# The Pope's words on Atheists....



## jmharris23 (May 22, 2013)

Looks like the "good" atheists have a friend in the new pope. 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/...p00000009&utm_hp_ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false


----------



## Ronnie T (May 23, 2013)

I'm speechless.
.


----------



## Dr. Strangelove (May 23, 2013)

Agnostic, but this follows what I always thought in church as a kid all along.


----------



## formula1 (May 23, 2013)

*Re:*



Ronnie T said:


> I'm speechless.
> .



X2!

So how good do you have to be to be good enough! If it's 100 good things and you do 99 good things and die, do you fall short and enter he$$? Hah, no there is nothing good about any of the works of man that in themselves will attain salvation!

Thank's be to God that we don't have to be good enough, but we can trust in the Savior Christ the Lord to redeem us.  Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved! It is by His grace alone!


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 23, 2013)

It's true Christ's redemption is for everyone but doesn't one still have to believe?
Is the Pope saying more than this?


----------



## Ronnie T (May 23, 2013)

The man is teaching that being good gets you into heaven.
Without belief in God Almighty.
Without faith in Jesus Christ as Lord.
The man's teachings are totally unbiblical.
.


----------



## Inthegarge (May 23, 2013)

So much for scripture that says all our works "are filthy rags"......


----------



## gordon 2 (May 23, 2013)

Ronnie T said:


> The man is teaching that being good gets you into heaven.
> Without belief in God Almighty.
> Without faith in Jesus Christ as Lord.
> The man's teachings are totally unbiblical.
> .



Perhaps it is a statement of the man's faith and not dogma or church doctrine per say. I suspect that praising athiests who do good, will make them reflect on that goodness when it is not self-serving--its origins and its greater purpose in these messianic times.

All human beings are called to do good works. Those good works are perhaps the only initial things, not scripture, not religious traditions, that athiests can latch on which we in the Kingdom share with them in earnest. Through their works and our works athiests might be ministered to by the body of Christ or Jesus to the faith.

Perhaps....


Also just because the Huntington Press reports the article in this way, does not mean it is actually what transpired. Google the Gardian on the the same subject and the "light" on the conversation is not the same...

And we must remember that there are major religions in areas of the world which deny the devine. Buddhism comes to mind. I can be argued that it is a religion of athiests....

The minority of athiests, those in North America and Europe are perhaps those we think of most, but for the Holy See they are a small part of the athiest world that all mankind lives in....

Perhaps...


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 23, 2013)

I thought Catholics believed in a works base salvation anyway so that's not news.
Maybe redemption and salvation are getting confused. 
We are having a discussion on the Triple A Forum on where do Atheist and others get their morals. It was mentioned that God gives everyone including Atheist the capacity to do good, to know right from wrong. Could the Pope be trying to convey this message?

Romans 2:14-15

“So, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, instinctively do what the law demands, they are a law to themselves even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts. Their consciences confirm this. Their competing “thoughts will either accuse or excuse them”


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 23, 2013)

I read this from another forum;
I think that you guys simply are misunderstanding the Pope. An atheist friend of mine brought this up on facebook. I'll copy/paste my answer (with some corrections):


Quote:
You've misunderstood the pope. He's not saying that atheists are "saved." He's saying the following: 1. there is a natural law precept (do good; avoid evil) which is accessible to all human beings, regardless of their religious faith or lack thereof and 2. that Christ died for everybody, not just for those who presently are Catholics. Note that this second point doesn't entail that everybody is saved. 

Furthermore, note that he never said that atheists can gain merits for the good that they do. Yes, those who are not in a state of grace can and must do good and avoid evil. This is the first principle of practical reason, of the natural law. But merit before God only is possible through charity (the in-dwelling of the Holy Ghost). If you aren't in a state of grace (friendship with God), all of the good that you do is worthless. All of your works are dead.

Consider the analogy of a man on death row. Does he have a license to do evil simply because he is on death row? On the contrary; even now, the natural law speaks to him: "Do good. Avoid evil." Let him do no more evil; every evil deed he continues to commit just heaps up more and more guilt on his head. But let him do all the good he wants: he remains guilty and condemned; he remains on death row, awaiting his just punishment.

Likewise, even those who are in a state of mortal sin, even those who are not in a state of grace are enjoined to do good and avoid evil by the natural law. They can and must do good. They can and must avoid evil. But so long as they are not in a state of friendship with God, no good which they can do, no evil which they can avoid, will lessen their guilt. They still deserve - I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -, and it is only God's mercy which stays the sentence...at least for now.

It is only through grace that salvation is possible. Grace is a divine gift. We obtain these gifts by asking God for them. We do this through persistent and ardent prayer.

***This presupposes that you're not in a state of grace. In point of fact, I have no way of knowing.  

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3462717


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 23, 2013)

I think, no I hope this is what the Pope is saying:

(quote)The pope (according to the article) is not saying we are saved by works. He is saying that Christians and non-believers can find a place of meeting in doing good works. He is saying, for example, that the Christian missionary and the humanist doctor can find much in common as they serve the destitute in some far off place. [as I made crystal clear yesterday, it is Jesus and Jesus alone who provides ultimate and essential healing. But He redeems all acts of kindness and demands that His followers engage in mercy and love.]

http://jeffmarx.blogspot.com/2013/05/the-pope-and-good-atheists.html


----------



## gordon 2 (May 23, 2013)

Artfuldodger said:


> I thought Catholics believed in a works base salvation anyway so that's not news.
> Maybe redemption and salvation are getting confused.
> We are having a discussion on the Triple A Forum on where do Atheist and others get their morals. It was mentioned that God gives everyone including Atheist the capacity to do good, to know right from wrong. Could the Pope be trying to convey this message?
> 
> ...



Many christians are not ashamed to say they have doubts about the faith; I hear it often enough. I suggest on the days they do wrestle with their doubts and revelations which for them seem to issue from secret mysteries--they are just as athiests for those times as long standing athiests for their times.

The mysteries of the eucharist, for example, for some christians are just as nebulous as the whole of faith to some athiest.


----------



## bullethead (May 23, 2013)

We be 'movin on U-up..........to the DE-Luxe apartment in the skyyyyy!!

lol

Take care fellas, Have a Happy Memorial Weekend


----------



## Ronnie T (May 23, 2013)

I will say that none of us should expect Huffington to be totally up and up concerning this.


----------



## hobbs27 (May 23, 2013)

His beliefs have no effect on Christianity.


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 23, 2013)

hobbs27 said:


> His beliefs have no effect on Christianity.



Isn't that like saying the Catholic Church has no effect on Christianity?


----------



## hobbs27 (May 23, 2013)

Artfuldodger said:


> Isn't that like saying the Catholic Church has no effect on Christianity?



Do all Catholics obey everything the pope says? Who is head of the Church?


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 23, 2013)

hobbs27 said:


> Do all Catholics obey everything the pope says? Who is head of the Church?



I thought God leads Churches through their preachers and leaders. Regardless of whether they should follow the Pope, most Catholics do. He has a lot of worldwide influence in Catholic countries and therefore  has influence on Christianity in the world.
I don't put that much faith in one man other than Jesus but then I'm not Catholic but I can still feel his influence. The man might be Holy or not. My local preacher might be Holy or not. Both influence their congregations.


----------



## dawg2 (May 23, 2013)

hobbs27 said:


> His beliefs have no effect on Christianity.



It does for about 1 billion+ of them.


----------



## hobbs27 (May 23, 2013)

dawg2 said:


> It does for about 1 billion+ of them.



I respectfully disagree. This pope has voiced opposition to gay marriage, and abortion. Most Catholic priests I know oppose even birth control yet many many Catholics use birth control and many are in favor of gay marriage and abortion. 
 If Catholics can disobey the pope on these beliefs they can also disobey him on his beliefs of " works judgement". 
 He's just a man, and can be replaced.


----------



## gordon 2 (May 23, 2013)

hobbs27 said:


> Do all Catholics obey everything the pope says? Who is head of the Church?



No everything the pope says is not to be taken as cannon. He is a man and a sinner like everyone else. However, when he speaks under the perview of the Papal office, or Holy See, yet catholics listen and obey. But he can say in a general conversation, even in a homily, even with reporters persent, and he is on his own. 

A similar example might be a soldier at a social function where a casual talking general might give him an order or wax on war doctrine. The soldier can probably tell him to go fly a kite. But in the official function of his office, as commander in the field for example, orders have to be followed. 

I believe that the Pope was giving a homily "at his morning mass at his residence" and without prepared comments. IT is not cannon.... but it might be beneficial to the faith...especially if we could read the whole homily and the scripture read at the mass...

So the tabloid media runs with once sentence from the comments, and they always do this.... and the works vs grace folk get a reason to grab onto their orange flags...

In Christ...in Christ... in Christ...crawling to be in Christ...


----------



## hobbs27 (May 23, 2013)

Gordon, thanks for clarification.


----------



## gordon 2 (May 23, 2013)

hobbs27 said:


> Gordon, thanks for clarification.



It is the rare circumstances that a pope speaks infallibly. And when he does it is usually from yrs of church folk( clergy, theologens, scolars) praying and studying issues in depth... He just does not come up with sudden revelations or anything like that...that are binding on the members of the church. He has to work out his salvation like anyone else...by being the best deciple in Christ he can be... just like you and I. Just so happens he holds the office of Peter and is the last word on matters of the church--which are his official ( office) responsibility. As for being a christian he is just as responsible to answer to Christ, our Lord, as we all are.


----------



## bigdawg25 (May 23, 2013)

hobbs27 said:


> I respectfully disagree. *This pope has voiced opposition to gay marriage, and abortion. Most Catholic priests I know oppose even birth control yet many many Catholics use birth control *and many are in favor of gay marriage and abortion.
> If Catholics can disobey the pope on these beliefs they can also disobey him on his beliefs of " works judgement".
> He's just a man, and can be replaced.



many Christians (in all denominations) do things which don't meet the high standards set by their own church. That doesn't mean that those folks have forsaken those values completely; and if they consider themselves to be still members of the said church, then my hope is that all of them atleast strive for those values. 

In case of contraceptives, yes you are right, due to an ultra-conservative stance taken by catholic church, they not only have seen non compliance, but also loss of membership. However, like all things, sooner or later, the church position on this will change too.


----------



## bigdawg25 (May 23, 2013)

Artfuldodger said:


> Isn't that like saying the Catholic Church has no effect on Christianity?



I would disagree with this. I think his views are extremely important to not only devout catholics; but also to folks like me who somewhat have ties with the church, but are non religious.

Also, if any christian denomination was going to place emphasis on being "good", then the obvious one would be catholics, because they have always placed special emphasis on salvation through works.


----------



## Madman (May 24, 2013)

To pull doctrine from a single verse places Christ's Church and a person's salvation in great peril. 

One reoccurring Biblical theme on salvation is "BELIEVE".

Works follows belief not vice versa.


----------



## hobbs27 (May 24, 2013)

Madman said:


> To pull doctrine from a single verse places Christ's Church and a person's salvation in great peril.
> 
> One reoccurring Biblical theme on salvation is "BELIEVE".
> 
> Works follows belief not vice versa.



Amen! Jesus is bigger than any denomination. Jesus is bigger than any man, and they ( man and religion) may try to tear down the truth to make it more comforting to themselves..(tickling our ears)...the Gospel will live on forever...even if God has to write it in the Sky's or have the trees and rocks cry out.


----------



## bigdawg25 (May 24, 2013)

Madman said:


> To pull doctrine from a single verse places Christ's Church and a person's salvation in great peril.
> 
> One reoccurring Biblical theme on salvation is "BELIEVE".
> 
> Works follows belief not vice versa.



Its all good argument for someone who believes in sola scriptura; Catholics always have believed in scripture AND traditions; and that dictates their equal emphasis placed on "works". 

I personally think that world is a better off place with people believing in "works" because that gives people incentive to do good things, and rewards good behavior.


----------



## dawg2 (May 24, 2013)

You said:





hobbs27 said:


> His beliefs have no effect on Christianity.


He does have an effect on Christianity.  



hobbs27 said:


> Gordon, thanks for clarification.


I believe Gordon cleared a lot of things up.  But to say he has "no effect" would be inaccurate.


----------



## Madman (May 24, 2013)

bigdawg25 said:


> Its all good argument for someone who believes in sola scriptura; Catholics always have believed in scripture AND traditions; and that dictates their equal emphasis placed on "works".



The argument does not come from "sola scriptura", of which I am no fan.  If that is one's belief it leaves no room for Christ or the Holy Spirit, or the traditions of the Church.


I believe the analogy  of the tricycle best describes my approach.  Scripture, inspired reason and tradition.

Scripture is the big wheel in front that drives the others and steers us along.


I repeat, works flow from "Believe" (faith)


----------



## bigdawg25 (May 24, 2013)

Madman said:


> The argument does not come from "sola scriptura", of which I am no fan.  If that is one's belief it leaves no room for *Christ or the Holy Spirit, or the traditions of the Church.*
> 
> 
> I believe the analogy  of the tricycle best describes my approach.  Scripture, inspired reason and tradition.
> ...



ohk, I didnt realize what you were saying earlier. Yeah, I have similar problems with sola scriptura too because it pretty much removes the guidance by holy spirit.

BTW, what I was saying about pope and catholic church were just general comments; about this topic of athiests, I have no idea about the entirely of what pope said. I am agnostic non religious guy, so it doesnt really concern me; although I think that no one is really "atheist", they all are agnostic or ignorant about their own beliefs because no one can actually lead their entire lives believing in "nothing".


----------



## Madman (May 24, 2013)

bigdawg25 said:


> Yeah, I have similar problems with sola scriptura too because it pretty much removes the guidance by holy spirit.
> ...................................................
> 
> I am agnostic non religious guy,



The reconciliation of those two statements. Now that is a conversation I would LOVE to have.   

You have a great weekend!


----------



## bigdawg25 (May 24, 2013)

Madman said:


> The reconciliation of those two statements. Now that is a conversation I would LOVE to have.
> 
> You have a great weekend!



lol that just means I am one confused guy .

I think everyone goes trough periods when they doubt their religion/ belief system, but not many want to name that condition from the textbook definition of what that truly is: agnosticism or one of its derivatives. problem with that label is that too many people use it interchangely with atheism and hence people have forgotten that all it stands for is "lack of knowledge". I try to correct this condition by reading a lot of theology to get answers, and put a religious cap on when reading scriptures, and try to understand it from that perspective. My hope is to get enough answers to eventally get back into organized religious fold.


----------



## Madman (May 24, 2013)

bigdawg25 said:


> lol that just means I am one confused guy .
> 
> I think everyone goes trough periods when they doubt their religion/ belief system,



I've encountered some of those "bumps" before. 

 Just remember; 

"The heart cannot exalt what the mind rejects."  said by someone smarter than me.


----------



## Israel (May 24, 2013)

There are only two places in which the Lord is at work, those in which we see him, and those in which we don't.
We must never assume our lack of vision equals his absence.


