'Tradition'

[utilyan]

Does the Catholic Church still sell indulgences, Utilyan?


God bless.

The Church never sells indulgences its not in the teachings. Bad priests, however, not only have sold indulgences they even run off to create new religions.

 

[utilyan]

They weren't taught by the apostles. That is where you are mistaken. Only two of them were influenced by the Apostle: Justin Martyr, and Ignatius. The fact that they came in contact with the Apostle John does not guarantee orthodoxy in doctrine. That is obvious.
Even Peter went off the rails and became hypocritical siding with the heresy of the legalistic Jews. He had to be soundly rebuked by the Apostle Paul in Gal.2:11,

Galatians 2:11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.

You will find that the rest of the ECF were born 125,150 A.D. etc. well after the lives of the apostles were over. They were not taught by the apostles.

You are right. I do not have A Bible; I have dozens of the them. I am blessed in that way. I am a missionary. I go to nations where the Bible is scarce and many people don't have a Bible. Count your blessings; not your unbelief, and sarcasm.

The Holy Spirit wrote the Bible. Did he do it by faith? He inspired prophets of the Old Testament and apostles of the NT to write what God wanted them to write. What has that got to do with faith?

2 Peter 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:


I believe the KJV is still the most accurate translation we have today, but I am not bound to that translation. One might say it is my "default." There are reasons for that. Since the time I was saved, I memorized scripture from it. I am well acquainted with it. Therefore I have no reason to change. However, if you have read my posts you should have observed by now that I have posted using many other translations for comparison sake. I am not tied to one translation.

On your part, through ignorance perhaps.

Again, you don't think your posts through or research them. The difference between a Calvinist and a non-Cal is quite a minor issue. But the one who teaches salvation is by works (the RCC), and other heretical doctrines such as purgatory, indulgences, praying to the dead (like Mary), and so much more, is more like a cult than Christianity. Baptizing to wash away sins is what the Hindus do. It is pure superstition. Transubstantiation comes from paganism.


So do the J.W's and Mormons. Your doctrine has changed throughout the ages. It comes from paganism and cannot be found in the Bible, and therefore is not Christian. Whereas everything we believe is based on the Bible, God's revelation to mankind.


Again, the Bible is our foundation and Jesus is our head. Not for you.
You know little of what the Bible says and are opposed to the teachings of Jesus.


The same can be said about liberal vs conservative Catholics.
But you have your unsubstantiated, anecdotal and slanderous opinions. They remain that way until you provide the evidence.

Jesus said: Except a man be born again he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.
Have you been born again? How? When? Are you sure then you will enter into God's Kingdom?

DHK, in light of the passages I provided giving Instructions on picking bishops, The apostles are choosing heretics as leaders?

Is your church ran by heretics? If not then I guess something must be wrong because its obviously always had heretics running the system


You bring up another good point for tradition:

Acts 15, we have Judaizers who are demanding Christians follow the law.

What authority do they appeal to? NOT SCRIPTURE. Had it been scripture it is a LANDSLIDE win for Judaizers because scripture CLEARLY says the Law must be observed.

All scripture pointed to it having to be followed. I could point to Jesus who followed it himself the "exemplar" Christian.

No scripture at all backs the idea of dumping the law.

When concluding they say:

25it seemed good to us, having become of one mind, to select men to send to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul,

Nothing about well having checked scriptures, or not even well having consulted the holy spirit.

These guys have church authority. They have the power to bind and lose.
They could have decided YES, and then what?

From where would you correct them if all scripture says follow the law!?
From where did THEY correct the Judaizers!? Not scripture! The CHURCH has authority.


Even from the beginning of the issue:
2And when Paul and Barnabas had great dissension and debate with them, the brethren determined that Paul and Barnabas and some others of them should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders concerning this issue.

Why didn't just crack open a bible? Why didn't they go to the ONLY AUTHORITY the BIBLE!?

An apostle and elders don't have authority.....only scripture does. Why did they go?




You call the apostles heretics , the early bishops heretics, ecf heretics, No kidding because we call them CATHOLICS. That's US your reading about in the bible.

 

[Darrell C]

The Church never sells indulgences its not in the teachings. Bad priests, however, not only have sold indulgences they even run off to create new religions.

So you are saying that the Catholic Church never sold indulgences, right?


God bless.

 

[DHK]

DHK, in light of the passages I provided giving Instructions on picking bishops, The apostles are choosing heretics as leaders?

