Vicar of Jesus Christ?

[DHK]

??? My understanding was that you taught and believed that the Pope taught a false Gospel, that he claims wrongly to be the Vicar of Christ, and that he is likely responsible for leading many people to sin and damnable evil. Yet here you say that "...the Pope's position is to protect the family..."

The gospel has not much to do with one's position on family planning and related subjects. That was a bit of a rabbit trail.
1. The new birth as proclaimed by every Baptist on this board is completely different than that of the RCC which is the heretical "baptismal regeneration." That is a false gospel and leads people astray from the truth.
2. The gospel message, that Christ died, was buried, and rose again for our sins is a wonderful truth which must be personally applied to each individual. It is not just head knowledge. Therefore, he died for me. He paid the price of the penalty of my sin. That is why he had to die. I must accept that payment (his blood) as a free gift, as payment for my sins, if I want eternal life and forgiveness of sins. It is the only way. That gift is the grace of God. Christ dying on the cross was all of grace. It is to be received by faith and faith alone. There was nothing and is nothing I can do to add to the payment that Christ made for me. He paid it all.
In John 19:30 he said: "It is finished." The work on the cross was finished by Christ! There is nothing that I can do. Just accept it by faith. It is not of works.

That the RCC says that salvation is through baptism and keeping the sacraments is a false gospel, and a false message. It runs contrary to the Bible and simply leads people astray from the truth.

Again, who are you to say that I may not draw a rather clear principle from Scripture and apply it to life, conversation, and rational consideration as I see fit, as long as I am remaining consistent with God's principles in my efforts to apply them to life? And again, all of your arguments don't come from Scripture. Those which are right come first from God. You appeal to Scripture to substantiate your views when you're right. And because you cling to Sola Scriptura, you also appeal to Scripture to substantiate your views when you're wrong.

I appeal to scripture. If I am wrong in the scripture, please show me and I will change.
OTOH, if I show you that you are wrong in using the scripture in the way you are doing, will you also stop? It is not a clear principle. Paul is defending his apostleship against false teachers. This has nothing to do with the judgment of eternal salvation.

I am sorry that it bothers you. I don't mean to offend you. But I sincerely don't see what's so controversial about my application of that concept which St. Paul was presenting to the question of the individual believer's presumed ability to determine who is and who is not going to Hell, which, I maintain, at the end of the day, is a task for our all-knowing God alone.

Because he wasn't talking about Hell. Where do you get "hell" out of that passage? It just isn't there.
Here is a couple of other translations to make my point:

(WNT) Therefore form no premature judgements, but wait until the Lord returns. He will both bring to light the secrets of darkness and will openly disclose the motives that have been in people's hearts; and then the praise which each man deserves will come to him from God.

(ISV) Therefore, stop judging prematurely, before the Lord comes, for he will bring to light what is now hidden in darkness and reveal the motives of our hearts. Then each person will receive his praise from God.

Again, if you read the context carefully it is about the qualification of Paul as an apostle. Some in the church did not think he was qualified. Paul was not questioning their salvation, nor they his.
The judgment he is referring to is the Judgment Seat of Christ--for believers only. No one will lose their salvation there. They cannot. Christ has already given them "eternal life." Eternal cannot suddenly become temporal.
Note how Paul includes himself in the ISV "our hearts." He is standing at this judgment as well. There is more than one judgement in the Bible. This is not the Great White Throne Judgment described in Rev.20:11-15. Paul and other believers will not be there. That judgment is for the unbelievers.
The judgment Paul is referring to is described in 1Cor.3:11:15. It is different.

Meanwhile, I do indeed preach a clear Gospel which states that Christ is the only way to Heaven, period. My view, even as a Catholic, is very much like the view of Hell and damnation which was presented by CS Lewis in his book called The Problem of Pain.

But that is not "the gospel," and as shown, the Catholic Church doesn't have the gospel.
The question is: Have you been born again?
If so, how? If you say: "according to the definition given by the RCC, then you haven't been born again, and you need to be.
If you say, according to what the Baptists teach then you know you shouldn't be part of the RCC.

No. You demonstrated why you don't believe yourself to have adopted a misunderstanding of Scripture. But I don't believe that I've done that, either. And Scripture refuses to strong arm either of us on behalf of the other for it is the written Word of God. That is, it is His message to us. It, then, relays that which He wishes to relay.

It is his message to us. However, it must all harmonize and not contradict itself in any other passage. One scripture cannot contradict another.

But when it comes to matters of binding and loosing, and applying the teaching of Scripture to life, that is a role taken up first by the Apostles and thereafter by the Successors to the Apostles according to Christ's designs.

You have not shown that. There is no connection, no succession in the Catholic Church. You can't put Peter in the city of Rome. You can't put a successor beyond Matthias. There is just no evidence. If you are going to make assertions please back them up. Don't simply take the RCC''s word for it.

 

[Adonia]

The gospel has not much to do with one's position on family planning and related subjects. That was a bit of a rabbit trail.
1. The new birth as proclaimed by every Baptist on this board is completely different than that of the RCC which is the heretical "baptismal regeneration." That is a false gospel and leads people astray from the truth.
2. The gospel message, that Christ died, was buried, and rose again for our sins is a wonderful truth which must be personally applied to each individual. It is not just head knowledge. Therefore, he died for me. He paid the price of the penalty of my sin. That is why he had to die. I must accept that payment (his blood) as a free gift, as payment for my sins, if I want eternal life and forgiveness of sins. It is the only way. That gift is the grace of God. Christ dying on the cross was all of grace. It is to be received by faith and faith alone. There was nothing and is nothing I can do to add to the payment that Christ made for me. He paid it all.
In John 19:30 he said: "It is finished." The work on the cross was finished by Christ! There is nothing that I can do. Just accept it by faith. It is not of works.