----------



## gordon 2 (May 25, 2013)

Israel said:


> There are only two places in which the Lord is at work, those in which we see him, and those in which we don't.
> We must never assume our lack of vision equals his absence.



Now that is profound, and in simple sentences....Woo!!!

You never know what is in the heart of man, until you do. Ah!


----------



## bigdawg25 (May 25, 2013)

Madman said:


> I've encountered some of those "bumps" before.
> 
> Just remember;
> 
> *"The heart cannot exalt what the mind rejects."  said by someone smarter than me.*



very true.


----------



## StriperAddict (May 25, 2013)

*To 'see' the true...*

Amazing...


Israel said:


> There are only two places in which the Lord is at work, those in which we see him, and those in which we don't.
> We must never assume our lack of vision equals his absence.


A close bro in the faith and I were talking along these lines last eve and today.  We've both agreed how quick and easy it is to loose heart when we loose sight - of the Lord & His work.  
Life is a myriad of distractions and noises --- yet He comes, weather we are ready or not,
or see or not...
What amazing Grace!
I am enjoying wonder and amazement lately. Some times I must set apart that quiet place and calm down my world to take out those faith glasses, 
but other times I am even more amazed when He "does" it, and the uniqueness is not lost, the beauty revealed, the song comes and the dark lifts...  
Christ the Lord is always there. Of that I find contentment and peace.   
And yet my feeble love for Him is not even a drop of water in the ocean of His gracious love...
And our Lord enjoys the new man He creates in us, not of what we do to reach Him, but out of the purest mercy & love He allows us to "see".

All glory to Him crucified and raised that He would take our darkness and give us His light


----------



## Bama4me (May 28, 2013)

bigdawg25 said:


> Its all good argument for someone who believes in sola scriptura; Catholics always have believed in scripture AND traditions; and that dictates their equal emphasis placed on "works".
> 
> I personally think that world is a better off place with people believing in "works" because that gives people incentive to do good things, and rewards good behavior.



Want to clarify on your statement about Catholic people and the Bible.  Most people claiming to be "Christian" would say that Scripture "dictates things related to the church".  In other words, if Scripture says the church is to be involved in evangelistic works, then the church is to do just that.

Catholics, on the other hand, believe the process is reversed... the church "dictates things related to the Bible."  Thus, at any point, the Pope (or in times past an official council) could declare something which would totally be contrary to Scripture... and Catholics have no issue with that whatsoever.

In the Catholic religion, when the Pope speaks with his authority (so to speak), he is deemed infallible... and his message is on the same level as that of Christ's.  Thus, the issue with Catholicism is "where do you get authority for your beliefs/practices?"  As Gordon mentioned above, it will be interesting to see if he will claim that he was talking from that perspective.


----------



## bigdawg25 (May 28, 2013)

Bama4me said:


> Want to clarify on your statement about Catholic people and the Bible.  Most people claiming to be "Christian" would say that Scripture "dictates things related to the church".  In other words, if Scripture says the church is to be involved in evangelistic works, then the church is to do just that.
> 
> Catholics, on the other hand, believe the process is reversed... the church "dictates things related to the Bible."  Thus, at any point, the Pope (or in times past an official council) could declare something which would totally be contrary to Scripture... and Catholics have no issue with that whatsoever.
> 
> In the Catholic religion, when the Pope speaks with his authority (so to speak), he is deemed infallible... and his message is on the same level as that of Christ's.  Thus, the issue with Catholicism is "where do you get authority for your beliefs/practices?"  As Gordon mentioned above, it will be interesting to see if he will claim that he was talking from that perspective.



you sir have a lot of misconceptions about catholic docrine so let me clarify some things for you.

Please look at any history of Christianity, keeping aside OT, you will observe that first came Jesus Christ, then came the Church, and then after many decades did the church institute a council which wrote down the sayings of Jesus Christ in what you may call the Bible. If you have such deep mistrust of the Church, then how can you trust your bible?

The early church became what you may call "Catholic Church" so I'd be very careful before calling them a separate religion. To say that people before 500 yrs ago werent christians was far from the truth. The reformation was a good thing for christianity, and I completely believe it was what needed for the religion to move forward. However, we dont need to rewrite history for that.

Then comes infalliability of Pope. The pope is NOT infallible in everything he says. In rarest of rare occasions, he "invokes" his infalliability and says something. The only example I know where infalliability of Pope was invoked was about a hundred yrs ago when the then pope declared Mary went to heaven. Another one was virginity of Mary. Note that it was already well accepted before that, he just stated it again. 

P.S. I am non religious as said before because I too have doubt in one man dictating the doctrine. However, this lack of trust on my part is not for one man (i.e. Pope), but if examine it closely, then its the lack of trust of "holy spirit" itself. If you too dont believe that holy spirit guides the church (all churches) and Pastors, then arent you questioning the religion itself?


----------



## hobbs27 (May 28, 2013)

bigdawg25 said:


> you sir have a lot of misconceptions about catholic docrine so let me clarify some things for you.



When making such a bold statement you should have your facts right. Constantine formed the Catholic church close to 300 years after the death and resurrection of Christ. There was already an early church that had been persecuted by the romans and jews.

The New Testament is The Gospels and Epistles. The Epistles are letters that were written in real time..The Gospels may not have been written in real time, but if you read the Gospels you will find there was a {fame} that went out to the land of a man named Jesus. Not much need to write down what everyone knew at the time.


----------



## gordon 2 (May 28, 2013)

Bama4me said:


> Want to clarify on your statement about Catholic people and the Bible.  Most people claiming to be "Christian" would say that Scripture "dictates things related to the church".  In other words, if Scripture says the church is to be involved in evangelistic works, then the church is to do just that.
> 
> Catholics, on the other hand, believe the process is reversed... the church "dictates things related to the Bible."  Thus, at any point, the Pope (or in times past an official council) could declare something which would totally be contrary to Scripture... and Catholics have no issue with that whatsoever.
> 
> In the Catholic religion, when the Pope speaks with his authority (so to speak), he is deemed infallible... and his message is on the same level as that of Christ's.  Thus, the issue with Catholicism is "where do you get authority for your beliefs/practices?"  As Gordon mentioned above, it will be interesting to see if he will claim that he was talking from that perspective.




The authority is apostolic.


2 Thessalonians 2:15

King James Version (KJV)


15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.


2 Timothy 3:16-17

New King James Version (NKJV)


16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 28, 2013)

bigdawg25 said:


> you sir have a lot of misconceptions about catholic docrine so let me clarify some things for you.
> 
> Please look at any history of Christianity, keeping aside OT, you will observe that first came Jesus Christ, then came the Church, and then after many decades did the church institute a council which wrote down the sayings of Jesus Christ in what you may call the Bible. If you have such deep mistrust of the Church, then how can you trust your bible?
> 
> ...



Great post.  Agree with first two points.  Not so sure about the third regarding infallibility.  I think the History of the Catholic Church taken as a whole may contradict your point, but I may be wrong.  Unsure of what your stance is on HS in fourth point


----------



## bigdawg25 (May 28, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Great post.  Agree with first two points.  Not so sure about the third regarding infallibility.  I think the History of the Catholic Church taken as a whole may contradict your point, but I may be wrong.  Unsure of what your stance is on HS in fourth point



I was just saying that an amount of faith is necassary in talking about guidance from Holy spirit. I dont have it right now, but if and when I call myself "religious" I bet I'll have complete faith. infalliablility is something thats worth debating, I think catholic church realizes how it might not sit well with many people, and hence, they havnt invoked it much at all.


----------



## bigdawg25 (May 28, 2013)

hobbs27 said:


> When making such a bold statement you should have your facts right. Constantine formed the Catholic church close to 300 years after the death and resurrection of Christ. There was already an early church that had been persecuted by the romans and jews.
> 
> The New Testament is The Gospels and Epistles. The Epistles are letters that were written in real time..The Gospels may not have been written in real time, but if you read the Gospels you will find there was a {fame} that went out to the land of a man named Jesus. Not much need to write down what everyone knew at the time.



so who compiled the bible? and what denomination was the early church then  while you are at it, who do you consider the first pope?


----------



## hobbs27 (May 28, 2013)

bigdawg25 said:


> so who compiled the bible?


 The one I read was compiled by many men and IMHO directed by the Holy Spirit.




> and what denomination was the early church then  while you are at it, who do you consider the first pope?



 John was a Baptist............

The first pope was whoever Constantine appointed as pope.

I don't know if you have ever read any of this but its a great book and available online here..http://www.ccel.org/f/foxe/martyrs/home.html


----------



## bigdawg25 (May 28, 2013)

hobbs27 said:


> The one I read was compiled by many men and IMHO directed by the Holy Spirit.



ohk that's what I was asking; you answered correct.



> *
> The first pope was whoever Constantine appointed as pope.*
> 
> I don't know if you have ever read any of this but its a great book and available online here..http://www.ccel.org/f/foxe/martyrs/home.html



I see where you are coming from. Most Scholars consider St. Peter to be first Pope. Now, there is lot of debate if office of papacy was indeed created then, or after that, and I guess the time period is open to debate; however, there is overwhelming evidence that papacy existed before constantine's time. I'll check out the book you said.


----------



## Ronnie T (May 28, 2013)

bigdawg25 said:


> so who compiled the bible? and what denomination was the early church then  while you are at it, who do you consider the first pope?



1.  Who compiled the Bible?  Specifically, I don't know.  But history tells us that there was always a strong desire inside the church to not only preserve the writings of the apostles, but to gather them in from the various regions that they had been written and addressed to.
In the years before and after 150 AD there were several 'scrambles' to 'claim' ownership of all the sacred writings that pertained to the Christ.
Finally,  It was the Roman government who oversaw the compilation.

2.  What denomination was the early church.
The early church was far from a denomination.  It was the very purest of Christ's church.  No denomination.  Attempts were already being made to denominalize, but the apostles fought against it.
Read 1 Corinthians chap 1.  10 Now I exhort you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all agree and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be made complete in the same mind and in the same judgment. 11 For I have been informed concerning you, my brethren, by Chloe’s people, that there are quarrels among you. 12 Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, “I am of Paul,” and “I of Apollos,” and “I of Cephas,” and “I of Christ.” 13 Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?   Paul did later tell the elder's of the church in Ephesus that a time of 'falling away' would come.  And he said those very elders would be involved in the falling away that was coming.
In Christ's church there are no denominations..... In our churches, we have denominations.  

3.  While you are at it, who do you consider the first pope?
I cannot even consider the question.  Jesus never spoke of a pope.  In all the writings of the apostles, they never wrote of a pope.  The apostles wrote extensively about the governing of the church, and they directed those teachings to several churches.  But they never mention a pope, the existence of a pope, or the coming of a pope.
They taught concerning (1) deacons, (2) elders,  (3) pastors, (4) ministers, and evangelists.  
No one ever mentions a pope.  And finally, as John writes in Revelation, not one mention of a pope ever being a part of the church, up until that time.


----------



## bigdawg25 (May 28, 2013)

Ronnie T said:


> 1.  Who compiled the Bible?  Specifically, I don't know.  But history tells us that there was always a strong desire inside the church to not only preserve the writings of the apostles, but to gather them in from the various regions that they had been written and addressed to.
> In the years before and after 150 AD there were several 'scrambles' to 'claim' ownership of all the sacred writings that pertained to the Christ.
> *Finally,  It was the Roman government who oversaw the compilation.*
> 
> ...



All good points Ronnie. I agree, Pope wasnt mentioned at all in writings (to best of my knowledge); so who knows where its origins lie. yeah, I bet most people on here will agree too that if we can revert back to days of early church, then that will do good to everyone, protestants and Catholics alike.


----------



## Dominic (May 29, 2013)

bigdawg25 said:


> I think catholic church realizes how it might not sit well with many people, and hence, they havnt invoked it much at all.



The Catholic Church really is not interested in popular opinion, and does not care if things "sit well" with people. The Church is interested only in what sits well with God. 



"It (The Catholic Church) is the only thing that frees a man from the degrading slavery of being a child of his age. " - G.K. Chesterton


----------



## Dominic (May 29, 2013)

hobbs27 said:


> When making such a bold statement you should have your facts right. Constantine formed the Catholic church close to 300 years after the death and resurrection of Christ. There was already an early church that had been persecuted by the romans and jews.



You might want to tell St. Ignatius of Antioch that, because he seemed to think there was a Catholic Church well before Constantine.

"Where the bishop is present, there is the Catholic Church" (St. Ignatius of Antioch to the Smyrnaeans 8:2 107 AD)
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/ignatius-smyrnaeans-hoole.html


----------



## Dominic (May 29, 2013)

Ronnie, 

The name “Pope” or “Papa” or “Father” or “Patriarch” is if you will a nickname given to the Bishop of Rome (Bishops were mentioned in the bible). Peter the first Pope was the Bishop of Rome and held the seat of Primacy in the Church and his successors likewise held the same authority.


----------



## rjcruiser (May 29, 2013)

Dominic said:


> You might want to tell St. Ignatius of Antioch that, because he seemed to think there was a Catholic Church well before Constantine.



Catholic or catholic?


----------



## bigdawg25 (May 29, 2013)

Dominic said:


> The Catholic Church really is not interested in popular opinion, *and does not care if things "sit well" with people. The Church is interested only in what sits well with God.
> *
> 
> 
> "It (The Catholic Church) is the only thing that frees a man from the degrading slavery of being a child of his age. " - G.K. Chesterton



True. Maybe I didnt put it clearly enough. I meant that infallibility of Pope is something not carelessly used by church to push its views. I have read many articles and I am yet to find anything controversial for which infallibility of Papacy was "invoked". The church doesnt officially publish a list of things where pope have declared infallibility, and this somewhat makes researching this a bit more difficult.


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 29, 2013)

Thanks for the info on the infallibility of the Pope. I didn't know that. I thought everything he said was God given. 
It's amazing what we think we know about other denominations, Protestants Mormons, and Catholics until we actually ask one.


----------



## bigdawg25 (May 29, 2013)

Artfuldodger said:


> Thanks for the info on the infallibility of the Pope. I didn't know that. I thought everything he said was God given.
> *It's amazing what we think we know about other denominations, Protestants Mormons, and Catholics until we actually ask one.*



yeah, very true. I have always been so close to Catholicism that I had never heard of a book called FOX's BOOK of MARTYRS and Hobbs27 pointed me in that direction. I read some of that last night, and let me just say that I was shocked by reading some of those things.


----------



## Ronnie T (May 29, 2013)

Dominic said:


> Ronnie,
> 
> The name “Pope” or “Papa” or “Father” or “Patriarch” is if you will a nickname given to the Bishop of Rome (Bishops were mentioned in the bible). Peter the first Pope was the Bishop of Rome and held the seat of Primacy in the Church and his successors likewise held the same authority.



Your definition does not accord with scripture.

Philippians 1:1 
Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons:

1 Timothy 3:1 
This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.

1 Timothy 3:2 
A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

Titus 1:7 
For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre;

1 Peter 2:25 
For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls. 

*The word "bishop", in the King James Bible is a substituted word for "elder" or "shepherd".

*Every church was to have elders/shepherds/bishops.

*None of the biblical teachings and apostles' teachings ever insinuated that the government of Rome would become involved in Christ's church.
It certainly never invited Rome to establish a church government and hierarchy.

*If you walk away from catholic teaches and look at the history of Rome instead, you'll see exactly why the Roman government wanted to bring Christianity under government control.
In their minds, "Rome is the only nation.  Everyone belongs to Rome.  Including the church."  

*I believe Paul even spoke of the coming of the catholic church, and he spoke of that coming as being a 'falling away' from Christ's teachings.
You want me to list verses?


----------



## Dominic (May 29, 2013)

Ronnie T said:


> Your definition does not accord with scripture.
> 
> Philippians 1:1
> Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons:
> ...



Exactly how does my definition not "accord" with scripture? Peter was a Bishop the title Pope was just away of calling him Father or Patriarch or Leader. Peter was by all accounts the leader of the apostles Christ Himself placed him there. 



Ronnie T said:


> *The word "bishop", in the King James Bible is a substituted word for "elder" or "shepherd".



That would be a problem of the King James writers translation and interpretation, not mine. 



Ronnie T said:


> *Every church was to have elders/shepherds/bishops.



Every Catholic Church does have a Bishop



Ronnie T said:


> *None of the biblical teachings and apostles' teachings ever insinuated that the government of Rome would become involved in Christ's church.
> It certainly never invited Rome to establish a church government and hierarchy.



Rome did not bring the Church to Rome, Peter brought the Church to Rome. 




Ronnie T said:


> *If you walk away from catholic teaches and look at the history of Rome instead, you'll see exactly why the Roman government wanted to bring Christianity under government control.
> In their minds, "Rome is the only nation.  Everyone belongs to Rome.  Including the church.



I have degree in history and archeology I've studied the history of the Catholic Church from inside and out for years now, I have yet to be convinced that the Church is anything other then what it claims to be. But if you would like share please do. I'm happy to read any and all scholarly works you would like to provide on the topic. 



Ronnie T said:


> *I believe Paul even spoke of the coming of the catholic church, and he spoke of that coming as being a 'falling away' from Christ's teachings.
> You want me to list verses?



Sure thing


----------



## rjcruiser (May 29, 2013)

rjcruiser said:


> Catholic or catholic?



Just don't want this getting lost.


----------



## Dominic (May 29, 2013)

rjcruiser said:


> Catholic or catholic?





rjcruiser said:


> Just don't want this getting lost.



Catholic

The same goes for it's use in the Martyrdom of Polycarp and the Muratorian fragment both written before the start of the third century.


----------



## hobbs27 (May 29, 2013)

Dominic said:


> You might want to tell St. Ignatius of Antioch that, because he seemed to think there was a Catholic Church well before Constantine.
> 
> "Where the bishop is present, there is the Catholic Church" (St. Ignatius of Antioch to the Smyrnaeans 8:2 107 AD)
> http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/ignatius-smyrnaeans-hoole.html



What would saying Catholic Church mean before the Catholic Church (as we know it) existed in those days? Could he be referring to the whole church, not just the one in Antioch?

Greek word katholikos (καθολικός), meaning "universal", "complete" and "whole"


----------



## rjcruiser (May 29, 2013)

Dominic said:


> Catholic
> 
> The same goes for it's use in the Martyrdom of Polycarp and the Muratorian fragment both written before the start of the third century.



Dom...I think hobbs points out the true meaning of what the ECFs wrote.  

I know we probably won't agree....but I gotta keep ya honest  



hobbs27 said:


> What would saying Catholic Church mean before the Catholic Church (as we know it) existed in those days? Could he be referring to the whole church, not just the one in Antioch?
> 
> Greek word katholikos (καθολικός), meaning "universal", "complete" and "whole"



Bingo.


----------



## Ronnie T (May 29, 2013)

1Tim 4:1 The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. 2 Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. 3 They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth. 4 For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, 5 because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer.


----------



## Dominic (May 29, 2013)

Ronnie T said:


> 1Tim 3:1 The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. 2 Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. 3 They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth. 4 For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, 5 because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer.



I think you mean 1 Tim 4:1-5 

So which part is supposed to be about the Catholic Church?


----------



## Dominic (May 29, 2013)

hobbs27 said:


> What would saying Catholic Church mean before the Catholic Church (as we know it) existed in those days? Could he be referring to the whole church, not just the one in Antioch?
> 
> Greek word katholikos (καθολικός), meaning "universal", "complete" and "whole"





The Catholic Church has and always will be the whole church. 

What evidence do you have that the Church was something different then, then it is now?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 29, 2013)

bigdawg25 said:


> I was just saying that an amount of faith is necassary in talking about guidance from Holy spirit. I dont have it right now, but if and when I call myself "religious" I bet I'll have complete faith. infalliablility is something thats worth debating, I think catholic church realizes how it might not sit well with many people, and hence, they havnt invoked it much at all.



I think you're correct regarding the HS now that I understand your point better.


----------



## hobbs27 (May 29, 2013)

Dominic said:


> The Catholic Church has and always will be the whole church.
> 
> What evidence do you have that the Church was something different then, then it is now?



I can answer your question, but before I go further I want you to know that I prescribe to no one single denomination and have a freakish ability to see the negatives in all of them I have explored. I believe the same Christ that saves Baptist,Methodist,Pentacostal, Church of Christ, Presbyterian, etc etc. also saves those inside the Catholic church. 
I may get really negative about the history of the church you love, just because of what I know to be true, but I will mean nothing personal by it, and certainly don't mean to say a Christian of the Catholic faith is any less Christian. I actually would rather stop the discussion at this, but if you want we can discuss further..trying to be friendly as possible.


----------



## Dominic (May 29, 2013)

hobbs27 said:


> I can answer your question, but before I go further I want you to know that I prescribe to no one single denomination and have a freakish ability to see the negatives in all of them I have explored. I believe the same Christ that saves Baptist,Methodist,Pentacostal, Church of Christ, Presbyterian, etc etc. also saves those inside the Catholic church.
> I may get really negative about the history of the church you love, just because of what I know to be true, but I will mean nothing personal by it, and certainly don't mean to say a Christian of the Catholic faith is any less Christian. I actually would rather stop the discussion at this, but if you want we can discuss further..trying to be friendly as possible.



I have heard it all and then some, trust me when I say I take no offensive. I would have no problem if you would rather continue this another forum such as PMs. All I ask is for a argument based on provable and sourced histories.


----------



## bigdawg25 (May 29, 2013)

hobbs27 said:


> I can answer your question, but before I go further I want you to know that I prescribe to no one single denomination and have a freakish ability to see the negatives in all of them I have explored. I believe the same Christ that saves Baptist,Methodist,Pentacostal, Church of Christ, Presbyterian, etc etc. also saves those inside the Catholic church.
> I may get really negative about the history of the church you love, just because of what I know to be true, but I will mean nothing personal by it, and certainly don't mean to say a Christian of the Catholic faith is any less Christian. I actually would rather stop the discussion at this, but if you want we can discuss further..trying to be friendly as possible.



I would encourage you to state whatever you know on here itself so that people on sidelines like me can chip in when I can, but mostly because I'll learn what I dont know already. I dont know what drives to "like/prefer" Catholic church over other churches; mainly it has to do their emphasis on works.

However, I feel that I have pinholed myself to just one ideology that I havent read up in detail the negative aspects of this; and yesterday the book you told me was the first alternate view I've read in years. 

As long as everyone remains as respectful of each other as they are now, I think this would be a very intellectually stimulating discussion.


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 29, 2013)

Ronnie T said:


> 1Tim 3:1 The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. 2 Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. 3 They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth. 4 For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, 5 because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer.



If you are referring to the Catholic Church and Protestants were once a part of this Church, what is the true early Church or offshoot of the True Church? If one was looking to join the Real True Church which one would they join? It couldn't be Protestant as we came from their(Catholic) roots. We took some of their false beliefs with us.


----------



## Ronnie T (May 29, 2013)

Dominic said:


> I think you mean 1 Tim 4:1-5
> 
> So which part is supposed to be about the Catholic Church?



Oh yeah.  If a fellow's gonna quote scripture he should at least be accurate about it, shouldn't he.  

You don't see the catholic church in those verses?


----------



## Ronnie T (May 29, 2013)

Artfuldodger said:


> If you are referring to the Catholic Church and Protestants were once a part of this Church, what is the true early Church or offshoot of the True Church? If one was looking to join the Real True Church which one would they join? It couldn't be Protestant as we came from their(Catholic) roots. We took some of their false beliefs with us.



The true church is the church of the New Testament.

It might have any number of names attached to it, but it will be the church that's contained, taught, and established within the pages of the New Testament.
Anything that moves you away from those teachings might be leading into apostasy.


----------



## Ronnie T (May 29, 2013)

hobbs27 said:


> I can answer your question, but before I go further I want you to know that I prescribe to no one single denomination and have a freakish ability to see the negatives in all of them I have explored. I believe the same Christ that saves Baptist,Methodist,Pentacostal, Church of Christ, Presbyterian, etc etc. also saves those inside the Catholic church.
> I may get really negative about the history of the church you love, just because of what I know to be true, but I will mean nothing personal by it, and certainly don't mean to say a Christian of the Catholic faith is any less Christian. I actually would rather stop the discussion at this, but if you want we can discuss further..trying to be friendly as possible.



I agree wholly.  I got out of the personal judgment a long time ago, and God's really glad I did. 
I'm praying that I might be found acceptable.


----------



## Dominic (May 29, 2013)

Ronnie T said:


> 1Tim 4:1 The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. 2 Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. 3 They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth. 4 For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, 5 because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer.





Dominic said:


> I think you mean 1 Tim 4:1-5
> 
> So which part is supposed to be about the Catholic Church?





Ronnie T said:


> Oh yeah.  If a fellow's gonna quote scripture he should at least be accurate about it, shouldn't he.
> 
> You don't see the catholic church in those verses?



No sir. I can see the Manicheans, the Encratites, the Marcionites,  the Gnostics, but certainly not the Catholic Church.


----------



## hobbs27 (May 29, 2013)

Here Goes. This info comes from a booklet I used in a study on the matter about 6 years ago while I was trying to teach sunday school.

The Church...Catholics view it different, as Dominic stated earlier, Catholics believe in the Catholic church being eternal. The head of the Catholic Church is known as the pope some even call him the Holy Father. 
 Here is how a born again Christian views " The Church"  using scripture to back it up..
 1. Its Head and Founder -CHRIST. He is the lawgiver; the Church is only the executive. "*And I say unto thee, That thou Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of he11 shall not prevail against it"*(Matt. 16:18)  " *And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence" *(COL. 1:18)

2. Its only rule of faith and practice- THE BIBLE. *"And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works" *(II Tim. 3: 15-17)

3.Its name--" CHURCH, " "CHURCHES." "*And I say unto thee, That thou Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of he11- shall not prevail against it"*(Matt. 16:18).* " I Jesus have sent my angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star"* ( Rev. 22:16)

4. Its polity-CONGREGATIONAL- all members equal.* And when the ten heard it, they were moved with indignation against the two brethren.
 But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them.
  But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister;
  And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant:
  Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.
*( Matt. 20:24-28) * But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments,
 And love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues,
  And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi.
  But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.
  And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
 Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.
  But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.
 And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.
* (Matt. 23:5-12)

5. Its members-only saved people.*In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord"* ( Eph. 2:21) "*Ye also , as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ"* (I Peter 2:5)

6. Its ordinances-- BELIEVERS' BAPTISM FOLLOWED BY THE LORDS SUPPER. * Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
  Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.* (Matt. 28:19-20) *" For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come"* (Cor. 11:26)

7. Its officers- PASTORS AND DEACONS.*This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
  A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
  Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
  One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
  (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
  Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.
 Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.
  Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre;
  Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience.
  And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless.
  Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things.
 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.
  For they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.
  These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly:
  But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
*(I Tim. 3: 1-15)

8. Its work---getting folks saved, baptizing them( with a baptism that meets all the requirements of Gods Word), teaching them "*to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you"* (Matt. 28:20)

9.Its financial plan- (TITHES and OFFERINGS) " *Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel"* (I Cor. 9:14)

10. Its weapons of warfare--spiritual, not carnal." ( *For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds)"* (II Cor. 10:4). " *Finally , my brethren, be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might. Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
  Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.
  Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness;
 And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace;
 Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked.
  And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:
 Praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, and watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication for all saints;
  And for me, that utterance may be given unto me, that I may open my mouth boldly, to make known the mystery of the gospel,
 For which I am an ambassador in bonds: that therein I may speak boldly, as I ought to speak."
* ( Eph. 6 : 10-20

11. Its independence--seperation of Church and State. "*21 They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.* (Matt. 22:21)

What you see is the Church as Christ set up, those that have recieved him in faith through grace are all members of His church. Jesus Christ is the head of it..not some man nominated by other men. You mentioned earlier that Pope = Bishop..we can see in scripture that a Bishop must be the husband of one wife, and be a family man, for if he cant rule his own family how could he be expected to look over Christs church? 
 Christ set his church up to be independant of the state, not so with the Catholic church.
 Theres hundreds of years of history of the Catholic church denying people of the scriptures, only wanting their leaders to read and dictate to the people...there's also always been a people to practice to faith as Christ set up, and they have been persecuted throughout the centuries first by the Jew, and the Roman pagans, and then by the Catholic church. 

 A few years ago I found myself working around a nice Catholic lady that had lots of questions about the Lord. There was another lady working with her that was a fundementalist..that lady drove me crazy condemning the Catholic all the time telling her that her beliefs were going to take her to he11. I found myself arguing with the fundementalist more just so the Lord could open a window of oppurtunity to witness to the lady seeking answers about the Lord. We talked about grace, about the blood, and about salvation.
 About a year after I met this nice Catholic lady she came down with a terrible form of cancer and had little chance of survival... she left work when she got too sick... and I prayed for her and added her to all the prayerlists available. One year later she made it back to work.. and she sent word that she needed to talk to me, so I found her and she had a story to tell, she said there was one day when she was so sick she wasnt even able to get up and she prayed and in her prayers she said , God I no longer care if I beat this cancer or not, All I want is to really know you, and know that we have a relationship together....She said after she asked for this it was like a heavy burden on her heart grew wings and flew away, moments later the phone rang and it was the dr office with news, that her latest tests showed her cancer was in remission... a few minutes after that she was able to cook her husband supper for the first time in a long time, she told me, " I dont know exactly what happened, but I know if I die I'm going to heaven!  Tears just rolled down my eyes and I said it sounds to me like you were saved...she said, Yes thats what happened  Jesus saved me!  

 She's still got cancer beat... she still goes to a Catholic church...but my friend she belongs to  The Church the same one I do and many other people of many other denominations.


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 29, 2013)

Well I'm glad we got that cleared up. I thought this was heading in the wrong direction and I got to go to a Catholic Church for a funeral Friday. I didn't want to go to a fake church.