Do you know what a bishop is? They didn't choose "bishops," not the kind you are familiar with. They didn't have them. This is where sola scriptura comes to our rescue. Consider the Scripture:

Paul was on his way to Jerusalem and could not take the time to all the way to Ephesus, so he makes a compromise to meet the church leaders half way:
Acts 20:17 And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church.
--These men are the elders of the church. The Greek word is "presbuteros," the same word that is elsewhere translated "presbyter," the pastor of the church.

Later on Paul advises the same men:
Acts 20:28 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.
Note here:
"the flock,...to feed the church of God" Three times Jesus told Peter, "Feed my sheep," or "feed my lambs." That is what a shepherd does. The word for "pastor" comes from the same word that "shepherd" comes from . Here the word is "ποίμνιον poímnion", a flock or group of believers, one whom a shepherd or pastor is overseeing.
The word for "overseer" in this verse is "episkopos." It is the same word used in 1Tim.3:1 that is translated "bishop." Bishop (or pastor) is an overseer in the local church. That is one of his basic duties.
Whether he is called Bishop, overseer, pastor, elder, it is all the same office--he is the pastor. The bishop is not different than the pastor--not from the Bible's perspective. Only the RCC makes that difference. The King James never made that difference. But 400 years later you are confused using this language. These elders that Paul called were called bishops, the same word, the same people. They were the pastors of the local church at Ephesus.

Is your church ran by heretics? If not then I guess something must be wrong because its obviously always had heretics running the system

And who is the playground bully?
Like I said, all of our doctrine can be found in the Bible and is substantiated by the Bible. Our statement of faith is all backed up by Scripture. But the RCC is not so. Its doctrines originate from paganism and superstition. They are not found in the Bible and therefore are not of God. It is a religion not worthy to be called "Christian."
Therefore, answer your own question.

You bring up another good point for tradition:

Acts 15, we have Judaizers who are demanding Christians follow the law.

What authority do they appeal to? NOT SCRIPTURE. Had it been scripture it is a LANDSLIDE win for Judaizers because scripture CLEARLY says the Law must be observed.

--"You do err not knowing the scripture..."
First of all there is nothing here about tradition.
Second, the Judaizers are those who had corrupted the gospel.
Third, they went to Jerusalem because the apostles were still there. They had not left yet. Most of the rest of the church had scattered.

Acts 8:4 Therefore they that were scattered abroad went every where preaching the word.
Act 8:14 Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:

Fourth, there was no denomination here. There was one church and one pastor. The apostles just happened to be there. The decision was made by the pastor of this local church. The pastor was James.
James was the last one to speak, and here is what he said:
Acts 15:13 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me:
Acts 15:19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:
James said, "My sentence, that is my decision, is." It was his decision. He heard everyone first and then it was up to him to make the final decision. He was the pastor.
Note that every verse between 13 and 19 is filled with Scripture. He gives a "Scripture-filled" answer. It is sola-scriptura in action.

All scripture pointed to it having to be followed. I could point to Jesus who followed it himself the "exemplar" Christian.

No scripture at all backs the idea of dumping the law.

The keeping of the law in reference to salvation was wrong. That is what these Judaizers wanted.
READ:
Acts 15:1 And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.
--Is this true. (Women are excluded from salvation then, aren't they?)

And again:
Acts 15:5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.
--They couldn't keep the law and neither can you. No one can. With that imposed on salvation all would go to hell and no one would be saved.

Elsewhere Paul had said:
Galatians 3:10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.
--You must continue in all things that are written in the law, from birth to death. If you sin but one time in your life you are cursed, condemned forever. There is no hope of salvation for you. The law cannot save.

What did Peter say?
Acts 15:10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?
11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.
--IOW, salvation is by faith and faith alone. It couldn't be any clearer. Don't put the yoke of the law; the yoke of works upon them.

When concluding they say:

25it seemed good to us, having become of one mind, to select men to send to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul,

Nothing about well having checked scriptures, or not even well having consulted the holy spirit.

These guys have church authority. They have the power to bind and lose.
They could have decided YES, and then what?

Read it again. Scripture is consulted all throughout. The gospel is referenced many times and the gospel has no law, only grace and faith.
This was the local church at Jerusalem. It had no authority over any other church. The power of binding and losing has nothing to do with anything decided here. It is entirely out of context. That is another subject for another day. Paul and Barnabas were chosen because they were missionaries and traveled on a regular basis, but even they were not missionaries sent out by this church. Everything done here was voluntarily done. Paul and Barnabas were members of the church in Antioch.
Your conclusions are in error.