That the RCC says that salvation is through baptism and keeping the sacraments is a false gospel, and a false message. It runs contrary to the Bible and simply leads people astray from the truth.


I appeal to scripture. If I am wrong in the scripture, please show me and I will change.
OTOH, if I show you that you are wrong in using the scripture in the way you are doing, will you also stop? It is not a clear principle. Paul is defending his apostleship against false teachers. This has nothing to do with the judgment of eternal salvation.


Because he wasn't talking about Hell. Where do you get "hell" out of that passage? It just isn't there.
Here is a couple of other translations to make my point:

(WNT) Therefore form no premature judgements, but wait until the Lord returns. He will both bring to light the secrets of darkness and will openly disclose the motives that have been in people's hearts; and then the praise which each man deserves will come to him from God.

(ISV) Therefore, stop judging prematurely, before the Lord comes, for he will bring to light what is now hidden in darkness and reveal the motives of our hearts. Then each person will receive his praise from God.

Again, if you read the context carefully it is about the qualification of Paul as an apostle. Some in the church did not think he was qualified. Paul was not questioning their salvation, nor they his.
The judgment he is referring to is the Judgment Seat of Christ--for believers only. No one will lose their salvation there. They cannot. Christ has already given them "eternal life." Eternal cannot suddenly become temporal.
Note how Paul includes himself in the ISV "our hearts." He is standing at this judgment as well. There is more than one judgement in the Bible. This is not the Great White Throne Judgment described in Rev.20:11-15. Paul and other believers will not be there. That judgment is for the unbelievers.
The judgment Paul is referring to is described in 1Cor.3:11:15. It is different.


But that is not "the gospel," and as shown, the Catholic Church doesn't have the gospel.
The question is: Have you been born again?
If so, how? If you say: "according to the definition given by the RCC, then you haven't been born again, and you need to be.
If you say, according to what the Baptists teach then you know you shouldn't be part of the RCC.


It is his message to us. However, it must all harmonize and not contradict itself in any other passage. One scripture cannot contradict another.

You have not shown that. There is no connection, no succession in the Catholic Church. You can't put Peter in the city of Rome. You can't put a successor beyond Matthias. There is just no evidence. If you are going to make assertions please back them up. Don't simply take the RCC''s word for it.

You mean that the Catholic Church doesn't have the gospel that Jesus Christ died for us and rose again? That's news to me. Now if you really want a to know a false gospel, look no further than Sola Scriptura!

 

[utilyan]

DHK would it be wrong for me to say we don't agree with the Baptist doctrine of accepting Satan as Lord and Savior?

Of course it would, I would be misrepresenting you. And If I make that bold claim I better be backing it up with official Baptist teaching, spelled out and written.

Catholic church teaching is not secret. We have a Catechism. Back up your accusations with what we officially recognize. If you can't find the wrong you wanted to find in the Catechism don't bother with anywhere else.

Can I quote Westboro Baptists as a source for all Baptists? If we play by your rules.....we certainly can since we don't have a word on what is official of our own faith then I can put all the words in your mouth from all Baptist sources. That's your peoples.

God is on your side, why play dirty? I don't have to.

 

[DHK]

DHK would it be wrong for me to say we don't agree with the Baptist doctrine of accepting Satan as Lord and Savior?

Of course it would, I would be misrepresenting you. And If I make that bold claim I better be backing it up with official Baptist teaching, spelled out and written.

Catholic church teaching is not secret. We have a Catechism. Back up your accusations with what we officially recognize. If you can't find the wrong you wanted to find in the Catechism don't bother with anywhere else.

Can I quote Westboro Baptists as a source for all Baptists? If we play by your rules.....we certainly can since we don't have a word on what is official of our own faith then I can put all the words in your mouth from all Baptist sources. That's your peoples.

God is on your side, why play dirty? I don't have to.

You describe yourself well as "bad Catholic," and demonstrate that you don't know what your own faith is about. You want me to tell you what your faith teaches you?? An odd request. You should know about your own beliefs shouldn't you?
"Back up your 'accusations' with what we officially recognize."
--A statement that says you know that I am right but just don't want to admit it.

Nevertheless, to satisfy you, here it is:

Article 1

THE SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM

1213 Holy Baptism is the basis of the whole Christian life, the gateway to life in the Spirit (vitae spiritualis ianua),4 and the door which gives access to the other sacraments. Through Baptism we are freed from sin and reborn as sons of God; we become members of Christ, are incorporated into the Church and made sharers in her mission: "Baptism is the sacrament of regeneration through water in the word."5

I. What is This Sacrament Called?

1214 This sacrament is called Baptism, after the central rite by which it is carried out: to baptize (Greek baptizein) means to "plunge" or "immerse"; the "plunge" into the water symbolizes the catechumen's burial into Christ's death, from which he rises up by resurrection with him, as "a new creature."6

1215 This sacrament is also called "the washing of regeneration and renewal by the Holy Spirit," for it signifies and actually brings about the birth of water and the Spirit without which no one "can enter the kingdom of God."7

1216 "This bath is called enlightenment, because those who receive this [catechetical] instruction are enlightened in their understanding
. . . ."8 Having received in Baptism the Word, "the true light that enlightens every man," the person baptized has been "enlightened," he becomes a "son of light," indeed, he becomes "light" himself:9

Baptism is God's most beautiful and magnificent gift....We call it gift, grace, anointing, enlightenment, garment of immortality, bath of rebirth, seal, and most precious gift. It is called gift because it is conferred on those who bring nothing of their own; grace since it is given even to the guilty; Baptism because sin is buried in the water; anointing for it is priestly and royal as are those who are anointed; enlightenment because it radiates light; clothing since it veils our shame; bath because it washes; and seal as it is our guard and the sign of God's Lordship.10

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P3H.HTM

It is some of the most heretical teaching that can be found on the WEB.

If you believe this:
1213 Holy Baptism is the basis of the whole Christian life, the gateway to life in the Spirit (vitae spiritualis ianua),4 and the door which gives access to the other sacraments. Through Baptism we are freed from sin and reborn as sons of God;
if that is what you are resting your faith on then you will certainly fall short of heaven. Baptism--a combination of two hydrogen atoms to every oxygen atom (or water) cannot get you to heaven; it can only get you wet. Only the blood of Christ can save. It alone can wash away your sins.

 

[DHK]

You mean that the Catholic Church doesn't have the gospel that Jesus Christ died for us and rose again? That's news to me. Now if you really want a to know a false gospel, look no further than Sola Scriptura!

Welcome to the board Adonia. I was a Catholic for 20 years and never heard the gospel preached or explained even one time. The RCC does not preach the gospel of Christ. They preach good works instead--baptism, keeping the sacraments, etc. As I have already posted above the gospel they have is a false gospel summarized here:

1213 Holy Baptism is the basis of the whole Christian life, the gateway to life in the Spirit (vitae spiritualis ianua),4 and the door which gives access to the other sacraments. Through Baptism we are freed from sin and reborn as sons of God;

This is heresy. Baptism has nothing to do with the new birth, cannot free one from sin, and make one a child of God. All these claims are absolutely false.

Paul said in Galatians one:
Galatians 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

 

[steaver]

Even though you are claiming no private interpretation here, you do have a certain interpretation of what the Scriptures mean, so where are you getting this interpretation? I can point out God's word where Jesus says: "This is my Body" and "This is my Blood", yet you will most likely deny this very truth that Jesus said in his own words right from the Scriptures. So in the end you do indeed have a certain interpretation of the Scriptures that differs from that espoused by orthodox Christianity

I don't think so. Jesus included God's interpretation in His presentation, no need for any private interpretation. As Always, Scripture interprets Scripture for us. In this case within the same reading.

Answer a question for me, when Jesus said "This is My body" and "This is my blood" was it really? Or did He hold up the "bread" and the "wine" as He gave His teaching? You really don't think the bread and the wine was actually His flesh and His blood when He said that do you? Wouldn't any objective thinking person reading such a statement clearly understand Jesus was using symbolism and that the bread and wine wasn't actually His flesh and blood?

 

[DHK]

2 of 3 to DHK
No, it doesn't. That's your opinion. Piling on Scriptures which either you or I could be misapplying will get us nowhere, either. That's why Scripture doesn't tell us to pile on more Scripture. The Scriptures tell us to appeal to the church of the Living God... and not Sola Scriptura.

Scripture (and Jesus and the Apostles) tell us to verify all things through the words of God's revelation. Thus tell me what is my opinion when I quote scripture and tell you the truth.
BTW, "the church of the living God" (in context the church at Ephesus, and thus a local church), had pillars. It was the pillar and ground of the truth. Its ground or foundation was the truth of the Word of God. The pillar, that great column that holds up the roof, here holds up the truth of the Word of God, proclaiming it everywhere. Wherever there is a Biblical local church it stands on God's Word and proclaims God's Word. It is the pillar and ground of the truth. It always makes its appeal to scripture as it proclaims it. It is the scripture that is the authority for it is the scripture that comes from God and is given to the church. The church did not create the scriptures. God gave the scriptures to the churches.

Again, you're just repeating yourself and making the same mistake you've made at least three times now. The authority is decidedly NOT Scripture itself. The authority is Jesus Christ, the Son of God. He established a Church. The Holy Spirit delivered the Words of Scripture through the agency of men. And Jesus is "always the final authority."

John 14:16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;

John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

John 16:7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.

Jesus is not here in the flesh. He would not be in the flesh with the disciples for very long. His ministry on this earth was only 3 years. Therefore, he said that He would send the "Comforter," that is, the Holy Spirit, in His place. When the Holy Spirit came in Acts chapter two on the Day of Pentecost, that day was the beginning of the "Church Age."
You say: "Our authority is Jesus Christ." That is good. Now, where do you find the instructions, commands, directions, and doctrines of Jesus Christ? How is He revealed to us today?

Again, Chesterton's definition comes to mind... Idolatry is the preference for the incidental good over the eternal good which it symbolizes. Preference for Scripture OVER Christ, then, would be a form of idolatry. I am just laying that thought out there for consideration, though. I am not saying you're going so far as to do this in your heart. But when you say "The authority is Scripture itself. It is always the final authority." I want to say "But wait, what about Jesus Christ? He's the truly ultimate authority!" And 2nd Timothy 2:15 certainly discusses "rightly dividing the word of truth." But that's not an appeal to Sola Scriptura any more than 2nd Timothy wasn't written by an Apostle who according to Eusebius established the episcopacy of Timothy (as the first Bishop of Ephesus) himself through the sacramental laying on of hands, etc. in about the year AD 65.

The only way we can come to know Christ is through the revealed written inspired Word which God has given to us. We have instruction in the Word of God on how to worship God and what not to do in worshiping God, and that would include not giving worship or prayer to another such as Mary. Doing so robs God of his glory. Thus to neglect sola scriptura is to dive into heresy, to go off the trail of true doctrine.
Laying on of hands is mentioned in the Bible but not as a sacrament.
Timothy was a "bishop" at Ephesus, but the English word "bishop" used in the KJV simply means pastor.
in 1Tim.3:1 it says
1Ti 3:1 This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
But in Acts 20:28
Act 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.
--The same Greek word is used in both verses, "episkopos." More accurately translated as overseer as in Acts 20:28, that is one of the duties of a pastor. The word "bishop" is an outdated word for the same office. In reality then, Timothy was never anything more than a pastor. That is an honor in itself of course. But there was no hierarchical organization to "the so-called church."

That makes two of you. For that matter, there are a host of things we agree upon, thanks be to God. But I could line up five prominent Reformation-era leaders and identify truly fundamental aspects of the faith which they did not agree upon. I won't even go into it. But as you certainly well know, Martin Luther disagreed with a number of people so vehemently as to break communion with them (usually through mutual disapproval). And when John Calvin came along, with his sharp mind, and his great intellect, he formalized a systematic theology which read things into Scripture that Luther certainly didn't see there. Now bring the King of England in and through the Acts of Supremacy one finds a Head of State and Head of Church which still holds to a host of Catholic-ish practices and ecclesiological disciplines which have nothing to do with, for example the AnaBaptist views held by others or the views held by Michael Servetus, an enemy to Catholics and Protestants alike who met his fate in Protestant Geneva. So much for "soul liberty" there in Geneva, I guess.

But here is the difference. Steaver, Martin, and myself agree on most things. There is little that we disagree on when it comes to the fundamentals of the faith. Even well beyond the fundamentals we probably agree on more than 90% of the teachings in the Bible. That is a large area of agreement. We can agree because of sola scriptura, because the Bible is our final authority.

The RCC has some of the fundamentals: the death, burial and resurrection of Christ (but it is only head knowledge, and not personally applied). It is also mixed with the poisonous error of works.
They believe in the trinity, the virgin birth, the deity of Christ, the sinfulness of man, the reality of heaven and hell. But then they water that teaching down with the invention of Purgatory, indulgences and even limbo--all man-made inventions. And again the RCC goes astray from the truth. And so it goes: truth mixed with error.

 

[BobRyan]

You mean that the Catholic Church doesn't have the gospel that Jesus Christ died for us and rose again? That's news to me. Now if you really want a to know a false gospel, look no further than Sola Scriptura!

You can find sola scriptura in Acts 17:11, and in Isaiah 8:20... and in Gal 1:6-9

 

[DHK]

3 of 3 to DHK
You've said that the Catholic Church was established under Constantine numerous times. Since Constantine died in AD 337, maybe you're now saying the 4th Century to bump it back a bit and end up under the reign of Theodosius. That would be a good move. Because it was under Theodosius that various significant changes did take place with regard to the Church and its relationship to the state as well as the practice of Paganism, etc. Still, though, the fact that much occurred under the watch of Theodosius doesn't mean that the Catholic Church was formed during such a time. And to deny continuity with the Apostles is really more about proposing rupture. For the basis by which one might feel justified in presupposing continuity is nothing but Scripture itself. For there we see the Life, Death, and Resurrection of the Lord. We see His Glorious Resurrection. We then see him empower His Apostles. We see Him send them forth into the world with the promise of the Holy Spirit to go and baptize in His name. We then see the great and wondrous events of Pentecost. And we see the evangelistic efforts of the early Church there in the book of Acts. Further, the rest of the New Testament provides even more witness to that early Church which was already one, holy, catholic, and apostolic.

And here we must stop.
We have Pentecost; the missionary journeys of Paul who established "churches" not "The Church." The rest of the NT, epistles that give doctrine and instructions to individual local churches and pastors of churches but not to "The Church," so-called. We see the evangelistic efforts of churches, not "The Church." This mythical church you speak of is not existent.

Again you must consider scripture for evidence:
Speaking to the Thessalonians, Paul said:
1 Thessalonians 1:8 For from you sounded out the word of the Lord not only in Macedonia and Achaia, but also in every place your faith to God-ward is spread abroad; so that we need not to speak any thing.

To the church in Rome he wrote:
Romans 1:8 First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world.

And so testimony is given from different churches how their faith went forth from their respective churches. There was no "Church" per se, only churches.

You use this solely Catholic terminology: "that early Church which was already one, holy, catholic, and apostolic." But there is nothing in the Bible that teaches such a thing. Where do you find this concept of a "holy catholic apostolic church" that somewhat defines the RCC. There is no such thing.

And fundamental to the whole economy of the Church is the reality of the New Covenant in His blood.

There is only one NT covenant. It is very personal. It is not between the church and God. The only NT covenant referred to, is that covenant made between the believer and Christ, when Christ, by the power of the Holy Spirit comes and takes up residence in the believer after he has put his faith in Him alone. Christianity is not a religion but a relationship.
One does not have to be a member of a church in order to go to heaven. Therefore the covenant is not with the church; it is with the believer.

This is a new and eternal covenant. And it is the central principle by which we, in recognition of the existence of the Catholic Church there in the 1st Century, and corroborated by the likes of St. Ignaius of Antioch in about AD 107 (with his use of the term Ecclesia Catholica) presume not rupture between then and the 4th Century, but unity and continuity on account of the wonders that Christ worked among men there during the 1st Century.

And this nonsense is the reason why we go by the scriptures (sola scriptura), and not by man's vain imaginations which lead to heresy. Ignatius was not inspired of God as were none of the ECF. In fact through them came much of the early error that the RCC adheres to today.
Of course you probably know that "ecclesia" simply means "church" originally meaning "assembly," and the word "catholica" simply means "universal," and thus these words no doubt had nothing to do with the RCC at all.

You're begging the question again. What else but a Magisterium met in Jerusalem to decide upon pressing matters related to Gentiles and their incorporation in Christ's Church? What else but a Magisterium, according to the guidance of the Holy Spirit, filled Judas's empty Office?

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.
--The Judaizers had come to Jerusalem.

Acts 15:2 When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.
--Paul and Barnabas and others from the church they were at, and the rest of the apostles and the elders at the local church in Jerusalem, of which James was the pastor.
This was not a majesterium. There was no such thing. It had not even been invented at this time. You are reading into the Bible things that are not there. Its like saying that before the proceedings started Matthias, a musician, came to the piano, and they all stood and sang "Amazing Grace." You are reading Catholicism into the passage when there isn't any.