----------



## Ronnie T (May 30, 2013)

Dominic said:


> No sir. I can see the Manicheans, the Encratites, the Marcionites,  the Gnostics, but certainly not the Catholic Church.



"Later times" tells me that it continued far on and into today.
It fits doesn't it?

Does your church forbid certain people from being married?  In direct contradiction to biblical teachings, and even after Paul identified it as 'abandoning the things first taught'.


----------



## gordon 2 (May 30, 2013)

Listening is hard to do. And we are all different, so....?

May I suggest that we are all different due to individual differences, but also different people, individual and social, due denominational differences. Our christian worlds have things in common, but are different. The outlooks are different. When we talk to each other about christianity, it is good to know this I think. And my personal view is that it is ok that we have different outlooks--a sort of many mansions in the Kingdom thing...( which is not biblical I know... I'm just groaning for words.) We have to accept this.


Being a catholic makes a different man than being a calvinist, and then another  for being a methodist, for examples. I don't think we can expect zebras to loose their stripes and certain cats their spots. It is almost like we are different races of christianity with different ears tuned to different social worlds...but we are christians. The trick I think is to learn to "hear" others and each other in a christian way, ( into our common world of grace) to the best of our abilities... which will rarely be perfect. As much as possible the currency of the Kingdom should be honored by all and therefore our commerce and our trans-actions.


----------



## Dominic (May 30, 2013)

Ronnie T said:


> "Later times" tells me that it continued far on and into today.
> It fits doesn't it?
> 
> Does your church forbid certain people from being married?  In direct contradiction to biblical teachings, and even after Paul identified it as 'abandoning the things first taught'.



No it does not forbid anyone from marriage, but if you have freely taken a vow to remain unmarried then you have broken a promise.  Ecclesiastes 5:5

I think this is best answered by St. Augestine. 

In about 400 AD St. Augustine wrote a great work called the Contra Faustum Manichæan or Reply to Faustus the Manichæan.  Manichæans actually did forbid all marriages believing them to evil, they also forbid the eating of certain foods. In book XXX of the Contra Faustum Manichæan St. Augustine answers Faustus and the Manichæans on 1 Timothy 4:1-5. 

I will provide a link rather then the whole text. If you have time a reading of the whole Contra Faustum Manichæan is more then worth it.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/140630.htm

It seems there is nothing new under the sun.


----------



## Bama4me (May 30, 2013)

bigdawg25 said:


> you sir have a lot of misconceptions about catholic docrine so let me clarify some things for you.
> 
> Please look at any history of Christianity, keeping aside OT, you will observe that first came Jesus Christ, then came the Church, and then after many decades did the church institute a council which wrote down the sayings of Jesus Christ in what you may call the Bible. If you have such deep mistrust of the Church, then how can you trust your bible?
> 
> ...



LOL... you claim that I have some misconceptions about the Catholic church?

In your first paragraph you stated that a council formed by the church compiled Christ's sayings into the what we call "the Bible."  That's completely erroneous... there were people totally unassociated with the Catholic church who began assembling "the canon of Scripture" long before any councils began voting on it.  People associated with the Catholic church assert that the council of Jamnia "set" the OT canon in 90 AD... but the truth is, Jesus recognized a "set" canon years earlier (whenever he'd quote the OT), this council only dealt with two OT books (Ecclesiastes and Song of Solomon), and it was a Jewish (not "Catholic") group of people making decisions.  Regarding the NT canon, long before there were any "Catholic councils", men like Papias, Marcian, Justin, and Tatian indicated there was a "canon" which was relied upon as "the word of God."  While it may be true that in later years, Catholic councils might "vote" to set the canon they'd follow, they did not speak for everyone (I do not accept the Apocrypha as part of the bible even though a Catholic council affirmed it should be a part).  However, all of this is a far cry from a "Catholic council wrote down the sayings of Jesus Christ in what you call the bible" (as you assert).

Second, just because the Catholic church "grew out of" the early church does not mean it is/was authentic.  1 Timothy 4:1-3 indicates that when people began forbidding marriage, they would "depart from the faith".  Though I know how the Catholic church tries to answer this charge, they did/do forbid marriage.  Funny thing is that the same book (3:2) sets a qualification for a bishop to be "the husband of one wife" (Greek - a one-woman man).  Yet, the Catholic church claims this qualification is "optional".  In addition to the multitudes of errors espoused by this group is the fact they recognize the Pope as the "Vicar of Christ" (literally "a representative of a high-ranking official who claims all authority and power of that official").  Any way you cut it, the Pope claims he is the head of the church on earth... despite what is clearly written in Ephesians 1:22.

Do I trust the church?  Yes... as long as it follows what our Lord said in John 8:31-32 and what is written in 1 Timothy 3:15.  A "church" is only "the church" (authentic/recognized by Christ) when it (1) abides in His word and (2) serves as the pillar/ground of the truth.  When a "church" leaves truth, it becomes apostate... something that happened with the Catholic church many centuries ago.

How the Holy Spirit "guides the church today" is another separate issue... one that will sidetrack this discussion.  However, I'll simply say that the belief that the Holy Spirit guides people independently of Scripture (i.e. the Holy Spirit leads me to do this or that outside of study/following Scripture) is not universally held among Christians.


----------



## Dominic (May 30, 2013)

hobbs27 said:


> Here Goes. This info comes from a booklet I used in a study on the matter about 6 years ago while I was trying to teach sunday school.
> 
> The Church...Catholics view it different, as Dominic stated earlier, Catholics believe in the Catholic church being eternal. The head of the Catholic Church is known as the pope some even call him the Holy Father.
> Here is how a born again Christian views " The Church"  using scripture to back it up..
> ...



Thank you. I have read Trail of Blood more than once; it is an interesting read for sure. While I am responding to Mr. Carroll’s marks of a New Testament church, I hoping you could answer something. In Trail of Blood Mr. Carroll claims Baptist come from group such as the Waldenses, the Donatist, the Carthi, the Monotist, the Paulicians, and the Albigenses. Do you believe as Mr. Carroll does that Baptist come from these groups?


----------



## Bama4me (May 30, 2013)

While I'm not going to get in the way of the discussion about the Trail of Blood, I have noticed something that's been brought up at least a couple of times in the thread.  What is the big deal with a religious group "coming from" another religious group?  It's not the group you split off from that's important... it's the identity and belief system that's important.

Many groups, as someone accurately stated earlier, had a problem with the catholic church... but their mentality was "we'd like to 'reform' the catholic church."  Many individuals who led those efforts didn't want to desert the catholic church.  Rather, they wanted to "fix" things they believed to be broken within it.

Others, on the other hand, left with the mentality of "the catholic church has ceased to become 'the church' that is recognized by God."  People leading these efforts didn't seek to continue to have a relationship with catholicism - they felt catholicism was broken to the point it couldn't be fully changed.  They felt a total restoration (i.e. starting from scratch) to things to the way they had been 1st century times was essential.

All of us need to have the latter mentality (2 Thessalonians 2:10)... making sure that we are not following philosophy and traditions of men, but following the truth of God's word.  And if churches we find ourselves in don't teach and practice what the New Testament says, we should find a church that does.  The words of Jesus in Matthew 7:21-23 and the principle Paul cited in Romans 10:1-3 (establishing our own system of righteousness) have a sobering application for all of us.


----------



## Dominic (May 30, 2013)

Bama4me said:


> All of us need to have the latter mentality (2 Thessalonians 2:10)... making sure that we are not following philosophy and traditions of men, but following the truth of God's word.  And if churches we find ourselves in don't teach and practice what the New Testament says, we should find a church that does.  The words of Jesus in Matthew 7:21-23 and the principle Paul cited in Romans 10:1-3 (establishing our own system of righteousness) have a sobering application for all of us.



So which one of the 33,000 denominations is the right one?


----------



## Dominic (May 30, 2013)

Bama4me said:


> Second, just because the Catholic church "grew out of" the early church does not mean it is/was authentic.  1 Timothy 4:1-3 indicates that when people began forbidding marriage, they would "depart from the faith".  Though I know how the Catholic church tries to answer this charge, they did/do forbid marriage.  Funny thing is that the same book (3:2) sets a qualification for a bishop to be "the husband of one wife" (Greek - a one-woman man).  Yet, the Catholic church claims this qualification is "optional".  In addition to the multitudes of errors espoused by this group is the fact they recognize the Pope as the "Vicar of Christ" (literally "a representative of a high-ranking official who claims all authority and power of that official").  Any way you cut it, the Pope claims he is the head of the church on earth... despite what is clearly written in Ephesians 1:22.



Would you say St. Paul was a bishop of the church?


----------



## Ronnie T (May 30, 2013)

Dominic said:


> No it does not forbid anyone from marriage, but if you have freely taken a vow to remain unmarried then you have broken a promise.  Ecclesiastes 5:5
> 
> I think this is best answered by St. Augestine.
> 
> ...



It cannot be both ways.  Your church demands that a priest cannot marry.
Paul foretold of it's happening.


----------



## bigdawg25 (May 30, 2013)

Ronnie T said:


> It cannot be both ways.  Your church demands that a priest cannot marry.
> Paul foretold of it's happening.



I have slightly different view then Dominic on Celibacy of priests.

If you look at early church, then largely everyone was married. This is an accepted fact. The first written account on refraining from sexual intercourse was in 306 AD in council of Elvira. Note that it didnt mean that priests cannot be married; it just meant that they cannot have any sexual contact after becoming priests. One has then to jump another 100-150 yrs before they started saying no marriage was allowed somewhere around 400-450 AD. There were wide ranging instances of priests getting married, and to prevent the church wealth being passed on to their kids, they were declared illegitimate offsprings. Up until 1200 AD, by all acounts most priests were still married. If you google pope marriages, then you will see even popes were engaged in this.

My last point is that at present if an anglican or any other protestent priest converts to catholicism, then he IS allowed to remain married. However, a Catholic priest is at no time allowed to be married.

So what am I getting at? I dont think priests should be required to remain celibate and not get married. I think we already are having double standards in this regard, and historically from early church  up until middle ages this was never seriously practiced, so we can hardly call it tradition. I think that sooner or later the church will have to change its stance on this, and sooner they do it, the sooner people like me can start embracing the church. I think because of this celibate thing, we are attracting wrong kind of people to become priests, and that is observed in all the child molestation cases we have seen, and not the mention the embarrassment and disgust we all feel.


----------



## Bama4me (May 30, 2013)

Dominic said:


> So which one of the 33,000 denominations is the right one?



The very word "denomination" is misleading and can't be found in Scripture (either literally or in principle).  Use of this word implies the "whole" can be divided up into "parts" and still be acceptable to God... even though the beliefs of these groups vary greatly.

1 Corinthians 1:10 claims divisions in the church come due to the fact that people are not united in the "same mind and in the same judgment".  In 14:33 of the same letter, we find that what was being taught/practiced at Corinth was the same that was being taught/practice in all other congregations (thus avoiding confusion).  Thus, the church must be "non-denominational" if it is going to conform to Scripture... and it must adhere to the truth of God's word.

As far as "which church is right" among the 33,000 that are claiming to be "the church", Jesus said it best back in Matthew 7:16.  Speaking of false prophets, He said "By their fruits you will know them."  "Fruits" of false doctrine and acceptance of unbiblical activities will "sort out" who is acceptable to God... and who is not.  Jesus plainly said a few verses later "Not everyone who says to Me 'Lord, Lord' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven" (7:21).

Sadly, many today identify with a church without knowing the first thing about what it believes/practices... we have become a society who largely makes that choice based on what we (not God) wants a church to be.  I often hear a person say "I attend so and so church because I like the worship"... or "I attend so and so church because they have a lot of things for families."  Very rarely do I hear a person comment about "I attend so and so church because they stick with what the Bible says."


----------



## bigdawg25 (May 30, 2013)

Bama4me said:


> LOL... you claim that I have some misconceptions about the Catholic church?
> 
> In your first paragraph you stated that a council formed by the church compiled Christ's sayings into the what we call "the Bible."  That's completely erroneous... there were people totally unassociated with the Catholic church who began assembling "the canon of Scripture" long before any councils began voting on it.  People associated with the Catholic church assert that the council of Jamnia "set" the OT canon in 90 AD... but the truth is, Jesus recognized a "set" canon years earlier (whenever he'd quote the OT), this council only dealt with two OT books (Ecclesiastes and Song of Solomon), and it was a Jewish (not "Catholic") group of people making decisions.  Regarding the NT canon, long before there were any "Catholic councils", men like Papias, Marcian, Justin, and Tatian indicated there was a "canon" which was relied upon as "the word of God."  While it may be true that in later years, Catholic councils might "vote" to set the canon they'd follow, they did not speak for everyone (I do not accept the Apocrypha as part of the bible even though a Catholic council affirmed it should be a part).  However, all of this is a far cry from a "Catholic council wrote down the sayings of Jesus Christ in what you call the bible" (as you assert).
> 
> ...



I think that we both are on different pages in that you think there was one "early church", and then we had completely separate entity called "catholic church". Now, I see latter as continuation of the former, and I cannot see any schisms which happened which made other competitor church rising up in that time period. Hence, I think whatever differences we have of opinion will continue to persist until we define at what point the early church ends, and when does Catholic church starts. 

In reference to Catholic church and HS, please show me a few examples where the HS guided them to a completely *opposite *point then what's stated in scripture? I genuinely cannot see any examples.


----------



## Bama4me (May 30, 2013)

Dominic said:


> Would you say St. Paul was a bishop of the church?



Where in Scripture does it say he was?  We know Peter was both an apostle and an elder (1 Peter 5:1), but the terms "elder" (presbyteros), "bishop/overseer" (episkopos), or "pastor/shepherd" (poimen) are never used to describe Paul.  All of these three terms describe those who lead a local congregation.  Also, if he were, he would have violated the qualifications of 1 Timothy 3:2 because 1 Corinthians 7:8 tels us he was unmarried.


----------



## Dominic (May 30, 2013)

Ronnie T said:


> It cannot be both ways.  Your church demands that a priest cannot marry.
> Paul foretold of it's happening.



How is this both ways ?

Have you ever met a priest who forced to be a priest? The priest take a vow which says "if I am going to be a priest I will not be married". Any priest may go to their bishop and say "I wish to be married" the bishop answer will be "OK then you must give up your priesthood". The priest would still be Catholic in good standing, the bishop is in no way forbidding marriage. The Catholic Church has never forbid anyone to marry. Marriage is so important to the Catholic Church it is even a Sacrament.

The Gnostics of St. Paul's time as well as the Manichæans of St. Augustine's time forbid marriage in order to be a Christian.


----------



## Ronnie T (May 30, 2013)

A historical look at the Catholic church always reminds me that it was, and is, the Roman Catholic church.
It was established by the Roman government.  It's governing principals were realigned to insure the church authority would always end in Rome.


----------



## Bama4me (May 30, 2013)

bigdawg25 said:


> In reference to Catholic church and HS, please show me a few examples where the HS guided them to a completely *opposite *point then what's stated in scripture? I genuinely cannot see any examples.



See the above example... Paul is recognized as a bishop even though he is never referred as such in Scripture.  Also, where does NT scripture claim that someone other than Christ is "head of the church"?  Where does it claim that confession of sin must be done before a priest rather than before God?  I could go on and on with examples.  If you can't see them, then you couldn't see what people like Martin Luther saw centuries ago.


----------



## Ronnie T (May 30, 2013)

Dominic said:


> How is this both ways ?
> 
> Have you ever met a priest who forced to be a priest? The priest take a vow which says "if I am going to be a priest I will not be married". Any priest may go to their bishop and say "I wish to be married" the bishop answer will be "OK then you must give up your priesthood". The priest would still be Catholic in good standing, the bishop is in no way forbidding marriage. The Catholic Church has never forbid anyone to marry. Marriage is so important to the Catholic Church it is even a Sacrament.
> 
> The Gnostics of St. Paul's time as well as the Manichæans of St. Augustine's time forbid marriage in order to be a Christian.



And there's the point of it all.  The Catholic church insist upon a requirement that even the Lord's apostles were not held to.
The Catholic church, the Baptist church, nor the church of Christ has no authority to do that.
That authority would only come from man's manipulation of the church.


----------



## rjcruiser (May 30, 2013)

Dominic said:


> So which one of the 33,000 denominations is the right one?



Don't look at it down to the denomination view....I'd say look at it at the Catholic, Protestant, Mormon, JW, Islam, Hindu level.

Which one is right?



bigdawg25 said:


> Hence, I think whatever differences we have of opinion will continue to persist until we define at what point the early church ends, and when does Catholic church starts.



I think that point is the first Nicean Council...right?




bigdawg25 said:


> In reference to Catholic church and HS, please show me a few examples where the HS guided them to a completely *opposite *point then what's stated in scripture? I genuinely cannot see any examples.



HS will never guide someone opposite of the Bible.  Can't happen.

That being said, there are many from within the Christian Church that have been led astray.

Just going off of the First Council of Nicea....Arianism was off base.

I'm guessing as a Catholic, you'd probably say that Cerularius was off base as well.


----------



## Dominic (May 30, 2013)

Bama4me said:


> Where in Scripture does it say he was?  We know Peter was both an apostle and an elder (1 Peter 5:1), but the terms "elder" (presbyteros), "bishop/overseer" (episkopos), or "pastor/shepherd" (poimen) are never used to describe Paul.  All of these three terms describe those who lead a local congregation.  Also, if he were, he would have violated the qualifications of 1 Timothy 3:2 because 1 Corinthians 7:8 tels us he was unmarried.



St. Paul started Churches in Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, Laodicea, Colossae, and Hieropolis would that not make him "elder" (presbyteros), "bishop/overseer" (episkopos), or "pastor/shepherd" (poimen) to these Churches at some point?


----------



## Ronnie T (May 30, 2013)

Dominic said:


> Would you say St. Paul was a bishop of the church?



No.  Paul wasn't a bishop of all the churches or any individual church.
Paul was a minister to all churches and all Christians.  
Rather than Bishop, Paul often worked through the leadership of churches.  
Paul was a servant, and he didn't care much for titles.


----------



## bigdawg25 (May 30, 2013)

Bama4me said:


> See the above example... Paul is recognized as a bishop even though he is never referred as such in Scripture.  Also, where does NT scripture claim that someone other than Christ is *"head of the church"?*  Where does it claim that confession of sin must be done before a priest rather than before God?  I could go on and on with examples.  If you can't see them, then you couldn't see what people like *Martin Luther saw centuries ago*.



oh I see those as superficial differences in semantics. I meant big policy differences, AKA the kind we may see in future like what episcopalians are facing now: women priests or gay marriage. 

Sure, I have read Luther's writings, and of other reformers, and to me the majority of the corruption and excesses they revolted against is just not there anymore. Having said that, yeah I still have my reservations on couple of theological points, and for that reason, I havnt joined any church.


----------



## Dominic (May 30, 2013)

Ronnie T said:


> And there's the point of it all.  The Catholic church insist upon a requirement that even the Lord's apostles were not held to.
> The Catholic church, the Baptist church, nor the church of Christ has no authority to do that.
> That authority would only come from man's manipulation of the church.



What do they insist on?

Christ Himself was not married is He not an overseer of the Church?

Christ Himself suggested being a eunuch to serve the Kingdom of Heaven

"For there are eunuchs, who were born so from their mother' s womb: and there are eunuchs, who were made so by men: and there are eunuchs, who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven. He that can take, let him take it. "


----------



## bigdawg25 (May 30, 2013)

rjcruiser said:


> Don't look at it down to the denomination view....I'd say look at it at the Catholic, Protestant, Mormon, JW, Islam, Hindu level.
> 
> Which one is right?
> 
> ...



ohk, I thought so too, but the trouble is if that's where we want to draw the line, then 99% of the doctrine was already well established by 325 AD, and there were no major changes done at that council expect document the changes already done in past 300 yrs, and coming up with nicene creed which pretty much states what everyone was already believing.

about cerularius, its a whole different can of worms  but I dont think he was that off-base at all to be honest. I am far from someone who blindly believes everything the church says; and if I start with a few genuine criticisms I have of Catholic church, then its devout believers will kick me off this forum .


----------



## Dominic (May 30, 2013)

Ronnie T said:


> No.  Paul wasn't a bishop of all the churches or any individual church.
> Paul was a minister to all churches and all Christians.
> Rather than Bishop, Paul often worked through the leadership of churches.
> Paul was a servant, and he didn't care much for titles.



You are going to tell me St. Paul was in Ephesus for three years and never considered an overseer in the Church?

Acts 19:10
And this continued for the space of two years, so that all they who dwelt in Asia, heard the word of the Lord, both Jews and Gentiles. 

Acts 20:31
Therefore watch, keeping in memory, that for three years I ceased not, with tears to admonish every one of you night and day.


----------



## rjcruiser (May 30, 2013)

bigdawg25 said:


> ohk, I thought so too, but the trouble is if that's where we want to draw the line, then 99% of the doctrine was already well established by 325 AD, and there were no major changes done at that council expect document the changes already done in past 300 yrs, and coming up with nicene creed which pretty much states what everyone was already believing.
> 
> about cerularius, its a whole different can of worms  but I dont think he was that off-base at all to be honest. I am far from someone who blindly believes everything the church says; and if I start with a few genuine criticisms I have of Catholic church, then its devout believers will kick me off this forum .





I agree with the council of Nicea...problem is...there were always people coming up with false doctrines.  We have it in Acts with the first council of Jerusalem.  That dealt with a tradition/work too 

I guess the problem is that at the Nicean Council, you had the Bishop of Rome take a leadership position....and never relinquieshed that leadership position.  Almost as if what they said was regarded as more important than what others had to say.  That is why I think it "started" there.

Works...Transubstantiation...indulgences...immaculate conception....just a few of the Doctrines that I'd disagree with the Catholic Church on.


----------



## Dominic (May 30, 2013)

Bama4me said:


> While I'm not going to get in the way of the discussion about the Trail of Blood, I have noticed something that's been brought up at least a couple of times in the thread.  What is the big deal with a religious group "coming from" another religious group?  It's not the group you split off from that's important... it's the identity and belief system that's important.



To Carroll what group you split off from or came from was very important. The whole point of Trail of Blood was to show how the Baptist had not come from the Catholic Church. So if someone is going to use Trail of Blood as a basis to show where they came from then it is important to know what those groups, sited in Trail of Blood, taught and believed. If it did not matter then Carroll never would have cared that the Baptist came from the "Reformers" who came from the Catholic Church.


----------



## hobbs27 (May 30, 2013)

Dominic said:


> Do you believe as Mr. Carroll does that Baptist come from these groups?



No. To me its more about a system of beliefs than a denomination. He shows and does a good job putting together Christ's church, but to say the Baptist is the sole practitioner of this is laughable. Take 5 Baptist from 5 different Baptist churches and you will get 5  different opinions on the way of the Church.
 The Gospel goes out in the Church...the Gospel heard and understood by the non believer pricks the heart...the non believer then becomes a believer, repents of his/her ways, becomes a new creature, recieves the Holy Spirit, is baptized only after becoming a believer, becomes part of the body of the church....Dies and is in the presence of the Lord.

^^ all of this does not belong to all Baptist Churches nor exclusively to them, but this is the belief system practiced by the Apostles told to us in Acts...and the very system that the Catholic church warred against and tried to stop.


----------



## hobbs27 (May 30, 2013)

Just one more observation..isn't it funny how all sects and denominations want to claim to be the original? Even the ones that were started up in the last 100 years or so will make that claim.


----------



## rjcruiser (May 30, 2013)

hobbs27 said:


> Take 5 Baptist from 5 different Baptist churches and you will get 5  different opinions on the way of the Church.



And the color of the carpet...or if the choir should sit up on stage during the entire message or come down after singing.


----------



## Dominic (May 30, 2013)

hobbs27 said:


> and the very system that the Catholic church warred against and tried to stop.



I guess I don't know what this means. I can tell you of heresies the Church has stopped such as

The Manicheans who believed in one good and from God, the other evil and from an antagonistic power, namely Satan and the bad angels who seek to destroy the work of God. Man’s spirit is from God and therefore good, his body from Satan and therefore evil.

The Donatist who believed that the effectiveness of the sacraments depended on the moral character of the minister.

and I can go on. 

But I still don't get what you are getting at.


----------



## hobbs27 (May 30, 2013)

Dominic said:


> But I still don't get what you are getting at.



http://m.ccel.org/ccel/foxe/martyrs/fox104.htm


----------



## hobbs27 (May 30, 2013)

rjcruiser said:


> And the color of the carpet...or if the choir should sit up on stage during the entire message or come down after singing.



Yes...truth is we could take 5 different Baptist from the same church and get 5 different opinions of the way of the church.


----------



## Dominic (May 30, 2013)

hobbs27 said:


> http://m.ccel.org/ccel/foxe/martyrs/fox104.htm



So are you looking to discuss who drew more blood the Catholics or the Reformers, because we can do that also. Neither side has clean hands in this case, all sides persecuted heretics, all sides did it just as violently. 

I have read Foxes book of martyrs and noted that he left out all the Catholics who where killed for their faith. You would think that a martyr is a martyr no matter who killed them.


----------



## gordon 2 (May 30, 2013)

Ronnie T said:


> A historical look at the Catholic church always reminds me that it was, and is, the Roman Catholic church.
> It was established by the Roman government.  It's governing principals were realigned to insure the church authority would always end in Rome.



The "Roman" Catholic Church was named such by Anglicans--middle ages. As you know Anglicans claim they are catholic. The name Roman in RCC has nothing to do with the Roman government. The anglicans ( episcopalians) -the english- used the name to set themselves apart. They could have called themselves the English Catholic Church, but for some reason preffered to tack a name to the latin rite.  Conquoring peoples have a strange nack of doing things like that! --you know changing other folks names and such...lOL 

But regardless,  that the Catholic Church  was established by the Roman government is interesting. And if this idea was a fish lure, I wonder what kind of fish it would tempt? Sturgeon?. LOL Hey! I got a name for it if you don't mind, " The Longday on the Water Lure".


----------



## Bama4me (May 30, 2013)

Dominic said:


> You are going to tell me St. Paul was in Ephesus for three years and never considered an overseer in the Church?
> 
> Acts 19:10
> And this continued for the space of two years, so that all they who dwelt in Asia, heard the word of the Lord, both Jews and Gentiles.
> ...



Dominic... you're confusing "apostolic authority" for that of a local church's leaership (referred to in Scripture as an elder, overseer, bishop, pastor, or shepherd).  Ephesians 4:11 clearly indicates there was a difference between the role of a "pastor" (church leader) and apostle.  In fact, one of the passages you cite in your argument is Acts 20.  

In the context that you mention, Paul (verse 17) called for the elders of the Ephesian congregation to meet w/ him.  In his words to them, notice he said the HOLY SPIRIT (not Paul himself) made them overseers (same Greek word as "bishop").  These men (not Paul) were the bishops of the Ephesian congregation... and notice that there was a plurality of them over one congregation, not just one (which is unbiblical).  

The problem with your reasoning is you're trying to define the Bible through the lens of the church's belief system.  In other words, beginning a church obviously meant that a man was a bishop... because that's what the church says.  The correct way of reasoning is to allow the bible to define the terms and model the church after what it says.  Thus, go to Scripture and find the passage which says Paul was ever referred to as an elder/bishop/overseer/shepherd/pastor. You can't find it because it doesn't exist.

Your line of reasoning illustrates perfectly the first thing I said about catholicisim when I joined the discussion... the catholic church believes it has the right to "define" the word of God rather than the word of God "defining" what the church is supposed to be.


----------



## Bama4me (May 30, 2013)

bigdawg25 said:


> oh I see those as superficial differences in semantics. I meant big policy differences, AKA the kind we may see in future like what episcopalians are facing now: women priests or gay marriage.
> 
> Sure, I have read Luther's writings, and of other reformers, and to me the majority of the corruption and excesses they revolted against is just not there anymore. Having said that, yeah I still have my reservations on couple of theological points, and for that reason, I havnt joined any church.



BD... let's get this straight.  You think one guy here on this earth exercising authority over all the churches is mere semantics???

Where do you find that principle in the New Testament?  Even with Paul's apostolic authority, there were other apostles besides him who were exercising the very same kind of authority he was exercising.  If the Pope is "the head of the church on earth", Ephesians 1:22 is a blantant falsehood.  There, we see that Jesus is head over all things to the church.  Catholicism says there's one body... but two heads (one in heaven and one on earth)???

Try to find the Pope's position and authority in Scripture... you can't unless you subscribe to the philosophy of "the church defines Scripture" rather than the other way around.


----------



## Dominic (May 30, 2013)

Bama4me said:


> Dominic... you're confusing "apostolic authority" for that of a local church's leaership (referred to in Scripture as an elder, overseer, bishop, pastor, or shepherd).  Ephesians 4:11 clearly indicates there was a difference between the role of a "pastor" (church leader) and apostle.  In fact, one of the passages you cite in your argument is Acts 20.
> 
> In the context that you mention, Paul (verse 17) called for the elders of the Ephesian congregation to meet w/ him.  In his words to them, notice he said the HOLY SPIRIT (not Paul himself) made them overseers (same Greek word as "bishop").  These men (not Paul) were the bishops of the Ephesian congregation... and notice that there was a plurality of them over one congregation, not just one (which is unbiblical).
> 
> ...



Now I know you and Ronnie have told me that "Pope" cannot be found in the Bible and that you all only go by what is in the Bible so can you tell me where the words “apostolic authority” appear in the Bible because I cannot find them. 

Have you ever wondered whose lens you are defining scripture through? You say it through the lens of the bible so did you just open one day and start reading? Or did your parents teach you?   Your pastor? A friend?  You certainly were not born with a Bible in your hand able to understand it.  If you think you were then maybe you should listen to St. Peter’s warning about personal interpretation.

I feel secure in the fact that for 2000 years the Catholic Church taught the Sacred Scriptures as they were handed down from the Apostles through Sacred Tradition, and defended by the Magisterium.


----------



## Bama4me (May 30, 2013)

Dominic said:


> Now I know you and Ronnie have told me that "Pope" cannot be found in the Bible and that you all only go by what is in the Bible so can you tell me where the words “apostolic authority” appear in the Bible because I cannot find them.
> 
> Have you ever wondered whose lens you are defining scripture through? You say it through the lens of the bible so did you just open one day and start reading? Or did your parents teach you?   Your pastor? A friend?  You certainly were not born with a Bible in your hand able to understand it.  If you think you were then maybe you should listen to St. Peter’s warning about personal interpretation.
> 
> I feel secure in the fact that for 2000 years the Catholic Church taught the Sacred Scriptures as they were handed down from the Apostles through Sacred Tradition, and defended by the Magisterium.



Let's see about apostolic authority... an example can be found in Acts 5 in the matter of Ananias/Sapphira.  It is clearly seen in the settling of the church dispute in Acts 6 and it is clearly seen in Acts 15 (by that time elders there in Jerusalem were included in the decision-making as well).  Finally, you see Paul writing authoritative letters to many different congregations.

If you want a basis verse for the premise, Ephesians 2:20 will suffice.  There, we read that the church is built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets... with Christ being the cornerstone.

You clearly seem to believe that a "common man" doesn't possess the capability to understand Scripture unless he/she is guided by the church... something which lead to bibles being restricted to the clergy in the Middle Ages.  It's interesting to see that when our Lord said "You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free", he was not addressing educated people who would become "clergy members"... He was addressing people who believed in Him.  Trust in the church all you want... I'll trust in what I can read and understand, which is what 2 Timothy 2:15 tells me to do.

BTW, 2 Peter 1:20 doesn't mean that people don't have the ability to interpret Scripture... in the context of the passage it means Scripture didn't originate with men... it originated with God (see verse 21).


----------



## Dominic (May 30, 2013)

Bama4me said:


> Let's see about apostolic authority... an example can be found in Acts 5 in the matter of Ananias/Sapphira.  It is clearly seen in the settling of the church dispute in Acts 6 and it is clearly seen in Acts 15 (by that time elders there in Jerusalem were included in the decision-making as well).  Finally, you see Paul writing authoritative letters to many different congregations.
> 
> If you want a basis verse for the premise, Ephesians 2:20 will suffice.  There, we read that the church is built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets... with Christ being the cornerstone.



But where did the tradition of calling it “apostolic authority” come from? I cannot find the term in the Bible?





Bama4me said:


> You clearly seem to believe that a "common man" doesn't possess the capability to understand Scripture unless he/she is guided by the church...



“Common men” like David Koresh or Jim Jones. They were both pretty sure they had the right understanding of scripture.  Peter did say that understanding scripture is hard, and of course Matthew tells us not to go to scripture if you a problem with your brother but to take him to the Church. 



Bama4me said:


> something which lead to bibles being restricted to the clergy in the Middle Ages.



Could you source this for me?



Bama4me said:


> It's interesting to see that when our Lord said "You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free", he was not addressing educated people who would become "clergy members"... He was addressing people who believed in Him.



It’s interesting that He said and did not write it. Ever wonder why if the written word was so much more important than oral tradition why Jesus gave His message entirely by word of mouth. 



Bama4me said:


> Trust in the church all you want... I'll trust in what I can read and understand, which is what 2 Timothy 2:15 tells me to do.



Again I ask were you born understanding the Bible, or did you through some sort of “tradition” come to understand the Bible?


Bama4me said:


> BTW, 2 Peter 1:20 doesn't mean that people don't have the ability to interpret Scripture... in the context of the passage it means Scripture didn't originate with men... it originated with God (see verse 21).



So scripture is open to personal interpretation?


----------



## Israel (May 30, 2013)

Dominic said:


> But where did the tradition of calling it “apostolic authority” come from? I cannot find the term in the Bible?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



All our growth in Christ takes place through the Holy Spirit..._in_ the church.

There are certain truths...facts, if we will...regarding our being. We ARE members of one another. This is neither disputable nor attainable...we are. None can make himself included...nor cause any other to be excluded. The rubber seems to meet the road in how we tend to define, both for ourselves...and others...who, or what, the Church is. But regardless of our "self-ly" prejudices...she is. 

A Bride, chosen by the Lord...like the first Adam...she is "of" Him, has proceeded forth from him...but unlike the first Adam...he refuses to disown, or in any way...make her "other". He, alone...keeps her...cherishes, nourishes her. He...alone...has preeminence in all her doings and being.

Yes...we may bring things in...our prejudices, our previous experiences...or own traditions...and try to fashion...in His house...something of "our own". But these things cannot...will not...stand. There is no need of my "self" here...yet curiously (it seems at first), the way this is learned is by discerning the divisions we see caused by the manifestations of so many "other" selves that chafe against what we may consider our own "pure" revelation...finally grasping (perhaps) it is precisely my own "self" that is experiencing the chafing. I am only irked, troubled...brought to confusion...not by others...but by the preeminence I still accord my own self. And so, it is in this learning that the body not only not "needs" anything of me...but is indeed hindered to some extent, damaged to some extent, impeded...to some extent, by my dragging of "my own" around everywhere...that I may begin to seek deliverance...from this thing that proclaims itself God in His temple...but IS not.
Then, perhaps I begin to recognize...this body is not for my personal enrichment (though I am enriched)...nor for my personal enjoyment (though I learn to find joy)...nor proscribed by my personal preferences.
The Lord has purposed...in his wisdom to teach me something about what I consider the "least"...be it least "like" him in doctrine, least like him according to my understanding of his being, and specifically...least like him according to this false God that wants to reign.

"Let us make man in our image".

Until I see the one who speaks these words in truth for love and joy...I busily believe I am called to make all in my own...image and likeness...from "my own" fear and hostility.


----------



## hobbs27 (May 30, 2013)

Dominic said:


> So are you looking to discuss who drew more blood the Catholics or the Reformers, because we can do that also. Neither side has clean hands in this case, all sides persecuted heretics, all sides did it just as violently.



Not really. I think there's been more than ample evidence that the Roman Catholic Church does not resemble the church Christ setup. You can spend your time defending it with others. I'm more concerned with how I can better serve the Lord in our current kingdom of the Church.


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 30, 2013)

Israel said:


> All our growth in Christ takes place through the Holy Spirit..._in_ the church.
> 
> There are certain truths...facts, if we will...regarding our being. We ARE members of one another. This is neither disputable nor attainable...we are. None can make himself included...nor cause any other to be excluded. The rubber seems to meet the road in how we tend to define, both for ourselves...and others...who, or what, the Church is. But regardless of our "self-ly" prejudices...she is.
> 
> ...



Amen, I don't always understand you but again this time I do. Amen to "love & joy". 
Also as we talk about the "Church", is the Bride of Christ, mentioned in the Bible, the Church? The reason I asked is because when a couple get married two become one.


----------



## bigdawg25 (May 30, 2013)

rjcruiser said:


> I agree with the council of Nicea...problem is...there were always people coming up with false doctrines.  We have it in Acts with the first council of Jerusalem.  That dealt with a tradition/work too
> 
> I guess the problem is that at the Nicean Council, you had the Bishop of Rome take a leadership position....and never relinquieshed that leadership position.  Almost as if what they said was regarded as more important than what others had to say.  That is why I think it "started" there.
> 
> Works...*Transubstantiation...indulgences...immaculate conception*....just a few of the Doctrines that I'd disagree with the Catholic Church on.



indulgences are a non issue in modern day Catholic church, but for the other two, I too have my reservations. 

Then we come to "works" and I really think that is the single most important reason for my preference for Catholic church. You can look up at what early church did, and you'll find ample evidence that "works" was accepted part of the doctrine well before council of nicea, and by that logic, it means that it wasnt some Roman govt conspiracy (as you might say) but truly an original piece of doctrine surviving from earliest times.


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 30, 2013)

If the Bride of Christ is the Church, we've got a lot of work ahead of us to make two become one.
I don't know what to do about it other than pray but I hate to see the division.


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 30, 2013)

I believe the problem of the divisions is creeds and councils. We have no way of knowing what was inspired by God. They all say they were but how do we know? How do we know that politics didn't play a part in early creeds and councils? 
If we don't believe the early Catholic church was inspired by God then where do we start? 
Why don't we just start over from this moment on? We could start a new reformation. One where all individuals come together as Israel posted and put aside our differences and worship in "love & joy" in the image of God.

How well or how long would that work?


----------



## bigdawg25 (May 30, 2013)

Bama4me said:


> *BD... let's get this straight.  You think one guy here on this earth exercising authority over all the churches is mere semantics???*
> 
> Where do you find that principle in the New Testament?  Even with Paul's apostolic authority, there were other apostles besides him who were exercising the very same kind of authority he was exercising.  If the Pope is "the head of the church on earth", Ephesians 1:22 is a blantant falsehood.  There, we see that Jesus is head over all things to the church.  Catholicism says there's one body... but two heads (one in heaven and one on earth)???
> 
> Try to find the Pope's position and authority in Scripture... *you can't unless you subscribe to the philosophy of "the church defines Scripture"* rather than the other way around.



Bama4me, dont you think Jesus himself appointed peter as head of the early church? if you do then how can Jesus be head of the church when he himself put Peter at that position? either way this topic is something which I havent read much about; so I'll let Gordon or Dominic chip in on this one. 

the thing is we all subscribe to "church defines scripture" because if we didnt, then we wont have 33000 denominations which rang from churches accepting free will to churches which say everything is "predestined". The way scripture is written, its conflicting at tons of places, and it always has required the need to interpret it one way or another, and the most common way people learn about their interpretations is through the churches they attend.  I can show you support for both free will and predestination in Bible, but at the end of the day you cant say that you believe in "both", you'll have to bet one way or another. I just find that there is this double standard that when different protestant churches interpret it one way or another, then its merely a denominational difference; but when Catholic church does (and did) the same thing, its a separate religion.


----------



## bigdawg25 (May 30, 2013)

Artfuldodger said:


> I believe the problem of the divisions is creeds and councils. We have no way of knowing what was inspired by God. *They all say they were but how do we know? How do we know that politics didn't play a part in early creeds and councils? *
> If we don't believe the early Catholic church was inspired by God then where do we start?
> Why don't we just start over from this moment on? We could start a new reformation. *One where all individuals come together as Israel posted and put aside our differences and worship in "love & joy" in the image of God.*
> 
> How well or how long would that work?



the simple answer is that there is no way for us to know that we can only speculate. However we can choose to believe that everything they did or didnt do was inspired by Holy Spirit, and we need "faith" in that as much as we have faith in God itself.

what you say it a great idea of starting all  over; however if and when that happens, it wont be called Christianity; its the same way when we hit reset button on Judaism.


----------



## Ronnie T (May 30, 2013)

Dominic said:


> The Catholic Church really is not interested in popular opinion, and does not care if things "sit well" with people. The Church is interested only in what sits well with God.
> 
> "It (The Catholic Church) is the only thing that frees a man from the degrading slavery of being a child of his age. " - G.K. Chesterton



Dom, your above comment is what brought about the latest scramble of comments in this discussion.

I'm afraid many of us had problem with both the statements.

I'll have G.K. Chesterton know that it is faith in Jesus Christ that will free a man from the degrading slavery of this age.  Not your church or any other church.

In Revelations, what does John say concerning the popes who have already died and entered into the heaven(as he describes the scene)?  Does John speak of the pope being involved in the return of Christ and the subsequent movement of the Lord's church into God's heavenly home?

Did either of the apostles speak of the Pope?
Did Jesus ever speak of the pope?  Maybe it was in the latter chapters of John's gospel (where Jesus was preparing His apostles for His death and their continuing on) that John mentions the pope or mentions a time when the church will 'reorganize' from that organization which the apostles established into the modern day Catholic church's organization and function today.

Don't you see why your above comments cause such responses?
For those outside your church, the Catholic church doesn't even resemble the church that the New Testament describes.

So you're gonna have to provide some sort of evolutionary process for us to understand.


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 30, 2013)

bigdawg25 said:


> the simple answer is that there is no way for us to know that we can only speculate. However we can choose to believe that everything they did or didnt do was inspired by Holy Spirit, and we need "faith" in that as much as we have faith in God itself.
> 
> what you say it a great idea of starting all  over; however if and when that happens, it wont be called Christianity; its the same way when we hit reset button on Judaism.



You don't look at the Protestant Reformation as "starting over?"


----------



## Ronnie T (May 30, 2013)

Artfuldodger said:


> I believe the problem of the divisions is creeds and councils. We have no way of knowing what was inspired by God. They all say they were but how do we know? How do we know that politics didn't play a part in early creeds and councils?
> If we don't believe the early Catholic church was inspired by God then where do we start?
> Why don't we just start over from this moment on? We could start a new reformation. One where all individuals come together as Israel posted and put aside our differences and worship in "love & joy" in the image of God.
> 
> How well or how long would that work?



I think there are probably Christians in most every community who have already set out to do just that.
It is possible.


----------



## bigdawg25 (May 30, 2013)

Artfuldodger said:


> You don't look at the Protestant Reformation as "starting over?"



maybe in 1500s I do, but not the present protestant church because when I see every denomination claiming that they are the one "true" church and everyone of not only other religions but even other denominations are going to he!!, I'd say to myself that who made them experts in that. Every denomination uses their favorite part of scripture to support their viewpoint, and disregards all the other opposing ones. 

the only thing which can solve this problem is either new revelations or something of that sort which can unify Christians.


----------



## Bama4me (May 30, 2013)

bigdawg25 said:


> Bama4me, dont you think Jesus himself appointed peter as head of the early church? if you do then how can Jesus be head of the church when he himself put Peter at that position? either way this topic is something which I havent read much about; so I'll let Gordon or Dominic chip in on this one.
> 
> the thing is we all subscribe to "church defines scripture" because if we didnt, then we wont have 33000 denominations which rang from churches accepting free will to churches which say everything is "predestined". The way scripture is written, its conflicting at tons of places, and it always has required the need to interpret it one way or another, and the most common way people learn about their interpretations is through the churches they attend.  I can show you support for both free will and predestination in Bible, but at the end of the day you cant say that you believe in "both", you'll have to bet one way or another. I just find that there is this double standard that when different protestant churches interpret it one way or another, then its merely a denominational difference; but when Catholic church does (and did) the same thing, its a separate religion.



You bring up some interesting ideas, but I disagree that churches are supposed to define Scripture. Some might operate in that fashion, but I'm going to belong to one which operates the other way around... per 2 Timothy 2:15. Scripture can be easily twisted, but 1 Corinthians 1:10 commands us to be of the same mind and the same judgment. The fact God commanded it means it can be attained... but people must approach Scripture with an open mind and an unbiased understanding.

Regarding Peter being appointed "head of the church" by Christ, it originates from a twisting of Matthew 16:18.  If you go back and research the terms in the passage, you will find that the term "petra" is what Jesus would build His church upon... not "Petros", Peter himself.  The rock Jesus was referring to was Peter's statement in 2 verses earlier... the fact that Jesus is the Son of God.  Go to the book of Acts and see what was preached... Jesus being the Son of God.

Regarding " the keys to the kingdom" one verse later, it would be a reference to Peter preaching the first gospel message to mankind in Acts 2. If one believes Peter was the first Pope, there are three huge issues that must be addressed. One, why does the NT claim multiple times that Jesus is the head of the church (not co-head, head only in heaven, etc.)... singular in nature? Two, why was Peter allowed to be married but subsequent Popes were not? Three, where in the book of Acts do you see Peter being the sole leader of the church? If anything, the role was shared with other apostles... and a greater case could be made that Paul filled that role more completely.

BTW, check a concordance and see how many times the NT states that Christ is the head of the church.


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 30, 2013)

bigdawg25 said:


> maybe in 1500s I do, but not the present protestant church because when I see every denomination claiming that they are the one "true" church and everyone of not only other religions but even other denominations are going to he!!, I'd say to myself that who made them experts in that. Every denomination uses their favorite part of scripture to support their viewpoint, and disregards all the other opposing ones.
> 
> the only thing which can solve this problem is either new revelations or something of that sort which can unify Christians.



What is your final answer? In other words as we search for the "true church" what are we to do? 
Suppose I just converted and have no previous Christian indoctrination. What do you suggest I do?


----------



## bigdawg25 (May 30, 2013)

Bama4me said:


> You bring up some interesting ideas, but I disagree that churches are supposed to define Scripture. *Some might operate in that fashion, but I'm going to belong to one which operates the other way around*... per 2 Timothy 2:15. Scripture can be easily twisted, but 1 Corinthians 1:10 commands us to be of the same mind and the same judgment. The fact God commanded it means it can be attained... but people must approach Scripture with an open mind and an unbiased understanding.
> 
> Regarding Peter being appointed "head of the church" by Christ, it originates from a twisting of Matthew 16:18.  If you go back and research the terms in the passage, you will find that the term "petra" is what Jesus would build His church upon... not "Petros", Peter himself.  The rock Jesus was referring to was Peter's statement in 2 verses earlier... the fact that Jesus is the Son of God.  Go to the book of Acts and see what was preached... Jesus being the Son of God.
> 
> ...



I'll look up the stuff you said Bama4me; these are things I havnt come across before, maybe because I mind was already biased and I dont go on forums much to talk religion. 

What you say about putting scripture before church is easier said then done, because as humans we will consciously or subconsciously have biases; however I wish you well in your endeavor, and hopefully I'll find all such answers someday too.


----------



## bigdawg25 (May 30, 2013)

Artfuldodger said:


> What is your final answer? In other words as we search for the "true church" what are we to do?
> Suppose I just converted and have no previous Christian indoctrination. What do you suggest I do?



I dont know Artfuldodger. I really dont. at this point in life I think the best thing for me is to not go to any church and develop my spirituality by reading theology, scripture, and history, and limit my exposure to any biases which one will invariably be exposed to if they go to church. I think the only thing working for me right now is developing my own personal connection to God.

However, as I had said before, I believe in Catholic concept of "good works" and I try to do that in my free time too because if it wont give me any special favor or salvation, then atleast it will bring me joy of doing good.


----------



## Ronnie T (May 30, 2013)

bigdawg25 said:


> I dont know Artfuldodger. I really dont. at this point in life I think the best thing for me is to not go to any church and develop my spirituality by reading theology, scripture, and history, and limit my exposure to any biases which one will invariably be exposed to if they go to church. I think the only thing working for me right now is developing my own personal connection to God.
> 
> However, as I had said before, I believe in Catholic concept of "good works" and I try to do that in my free time too because if it wont give me any special favor or salvation, then atleast it will bring me joy of doing good.



  All of we Christians need to be more involved in doing good.


----------



## Bama4me (May 30, 2013)

Dominic said:


> But where did the tradition of calling it “apostolic authority” come from? I cannot find the term in the Bible?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



What would you call apostles exercising their authority? It seems pretty descriptive. I could ask you the very same thing about what you refer to as "transubstantiation"... a term not found in Scripture.

Make sure you accurately represent Peter's words in 2 Peter 3:16... speaking of Paul's letters (note: Paul was only one penman of NT letters), it says that there are SOME things (not all things) that are hard to understand. BTW, people who twist Scripture aren't limited to only one general religious group. I'd agree about Jones/Koresh... but I have no connection with them, nor do I blindly follow any religious leaders.

I'm not even going to begin to "source" the claim that for many years the catholic church suppressed knowledge of Scripture from the "common man." You can claim it was solely because the official catholic bibles were written in Latin - and that average people couldn't read it. The test came when people like Wycliffe and Hus began printing bibles in languages people could understand. What did catholicism do to these men - applaud them? Nope... they persecuted them because when people depended on clergy to tell them what God said, catholicism maintained power (something catholicism has been interested in going all the way to the Roman regime).

Why is the person taken before the church to be judged? Because Scripture mandates it... not because the church is somehow superior to Scripture. If Scripture didn't say it, how would you know what to do?

Jesus condemned the oral tradition of the Jews... due to exactly what catholicism has done with Scripture - making void the word of God (Matthew 15:6). Jesus would later ensure that accounts of His spoken message would be written down... we have His message preserved in the written form of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

I was taught from a young age to NEVER accept what a religious group teaches/practices simply because that's what is taught/practiced. I was taught to do exactly what the Berean Jews did in Acts 17:11. When Paul taught them a spiritual message, they searched the Scriptures to see if those things were so.

Your last statement seems to imply that you don't think common people can interpret God's word. So you believe that an all-powerful and all-knowing God can't produce a revelation that can be understood by all? Again, Christ clearly stated we CAN know the truth... and that truth will set us free. Certainly, we are warned to avoid twisting Scripture (2 Peter 3:16) and to not handle it wrongly (2 Timothy 2:15). However, to read those passages to mean "we can't understand God's word without help of a religious group" is an idea that goes FAR beyond those verses.


----------



## Dominic (May 30, 2013)

Ronnie T said:


> Dom, your above comment is what brought about the latest scramble of comments in this discussion.
> 
> I'm afraid many of us had problem with both the statements.
> 
> ...



So my post #50 lead you to go back in time make post #48 and then it took almost 75 more post to let me know what upset you, and then you want to continue to discuss your #48 which you made before my post #50. 

Interesting.


----------



## Bama4me (May 30, 2013)

bigdawg25 said:


> I dont know Artfuldodger. I really dont. at this point in life I think the best thing for me is to not go to any church and develop my spirituality by reading theology, scripture, and history, and limit my exposure to any biases which one will invariably be exposed to if they go to church. I think the only thing working for me right now is developing my own personal connection to God.
> 
> However, as I had said before, I believe in Catholic concept of "good works" and I try to do that in my free time too because if it wont give me any special favor or salvation, then atleast it will bring me joy of doing good.



Any religious group following New Testament teachings will focus on "good works". Ephesians 2:10 claims we"re created in Christ Jesus FOR good works. A Christian who doesn't believe in doing good works is a Christian who is ignorant of passages like this and Titus 2:11-14.

Don't be afraid of being exposed to religious groups... just be sure to give them the "Berean Test" (Acts 17:11.  1 Thessalonians 5:21 indicates we should test everything and hold fast to what is good. Can't go wrong relying on these passages and others like Colossians 3:17.


----------



## Bama4me (May 30, 2013)

bigdawg25 said:


> I'll look up the stuff you said Bama4me; these are things I havnt come across before, maybe because I mind was already biased and I dont go on forums much to talk religion.
> 
> What you say about putting scripture before church is easier said then done, because as humans we will consciously or subconsciously have biases; however I wish you well in your endeavor, and hopefully I'll find all such answers someday too.



Wish you well in your search... and if I can do anything to help, I'd be happy to do so. It's not as complicated as many seem to make it out to be.


----------



## Bama4me (May 31, 2013)

Dominic... since I've taken time to answer questions you have asked, I'll ask the same of you.

First, where does Scripture say that the pope is the "head of the church on earth"... or the "Vicar of Christ"?

Second, where does Scripture claim that a church leader is infallible so long as he/she is speaking a message from God?

Third, outside of an apostle exercising authority over a church (as Paul did in 1 Corinthians 5:1ff and by sending a representative in places like Titus 1:5ff), show me in the Bible where one man oversees a local congregation.

Fourth, where in Scripture are we commanded to worship saints of the past... people like Mary and Peter?

Finally, do you believe the Bible can be understood without aid of the church and/or religious leaders?


----------



## Dominic (May 31, 2013)

Bama4me said:


> Make sure you accurately represent Peter's words in 2 Peter 3:16... speaking of Paul's letters (note: Paul was only one penman of NT letters).



Are you saying St. Paul wrote 2 Peter?


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 31, 2013)

bigdawg25 said:


> I dont know Artfuldodger. I really dont. at this point in life I think the best thing for me is to not go to any church and develop my spirituality by reading theology, scripture, and history, and limit my exposure to any biases which one will invariably be exposed to if they go to church. I think the only thing working for me right now is developing my own personal connection to God.
> 
> However, as I had said before, I believe in Catholic concept of "good works" and I try to do that in my free time too because if it wont give me any special favor or salvation, then atleast it will bring me joy of doing good.



Yeah I don't really know either. I think you have the right idea. I'm trying to do that too. Putting aside my indoctrination and searching for the truth on my own. When I say on my own, I don't mean without the help of fellow Christians and i'm even listening to dead Christians. Just their writings they aren't talking to me.
But mostly the Bible and hopefully guided by the Holy Spirit.
I can't deny good works either. Too many verses about helping our fellow man.


----------



## bigdawg25 (May 31, 2013)

Artfuldodger said:


> Yeah I don't really know either. I think you have the right idea. I'm trying to do that too. Putting aside my indoctrination and searching for the truth on my own. When I say on my own, I don't mean without the help of fellow Christians and i'm even listening to dead Christians. Just their writings they aren't talking to me.
> But mostly the Bible and hopefully guided by the Holy Spirit.
> I can't deny good works either. Too many verses about helping our fellow man.



I also try to talk with Christians and most of the theology I am reading is written by devout Christians, some even originally written 350 years ago. I cant say that any of that speaks to me completely because if it did, I would've already found a church. However, I am becoming more at peace with the reality this place is not bad to be in, and sooner or later, I'll find what I am looking for.


----------



## Dominic (May 31, 2013)

I am more than happy to answer your questions. Yet I will not restrict myself to the untenable doctrine of Sola scriptura. 




Bama4me said:


> First, where does Scripture say that the pope is the "head of the church on earth"... or the "Vicar of Christ"?



In Isaias 22:21-22 we see the appointing of Eliacim as steward or vicar by giving him the key to the House of David. In Matthew 16:19 Christ repeats these words appointing St. Peter His steward or vicar. In John 21 we see Christ asking St. Peter to “Ποίμαινε (Poimanie)” Greek for rule, govern, tend, or shepherd His sheep, again giving St. Peter authority. 

The Pope is the successor of St. Peter just as Eliacim was the successor of Sobna. If you believe that the Church would exist on Earth until Christ return, then it is necessary that Christ would not leave a leaderless Church after one generation. 

Now what do the Early Church Fathers have to say

On Apostolic Succession
"And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus saith the Scripture a certain place, 'I will appoint their bishops s in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.'... Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry...For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties." Pope Clement, Epistle to Corinthians, 42, 44 (A.D. 98).

On the Apostolic See in Rome

"The Church of God which sojourns in Rome to the Church of God which sojourns in Corinth....If anyone disobey the things which have been said by Him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger." Pope Clement of Rome [regn. c A.D.91-101], 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, 1,59:1 (c. A.D. 96).

"Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Mast High God the Father, and of Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is sanctified and enlightened by the will of God, who farmed all things that are according to the faith and love of Jesus Christ, our God and Saviour; the Church which presides in the place of the region of the Romans, and which is worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of credit, worthy of being deemed holy, and which presides over love..." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Romans, Prologue (A.D. 110).

On St. Peter’s Successor
"The Church of God which sojourns in Rome to the Church of God which sojourns in Corinth....If anyone disobey the things which have been said by Him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger." Pope Clement of Rome [regn. c A.D.91-101], 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, 1,59:1 (c. A.D. 96). 
"Thereupon Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the common unity the parishes of all Asia, with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox; and he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicate..." Pope Victor I [regn. A.D. 189-198], in Eusebius EH, 24:9 (A.D. 192). 
"Stephen, that he who so boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid...Stephen, who announces that he holds by succession the throne of Peter." Pope Stephen I [regn. A.D. 254-257], Firmilian to Cyprian, Epistle 74/75:17 (A.D. 256). 
"I beseech you, readily bear with me: what I write is for the common good. For what we have received from the blessed Apostle Peter s, that I signify to you; and I should not have written this, as deeming that these things were manifest unto all men, had not these proceedings so disturbed us." Pope Julius [regn. A.D. 337-352], To the Eusebians, fragment in Athanasius' Against the Arians, 2:35 (c. A.D. 345). 
"Why then do you again ask me for the condemnation of Timotheus? Here, by the judgment of the apostolic see, in the presence of Peter, bishop of Alexandria, he was condemned, together with his teacher, Apollinarius, who will also in the day of judgment undergo due punishment and torment. But if he succeeds in persuading some less stable men, as though having some hope, after by his confession changing the true hope which is in Christ, with him shall likewise perish whoever of set purpose withstands the order of the Church. May God keep you sound, most honoured sons." Pope Damasus [regn. A.D. 366-384], To the Eastern Bishops, fragment in Theodoret's EH, 5:10 (c. A.D. 372). 




Bama4me said:


> Second, where does Scripture claim that a church leader is infallible so long as he/she is speaking a message from God?



Scripture cannot claim anything.  St. Peter, the First Pope, wrote two infallible books of the New Testament 1Peter and 2 Peter, through his office as vicar of Christ he is allowed to pass on this authority. Looking at Early Church Fathers we can see that they held to the infallibility of the Papal office. 

"Where the charismata of the Lord are given, there must we seek the truth, with those to whom belongs the ecclesiastical succession from the Apostles, and the unadulterated and incorruptible word. It is they who …are the guardians of our faith…and securely expound the Scriptures to us" Irenaeus (Against Heresies 4:26:5, 180-199 AD).

"Would the heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" Cyprian of Carthage (Letters 59 [55], 14). 



Bama4me said:


> Third, outside of an apostle exercising authority over a church (as Paul did in 1 Corinthians 5:1ff and by sending a representative in places like Titus 1:5ff), show me in the Bible where one man oversees a local congregation.



I guess I would like to first know where it says it cannot.



Bama4me said:


> Fourth, where in Scripture are we commanded to worship saints of the past... people like Mary and Peter?



