So the churches were strengthened in the faith and grew daily in numbers.

It was Christ's Authority in The Church that "strengthened the churches in The Faith" through the Apostles and elders.  And this was for THE PEOPLE to obey. 

You can see the fatherly love the leaders have for those they watch over in statements such as:

1 Timothy 1:2
To Timothy my true son in the faith: Grace, mercy and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord.

QuoteRyan -[/b] Well, I will put it to you like this.  If the Lord's Apostles were sent and crossed your paths would you not do all that they said? 

larry2 - Well I'll ask the since Paul was an apostle, and the following contention took place between Barnabas and Paul, is Barnabas lost to God?

Is this passage between St. Paul and St. Barnabas the reason we should reject the authority of the overseers and elders?  I don't understand.  That our elders and overseers are human isn't the issue.  Why would St. Barnabas be "lost" to God?  Did they not work this problem out between themselves?  That there is conflict is a reality that we all know well.  But is this the will of God that this passage be used to justify to ourselves the reason why we shouldn't obey our leaders? 

QuoteDid God use the Catholic Church to protect scripture all through the years to be ignored by us?

Not at all! But I only want to take this opportunity to explain that "the Catholic Church" you speak of is not only Rome. 

There were five jurisdictions.  St. Paul oversaw Antioch and it's possible did so in conjunction with St. Peter (highly likely as there are old Roman hymns speaking of St. Peters seat in Antioch).  So Antioch was it's own jurisdiction and within this jurisdiction you had overseers and elders.  But this is just one jurisdiction.  There were more. 

There was the jurisdiction of Jerusalem.  And St. James oversaw this jurisdiction.  And all jurisdictions had overseers and elders and they were bound together as One Church by their Apostolicity.  This is why the creed says, "One, Holy and Apostolic Church".

It's One because they are all bound. It is Holy because it is Christ who heads this church, the cornerstone, who laid the foundation on the Apostles and the prophets. 

But the other jurisdictions included Alexandria, Constantinople and Rome. 

Now, the very community of Christians known by the Apostles that we read about in our bibles were in fact, One, Holy and Apostolic.  And more than this, they were "catholic".  We know that St. Ignatius uses this term in the first century and it's not an innovation. 

But the word means, "according to the whole" and all of these Christians who were known by the Apostles and whose elders and overseers were in concert with the Apostles from Antioch, Jerusalem, Alexandria, Constantinople and Rome wind up calling themselves "according to the whole" catholic.  They did this to distinguish themselves from all the heretical groups that they were confronting at the time who also called themselves "Christians". 

Some of these groups claimed to have a "secret" tradition handed down to them by the Apostles even but what those groups did not have is the laying on of hands and neither were they familiar to the other churches throughout the regions that were tied to the Apostles.  The most notorious of these "christian" groups was of course the gnostics. 

And so indeed the wolves came in very shortly and we find the word catholic as but a tool for The Church to use against these early heretical groups.

And you have to understand also that it's not like there was only Rome.  That is only the case since 1054ish.  The schism split the four eastern jurisdictions from Rome in the west. 

So when you say that the Catholic church canonized the bible and innovated councils and all these things that people often credit to Rome, it is important to realize that Rome was but one jurisdiction and if you want to read a wonderful book about the canonization process there is a book written by Jeroslav Pelikan called, "Whose Bible is it?". 

And I do think that if you read this book you will find the answer interesting in that the answer is not as we might expect. 

Only reason I bring this up is because it seems like I am referring to the Pope in regards to obeying the authority of The Church but I am trying to look at the New Testament times prior to St. Peter's successors being ordained in Rome.  We should keep in mind that there were other large jurisdictions and for some time all of these jurisdictions were united. 

For all of the more ancient faiths that have catholic in their name, such as Rome, Orthodox, Coptic and Oriental etc. they all share a common history with one another unlike the protestants.  When we say that we believe in One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church we are saying that the very churches that we read about in the scriptures have those things in common and so are the marks of The Church that Christ himself established.  The Christians that you read about in your bibles belonged to the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.  They just had not had to define themselves against the heretics in this fashion until the third century. 



I am thankful for your kind disposition and that the two of us haven't resorted to kicking each other in the shins (yet)   

I pray we continue to fight against our carnal desires to be right and that we both seek unity and Truth. 


Be blessed dear brother Larry




ICXC

Just as an aside, it was reported that at the council of Nicaea that a layman corrected two Bishops who were in hot dispute over the Arius dispute.  Hearing of this report it encouraged me and reminded me that despite our lack in Christ that Christ in this dear layman and with full authority could gently restore these men to their office proper. 

Christ truly is risen 

Quote from: Jimmy on Tue Apr 13, 2010 - 10:15:29
Of course all of that has little to do with what the NT says about the elder.

How so?

Quote from: desertknight on Tue Apr 13, 2010 - 16:24:35

Quote from: Jimmy on Tue Apr 13, 2010 - 10:15:29
Of course all of that has little to do with what the NT says about the elder.

How so?

In the NT the terms elder, bishop, shepherd and overseer are all used interchangeably of the person or office.  There is no hierarchy associated with the terms.

Quote from: Jimmy on Tue Apr 13, 2010 - 19:21:09

Quote from: desertknight on Tue Apr 13, 2010 - 16:24:35

Quote from: Jimmy on Tue Apr 13, 2010 - 10:15:29
Of course all of that has little to do with what the NT says about the elder.

How so?

In the NT the terms elder, bishop, shepherd and overseer are all used interchangeably of the person or office.  There is no hierarchy associated with the terms.

OK, I see what you meant and yes, overseers and elders were interchangeable, but that begun to change within the writing of the NT, they are still both "presbyters", priests, even today.  

It's easier to understand it by saying that all ordained bishops and elders are members of the "priesthood", i.e., elderhood, but obviously "overseers" did just that, oversaw.     St. Paul for example, instructs Titus in Crete to ordain presbyters, (priests, elders) for every city.  He instructed Timothy to not lay hands of ordination on any too quickly.  He further told Timothy that his power to ordain was given to him by the Holy Spirit through the imposition of his, (Paul's) hands.  Now clearly Titus was not an Apostle, he is more than just an elder, he functioned as a bishop, which is exactly what the word "overseer" is in Greek.   Incidentally, it is clear that by Paul's writing that "elder" did not actually denote "age".   Titus, as example, was higher in authority to the individual communities of Christians in Crete, the "elders" he ordained were so to their congregations and the deacons served them, literally, as their name indicates, i.e., the "waited on" the bishops/elders.

The only "offices" of religious of the Catholic Church are Bishops, (overseers), who function exactly as Titus and Timothy did.  Elders, (Presbyters, priests), who are the leaders of each individual Christian community, and deacons, who literally, serve the priesthood in various ways, especially in bringing Holy Eucharist and praying with the sick or elderly, and in distributing aid for the poor...all exactly as is done today in the Catholic Church, so again, why has it nothing to do with scripture?

As to the original question:

1) Protestantism is relatively new movement.  The burden of proof falls on it to prove that the church was in some other place for a long time.   The Protestant has to explain why the gates of hell prevailed against the church for a very long time.

2) Living in the Past.  Due respect to Protestants (I used to be one), the idea of looking only time in history (the time of the NT) and only dwelling on that time is living in the past.  I believe that God works through history.   Protestants believe this as well, but it is not reflected in their theology.

3) Protestant theology is not how the early church thought.  Semitic cultures are group cultures, as was most of the world.  Protestantism has something to do with new thinking at the time Bibles were becoming more available.  Individualism became the new thought. Even if I agreed with it, I could not claim it is how the early church thought.  

4) Protestant Biblical interpretation is no better than Catholic, Orthodox, and early church thought.  In fact, it is quite a bit worse.  Protestants, starting with Martin Luther, chose to ignore the parts of scripture they don't like rather than deal with them.   Example: Jesus gives the Apostles the power to forgiving sins, yet most Protestants would attest that no man has such power.