From where would you correct them if all scripture says follow the law!?
From where did THEY correct the Judaizers!? Not scripture! The CHURCH has authority.

The scriptures say that the gospel is not of the law, but by grace and by faith.
They all rebuked the position of the Judaizers. It was heresy. With one accord it was condemned.
James said very clearly:
(KJV) Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:
--This means "don't trouble them or burden them with the law."
In another translation it is put this way:
(WNT) "My judgement, therefore, is against inflicting unexpected annoyance on those of the Gentiles who are turning to God.
--In Weymouth's translation he says not to inflict them with the annoyance of the Jewish law.
The law is not part of the gospel.

A few verses later, it is written:
Acts 15:23 And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia:
24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:
--It is very clear. The apostles never gave any commandment to keep the law. It is not part of the gospel.

Even from the beginning of the issue:
2And when Paul and Barnabas had great dissension and debate with them, the brethren determined that Paul and Barnabas and some others of them should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders concerning this issue.

Why didn't just crack open a bible? Why didn't they go to the ONLY AUTHORITY the BIBLE!?

An apostle and elders don't have authority.....only scripture does. Why did they go?

They went to the gospel which Paul had consistently preached. The gospel (the scriptures) does not contain the law. They all knew that and condemned the Judaizers for preaching another gospel. Those that do are "accursed." (Gal.1:8).

You call the apostles heretics , the early bishops heretics, ecf heretics, No kidding because we call them CATHOLICS. That's US your reading about in the bible.

Check Gal.1:8
Those that preach another gospel, like the RCC are "accursed." Those are not my words.
The RCC does not preach the gospel of the Bible, but a message directly contrary to the Bible and the apostles.

 

[utilyan]

Do you know what a bishop is? They didn't choose "bishops," not the kind you are familiar with. They didn't have them. This is where sola scriptura comes to our rescue. Consider the Scripture:

Paul was on his way to Jerusalem and could not take the time to all the way to Ephesus, so he makes a compromise to meet the church leaders half way:
Acts 20:17 And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church.
--These men are the elders of the church. The Greek word is "presbuteros," the same word that is elsewhere translated "presbyter," the pastor of the church.

Later on Paul advises the same men:
Acts 20:28 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.
Note here:
"the flock,...to feed the church of God" Three times Jesus told Peter, "Feed my sheep," or "feed my lambs." That is what a shepherd does. The word for "pastor" comes from the same word that "shepherd" comes from . Here the word is "ποίμνιον poímnion", a flock or group of believers, one whom a shepherd or pastor is overseeing.
The word for "overseer" in this verse is "episkopos." It is the same word used in 1Tim.3:1 that is translated "bishop." Bishop (or pastor) is an overseer in the local church. That is one of his basic duties.
Whether he is called Bishop, overseer, pastor, elder, it is all the same office--he is the pastor. The bishop is not different than the pastor--not from the Bible's perspective. Only the RCC makes that difference. The King James never made that difference. But 400 years later you are confused using this language. These elders that Paul called were called bishops, the same word, the same people. They were the pastors of the local church at Ephesus.


And who is the playground bully?
Like I said, all of our doctrine can be found in the Bible and is substantiated by the Bible. Our statement of faith is all backed up by Scripture. But the RCC is not so. Its doctrines originate from paganism and superstition. They are not found in the Bible and therefore are not of God. It is a religion not worthy to be called "Christian."
Therefore, answer your own question.


--"You do err not knowing the scripture..."
First of all there is nothing here about tradition.
Second, the Judaizers are those who had corrupted the gospel.
Third, they went to Jerusalem because the apostles were still there. They had not left yet. Most of the rest of the church had scattered.

Acts 8:4 Therefore they that were scattered abroad went every where preaching the word.
Act 8:14 Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:

Fourth, there was no denomination here. There was one church and one pastor. The apostles just happened to be there. The decision was made by the pastor of this local church. The pastor was James.
James was the last one to speak, and here is what he said:
Acts 15:13 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me:
Acts 15:19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:
James said, "My sentence, that is my decision, is." It was his decision. He heard everyone first and then it was up to him to make the final decision. He was the pastor.
Note that every verse between 13 and 19 is filled with Scripture. He gives a "Scripture-filled" answer. It is sola-scriptura in action.