Nowhere. In fact worship is reserved for God and God alone, which is why the Catholics do not worship Saints.




Bama4me said:


> Finally, do you believe the Bible can be understood without aid of the church and/or religious leaders?



I believe that scripture is not open to personal interpretation, and that divinely inspired writing must be accompanied by divinely inspired reading and understanding. 

We see St. Peter cautioning us against personal interpretation, and that understanding scripture is hard. In Acts 8 we see the Ethiopian, clearly an educated telling St. Phillip “how can I understand unless you show me”. St. Phillip was guided by the spirit to the help this man. If St. Phillip believed as you do why did he not just tell the Ethiopian to call on the Holy Spirit, instead of climbing into chariot and guiding the man? 
Should Catholics read the Bible? Absolutely

Should Catholics ask the Holy Spirit to guide them? Absolutely

Should Catholics desert the teachings of the Church based on personal interpretation of scripture? 

“Those, therefore, who desert the preaching of the Church, call in question the knowledge of the holy presbyters, not taking into consideration of how much greater consequence is a religious man, even in a private station, than a blasphemous and impudent sophist. Now, such are all the heretics, and those who imagine that they have hit upon something more beyond the truth, so that by following those things already mentioned, proceeding on their way variously, in harmoniously, and foolishly, not keeping always to the same opinions with regard to the same things, as blind men are led by the blind, they shall deservedly fall into the ditch of ignorance lying in their path, ever seeking and never finding out the truth. It behooves us, therefore, to avoid their doctrines, and to take careful heed lest we suffer any injury from them; but to flee to the Church, and be brought up in her bosom, and be nourished with the Lord's Scriptures." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 5,20:2 (A.D. 180).

Absolutely not.


Where in the Bible is the Canon of the Bible?

The first book of the New Testament was not written until 45 AD the last around 90 AD. In the twelve years between the Resurrection and the writing of Galatians what did people do? Without the Bible how did people know what to believe without being able to read it for themselves?


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 31, 2013)

The Catholic funeral I attended was interesting. It had lots of beautiful singing, and organ music. Their was quite a bit of ceremony involved. I did have a hard time understanding the Priest because he was from a foreign land and I couldn't understand everything he said. I did hear him refer to Mary as Mother of God. Catholics do have a different view of that. Jesus being God in the human form and Mary being his Mother. They understand that Mary isn't the Mother of God the Father or that she isn't older than God.
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/mary-mother-of-god


----------



## centerpin fan (May 31, 2013)

Dominic said:


> On Apostolic Succession
> "And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus saith the Scripture a certain place, 'I will appoint their bishops s in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.'... Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry...For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties." Pope Clement, Epistle to Corinthians, 42, 44 (A.D. 98).
> 
> On the Apostolic See in Rome
> ...



What is your source for this?  I can see where the quotes themselves come from, but I'm asking about the text I've highlighted in blue.  Who wrote that?


----------



## Dominic (May 31, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> What is your source for this?  I can see where the quotes themselves come from, but I'm asking about the text I've highlighted in blue.  Who wrote that?



The quotes come from 

http://www.scripturecatholic.com/

The text you highlighted comes from notes I made in my copies of the writtings of the early church fathers.


Another good site for the Early Church Fathers is http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/


----------



## Bama4me (May 31, 2013)

Thanks for answering... it really helps me understand the differences.

At this point, I don't feel as if continuing the discussion is of any benefit. I do not recognize papal authority, the catholic church, or early church fathers. I only recognize the authority of Christ, His apostles appointed in the 1st Century, and the inspired writers of the New Testament. I also believe I can read/understand Scripture without the assistance of the clergy/church.

I thinks it's fairly clear you believe the opposite of these things... and because of these differences, we don't have common ground to carry the discussion further. Thanks again for answering the questions I posed.


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 31, 2013)

Bama4me said:


> I only recognize the authority of Christ, His apostles appointed in the 1st Century, and the inspired writers of the New Testament. I also believe I can read/understand Scripture without the assistance of the clergy/church.



What year did the Holy Spirit quit guiding the Non Catholic preachers, elders, bishops, deacons, teachers, and clergy?
I ask this because I want to make sure I purge all non inspired reading material from my library. 
I'll probably want to quit listening to  all the current preachers too.
I do agree on your best way to read the Scripture.


----------



## Dominic (May 31, 2013)

Bama4me said:


> Make sure you accurately represent Peter's words in 2 Peter 3:16... speaking of Paul's letters (note: Paul was only one penman of NT letters).






Dominic said:


> Are you saying St. Paul wrote 2 Peter?



Could you just answer this for me?


----------



## Bama4me (May 31, 2013)

Artfuldodger said:


> What year did the Holy Spirit quit guiding the Non Catholic preachers, elders, bishops, deacons, teachers, and clergy?
> I ask this because I want to make sure I purge all non inspired reading material from my library.
> I'll probably want to quit listening to  all the current preachers too.
> I do agree on your best way to read the Scripture.



It's a very good question... but a totally different direction than this thread topic. However, I'll offer this... I'm NOT saying that non-inspired authos/books have no value. They do, however, possess the ability to be wrong.


----------



## centerpin fan (May 31, 2013)

Dominic said:


> The quotes come from
> 
> http://www.scripturecatholic.com/




Based on the references to "Pope" Clement and "Pope" Victor, I figured it had to be a Catholic source:




Dominic said:


> On Apostolic Succession
> "And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus saith the Scripture a certain place, 'I will appoint their bishops s in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.'... Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry...For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties." Pope Clement, Epistle to Corinthians, 42, 44 (A.D. 98).
> 
> On the Apostolic See in Rome
> ...


----------



## Bama4me (May 31, 2013)

Dominic said:


> Could you just answer this for me?



Not asserting that... was just pointing out that Peter was commenting on SOME of Paul's writings.  This means not ALL of Paul's writings were difficult to understand. And, he was only one of several NT writers. Thus, what Peter was saying amounted to only a small portion of Scripture being described as "difficult to understand". Sorry to word it in a confusing manner.


----------



## Israel (Jun 1, 2013)

Perhaps all of scripture is impossible to understand...until we do?
Suppose I read this: Love one another, as I have loved you.

And I say to myself, "I know what this means, it means we are to love one another as Jesus has loved us"

And then presume, since I am convinced this is so simple to understand, I am able to teach others...

But...when I get to the point of "how much do you love me, Lord?"
I may begin to see I have everything to learn. 
Something must usurp this thing in me that lusts to "straighten everyone else out" that uses the excuse of "I just want to help you" for exerting itself, that indeed, loves to think of itself as a helper (and never as the destitutely poor "needer"), and is therefore never really a help at all.

I believe Paul came to a place where he discovered he could never "get" from other disciples, despite his wisdom, despite his insights, despite his zeal...this thing  that would satisfy his unsettledness when confronted with what he saw as their lack of understanding, ignorance, limited spiritual vision. 

This unsettledness we all feel when facing things that contradict our understandings of things we seem to so plainly see...can only be removed when we finally see (and this I believe remains a continual ministry of the spirit to us) that IF, we do indeed see anything at all...even what we consider the most basic, fundamental, (to us) easily grasped TRUTH, it is only because we have been GIVEN to see...and that sight can become blindness in the moment we forget, refuse to be reminded, or deny this.
A man can receive nothing except it be given him from above.
And then...that "unsettledness" disappears when we see we are nothing of ourselves..."our" understandings (if we really have any at all) are not "our own"...and the only one who is able to open any eyes...can be trusted with what is his...because we "see" we didn't even open our own eyes. 

I think Paul got very weary of his own efforts, saw plainly that his "own" exasperation was not the Lord's at all, and got to where he could say what he saw of the Lord...in the humility of what caused him to even say "and I believe I, too, have the spirit of God"...and also"If any man be otherwise minded, the Lord is able to convince him also"...for he stopped being after anything but Christ alone...and knew in that...God had purposed he would accomplish all through Paul that he (the Lord) desired.

I am not sure if this is true, but it comes to mind as though I have heard it...or read it somewhere. A hunting dog (pup)is often best trained by other dogs "on the hunt". What would a hunting party of disciples look like? Be able to accomplish?...when all anyone could see of them is noses to the ground...ears open to every whisper that may contain a hint of where their prize is directing them, eyes keen for any movement that might show his whereabouts and what he is doing...right now?
The more seasoned may hang back...willingly...with the younger...just to help...but just as well...to behold their "Joy" in discovery. They may no longer care much for seeking to be at the head of the pack.
(As once seemed so keen a desire to them.) 

For they have learned the one they seek is just as able to appear "behind" them...as ahead.


----------



## gordon 2 (Jun 1, 2013)

Israel said:


> Perhaps all of scripture is impossible to understand...until we do?
> Suppose I read this: Love one another, as I have loved you.
> 
> And I say to myself, "I know what this means, it means we are to love one another as Jesus has loved us"
> ...



Finally!!!!!Finally!!!!!!!!! I don't have to hang back for you Isreal! I can chart my own course again... My ministering to you has been all worth while.  This is proof that you can dicipline your mind to write sentences in the custom of the english language, which convey... your ordinary ( orderly, organized) thinking. And once more there is a beauty to your prose...when it is usual communication! 

Now to my own course... and how to make my big catholic tomahawk smash all the little protestant ones. Yea right. 

-------------------------

In all seriousness Isreal...your post is very interesting, but also your mind is writing neat sentences lately....

Also I'd like to say this final thing: The fathers of America were liberals which are now being proped up by conservatives, political and spiritual. The liberal experiment sort of hit a sand bar under George Bush. Obama is the scape goat, the wipping boy... 

The whole experiment was in great part made fertile by religion ( denominations Calvinism and Methodism). They created a new man.  Today when we ask this new man to question his religious and dogmatic views we ask of him alot-- and I mean alot.

We ask him to question his very identity and his place in america, in the world, and his spiritual outlooks and to make judgements on himself, his past and his persent. Their are two grand things  to do for this man: sink in one's heals to the past and its ideas or see into the future. I personally think Christ invites us to see in the future--because of scripture, faith, traditions, and common sense. And that spiritually and morally our post-modern world is in shambles.

We are all going to experience a reformation soon that will rub out all other reformations as baby drivel. We are going to have to make it happen because the last ones, catholic and protestants, are failures. There are too many spiriutal compasses pointing in different directions.  Our reformations have no more continents, oceans or peoples to conqour or souls to take. Everything,  every natural material that could be shaken and taken has been taken and shaken. Every bit of Holy Spirit that the children of these reformations possessed and still possess is to the brim in this man's soul.

There is not more room for God in our souls, what we have of Him is all we are going to get, even if faith informes us there is much more-- Our heart are occluded by four hundred yrs of spiritual vanities. We are breathing in the Spirit,  for a stent called unmeritted grace. But we are unable to breath enought to even get a rest, let alone work out our salvations. Salvation now is  our morphine--for the pains of our many disgraces as christians. Our eyes are clogged by catharacts and rimmed by spiritual colestorals of birth via the reformations. Life is now something to fight to have--like the many things we lived to aquire. We are not steady, not limber, not fit enought for a fuller life to be. Our actions and movements are consentration on the machanical--getting along is hope in seeing one more day. Our spiritual economies are bankrupt.

Now who-what will the next liberals be? The next reformation? And who will be it's next Paul and convert from the conservative ranks? Having exausted the continents' resources, the political and spiritual capital of our reformations--from what clouds will a newer man come from-- and he will come--because he must: there are far to many gospels in today's man.

Or will we continue in currencies as when men litterally and spiritually traded in tulips--both catholics and protestants alike? Sometin gona give... a dam is gona bust somewhere--Christ is about to send us mountain climbers, virgins and the fruits of the cross. If Isreal can write proper sentences, anything is possible in the Kingdom.


----------



## Dominic (Jun 1, 2013)

Bama4me said:


> Thanks for answering... it really helps me understand the differences.
> 
> At this point, I don't feel as if continuing the discussion is of any benefit. I do not recognize papal authority, the catholic church, or early church fathers. I only recognize the authority of Christ, His apostles appointed in the 1st Century, and the inspired writers of the New Testament. I also believe I can read/understand Scripture without the assistance of the clergy/church.
> 
> I thinks it's fairly clear you believe the opposite of these things... and because of these differences, we don't have common ground to carry the discussion further. Thanks again for answering the questions I posed.



I don't think we believe the opposite of each other, I believe in the authority of Christ, His apostles appointed in the 1st Century, and the inspired writers of the New Testament. I have to they are the foundation of my faith and builders of the Catholic Church.

I think much of it comes down to this 



Bama4me said:


> I also believe I can read/understand Scripture without the assistance of the clergy/church.






Bama4me said:


> Not asserting that... was just pointing out that Peter was commenting on SOME of Paul's writings.  This means not ALL of Paul's writings were difficult to understand. And, he was only one of several NT writers. Thus, what Peter was saying amounted to only a small portion of Scripture being described as "difficult to understand". Sorry to word it in a confusing manner.




_2 Peter 3:16
As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction._

You and I view this passage in a very different way. You say that St. Peter was only talking about "SOME of Paul's writings" and "a small portion of Scripture". I see it differently because if the part in RED above "as they do also the other scriptures". Here I see St. Peter talking about St. Paul's writings, but St. Peter had reason to mention "other scriptures" taking his meaning beyond that of St. Paul's writings alone. 

Thank you for your time...

In the words of Pope Francis from the Homily that started this whole thread

_



			We are created children in the likeness of God and the Blood of Christ has redeemed us all! And we all have a duty to do good. And this commandment for everyone to do good, I think, is a beautiful path towards peace. If we, each doing our own part, if we do good to others, if we meet there, doing good, and we go slowly, gently, little by little, we will make that culture of encounter: we need that so much. We must meet one another doing good.
		
Click to expand...

_


Veritas


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 1, 2013)

I'm not a Catholic, was raised Protestant (Baptist). Now I'm Christian only. Nothing wrong with belonging to something extra. In fact it might help someone in their faith to belong to a Church that teaches the nuances of what they as individuals believe.
I would never say or hopefully I haven't said that a certain Church isn't a part of Christ as long as they all believe that the only way to Heaven is Jesus. I might have said differently earlier in my faith and if I have I apologize. 
I understand false preachers/teachers and Churches but probably every Church gets some of it wrong. I know I do. Hopefully not enough to matter.
I'm not doubting the power of man in the form of teachers as we all learn everything we know about God from God through man. Well most religious stuff. I'd have to also include plants, animals, & nature as teachers too.
But I can't give up my power or free will to blame my faith or lack there of on someone else. For this reason I must not rely on no other man but me for my faith, the man Jesus for his sacrifice and his Father God for his gift of grace.


----------



## Israel (Jun 2, 2013)

Gordon.
Blessed are those who hunger and thirst after righteousness. 
But feeling hunger and thirst...is not pleasant...till it brings the thing for which it is given.

It is not our "own" hunger...nor our "own" thirst.



Joh_19:28  After this, Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the scripture might be fulfilled, saith, 


I thirst.


Yes indeed.


----------

