ChristiansUnite Forums

Tibby said:
I think you misunderstand, A4C. By the Church, they are Referring the Christianity. By the Catholic belief, Baptist, Methodists, all true Christians are part of the “Catholic” church. When they say “The Church” they mean Christianity. If you had bother to read more then the quotes, you would know this. This is clearly stated by the Catechism. When they say “No one can be saved outside the church” What they are saying is you have to be Christian, no Muslims, no Buddhist, no Taoists, on Gnostics, no Tribal shaman, no one who isn’t Christian. Do you not agree? Because, this is what they are talking about. If you truly read the Catechism, you would know this.
(Re:Roman Catholic Religion
« Reply #17 on: December 18, 2003, 04:38:04 PM »)

  But the 1971 Catholic Almanac defines "Heresy" as: "the formal and obstinate denial or doubt by a baptized person, who remains a nominal Christian, of any truth which must be believed as a matter of divine and Catholic faith. Formal heresy involves deliberate resistance to the authority of God who communicates revelation through Sacred Scripture and tradition and the teaching authority of the Church. Obstinate refusal to accept the infallible teaching of the Church constitutes the crime of heresy.
  Formal heretics (Canon 1325 of the Code of Canon Law) automatically incur the penalty of excommunication. Material heretics are those who, in good faith and without formal obstinancy, do not accept articles or matters of divine and Catholic faith."

Since the Almanac is from 1971, I'm wondering if the info is outdated maybe? Has the definition changed? And if it still holds, wouldn't that put all Protestants under the category of 'heretics'?

 ???
 

I agree

Not only does the Roman Catholic church, define itself as "The" Church, when speaking of Chritisnity, it is the pillar and ground of truth of 1 Tim 3:15.

But, it decides who is and who isn't a heretic, based on whether people believe her doctrines or not.

Not whether persons adhere to what the Word of God teaches.

This made clear by their canon, which excommunicates anyone who denies, her teachings, today, and considers a heretic anyone who won't accept her doctrines.

Better to be excommunicated or viewed as a heretic, then burn in eternal fire, I say.

I Agree...


Blessings,
Petro

You guys agree? You argee on what? You agree on the question? You agree  on what?

This is the type of questionthe Vatican II tried to answer. The rulings made about the Protestants there made hunderds of years ago. It was time to rethink things. So they did. The Bible is the only unchanging word of God, the Church may have to change to as times change, to address new issues. As I said in a prevous posts "Someone had to fix Trent" ;D

A Romen would be better suited to answer this question. Where is good ol Mikey at? :)

Yes and no.
Tibby is wrong - the RCC defines the church to be the RCC plus the handful of Eastern Catholic churches in full communion with the RCC.

On the other hand, you're only a heretic if you deny a truth that the church say's you must believe, which is not everything that the church teaches to be true.

Can't be bothered to look anything up, can you, Ebia? ::)

As Ebia said, you must believe the truth to be a true Christian. The Nicene Creed is a good rule to follow. Normally group that don’t believe it are said to be heretical.

What are you accusing me of not looking up?  The official position of the RCC is that other churches are not churches (ie, not part of the one Church) at all, they are "ecclesial communities".

Other than that, I agree that the Nicene Creed (without fililoque), as the only truly whole church creed, is a pretty good standard.

"the Church may have to change to as times change, to address new issues."

Why?

Hebrews 13:8.  Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.

Does the RCC recognize the church that is mentioned in the Bible? Christ's church?
Does the RCC match the biblical description and identifying marks of the church as given by God through Christ in His word.
The true measure of Christ's church is if it is as the scriptures reveal it to be.

Ebia- Being an "ecclesial community" is one thing, that doesn't mean they arn't Chrisitans, and as Christians, they are "The Church"

Ollie- As to your first post, I think you grasps what I was saying. Jesus Christ and his word are the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever. The Church on this world has to change, so that is can stay with Gods word, while facing the issues of the day.

Now, your second post, Yes, the RCC matches the biblical description and identifying marks of the church just as good as any other church on this Earth today.

I agree with you, but Cardinal Ratzinger doesn't.

Sorry, you are goingto have to bother to look it up before I believe that.

Well, he's not said it outright in so many words, but that's what the leaders of all the main protestant churches (including the Anglican Communion - probably the protestant church in closest dialog with Rome) took his note, combined with Dominus Iesus to mean;  a huge step backwards in ecumenical relationships from Vatican II

The formation of the RCC in the 4th century is a major, if not the major, defining testimony to the authenticity of the Gospel narrative.

The testimony is in the name of an organization, or a "church", known as the RCC--and has been known as that generally since that time, for seventeen centuries.

It is a "testimony" becuase it follows the manner of earthly human behavior to the very letter, human behavior being what it is.

Attach significance to human conduct of any kind, and immediately you attract attention and, therefore, immediately, the question of ownership, jurisdiction and, "property rights".

The significance of the human "conduct" as recorded in the Gospels is of such a sort--that is, human resurrection from the dead--that by it's very definition it would naturally attract attention and "ownership" of the first order, by virtual default.  Like salesmen running to a hot new gizmo to sell on the open market, it would be irresistable.  The fact that this in fact is what happened, is a testimony to the Gospel narrative itself.  It must be true, why else the ownership claim of the very first order?

If the Gospel narrative could at all be shown to be false, this entire "property rights" issue, would be meaningless.  Obviously, no one is going to fight over a property that would then have no inherrent value--that is, the "gospel message".


It only makes sense then there would be an ongoing ownership "battle" for the rights to the gospel message--as this thread demonstrates:  "Heretics".  And it would not be any great surprise if that ownership were nothing but simply of the earth, carnal, self-interested sort.  After all, this is what our Creator came to save us from--ourselves.

If it hadn't been the RCC who claimed "ownership" of the Church, then it would have been some other group, or organization.

The moral to the story is, there had to be someone who was going to claim jurisdiction, as long as the Lord tarries.  The "property"--that is, the Good News--is too wonderful, too beautiful, to go unnoticed.  It only makes sense that there would be earthly claims--jurisdictional claims--made to that property.

Very interesting thought.

A few upstarts break off, and it becomes an issue of "Ownership" now? Can't be all just BE Christian? Ownership is one thing , having proper Authority on Earth to keep Christianity from resembling a three-ring circus is another. Look around at the anarchy of “the church.” All the heretics running around, Gnostics, Arians, televangelists. He is a God of order, not chaos. Why wouldn’t God set a structure up to keep things in there proper place? It isn’t an issue of who “owns” the Church, but who cares for it?

 Gnostics, Arians, televangelists and Roman Catholics

The Crusader

This is the type of questionthe Vatican II tried to answer. The rulings made about the Protestants there made hunderds of years ago. It was time to rethink things. So they did. The Bible is the only unchanging word of God, the Church may have to change to as times change, to address new issues. As I said in a prevous posts "Someone had to fix Trent"

So it's more a before/after VII question?  :-\ In my cyber-wanderings, I've seen Protestants termed 'heretics' frequently on RCC sites. I'm trying to find out if it's the 'official' view or just some personal views.

Yes and no.
Tibby is wrong - the RCC defines the church to be the RCC plus the handful of Eastern Catholic churches in full communion with the RCC.

On the other hand, you're only a heretic if you deny a truth that the church say's you must believe, which is not everything that the church teaches to be true.

Ok, so what are 'the truths' called? And if I'm following this, the church may say something that they find to be true but it may not be the 'official' position on it?  ???

It's entirely possible for the Church to teach something as true, without denying it being heresy.  Heresy is denying a really key point - the trinity say.  

I'm a bit more up on the Orthodox position on this, which is that the Othodox churches have only a very few dogmas - things you have to sign up for if you want to be an Othodox member in good standing, so to speak.  Denying one of these would (at least in theory) lose you your membership, and might possibly constitute heresy.

On top of those small number of dogmas, the Orthodox have a huge amount of doctrines - other teachings (like the enduring virginity of Mary, say), that the church as a whole takes to be true, but you could still be a member in good standing without believing, and denying it certainly wouldn't make you a heretic (although it might make you unpopular if you made too much noise about it).

The RCC has vastly more dogma - stuff you really are supposed to sign up for if you're a Catholic (at least in theory).  However, as far as I know denying some bits of that doesn't make you a heretic, but I couldn't say for sure what does and what doesn't.

I think I have it.... Thanks!

Where does Episcopalian fall into it? Do they fall under Catholic?  ???

I had heard that the Episcopalian church is like the Catholic church minus the Mary aspects?  ???

What's the difference between 'Catholic' and 'Roman Catholic'?

And what is 'Orthodox'?

*drowns in confusion*

Episcopalians are the American part of the Anglican Communion.   Anglicans are a pretty diverse lot - at one extream they're barely distinguisable from Roman Catholics (Mary included).  At the other, its very conservative evangelical.   Christians of just about any hue can find a place in Anglicanism, which is both its greatest strength and its greatest weakness.  The only key fundamentals are the bible, the historic creeds, and the three-fold order (bishops, priests & decons).

There are a handful of small, eastern catholic churches recognised as catholic by rome.  essentially they have the same theology as rome but the same worship style as the orthodox churches.
Then there are a load of spin-off churches that call themselves catholic, like tibby's.

These are the other ancient churches, that split from Rome when the Pope started changing stuff like the nicene creed on his own without consulting the whole church.  Historically they exist in eastern europe and the middle east, although they're pretty well represented in "new" countries like the USA and Australia due to immigration.  Orthodox churches include Greek Orthodox, Antiocian Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, etc, etc.   They have much better concept of the mystery of God than the western churches who (influenced by Rome) try to nail it all down in precise terms, and a much hightened sense of the importance and power of the Holy Spirit, who doesn't get relegated to being the least important of the 3 in the way that He tends to be in the west.  Historically they have been very poor on missioning and talking to people outside their own ethnic groups.

's probably not going to get simpler I'm afraid.

Thanks!


's probably not going to get simpler I'm afraid.

Now THAT I do understand!  :-\

Behavior is the mirror
In which everyone
Shows their image….

Happy New Year!

The Crusader

"For it is through Christ’s Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help towards salvation, that the fulness of the means of salvation can be obtained. It was to the apostolic college alone of which Peter is the head, that we believe that our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant, in order to establish on earth the one Body of Christ into which all those should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the people of God" (Decree on Ecumenism, chap. 1, 3, p. 415).

"The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Moslems. These profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day... Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart( ::)), and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience--those too may achieve eternal salvation" (Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, chap. 2, 16, p. 338).

These two seem to contradict each other.  ??? So is this a matter of 'dogma' vs. 'doctrine'?  ???

The first one doesn't say only members of "Christ’s Catholic Church" can be saved.  At first sight it appears to, but it actually says only through that church can the fullness of salvation be obtained.   That leaves open the fact that others may be saved, through the work of the Catholic Church (without necessarly even coming into contact with it).   I think you'll find the catholic position is along those lines these days.

sincereheart, my karma ran over your dogma.   ;D

A few upstarts break off, and it becomes an issue of "Ownership" now? Can't be all just BE Christian? Ownership is one thing , having proper Authority on Earth to keep Christianity from resembling a three-ring circus is another. Look around at the anarchy of “the church.” All the heretics running around, