The Church as the Kingdom of God

[Carson Weber]

What's the problem with saying "you are Petros and on this petros"?

There isn't a problem with that.

It is a stylistic variation to avoid a redundancy in terms. For example, if I was speaking to a Mr. Stone, it would sound clunky and redundant to say, "I tell you truly, you are Stone, and on this Stone I will build my organization." It would sound better (less redundant) to say, "I tell you truly, you are Mr. Stone, and on this Rock I will build my organization." We regularly use such stylistic variation in English to avoid redundant language (that is the whole reason for pronouns - I, me, my, he, him, his, she, her, hers -- to avoid endlessly repeating the same nouns over and over again), and stylistic variation is used in other languages as well, Greek included. It makes things sound better and smoother.

 

[Dualhunter]

2 times is not "endless".

 

[Singer]

The topic was the Apostles and thier infallible wisdom that Bro Ed. attests was
given to them by Jesus.

(Quoted by Singer)
Can someone else inherit the Holy Spirit from them?
Can a Church receive the Holy Spirit and therefore receive eternal life.
Can a Church be saved ? Can a Church be sent to hell if they do not
believe in their heart...etc.?

Is this then SALVATION ENMASSE....?


(Quoted by Brother Ed)
You better believe it, bucko!!! There is no salvation outside of the
Body of Christ. Outside of Christ there is death. To be in Him is to
be alive. To be outside Him is death.

The Church is referred to as the Body of Christ in Scripture.

God's salvation has always been corporate and familial, beginning
with Genesis. Every dealing that God had in the OT, which precursors
the NT, was corporate and familial.

(Singer)
Just couldn't let this rest. Due to the unity within the Catholic system;
and the advice given by Brother Ed, I'm to understand that:

1. The Holy Spirit is inherited from the Apostles (No acceptance of Christ
is needed by an individual evidently)

2. A whole corporate "Church" receives the Holy Spirit and the "Church"
then receives eternal life.

3. A "church'' can be saved. (enmasse)

4. A ''church'' can be sent to hell for not believing.

5. There is no salvation outside of the Body of Christ (meaning RCC as I'm
told the Body of Christ IS the Catholic Church.

6. Corporate and familial? (That would be the opposite of ''whosoever believes''.

7. Individuals are only saved En Masse and only if they belong to the
Catholic Church.

Just wanting to verify that all Catholics agree with this
(Or are there fanatical hardliner Catholics and more moderate ones.)

Bucko

 

[CatholicConvert]

But I thought you implied that all the apostles were Catholics and the fathers of
the Catholic Church who were given infallible instruction...

You know, if you'd stop with the smart aleck comments and actually STUDY the Bible, you might even learn something. If you read John 16:13, you might see when Jesus gave this promise of infallible leading to the apostles, JUDAS WAS LONG GONE!!!

even the sword wielding Peter who tried to chop up those who disagreed with him.

You just can't help yerself, can you? Ad hominum attacks are not germane to the issue at hand. You would do well to cease from them and concentrate upon the subject at hand.

If regeneration starts with baptism, then lets mandatorily baptize all the murderers and rapists in prison and drive the Arabs into the sea and baptize them so they will all receive the Holy Spirit. SALVATION ENMASSE RCC STYLE !!!

Yer a real smarmy little pew rat, ain't ya? I'm not sure why I am even bothering to continue this with someone who obviously doesn't have all his tacos on his plate.

Baptism must always be accompanied by faith. What about that do you not understand? The Catholic Church has never baptized someone without accompanying faith.

Good, that eliminates Catholic domination then for those who insist that the apostles were our Catholic fathers.

There is but one Church. It is UNIVERSAL (katholicos in the Greek). From day one it was ONE SINGLE CHURCH WITH ONE SINGLE HEAD. All those, who like you decided that they didn't have to follow the men mandated with authority by our Lord, were part and parcel of the heretics who found themselves outside the Church. You really need to stop readin' dem poisonous little Chick comics.

Isn't Peter the pope the same one who cut off a piece of the soldier's ear, denied Christ three times and then was referred to as ''satan'' by Jesus Himself. That's no way for a pope to act.

Certainly not. But it is quite human and quite in line with being a sinner, which even the pope is and will admit to being. Infallibility does not mean perfection of behavior. You need to separate the two.

Go through the Bible and read about all those who were in positions of leadership. Abraham, a man of faith and God's friend, who LIED. Moses, God's special friend who saw the glory of God as He passed by, and who couldn't go into the Promised Land because of his sin. Jacob the liar. David the man "after God's own heart" who committed adultery and then murder to cover his tracks. Solomon the worshipper of false gods. Elijah who dispaired of God's protection after
seeing such great miracles.

Your problem is that you somehow think that God must use PERFECT people to lead His Church. The Bible tells us differently. Read it some time. You might learn something.

Right...but not the Catholic Church if that's what you're thinking. The word doesn't even appear in the bible and that's why you don't
revel the bible as appropriate.

There is only ONE Church. Yer little meeting in the woods doesn't qualify (or whatever you do). To be in the Church you must be under the covenantal headship established upon this earth --which is the See of Rome, the successor of St. Peter. Jesus gave the keys to one man. That office still has the keys.

bucko

Touche. Good form old chap!!!

Cordially in Christ,

Brother Ed

 

[Dualhunter]

Baptism must always be accompanied by faith. What about that do you not understand? The Catholic Church has never baptized someone without accompanying faith.

Except for all those babies....

 

[CatholicConvert]

The faith of the parents (covenantal headship) or even the priest or the congregation is sufficient for the baby.

The principle in Scripture is found here:

Heb 7:9 And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham.

See? Levi was not even ALIVE YET, but Abraham paid tithes and Scripture says that Levi did it.

And here is the same concept in a negative fashion:

Nu 16:33 They, and all that appertained to them, went down alive into the pit, and the earth closed upon them: and they perished from among the congregation.

Even the wives and children. Oh, how MEAN of God!!

No, how covenantal.

This is the principle of covenantal hierarchy. The faith of the covenantal head applies to the ones who are under him.

Of course, the greatest single reality of this is that you, Mr. Dualhunter, were born a sinner without having done a single thing. It is called "orginal sin" and Adam did it ALL FOR YOU!!
Under his covenantal headship, when he sinned -- guess what -- YOU sinned.

Isn't THAT just speeeeecial!!!??

You can't avoid it in the Scriptures. That which the covenantal heads do affects their covenantal families underneath of them.

Learn about the covenant and how it works and you will stop making dumb statements like you just did.

 

[Singer]

If you read John 16:13, you might see when Jesus gave this promise
of infallible leading to the apostles, JUDAS WAS LONG GONE!!!

Your verse only says that the Comforter will guide us into all truth. There
is no indication that the promise of vs 13 is/was limited to the disciples.
Each believer is subject to that promise today. Your theory of corporate
righteousness due to inheriting it from Peter through a line of popes is
way out in left field. That would make all Catholics saved and sanctified
just because they're baptized in the RCC and because they attend mass
every week and ask some other sinner for forgiveness of sins. HolyCow.!!!

Yer a real smarmy little pew rat, ain't ya? I'm not sure why I
am even bothering to continue this with someone who obviously doesn't
have all his tacos on his plate.

Ah but this is entertaining isn't it.? I'm learning so much of the Catholic System.


Baptism must always be accompanied by faith. What about that do
you not understand? The Catholic Church has never baptized someone
without accompanying faith.

I've heard that before on another forum. Your theory of "Regenerational
baptism" suggests that water baptism is the mechanics of what brings
the Holy Spirit into a life ......that'show it was explained to me by a Catholic.
Protestantism puts belief and faith in front of baptism with no power of
regeneration contributed to water baptism. I've heard the "Baptism Saves"
debate and am not impressed.

That's the thought behind my comment that if baptism puts the Holy Spirit
in a life and if baptism saves of itself, then why don't we just force it on rebels
and make them changed men whether they want to be or not. It's corporate
and familial...remember ? Enmasse-


There is but one Church. It is UNIVERSAL (katholicos in the Greek).
From day one it was ONE SINGLE CHURCH WITH ONE SINGLE HEAD.
All those, who like you decided that they didn't have to follow the men
mandated with authority by our Lord, were part and parcel of the
heretics who found themselves outside the Church. You really need
to stop readin' dem poisonous little Chick comics.

Universal was the term attributed to those who believed that Jesus was
who he said he was and followed and preached that gospel. The word
used was catholic with a small ''c''. Another Catholic quoted this to me
in reference of how Ignatius' use of the term Catholic with a capital ''C''
came into being:
he was merely applying the term to the already-existing community of believers.

So you see there was no Catholic Church from the start. The term catholic
(small ''c'') meant universal and there were many others that were operating
apart from Jesus and the disciples whom Jesus said "if they are not against us
they are for us".....and he told his disciples to let them operate.

This "already-existing community of believers" was not Catholic by any
means, nor Protestant, SDA, Mormon etc. They didn't exist yet. Catholicism
had its start about 110 AD. There were obviously many other believers among
those who Christ said "If they be not against us they are for us". who were
operating in the known world at the time. They also had equal blessings along
with those who stole the term used to identify christians which was the word
catholic (meaning all 'universal' believers).....put a capital C on it and has now
for 2000 years laid claim to "Firstness"....."Appointment by God"......"Started
by Jesus". How foolish. What year did Peter die..? Was it before 110 AD ?

So the "ONE SINGLE CHURCH WITH ONE SINGLE HEAD " is nothing
more than a branch off of one of the groups who were operating around Jesus
when he walked the earth.



Luke 9:49,50 And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils
in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us.

And Jesus said unto him, Forbid [him] not: for he that is not against us is for us.

If you choose to believe that those with Jesus were the precursors of Catholicism,
then how do you explain those in Luke 9? Did they just die out and cease to
exist or later become accursed when Jesus gave them his approval? Where
are they today?

*Maybe they were killed by the Catholics in the Inquisition perhaps

 

[Singer]

http://christianprogress.com/7.htm


By Rafael Rodríguez Guillén

To say that the INQUISITION, the most fearful scourge of persecution
in history, which the Catholic Church hath used against genuine
Christians, whom she has been silencing and censuring for centuries,
is still in existence in the 20th century, imposed by Catholicism, is a
very different subject to comprehend.....

I remember that when I was educated to be a priest in the
seminary of Sevilla, whose library is one of the most complete
in Spain, and which also serves as a librarian, that all the books
about the INQUISITION written by the classic reformers of Christianity,
Protestants, etc., were prohibited reading to the seminarists, being
occulted apart and censored as diabolical books. I had the privilege
to investigate the whys, wherefores, and fears that they had about
those books getting into the hands of the seminarists. The same
as sex books, they were set apart. And if any student was caught
reading them or showing too much interest in them, he was obligated
to repent and obey penance imposed. I was punished for
wanting to learn about the Protestant Reformation.

Why that strange interest in hiding the truth? Why deprive students
of the free access to this vital information, and to the human rights
of intellectual investigation? Why are all the biblical books written
by true Christians such as Capriano de Valera and Casiodoro de Reina,
priests who were my compatriots of Sevilla, and whose bible translations
into Spanish, the first ones, are still mentioned into this day, censured?
I affirm that the INQUISITION was rather the idea of Satan, who didn’t
want the message of salvation to humanity to be known, than of God,
who does.

The INQUISITION, still mentions its censorship and INDEX VATICANUM
excumulgatorio in the twentieth century. It is incredible that in the
twentieth century, when liberties and human rights give us freedom
of belief, of conscience, of free opinion, of assembly, and to think freely,
Rome still wants to impose the INQUISITION impudently, which suppresses
genuine human values, censures, defames, and slanders reformist writers,
whom she censures using the seal of Nihil Obstat Imprimatur and forces
to stop writing anything against Catholicism if they want their books printed,
and deprives us of the right to write and opine freely.

Copyright © 2000 - 2003, Christian Advance
All rights reserved.

 

[WPutnam]

Originally posted by Dualhunter:
2 times is not "endless".

More precisely, it was to conform to Greek grammar.

Petra, which is the normal Greek word for "rock" happens to be feminine in gender.

Don't ask me why, as I don't understand Greek grammar. In any case, to change Simon's name to "rock" would require the masculine gender of Petros, which is proper, since Simon now Peter is a man, right?

After naming Simon "Petros" in the masculine form, the rest of the sentence, according to Greek grammar, must return to the feminine form if the term "rock" is repeated, hence we see "petras" in the second occasion of the word.

Therefore, it is not surprising that the early church, as documented by the early church fathers, realized that it is Peter who is to be the "rock" upon which the church is built:

http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/rock.htm

Carson forcefully pointed out exactly what Jesus had to say, since His native tongue was Aramaic. And there is no gender in the Aramaic word for "rock," which is kepha.

Therefore, Jesus would have had to say, "...You are Kepha, and upon this kepha I will build my church."

And likewise in French, which also does not have a gender for "rock":

"...You are Pierre. and upon this pierre I will build my church."

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+

My soul proclaims the greatness of the Lord; my spirit rejoices in God my savior.
For he has looked upon his handmaid's lowliness; behold, from now on will all ages
call me blessed. (Luke 1:46-48)

 

[CatholicConvert]

Ah but this is entertaining isn't it.? I'm learning so much of the Catholic System.

Ahhhhhh, I don't think so, at least if the web site you refer to is a picture of the things you believe. This guy is easily as bad as Jack Chick, and if he's your hero, well.....you have a whole lot of prejudice to overcome. Makes me think that you probably don't wish Biblical proofs of any of the teachings of the Catholic Faith.