 

[DHK]

This body "first appeared" in one sense when Christ called the 12 to His side. But at the Descent of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, in signs and wonders, do we see the first and most profound and public validation of the Holy Spirit at work among men (after Christ's Glorious Ascension).

That is nonsense. From ewtn.com we learn:

The Magisterium or Teaching Authority of the Church
by Fr. William G. Most
By the Magisterium we mean the teaching office of the Church. It consists of the Pope and Bishops. Christ promised to protect the teaching of the Church

There was no Pope in Jerusalem. The first Pope did not arise on the historical scene for centuries later, unless you believe the author of this article:
http://www.end-times-prophecy.org/was-peter-first-pope.html

He believes the first pope was Simon Magnus of Acts 8.
Acts 8:9 But there was a certain man, called Simon, which beforetime in the same city used sorcery, and bewitched the people of Samaria, giving out that himself was some great one:
10 To whom they all gave heed, from the least to the greatest, saying, This man is the great power of God.
11 And to him they had regard, because that of long time he had bewitched them with sorceries.

Acts 8:20 But Peter said unto him, Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money.
21 Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right in the sight of God.

I know this. But to presume this without having a sound basis by which the presumption is made is to beg the question by presuming *only* the local jurisdiction of the New Testament churches. This is not a sound presumption as it contradicts Scriptural data, historical data, and logic. There was a "Church" which was the totality of all the local churches, organically bound and unified in doctrine, sacraments, and government. The Church as an acorn which has become an Oak Tree did exist then and it will exist now. And by virtue of its unity with its Head, Christ, it shall exist for eternity in the great Body of redeemed souls who will forever sing praises to God Almighty. Amen.

And that is why we have a debate board and use the scripture as our final authority. You know my position now. You think it is "presumptuous," but I believe it to be Biblical. I believe I can present a stronger argument than you can, unless you simply say, like so many in the RCC, "the Catechism says thus, and that is all there is to say about it."

These are not baseless assumptions. Those were the things I held to once, which I'd received from my well-meaning but mistaken Biblicist tradition.

It is not the Bible that is "tradition," is it?
It is the RCC that has added "Oral Tradition" and in doing so have added false doctrine to what was truth. But truth mixed with error is now all error.
Grain is good for food. But when it is mixed with just a little bit of arsenic, then the whole becomes poisonous.

This act of violence, as I see it, has pretty much nothing to do with me or you or the positions we hold to other than the fact that Muslims have a Sola Scriptura problem of their own.

I wasn't trying to address an act of violence, but simply that he acted, and acted for what reason? It was faith, blind faith, faith that had no basis in fact. Some of the things believed in by the RCC have "no basis in fact."

Wait. Apart from the fact that I do have plenty of evidence for my claims, you just appealed to a "jury of my peers."

IOW, would your evidence hold up in a court of law.
When an atheist comes and says he doesn't believe because no one can rise from the dead, is the Christian prepared enough to give evidence that Christ indeed did arise from the dead. It is one of the most historically attested facts of all time.

What about "soul authority"? What about Sola Scriptura? That often happens when people who cling to Sola Scriptura don't get what they need, they appeal to historical consensus or democratic appeal, etc. What authority greater than the Scriptures, according to your view, does a "jury of my peers" hold? How about none? What you're really doing is appealing to the intuitively sound idea that though one man might go astray, God wouldn't let everybody miss the mark. And that is, roughly, what Catholics are saying.

What you say neither holds up in the scripture or in history. it couldn't convince a jury in a court of law. You are just repeating "the party line." Or, RCC propaganda, seemingly without seriously thinking it through.

The proof (for the purposes of faith) lies in what I mentioned before, the motives of credibility (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c3a1.htm). They are as follows:
1) Miracles
2) Prophecies
3) The Church herself
4) And most sublimely, the Person of Christ

Here is what I said:
"There were churches throughout history, but never "The Church," as in the RCC. You have no proof. When are you going to provide that proof, that evidence that is needed?"
--What miracles? What prophecies? What "The Church"? And what do you mean by the "Person of Christ" all in relation to the RCC? How does that answer the question?

The apostles were able to perform miracles, not the RCC.
The prophecies we concern ourselves with are those that are in the Bible.
There is no "The Church." This also is your "presumption."
And how do you know the "person of Christ."

 

[Martin Marprelate]

2 of 2 to Martin
I am not sure, but it seems that you're implying that the Via Moderna represented orthodox Catholic teaching. Well, it didn't. It wasn't the Via Antiqua. The Via Moderna was inconsistent with Catholic Orthodoxy on some very important points and in some writers' minds represents one of the first cracks into which flowed the corrupting waters of secularism in the West.

My understanding is that the Via Moderna dominated Roman Catholic thought from around 1300 until the Council of Trent. It is an example of the fact that the Church of Rome was not the solid unchanging body that you tend to present. When we look at Transubstantiation, we see it starting in a book by a monk called Radbertus in AD 831, Concerning the Body and Blood of the Lord. He was opposed by another monk called Ratramnus and the more famous John Scotus who declared that believers ate Christ's flesh "mentally not dentally." The debate rumbled on until the 4th Lateran Council of 1215, I believe. Likewise 'Pope' Gregory declared that the Apocrypha was not inspired, and that wasn't contradicted officially by Rome until the Council of Trent. I could go on.

One also needs to believe the words of Scripture as they're written and not according to strained un-interpretations which make phrases such as:
1) "This is my body" out to mean "This is not my body"

Our Lord also declared that He was the gate and the true vine, but not even the Church of Rome supposed that He was made of wood and had bars, or that He had green skin and pips! Our Lord's words are Spirit and they are truth. They must be interpreted spiritually.
[QUOTE[2) "... A man is not justified by faith alone" to say "... A man is justified by faith alone"[/QUOTE]
As I have said to Utilyan and to you several times, we are not playing Scriptural Top Trumps. Unless you can reconcile James 2:24 with Romans 4:5 and a host of other texts. you have nothing to say on the matter. I should you on a previous post how these verses can be reconciled. I am quite happy to do so again.

3) "He who eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily is guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord" to say "He who eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily is not guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord."

I don't know why you would think that I have a problem with 1 Cor. 11:27-28. I quote them every time I lead Communion.

He is the eternal victim. You don't deny that, do you?

Yes I do. 'But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God, from that time waiting until His enemies are made His footstool.' (Hebrews 10:12).

What about that great Gospel classic which says "There's power, power, wonder-working power, in the Blood of the Lamb"?

I never sang it in my life.

In the New Testament, as you likely know, the term hiereus is used infrequently and is usually loaded with connotations associated with OT priests.

Every Christian is a priest in the sense of hiereus, and Our Lord is also our Great High Priest in that sense as well.

The elders in the New Testament weren't just "respected" elders, either. There was much more to their authority than the mere respect due to an elder in the modern societal sense. Also, that "pretty much identical" you referred to, in the cases of Timothy and Titus, doesn't account for the unique authority they had to appoint elders (First Timothy 5, Titus 1).

An elder is entitled to the respect given him in the NT, neither more nor less. You need to check out Acts 20:17 and 28 and see that the elders are also referred to as overseers. You also need to check out verse 30 and 1 Timothy 5:19-20.

The Episkopos, then, as it does now, represents the fullness of the priesthood.

Nope! See above.

And what's an overseer to you anyway, Martin? Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you came to disagree with your pastor (presuming you're not your own pastor already) would you not, after some process, leave his care? Would you not see yourself as entirely justified in deserting him according to your convictions concerning the content of Scripture?

The only time I have ever attended a service of the Church of Rome was in France. The people who took us told us that they didn't go to their local church because they preferred the ministry in one further away. So don't tell me that church-hopping is an exclusively Protestant thing.

I am part of the leadership at my local church (cf. Philippians 1:1). Our Minister is primus inter pares and would not have it any other way. A minister is entitled to the respect and obedience of his congregation so long as he merits it. There is no likelihood of this happening, but if our Minister turned away from the Biblical faith outlined in our church constitution and Statement of faith, or if he fell into some serious sin, I would have no hesitation in bringing his name before the congregation and having him removed from office. How much better it would have been for the Church of Rome if it had followed that pattern! I would never leave a church because I didn't like the hymns or the Bible version.

Blessings to you!

Herbert

And also to you.

 

[herbert]

DHK,

1213 Holy Baptism is the basis of the whole Christian life, the gateway to life in the Spirit (vitae spiritualis ianua),4 and the door which gives access to the other sacraments. Through Baptism we are freed from sin and reborn as sons of God;
if that is what you are resting your faith on then you will certainly fall short of heaven. Baptism--a combination of two hydrogen atoms to every oxygen atom (or water) cannot get you to heaven; it can only get you wet. Only the blood of Christ can save. It alone can wash away your sins.

And now we see yet another Scriptural passage that you deny: 1st Peter 3:21

"And this water symbolizes the baptism that now saves you--not the removal of dirt from the body, but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God. It saves you through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,"

Combine that with Acts 2:38

Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Combine that with Matthew 28:19

"Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,"

Here we have three Scriptural passages, inspired by God,which present Baptism as a central element to evangelization. But after you have gone through the Bible and wrongly systemetized things according to the placing of a number of "alones" where they don't belong, you can't "harmonize" these passages with the rest of Scripture. What you must do in order to maintain your chosen doctrines is not harmony, it's denial for the sake of "(philosophic and interpretive) traditions of men" which "nullify the word of God" to which you cling. And just as you make James 2:24 out to say exactly the opposite of what it says, so you, while appealing to Sola Scriptura judge the Catholic Church's teachings not according to Scripture Alone, but according to the way your fallible mind (with its adopted traditions) attempts to make sense of Baptism.

Christians have always understood Baptism as part of God's saving plan.

This was one of the first doctrines I began researching in my 20s because as a Baptist I strongly opposed paedobaptism as well as the idea of Baptismal Regeneration. It took time. But I came to realize that what I'd condemned according to the "authority" of my inherited traditions (which I simply regarded as the clear teaching of the Bible), was actually the right, true, and Biblical teaching.

Look a little more closely at the context of 1st Peter 3 in which we find the statement above:

"God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers subject to him."

So we have an Old Testament type. We see that Noah, et al. were "saved through water." In the new economy, Christians are like those aboard the Ark who are "saved through water." But notice, not literally by the washing away of dirt, but by the clear conscience which comes about through now being "in Christ." All of this process, I repeat all of this process is done through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. And that's how we test the doctrine:
1) Does it conform with Scripture?
2) Has it always been taught as something handed on as a matter of faith?
3) Is it done through Christ and according to His saving work?
4) Did the Apostles teach this doctrine?
5) Did the early Church regard this as a doctrine central to the Gospel?

That's not an exhaustive list. But what questions, in contrast, do you ask? Maybe your list would look something like this:
1) Does it violate the principle of Sola Scriptura?
2) Does it violate the principle of Sola Fide?

It is very important, as the Church does, to recognize always that though we humans are bound to the Sacrament of Baptism according to Scripture and Sacred Tradition, God is not bound to any one of the Seven Sacraments instituted by Christ. Once again, God is the supreme, ultimate, and final Judge. So we preach repentance and baptism just like St. Peter preached repentance and baptism in the name of the Lord for the forgiveness of sins, while acknowledging that God is the final Judge. So, for example, Salvationists don't baptize at all. Yet, though we continue to preach Baptism, we don't say "They are all going to Hell."

It is "the highest mind of man guided by God" which has said all along, with Christ, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."

