Hello CtholicConvert
I see you’ve been busy. You probably don't even remember our debate, never the less, I find myself with some time to address the points that you brought up. As usual, sorry for the long delay.
You said- " Keith, you have a problem. Our Lord promised that the Church would not be prevailed against by the gates of hell. That promise means that the doctrines and teachings which were given to the apostles must have been the truth. The same truth which the apostles passed on to the very next generation.
Now from the earliest writings of the Early Fathers of the Church, we specifically do not see anything resembling Adventist teachings. What we do see is that the Early Church taught the Real Presence in the Eucharist and baptismal regeneration. So immediately, the Adventist position simply cannot be true because it did not exist back then. The claims that Ellen White simply restored what the evil papists corrupted is not true either."
The gates of hell will not prevail against the church of Christ. This is the truth. You start off with a good foundation, that the church is built upon the doctrines, and teachings of the apostles. This is the truth. Then however, you seem to speak of the supposed church Fathers as having an equal standing with the writings of the scriptures themselves, this is wrong. I have many of the writings of the supposed church Fathers, and I am not impressed at all with them. I will judge the truth by the scriptures alone, for they are sufficient.
2 Tim 3:15-17 15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
As far as your position regarding Adventist teachings, this point is also moot. Adventist believe what the bible teaches, not what the supposed church Fathers taught. If you don't see what we teach, it is because you don't read your bible, not because what we believe is not true. The new testament is the writings of the apostles, which predate your supposed church Fathers. I guess your just not looking back far enough.
You said-"No, the Church at Rome (there is no such thing as the Church of Rome) is the place where the bishop of Rome, who is the head over the Body of Christ here on earth, is located. The Church is Catholic, i.e., universal, and until 1054 and the schism of the Orthodox, was composed of patriarchates in 5 major cities. Rome, Byzantium, Antioch, Jerusalem, Alexandria."
I call the Catholic church the church of Rome, because it was the power of the emperors of Rome that established her. A power which she then usurped to hold sway over the kings of the earth. Though the church is supposed to be separate from the world, the church of Rome always has relations with the kings of the earth. Observe the following from the emperor Justinian as proof of the above.
TITLE 1.
CONCERNING THE MOST EXALTED TRINITY AND THE
CATHOLIC FAITH AND PROVIDING THAT N
NE
SHALL DARE TO PUBLICLY OPPOSE THEM.
1. The Emperors Gratian, Valentinian, and Theodosius to the people of the City of Constantinople.
We desire that all peoples subject to Our benign Empire shall live under the same religion that the Divine Peter, the Apostle, gave to the Romans, and which the said religion declares was introduced by himself, and which it is well known that the Pontiff Damascus, and Peter, Bishop of Alexandria, a man of apostolic sanctity, embraced; that is to say, in accordance with the rules of apostolic discipline and the evangelical doctrine, we should believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit constitute a single Deity, endowed with equal majesty, and united in the Holy Trinity.
(1) We order all those who follow this law to assume the name of Catholic Christians, and considering others as demented and insane, We order that they shall bear the infamy of heresy; and when the Divine vengeance which they merit has been appeased, they shall afterwards be punished in accordance with Our resentment, which we have acquired from the judgment of Heaven.
Your church was established by the kings of the earth, not the Lord Jesus Christ. Christ's church is established by the power of the Holy Spirit, not the power of the state. The following sheds more light on the subject.
When Christianity conquered Rome the ecclesiastical structure of the pagan church, the title and vestments of the pontifex maximus, the worship of the Great Mother and a multitude of comforting divinities, the sense of supersensible presences everywhere, the joy or solemnity of old festivals, and the pageantry of immemorial ceremony, passed like maternal blood into the new religion, and captive Rome captured her conqueror. The reins and skill of government were handed down by a dying empire to a virile papacy; the lost power of the broken sword was rewon by the magic of the consoling word; the armies of the state were replaced by the missionaries of the Church moving in all directions along the Roman roads; and the revolted provinces, accepting Christianity, again acknowledged the sovereignty of Rome. Through the long struggles of the Age of Faith the authority of the ancient capital persisted and grew, until in the Renaissance the classic culture seemed to rise from the grave, and the immortal city became once more the center of summit of the world's life and wealth and art. When, in 1936, Rome celebrated the 2689th anniversary of her foundation, she could look back upon the most impressive continuity of government and civilization in the history of mankind. May she rise again.(CAESAR AND CHRIST, A history of Roman Civilization and of Christianity from their beginnings to A.D.325. By Will Durant-1944)
Again, the church of Rome was established by the kings of the earth, not the Lord Jesus Christ. It was those who called themselves Christians, but who had abandoned the power of the Holy Spirit, in favor of the power of the state, that established the church of Rome.
You said-" There is no such thing as "blatant disregard" for the Scriptures within the Catholic Faith. There is a considerable body of people who think that their minds are smarter and their understanding more precise than that which was given directly to the apostles. We know, for instance, that St. Peter choose and taught one of the first martyrs of the 2nd century -- St. Ignatius. In his writings, it becomes quite clear that what Peter taught Ignatius is the Catholic Faith, and not Protestantism, nor especially the Adventist ideas.
The Protestants broke away because they were rebels and would not submit to the authority which Christ placed upon the earth."