I just lost a half hour's work on a longer reply thanks to my goofy server. I'll try again tomorrow.

 

[Singer]

Ahhhhhh, I don't think so, at least if the web site you refer to is a
picture of the things you believe. This guy is easily as bad as Jack
Chick, and if he's your hero, well.....you have a whole lot of prejudice
to overcome. Makes me think that you probably don't wish Biblical
proofs of any of the teachings of the Catholic Faith.

That's what the author of that article says too......Deny, deride, hide and
ridicule the opposition.....it's like a little dog with a big bark. Their mouth makes
greater claims than their size will support

CC, I didn't say I was learning anything Beneficial....I just said "Learning"

I just lost a half hour's work on a longer reply thanks to my goofy server.
I'll try again tomorrow.

Awesome !!! I prayed "...but deliver me from evil"

Ain't God Good though !!

Hey I won't be here tomorrow.....got that Gospel Jam with all dem Katliks;
they are so neat and spirit filled (They must not be Good Catholics).

We're gonna practice for it during the church services in a Methodist
Church in the morning. Kathryn and Bill , DID YOU HEAR THAT !!!!!
Singer's going to church !!!!!

"Jesus Loves Me This I know; For the Bible Tells Me So"

And ME aint Catholic.

Singer

P.S. Plese don't tell me that " ME' means Catholics....It might be more than
this old body can stand.

 

[Carson Weber]

By Rafael Rodríguez Guillén ... To say that the INQUISITION, the most fearful scourge of persecution

Singer, how does this blurb from an anti-Catholic website pertain the the subject of the thread? Have you read my paper entirely through yet?

 

[Singer]

I asked what happened to the other believers who Christ said for his
disciples to accept their pursuits. I suggested they might have
been killed in the Inquisition....then I responded to myself

No, I haven't read any of your paper...I detect an agenda may be lurking !

 

[Kathryn]

Singer:
Don't you think Doctor & Monsignor Rafael Rodriguez Guillen should give up using the title Monsignor ? Or maybe it helps him sell books on his nifty website. I did get a kick out of the spiffy picture.

A small sample of his distinguished work:

“This pope, who deceives and confuses half the world, making people see black
as white, claims to be infallible. Yeah , and he has lead Catholicism into its
worse spiritual crisis ever. But thanks to the true Christian Churches,
Christ’s true teachings are kept in store.”

I can see why he didn't get his books published by a reputable publisher. I think I am going to e-mail him and suggest he give up the using the title Monsignor. It sort of takes away from his credibility.

Glad to hear you are going to church.

God Bless

 

[Singer]

Thanks Kat-run.
Could you work on ole CC's addertude....He's
gettin a little nasssy lately ! Tell WP, Hi for me !

Peace

 

[Kathryn]

Sorry, I can't help. I am going to LA and Flagstaff tomorrow for 2 weeks. You are however in good hands.

God Bless

 

[Glorious]

Dear CC

There is only ONE Church. Yer little meeting in the woods doesn't qualify (or whatever you do). To be in the Church you must be under the covenantal headship established upon this earth --which is the See of Rome, the successor of St. Peter. Jesus gave the keys to one man. That office still has the keys.

I am kinda hanging onto your tail here .... not really understanding whats going on, but this above statement jumped out at me.

From your statement, I gather .......

there is but one church.

a small meeting not affiliated with this One Church is not considered saved (??).

we must be in the See of Rome, the successor of St. Peter. What is the See of Rome? I remember Paul mentioned that Peter was married, so are you talking of offspring here? I guess you aren't, but all the same, who on earth was Peters successor?

Who on earth was the "one man" who Jesus gave the keys to? Do you mean the keys of heaven or what?

Sorry to be ignorant here, but could you explain it simply ... the questions above?

In appreciation
Glorious

 

[CatholicConvert]

Hello Glorious --

Let me see if I can clarify what I said

there is but one church.

When I began to study the Catholic Faith in earnest about three years ago (as a considerably anti-catholic Protestant), some things really jumped out at me.a

I noticed in the Bible that God had a people whom He had choosen to bring the truth to the world. These were the Jews, and they were in a covenantal relationship with Him. In order to be saved, the whole world had to come to the Jewish nation, repent of their idolatry and false worship, and enter in to the covenantal nation by making a covenant with God through circumcision. By doing this, they were admitted to the Jewish nation and were given all the benefits of that membership, which included the God given and only sacrifices to cover their sins. Through their faith in God, manifest by willingness to repent and enter the covenantal kingdom, they would be deemed righteous, and upon death, be in Paradise with all the other righteous, awaiting the coming of the Messiah. (This is assuming that they persevered to the end and did not fall away).