Herbert

 

[steaver]

The RCC has some of the fundamentals: the death, burial and resurrection of Christ (but it is only head knowledge, and not personally applied). It is also mixed with the poisonous error of works.
They believe in the trinity, the virgin birth, the deity of Christ, the sinfulness of man, the reality of heaven and hell. But then they water that teaching down with the invention of Purgatory, indulgences and even limbo--all man-made inventions. And again the RCC goes astray from the truth. And so it goes: truth mixed with error.

I am grateful the board has allowed our Catholic friends to stay and debate their doctrines here awhile. Until the past few weeks of listening and questioning, I kinda had the attitude that non Catholic Christians were being a bit to harsh with the Christians of the RCC tradition. I now see how the RCC doctrines have infiltrated down through even corrupting the lay people as to believe faith in Jesus Christ is not even a requirement for eternal life. It seems that the RCC hates the concept of "Faith Alone" so bitterly that it even went a step further as to cast Faith in Jesus Christ out all together. In just these few weeks it has come apparent to me the tremendous damage that has been done by the RCC to the Gospel of Jesus Christ as faith in Jesus Christ has been cast out of the very Gospel bearing His name.

It's good to have an ex Catholic here (DHK) to shed light on the darkness of the RCC. Keep up the good works brother!

 

[steaver]

It is "the highest mind of man guided by God" which has said all along, with Christ, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."

Herbert

Herbert,

You make post defending such things as baptismal regeneration as a requirement for entering into the Kingdom of Heaven and at the same time defend "good" Jews and Muslims as entering into Heaven without out being baptized nor even having to believe in Jesus Christ at all. You are very inconsistent in your arguments.

 

[steaver]

It is very important, as the Church does, to recognize always that though we humans are bound to the Sacrament of Baptism according to Scripture and Sacred Tradition,

"Bound"? Or else what? Tell me why I should bind myself to the RCC's said biblical Sacraments? What happens to me if I don't?

 

[herbert]

Martin,

I will respond to everything you've said above. But I am heading out for a camping outing with my boys so, again, I'll be checking out for a couple days. Again, though, be assured, Lord willing, of my return!

Very quickly, I just want to say something in response to this:

the Church of Rome was not the solid unchanging body that you tend to present.

It's precisely because it's not a "solid and unchanging" body that it gains some of its credibility. One of Christ's Twelve betrayed Him. There was, at times, discord among the Apostles themselves even after their Great Commissioning. But the Church's dynamism, its elasticity is what allows it to develop within and respond to the pressures, threats to orthodoxy, and heresies of a changing society in which it finds itself. This is what John Henry Newman focused upon on his famous work "An Essay on the Development of Doctrine." And consider GK Chesterton's remarks concerning the Church's founding. Though the Church is founded upon Christ and all it is, has, and does takes place through Him, as far as its earthly establishment is concerned, far from being founded according to some sort of rock solid thing, person, or principle:

“When Christ at a symbolic moment was establishing His great society, He chose for its cornerstone neither the brilliant Paul nor the mystic John, but a shuffler, a snob, a coward – in a word, a man. And upon this rock He has built His Church, and the gates of Hell have not prevailed against it. All the empires and the kingdoms have failed, because of this inherent and continual weakness, that they were founded by strong men and upon strong men. But this one thing, the historic Christian Church, was founded on a weak man, and for that reason it is indestructible. For no chain is stronger than its weakest link.”

And look at how Carlo Carretto described the Catholic Faith:

“How baffling you are, oh Church, and yet how I love you! How you have made me suffer, and yet how much I owe you! I would like to see you destroyed, and yet I need your presence. You have given me so much scandal and yet you have made me understand what sanctity is. I have seen nothing in the world more devoted to obscurity, more compromised, more false, and yet I have touched nothing more pure, more generous, more beautiful. How often I have wanted to shut the doors of my soul in your face, and how often I have prayed to die in the safety of your arms.

No, I cannot free myself from you, because I am you, though not completely. And besides, where would I go? Would I establish another? I would not be able to establish it without the same faults, for they are the same faults I carry in me. And if I did establish another, it would be my Church, not the Church of Christ. I am old enough to know that I am no better than anyone else...

The Church has the power to make me holy but it is made up, from the first to the last, only of sinners. And what sinners! It has the omnipotent and invincible power to renew the Miracle of the Eucharist, but is made up of men who are stumbling in the dark, who fight every day against the temptation of losing their faith. It brings a message of pure transparency but it is incarnated in slime, such is the substance of the world. It speaks of the sweetness of its Master, of its non-violence, but there was a time in history when it sent out its armies to disembowel the infidels and torture the heretics. It proclaims the message of evangelical poverty, and yet it does nothing but look for money and alliances with the powerful.

Those who dream of something different from this are wasting their time and have to rethink it all. And this proves that they do not understand humanity. Because this is humanity, made visible by the Church, with all its flaws and its invincible courage, with the Faith that Christ has given it and with the love that Christ showers on it.

When I was young, I did not understand why Jesus chose Peter as his successor, the first Pope, even though he abandoned Him. Now I am no longer surprised and I understand that by founding his church on the tomb of a traitor... He was warning each of us to remain humble, by making us aware of our fragility...

And what are bricks worth anyway? What matters is the promise of Christ, what matters is the cement that unites the bricks, which is the Holy Spirit. Only the Holy Spirit is capable of building the church with such poorly moulded bricks as are we.

And that is where the mystery lies. This mixture of good and bad, of greatness and misery, of holiness and sin that makes up the church… this in reality am I ...

The deep bond between God and His Church, is an intimate part of each one of us... To each of us God says, as he says to his Church, “And I will betroth you to me forever” (Hosea 2,21). But at the same time he reminds us of reality: 'Your lewdness is like rust. I have tried to remove it in vain. There is so much that not even a flame will take it away' (Ezechiel 24, 12).