5) Sola scriptura is not how the early (or later) church thought.  This idea that truth is only found in a book, is not supported by the Bible itself.  Paul encouraged his churches to obey his oral teachings as well.  The NT is in many ways, especially the Pauline letters, an FAQ list, not a compiled book of theology. Letters are written to individual churches.  They have value to us, for sure, but were not intended to be the sole guide for all in all situations at all times.

6) Protestantism is hopelessly divided -  and has no mechanism to fix that.  The early church met in council (starting in Acts 15) to resolve issues and met in 7 ecumenical councils to resolve disagreements.  Protestants have no such mechanism and therefore can reject and accept whatever they want to.  Therefore, they divide and divide again.

Thanks for you reading, especially if you disagree.

Quote from: trifecta on Sat Apr 17, 2010 - 13:02:59
As to the original question:

1) Protestantism is relatively new movement.  The burden of proof falls on it to prove that the church was in some other place for a long time.   The Protestant has to explain why the gates of hell prevailed against the church for a very long time.

2) Living in the Past.  Due respect to Protestants (I used to be one), the idea of looking only time in history (the time of the NT) and only dwelling on that time is living in the past.  I believe that God works through history.   Protestants believe this as well, but it is not reflected in their theology.

3) Protestant theology is not how the early church thought.  Semitic cultures are group cultures, as was most of the world.  Protestantism has something to do with new thinking at the time Bibles were becoming more available.  Individualism became the new thought. Even if I agreed with it, I could not claim it is how the early church thought.  

4) Protestant Biblical interpretation is no better than Catholic, Orthodox, and early church thought.  In fact, it is quite a bit worse.  Protestants, starting with Martin Luther, chose to ignore the parts of scripture they don't like rather than deal with them.   Example: Jesus gives the Apostles the power to forgiving sins, yet most Protestants would attest that no man has such power.

5) Sola scriptura is not how the early (or later) church thought.  This idea that truth is only found in a book, is not supported by the Bible itself.  Paul encouraged his churches to obey his oral teachings as well.  The NT is in many ways, especially the Pauline letters, an FAQ list, not a compiled book of theology. Letters are written to individual churches.  They have value to us, for sure, but were not intended to be the sole guide for all in all situations at all times.

6) Protestantism is hopelessly divided -  and has no mechanism to fix that.  The early church met in council (starting in Acts 15) to resolve issues and met in 7 ecumenical councils to resolve disagreements.  Protestants have no such mechanism and therefore can reject and accept whatever they want to.  Therefore, they divide and divide again.

Thanks for you reading, especially if you disagree.

Yes it is true that Protestant ism is hopelessly divided. and it cannot be fixed. But be cause the RCC has councils it also gives itself unbiblical authority to create doctrine and call it infallible. this sort of self justification changes and  adds to the written word.  Men are given to these things and always will until Jesus comes. It is Christianity as a whole that is helplessly flawed and it cannot be fixed by men or councils.

Yet one thing will stand forever against the test of time. As Jesus said heaven and earth will pass away but my words shall never pass away.   

God bless

Quote from: mclees8 on Sat Apr 17, 2010 - 15:30:46
Yes it is true that Protestant ism is hopelessly divided. and it cannot be fixed. But be cause the RCC has councils it also gives itself unbiblical authority to create doctrine and call it infallible. this sort of self justification changes and  adds to the written word.  Men are given to these things and always will until Jesus comes. It is Christianity as a whole that is helplessly flawed and it cannot be fixed by men or councils.

Yet one thing will stand forever against the test of time. As Jesus said heaven and earth will pass away but my words shall never pass away.   

God bless

Councils do not create doctrine. Councils discern true doctrine from false ones. Most formal declarations of doctrines are pronounced to combat heresies that have arisen to deny what has always been the belief of the Church.

The Catholic Church has authoruity given to it by Christ which is biblical. It is protestantism which has decided to reject the authority of Christ and his Church and to pronounce themselves the authority to interpret the word of God and define doctrine.

Quote from: mclees8 on Sat Apr 17, 2010 - 15:30:46
Yet one thing will stand forever against the test of time. As Jesus said heaven and earth will pass away but my words shall never pass away.

There is something else that will not pass away - the Catholic Church. Jesus promised the gates of Hell would never prevail against it, and thet he himself would be with it until the end of time.

Quote from: winsome on Sun Apr 18, 2010 - 05:41:27

Quote from: mclees8 on Sat Apr 17, 2010 - 15:30:46
Yes it is true that Protestant ism is hopelessly divided. and it cannot be fixed. But be cause the RCC has councils it also gives itself unbiblical authority to create doctrine and call it infallible. this sort of self justification changes and  adds to the written word.  Men are given to these things and always will until Jesus comes. It is Christianity as a whole that is helplessly flawed and it cannot be fixed by men or councils.

Yet one thing will stand forever against the test of time. As Jesus said heaven and earth will pass away but my words shall never pass away.   

God bless

Councils do not create doctrine. Councils discern true doctrine from false ones. Most formal declarations of doctrines are pronounced to combat heresies that have arisen to deny what has always been the belief of the Church.

The Catholic Church has authoruity given to it by Christ which is biblical. It is protestantism which has decided to reject the authority of Christ and his Church and to pronounce themselves the authority to interpret the word of God and define doctrine.

Quote from: mclees8 on Sat Apr 17, 2010 - 15:30:46
Yet one thing will stand forever against the test of time. As Jesus said heaven and earth will pass away but my words shall never pass away.

There is something else that will not pass away - the Catholic Church. Jesus promised the gates of Hell would never prevail against it, and thet he himself would be with it until the end of time.

Again you are filled with pride and arrogance. It is true the gates of hell shall not prevail against what Christ has established to be an everlasting covenant that he has given to all of us who believe. No the gates of hell shall not prevail against all who truly love and put their faith in Him and will be willing to die for him. You are so duped by the institution that misrepresent who the church is. Who has Christ redeemed?

And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. 29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.
Jn 10:28-29

Just as there was not one stone left on the temple so shall the Vatican will be a ruins

God bless

Quote from: mclees8 on Sun Apr 18, 2010 - 07:40:37

Quote from: winsome on Sun Apr 18, 2010 - 05:41:27

Quote from: mclees8 on Sat Apr 17, 2010 - 15:30:46
Yes it is true that Protestant ism is hopelessly divided. and it cannot be fixed. But be cause the RCC has councils it also gives itself unbiblical authority to create doctrine and call it infallible. this sort of self justification changes and  adds to the written word.  Men are given to these things and always will until Jesus comes. It is Christianity as a whole that is helplessly flawed and it cannot be fixed by men or councils.

Yet one thing will stand forever against the test of time. As Jesus said heaven and earth will pass away but my words shall never pass away.   

God bless

Councils do not create doctrine. Councils discern true doctrine from false ones. Most formal declarations of doctrines are pronounced to combat heresies that have arisen to deny what has always been the belief of the Church.

The Catholic Church has authoruity given to it by Christ which is biblical. It is protestantism which has decided to reject the authority of Christ and his Church and to pronounce themselves the authority to interpret the word of God and define doctrine.

Quote from: mclees8 on Sat Apr 17, 2010 - 15:30:46
Yet one thing will stand forever against the test of time. As Jesus said heaven and earth will pass away but my words shall never pass away.

There is something else that will not pass away - the Catholic Church. Jesus promised the gates of Hell would never prevail against it, and thet he himself would be with it until the end of time.

Again you are filled with pride and arrogance. It is true the gates of hell shall not prevail against what Christ has established to be an everlasting covenant that he has given to all of us who believe. No the gates of hell shall not prevail against all who truly love and put their faith in Him and will be willing to die for him. You are so duped by the institution that misrepresent who the church is. Who has Christ redeemed?