As I further studied, I noticed that in Hebrews, St. Paul referred to this covenantal nation as the "church" (Heb. 2: 12), yet he was speaking of the OT assembly and quoting Psalm 22:22. This led me to understand that the church was not a NT entity, but the "eklessia" (the gathering - the people of God) throughout all time.

Then, as I studied Matthew 21: 33 - 46, I saw that Jesus in this parable, prophesied that the covenantal kingdom would be taken from the Jews and given to another peoples -- the NT church. In studying the parable, I saw that while the leadership of this "eklessia" would be taken from the Jews and given to the NT church, there was no significant change in the STRUCTURE of the Church itself. In other words, the structure would stay the same from the Old Covenant into the New Covenant. Thus, the church which was earthly, physical and visible in the Old Covenant would be the same in the New Covenant. The idea of an "invisible church" composed of "true believers" was simply not indicated.

Furthermore, there would continue to be a priesthood, sacrificial system, and hierarchy of leadership, but all FULFILLED IN CHRIST, so that where before the Passover was eaten in anticipation of the coming Messiah and Deliverer, we in the Church of the NT would actually experience eating the true Passover Lamb of the New Covenant.

a small meeting not affiliated with this One Church is not considered saved

I'm not exactly sure what you are saying here. Are you stating that a samll group meeting in a home is not considered saved, or are you talking about a IFBC?

If the latter, you must go back to answer 1. If Christ established the Jewish nation and established the sacrificial system only through it, could there be salvation through another system outside Judaism in the OT? How then, if in Matthew 21 Jesus told us that the kingdom was taken from the Jews and given to the Church, is there any salvation outside the Church today? The principle is the same from OT to NT. Our Lord established a Body, the Church. It is His Body, and to be united to it is to be united to Him. To be united to Him is life eternal.

If one wishes the benefits of an institution, one joins that institution and adheres to the tenants of its leadership, to its code, and gives fidelity to it. The covenantal nation was changed from the Jewish nation to the Church:

Ex 19:5 Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine:

6 And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.

And now, in the NT:

1Pe 2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:

Notice the wording in italics in both verses. This is not an accident that Peter uses the same language to describe the Church. The Church is the New Covenant kingdom.

What is the See of Rome?

It's the technical term for the papacy, the office of the bishop of Rome who is the head of the Church.

I remember Paul mentioned that Peter was married, so are you talking of offspring here? I guess you aren't, but all the same, who on earth was Peters successor?

To understand the succession of St. Peter, you must understand that what was given to him was an "office" of authority. And we see that office being passed on in Acts:

Ac 1:20 For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.

Notice that the office of "bishoprick" is what is being talked about here. The twelve "offices" of the bishops corresponds with the 12 heads of the Jewish nation, the sons of Jacob. As their tribes were the heads of the covenantal nation in the OT, so the twelve leaders of the NT, the apostles, are the heads of the Church in the NT.

Who on earth was the "one man" who Jesus gave the keys to? Do you mean the keys of heaven or what?

Mt 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

The Jews who were there listening would have immediately thought back to this prophetic verse in their Scriptures:

Isa 22:20 And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah:

21 And I will clothe him with thy robe, and strengthen him with thy girdle, and I will commit thy government into his hand: and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah.

22 And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.

The OT uses a great many "types." For instance, the lamb of the Passover is a type of Christ. Christ is the fulfillment of the Passover Lamb, the true Lamb of God, of which the OT type is but a shadow.

In like manner, the Jewish nation is a type of the Church, and that which happens is a type of things happening in the Church. Thus, when we see the prime minister of David being given the key to the kingdom, we see a "type" of St. Peter being given the keys to the kingdom of heaven. The prime minister rules "in the place of" the king. He bears the kings rule, yet does not usurp the king nor take his authority.

That is what the office of the pope does. He is the bishop who is successor to St. Peter. He takes that office and is the earthly head over the Church, having that authority to do so given by Christ Himself.

Sorry to be ignorant here, but could you explain it simply ... the questions above?

Not ignorant at all. These are quite good questions, and the ones I myself had to work through before I converted to the Catholic Faith.

Cordially in Christ,

Brother Ed

 

[Dualhunter]

Act of charity originally posted by CatholicConvert:
Learn about the covenant and how it works and you will stop making dumb statements like you just did.

 

[CatholicConvert]

Dual --

You notice that I didn't answer Glorious that way, did I?

I get rather tired of your smarmy, know-it-all one liners. And being human, I tend to respond in kind.

Maybe someday I'll be a saint and kiss the feet of everyone who's nasty to me....

Naaaaaaaaaaaaa............