There is blatant disregard for the scriptures by the church of Rome. Again you proceed to the writings of the supposed church Fathers for authority. This is an authority that I do not accept. I have the writings of Ignatius, whom I believe to be nothing more than an apostle Paul wannabe.
It is only right though, that you would accept his authority, for he was one of the first to begin establishing a non biblical exaltation of the Bishops. A false teaching that surely lead to the establishment of the church of Rome, who promotes this same teaching to the extreme, resulting in the establishment of the Pontiff of Rome.
Here are some quotes from Ignatius.
"Now the more any one sees the bishop keeping silence, the more ought he to revere him. For we ought to receive every one whom the Master of the
house sends to be over His household, as we would do Him that sent him. It is manifest, therefore, that we should look upon the bishop even as we would upon the Lord Himself."
I refuse to look upon any man, as I would the Lord Himself. Though some of the Apostles may have exhorted some to follow their example, they never told anyone to look upon them, as you were looking upon the Lord Himself.
"Now it becomes you also not to despise the age of your bishop, but to yield him all reverence,"
Again, attributing to a man, that which should reserved for God alone.
"It is becoming, therefore, that ye also should be obedient to your bishop, and contradict him in nothing; for it is a fearful thing to contradict any such person. For no one does [by such conduct] deceive him that is visible, but does [in reality] seek to mock Him that is invisible, who, however, cannot be mocked by any one."
The above alludes to the fact, that disagreeing with a Bishop, is the same as disagreeing with God. Nonsense. If this were true, then the Bishops would be so many God's themselves.
"It is fitting, then, not only to be called Christians, but to be so in reality. For it is not the being called so, but the being really so, that renders a man blessed. To those who indeed talk of the bishop, but do all things without him, will He who is the true and first Bishop, and the only High Priest by
nature, declare, "Why call ye Me Lord, and do not the things which I say?" For such persons seem to me not possessed of a good conscience,
but to be simply dissemblers and hypocrites."
According to the above, those who do not do what the Bishop tells them, are disobeying the Lord Himself. More nonsense.
"As therefore the Lord does nothing without the Father, for says He, "I can of mine own self do nothing," so do ye, neither presbyter, nor deacon, nor layman, do anything without the bishop. Nor let anything appear commendable to you which is destitute of his approval. For every such thing is sinful, and opposed [to the will of] God."
Now, you can do nothing without the Bishops permission. To do so is a sin against God. Total nonsense.
"Be ye subject to the bishop as to the Lord, for "he watches for your souls, as one that shall give account to God." Wherefore also, ye appear to me to live not after the manner of men, but according to Jesus Christ, who died
for us, in order that, by believing in His death, ye may by baptism be made partakers of His resurrection. It is therefore necessary, whatsoever things ye do, to do nothing without the bishop."
More of the same.
And do ye reverence them as Christ Jesus, of whose place they are the keepers, even as the bishop is the representative of the Father of all things, and the presbyters are the sanhedrim of God, and assembly of the apostles
of Christ. Apart from these there is no elect Church, no congregation of holy ones, no assembly of saints.
Again, telling us to reverence the Bishop, as Jesus Christ Himself. Then telling us that if the Bishop or presbyters are not present, then there is no "elect Church, or congregation of holy ones, or assembly of saints." This is an obvious reference to their superiority. Since their can be no holy congregation apart from them. If the above quotes from Ignatius, do not sound like the exaltation of the Bishopric to you, it is simply because you do not wish to believe it so.
Matt 18:20 20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them. AMEN
Matt 23:1-12 1 Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,
2 Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:
3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.
4 For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.
5 But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments,
6 And love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues,
7 And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi.
8 But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.
9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
10 Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.
11 But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.
12 And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.
Ignatius was surely one of the men that the apostle Paul spoke of when he said the following.
Acts 20:28-30 28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.
You said-"First of all, the Holy Spirit is a HE...the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity of God."
Agreed.
You said-" The promise that we shall all receive as believers the Holy Spirit is NOT the same as the promise of being infallibly led into all truth. The empirical evidence this is true is the vast number of conflicting assemblies who claim the Holy Spirit yet cannot even agree on doctrine. This is not found in the Catholic Faith. In the Catholic Faith there is unity of doctrine. What the Latin West believes is believed also by the Eastern Church and even by the Orthodox."
You are correct. However, the Catholic church is the original of these, because she does not agree with the scriptures.
Isa 8:20 20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.
The scriptures themselves are the test for everyone who claims to have the Holy Spirit, including the church of Rome. Since she fails this test, I know she is not lead by the Holy Spirit of God.
You said-"Sorry. Hate to burst yer bubble, but if'n you read the writings of the time you are claiming, i.e., the apostolic times and the writings of the disciples who immediately followed them, you will find that their writings are entirely in agreement with the Catholic Faith."
That’s a big fat negative. As usual you add the writings of the disciples following the apostles to your proof of the above. I can only assume that you must do this because you need their writings, apart from the scriptures, to establish your argument, and church. I say again, the scriptures are sufficient for the establishment of Christ's church, as they testify themselves.
2 Tim 3:15-17 15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
As this post is already getting very long, I will have to address the rest of your claims in another message. Regarding the covenants, and the establishment of the church as Spiritual Israel, I have much to say. I have written a book on that very subject, which I am sure would conflict with your beliefs. More in the next message.
Bye for now. Y. b. in C. Keith
Yet....? If not Read On) !! .