But then there is even something more beautiful. The Holy Spirit who is Love, sees us as holy, immaculate, beautiful under our guises of thieves and adulterers... It’s as if evil cannot touch the deepest part of mankind.

He re-establishes our virginity no matter how many times we have prostituted our bodies, spirits and hearts. In this, God is truly God, the only one who can ‘make everything new again’. It is not so important that He will renew heaven and earth. What is most important is that He will renew our hearts. This is Christ’s work. This is the divine Spirit of the Church.”

Again, I'll be back soon!

Herbert

 

[Adonia]

I don't think so. Jesus included God's interpretation in His presentation, no need for any private interpretation. As Always, Scripture interprets Scripture for us. In this case within the same reading.

Answer a question for me, when Jesus said "This is My body" and "This is my blood" was it really? Or did He hold up the "bread" and the "wine" as He gave His teaching? You really don't think the bread and the wine was actually His flesh and His blood when He said that do you? Wouldn't any objective thinking person reading such a statement clearly understand Jesus was using symbolism and that the bread and wine wasn't actually His flesh and blood?

No. Any objective person could rightly discern when Jesus is using something as a metaphor and when He is speaking truthfully and forthrightly. We can then go to other passages such as in 1 Cor where we can find these words of Jesus corroborated. "So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. Everyone ought to examine before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves".

Not to mention the fact that this is what the early Christians of the newly emerging One Universal Christian Church believed and 99% all of Christendom believed for over 1500 years. As you say, Scripture can indeed sometimes interpret Scripture.

 

[Adonia]

I am grateful the board has allowed our Catholic friends to stay and debate their doctrines here awhile. Until the past few weeks of listening and questioning, I kinda had the attitude that non Catholic Christians were being a bit to harsh with the Christians of the RCC tradition. I now see how the RCC doctrines have infiltrated down through even corrupting the lay people as to believe faith in Jesus Christ is not even a requirement for eternal life. It seems that the RCC hates the concept of "Faith Alone" so bitterly that it even went a step further as to cast Faith in Jesus Christ out all together. In just these few weeks it has come apparent to me the tremendous damage that has been done by the RCC to the Gospel of Jesus Christ as faith in Jesus Christ has been cast out of the very Gospel bearing His name.

It's good to have an ex Catholic here (DHK) to shed light on the darkness of the RCC. Keep up the good works brother!

You are mistaken, such a thing has not happened. I assure you, having faith that Jesus Christ was indeed God Incarnated here on earth and that He died for us is still what is taught by the Latin Rite of Christianity.

 

[Adonia]

And here we must stop.
We have Pentecost; the missionary journeys of Paul who established "churches" not "The Church." The rest of the NT, epistles that give doctrine and instructions to individual local churches and pastors of churches but not to "The Church," so-called. We see the evangelistic efforts of churches, not "The Church." This mythical church you speak of is not existent.

Again you must consider scripture for evidence:
Speaking to the Thessalonians, Paul said:
1 Thessalonians 1:8 For from you sounded out the word of the Lord not only in Macedonia and Achaia, but also in every place your faith to God-ward is spread abroad; so that we need not to speak any thing.

To the church in Rome he wrote:
Romans 1:8 First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world.

And so testimony is given from different churches how their faith went forth from their respective churches. There was no "Church" per se, only churches.

You use this solely Catholic terminology: "that early Church which was already one, holy, catholic, and apostolic." But there is nothing in the Bible that teaches such a thing. Where do you find this concept of a "holy catholic apostolic church" that somewhat defines the RCC. There is no such thing.

There is only one NT covenant. It is very personal. It is not between the church and God. The only NT covenant referred to, is that covenant made between the believer and Christ, when Christ, by the power of the Holy Spirit comes and takes up residence in the believer after he has put his faith in Him alone. Christianity is not a religion but a relationship.
One does not have to be a member of a church in order to go to heaven. Therefore the covenant is not with the church; it is with the believer.


And this nonsense is the reason why we go by the scriptures (sola scriptura), and not by man's vain imaginations which lead to heresy. Ignatius was not inspired of God as were none of the ECF. In fact through them came much of the early error that the RCC adheres to today.
Of course you probably know that "ecclesia" simply means "church" originally meaning "assembly," and the word "catholica" simply means "universal," and thus these words no doubt had nothing to do with the RCC at all.


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.
--The Judaizers had come to Jerusalem.

Acts 15:2 When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.
--Paul and Barnabas and others from the church they were at, and the rest of the apostles and the elders at the local church in Jerusalem, of which James was the pastor.
This was not a majesterium. There was no such thing. It had not even been invented at this time. You are reading into the Bible things that are not there. Its like saying that before the proceedings started Matthias, a musician, came to the piano, and they all stood and sang "Amazing Grace." You are reading Catholicism into the passage when there isn't any.

Yes there were "churchs", but all were bound together to believe the same. I mean really, that is what the letters of St. Paul were all about - a man who had authority who was writing to the various outlining "churchs" explaining to them where they were messing up and that they should get with the program. No outlying church was allowed to go it's own way or to decide things for itself. There had to be a unanimity of thought and doctrine and there was and it lasted quite a long time (until some men thought they knew better of course).

 

[DHK]

You are mistaken, such a thing has not happened. I assure you, having faith that Jesus Christ was indeed God Incarnated here on earth and that He died for us is still what is taught by the Latin Rite of Christianity.

Take your choice. Either he died for you, so that by faith your sins might be forgiven,
or, as I quoted to you earlier:
1213 Holy Baptism is the basis of the whole Christian life, the gateway to life in the Spirit (vitae spiritualis ianua),4 and the door which gives access to the other sacraments. Through Baptism we are freed from sin and reborn as sons of God;

So what do you believe?