The keeping of the law in reference to salvation was wrong. That is what these Judaizers wanted.
READ:
Acts 15:1 And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.
--Is this true. (Women are excluded from salvation then, aren't they?)

And again:
Acts 15:5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.
--They couldn't keep the law and neither can you. No one can. With that imposed on salvation all would go to hell and no one would be saved.

Elsewhere Paul had said:
Galatians 3:10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.
--You must continue in all things that are written in the law, from birth to death. If you sin but one time in your life you are cursed, condemned forever. There is no hope of salvation for you. The law cannot save.

What did Peter say?
Acts 15:10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?
11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.
--IOW, salvation is by faith and faith alone. It couldn't be any clearer. Don't put the yoke of the law; the yoke of works upon them.


Read it again. Scripture is consulted all throughout. The gospel is referenced many times and the gospel has no law, only grace and faith.
This was the local church at Jerusalem. It had no authority over any other church. The power of binding and losing has nothing to do with anything decided here. It is entirely out of context. That is another subject for another day. Paul and Barnabas were chosen because they were missionaries and traveled on a regular basis, but even they were not missionaries sent out by this church. Everything done here was voluntarily done. Paul and Barnabas were members of the church in Antioch.
Your conclusions are in error.


The scriptures say that the gospel is not of the law, but by grace and by faith.
They all rebuked the position of the Judaizers. It was heresy. With one accord it was condemned.
James said very clearly:
(KJV) Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:
--This means "don't trouble them or burden them with the law."
In another translation it is put this way:
(WNT) "My judgement, therefore, is against inflicting unexpected annoyance on those of the Gentiles who are turning to God.
--In Weymouth's translation he says not to inflict them with the annoyance of the Jewish law.
The law is not part of the gospel.

A few verses later, it is written:
Acts 15:23 And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia:
24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:
--It is very clear. The apostles never gave any commandment to keep the law. It is not part of the gospel.


They went to the gospel which Paul had consistently preached. The gospel (the scriptures) does not contain the law. They all knew that and condemned the Judaizers for preaching another gospel. Those that do are "accursed." (Gal.1:8).

Check Gal.1:8
Those that preach another gospel, like the RCC are "accursed." Those are not my words.
The RCC does not preach the gospel of the Bible, but a message directly contrary to the Bible and the apostles.

Doesn't count DHK. If they believed in SOLA SCRIPTURA they would have taken the issue to the authority which is scripture not the elders and apostles.


The apostles themselves would have made no ruling too. Because they can't not being the authority. There would be no decision other then point out scripture.

There is no scriptural basis for their decision. Its just not there.

What an apostle had to say about it is no more then anyone else.

 

[DHK]

There is no scriptural basis for their decision. Its just not there.

Read the Book of Galatians. The entire book is Scripture, a defense, an apology, a book written to combat this error of the legalistic Judaizer. Yes there is a scriptural basis. Read the bible and see.

 

[utilyan]

Read the Book of Galatians. The entire book is Scripture, a defense, an apology, a book written to combat this error of the legalistic Judaizer. Yes there is a scriptural basis. Read the bible and see.

In acts 15 they did not consult the letter to Galatians.

 

[utilyan]

So you are saying that the Catholic Church never sold indulgences, right?


God bless.

Can't. That is a clerical scam. Did evil priests scam people? Yes and WORST.

And I wouldn't be surprised if some "indulgences" was just a cover for worst. Keep an eye where the money is going.

 

[Darrell C]

Can't. That is a clerical scam. Did evil priests scam people? Yes and WORST.

And I wouldn't be surprised if some "indulgences" was just a cover for worst. Keep an eye where the money is going.

The point is not to condemn the Catholic Church, Utilyan, the point is to point out that there are men in the Catholic Church that corrupted Doctrine and Practice.

Not the "Oh the leadership of the Catholic Church is above reproach" fantasy most Catholics proclaim. lol

The primary point I began with addresses whether there have been changes in Catholic Doctrine and Practice. Indulgences are a good example of that. On the surface it might seem harmless, though I still view it as an "authority" of remission that cannot be supported from Scripture and is entirely a Doctrine and Tradition of the Catholic Church. Learn when the practice began. Laern when it became recognized as being corrupted. Learn when the corruption was addressed by both the Catholic Church and Martin Luther.

Then give me Scripture that supports it in any way.

The idea that Catholic Doctrine in its current declaration cannot be associated with "evil priests" is an assumption on your part. And because of your position concerning the Authority of Scripture you do not really have anything by which to gauge true and pure Doctrine and Practice.

And for the record, I do appreciate your honesty on this.


God bless.

 

[utilyan]

The point is not to condemn the Catholic Church, Utilyan, the point is to point out that there are men in the Catholic Church that corrupted Doctrine and Practice.

Not the "Oh the leadership of the Catholic Church is above reproach" fantasy most Catholics proclaim. lol

The primary point I began with addresses whether there have been changes in Catholic Doctrine and Practice. Indulgences are a good example of that. On the surface it might seem harmless, though I still view it as an "authority" of remission that cannot be supported from Scripture and is entirely a Doctrine and Tradition of the Catholic Church. Learn when the practice began. Laern when it became recognized as being corrupted. Learn when the corruption was addressed by both the Catholic Church and Martin Luther.

Then give me Scripture that supports it in any way.

The idea that Catholic Doctrine in its current declaration cannot be associated with "evil priests" is an assumption on your part. And because of your position concerning the Authority of Scripture you do not really have anything by which to gauge true and pure Doctrine and Practice.

And for the record, I do appreciate your honesty on this.


God bless.

We are very picky legalistically on how you word stuff.

Selling indulgences scam-wise false is against church teaching.

A priest is a priest forever, Theres no "divorce" you can't get kicked out the catholic faith.

A priest can be completely evil and there is still "association".

The teachings themselves cannot be changed. Clergy isn't superior to laity. Millions of Catholics have murdered people.....especially when they were the only thing around, but it is not church teaching to kill.

You can get a indulgence. For example there is a indulgence for reading your bible.

Now how does the church find the boldness to make calls like indulgences?

Matthew 18
18“Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.

Its a matter of this authority that Jesus bestowed on his church in actual practice.

Imagine Jesus wasn't kidding when he said it, binding, loosing.....

The Church can do this. This really happened.
The church, the saints, the authority given, is real.

 

[Darrell C]

We are very picky legalistically on how you word stuff.

Selling indulgences scam-wise false is against church teaching.

A priest is a priest forever, Theres no "divorce" you can't get kicked out the catholic faith.

A priest can be completely evil and there is still "association".

The teachings themselves cannot be changed. Clergy isn't superior to laity. Millions of Catholics have murdered people.....especially when they were the only thing around, but it is not church teaching to kill.

You can get a indulgence. For example there is a indulgence for reading your bible.

Now how does the church find the boldness to make calls like indulgences?

Matthew 18
18“Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.

Its a matter of this authority that Jesus bestowed on his church in actual practice.

Imagine Jesus wasn't kidding when he said it, binding, loosing.....

The Church can do this. This really happened.
The church, the saints, the authority given, is real.

There is simply too much merging and blending of concepts here to maintain a focus on what was focal in the post, Utilyan.

Slow down. Try to focus on the point at hand.

Even the Catholic Church recognizes that Indulgences were being abused. That's just a historical fact.

And what that shows is that even the Catholic Church is susceptible to change that comes about by her own people erroneously teaching a doctrinal practice or the Doctrine itself.

This stands in direct contradiction to your view that the Doctrine of the Catholic Church has somehow been consistent since they were recognized as a group.

Direct your focus on that, I can't spend a bunch of time on irrelevant statements.

Got a fence to build today, so only have so much time to work on dismantling the fence between us.




God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

Let me ask you this, Utilyan, where does the term Simony come from?


God bless.

 

[DHK]

In acts 15 they did not consult the letter to Galatians.

That is true. And that is why sola scripture is so important. We know that the position of the Judaizers was wrong, even heretical, because of what Paul wrote elsewhere.

Besides that, every person who spoke before James gave his decision, gave their experiences how God had been working through them bringing souls unto Himself. How does He do that? He uses His Word (without the law), by the preaching of the gospel (not the law). This was their message as all the congregation listened intently to them.
Then, based on the Word of God, James gave his decision. It was not simply a "willy nilly" decision that he made.

 

[utilyan]

Let me ask you this, Utilyan, where does the term Simony come from?


God bless.

Darrell people were told they will be forgiven for killing someone else.

I heard a Baptist Pastor say of the Orlando shootings we should line up all homosexuals and shoot them in the head, And i'll go to heaven for doing the will of God.

I myself attended Baptist church for bout 4 years and the only response that has been taught to me is vengeance belongs to the lord. That I should not respond with violence to anyone.

To vilify based on actions taken that's a piece of cake.

I look at the actual teachings. My understanding of the actual teachings of Baptist church is non-violence. The actual teachings of the catholic church is you can't get sold an indulgence. I'm sure there is a guy out there who sold a Baptism, a Eucharist, even a confession.


If your gonna claim church teaching based on actions well the clergy are not the only official catholics.
We believe in the priesthood of all believers.

You can get technical and claim Hitler was a catholic priest.

 

[utilyan]

That is true. And that is why sola scripture is so important. We know that the position of the Judaizers was wrong, even heretical, because of what Paul wrote elsewhere.

Besides that, every person who spoke before James gave his decision, gave their experiences how God had been working through them bringing souls unto Himself. How does He do that? He uses His Word (without the law), by the preaching of the gospel (not the law). This was their message as all the congregation listened intently to them.
Then, based on the Word of God, James gave his decision. It was not simply a "willy nilly" decision that he made.

You almost sound like James has authority.

 

[Darrell C]

Darrell people were told they will be forgiven for killing someone else.

I heard a Baptist Pastor say of the Orlando shootings we should line up all homosexuals and shoot them in the head, And i'll go to heaven for doing the will of God.

I myself attended Baptist church for bout 4 years and the only response that has been taught to me is vengeance belongs to the lord. That I should not respond with violence to anyone.

To vilify based on actions taken that's a piece of cake.

I look at the actual teachings. My understanding of the actual teachings of Baptist church is non-violence. The actual teachings of the catholic church is you can't get sold an indulgence. I'm sure there is a guy out there who sold a Baptism, a Eucharist, even a confession.


If your gonna claim church teaching based on actions well the clergy are not the only official catholics.
We believe in the priesthood of all believers.

You can get technical and claim Hitler was a catholic priest.

You are still dancing around the point, Utilyan: there has been corruption in the Catholic Church and the Catholic Church has addressed that corruption.

Unlike the scenario you try to portray of the Catholic Church being justified in all of her doctrines and practices.

Secondly, you yourself would likely come under judgment of the Church, because your teachings often depart from a traditional and official position of the Church (i.e., the Church never sold indulgences, there has never been corruption on the part of Church officials). You would be considered a heretic if you were hauled before those who hold authority to determine whether your teachings are Catholic or heretical.

Now, when you can apply the realities of the involvement of man in leadership, from whence Doctrine and Practice flow, then you might teach a realistic view of the corruptions that have taken place. While you might never admit the error of Indulgences themselves, at the very least you could admit the fallibility of men, and the Infallibility of what is written in God's Word.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

In acts 15 they did not consult the letter to Galatians.

Does this nullify the fact that the Word of God is often quoted, cited, and appealed to as the authority by which truth can be measured?


Acts 17:10-12

King James Version (KJV)


10 And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews.

11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

12 Therefore many of them believed; also of honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few.


Certainly these folk...were Baptists.




God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

Darrell people were told they will be forgiven for killing someone else.

I heard a Baptist Pastor say of the Orlando shootings we should line up all homosexuals and shoot them in the head, And i'll go to heaven for doing the will of God.

I myself attended Baptist church for bout 4 years and the only response that has been taught to me is vengeance belongs to the lord. That I should not respond with violence to anyone.

To vilify based on actions taken that's a piece of cake.

I look at the actual teachings. My understanding of the actual teachings of Baptist church is non-violence. The actual teachings of the catholic church is you can't get sold an indulgence. I'm sure there is a guy out there who sold a Baptism, a Eucharist, even a confession.


If your gonna claim church teaching based on actions well the clergy are not the only official catholics.
We believe in the priesthood of all believers.

You can get technical and claim Hitler was a catholic priest.

Again I ask you...where does the term Simony come from, Utilyan. If you will just answer the question you will be forced to admit that the Catholic Church has had to deal with internal corruption.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

Matthew 18
18“Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.

Its a matter of this authority that Jesus bestowed on his church in actual practice.

Imagine Jesus wasn't kidding when he said it, binding, loosing.....

The Church can do this. This really happened.
The church, the saints, the authority given, is real.

Now I ask you, is the authority of the Church lost when corrupt men teach and practice that which is not according to Christ's will for the Church?


God bless.

 

[DHK]

You almost sound like James has authority.

(ESV) Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God,
(ISV) Therefore, I have decided that we should not trouble these gentiles who are turning to God.

James was the pastor of the First Baptist Church of Jerusalem where this meeting took place. As the pastor, he had more authority than any of the apostles, and he was the one that made the final decision as verse 19 clearly indicates.