And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. 29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.
Jn 10:28-29

Not pride and arrogance, just knowledge of the truth and a belief in Christ's promises.

Quote from: mclees8 on Sat Apr 17, 2010 - 15:30:46

Just as there was not one stone left on the temple so shall the Vatican will be a ruins

Another false prophecy

trifecta: ") Sola scriptura is not how the early (or later) church thought.  This idea that truth is only found in a book, is not supported by the Bible itself.  Paul encouraged his churches to obey his oral teachings as well.  The NT is in many ways, especially the Pauline letters, an FAQ list, not a compiled book of theology. Letters are written to individual churches.  They have value to us, for sure, but were not intended to be the sole guide for all in all situations at all times."

Are you then saying that the New Testament is a "dead letter" ? Without Paul's epistles how would one know of the atonement, justification, sanctification or the plan of salvation in general?
Actually, the basic tenet of Catholicism and Protestantism is belief  inheritance of Adam's sin. Both, are trying to work their way around the garden sin by some type of Holy Spirit regeneration.

Again you are filled with pride and arrogance. It is true the gates of hell shall not prevail against what Christ has established to be an everlasting covenant that he has given to all of us who believe. No the gates of hell shall not prevail against all who truly love and put their faith in Him and will be willing to die for him. You are so duped by the institution that misrepresent who the church is. Who has Christ redeemed?

And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. 29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.
Jn 10:28-29

Not pride and arrogance, just knowledge of the truth and a belief in Christ's promises.


Mike>    So what is Christ promise? The world and all that is in it and of it  is temporal but Christ promise is eternal. have I lied. Why is your vision so limited. Just as i have said the things of the world is temporal so it is with every pillar in the Vatican.

Quote from: pointmade on Sun Apr 18, 2010 - 08:37:29
Actually, the basic tenet of Catholicism and Protestantism is belief  inheritance of Adam's sin.

Actually the basic tenet of Christianity (Catholic, Orthodox or Protestant) is the death and resurrection of Christ.

Quote from: pointmade on Sun Apr 18, 2010 - 08:37:29
Both, are trying to work their way around the garden sin by some type of Holy Spirit regeneration.

You mean the sort of regenration attested to by the early Church?

"As many as are persuaded and believe that what we [Christians] teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, and instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we pray and fast with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father . . . and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit [Matt. 28:19], they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, 'Unless you are born again, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven'

Quote from: mclees8 on Sun Apr 18, 2010 - 09:58:22
Again you are filled with pride and arrogance. It is true the gates of hell shall not prevail against what Christ has established to be an everlasting covenant that he has given to all of us who believe. No the gates of hell shall not prevail against all who truly love and put their faith in Him and will be willing to die for him. You are so duped by the institution that misrepresent who the church is. Who has Christ redeemed?

And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. 29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.
Jn 10:28-29

Not pride and arrogance, just knowledge of the truth and a belief in Christ's promises.


Mike>    So what is Christ promise? The world and all that is in it and of it  is temporal but Christ promise is eternal. have I lied. Why is your vision so limited. Just as i have said the things of the world is temporal so it is with every pillar in the Vatican.

The Vatican is not the Catholic Church, just the place where the Pope currently resides.

But as to Jesus' promises:

Jesus promised his Church would be indefectible. – the gates of hell would not prevail against it (Mt 16:18)

He promised the Church would be preserved from error by the Holy Spirit by reminding the apostles of all that Jesus had taught them (Jn 14:26) and guide them into the truth in the future (Jn 16:13)

He appointed the Apostles with Peter as the leader (Mt 18:18-19) and gave them the mission to take the gospel to the ends of the earth. (Mt 28:16-20)

He promised he would not leave them on their own (Jn 14:18) but that he would be with them until the end of the age (Mt 28:20) .

I believe what Jesus promised, and his promises refer to the Church he founded, not denominations founded by mere fallible men.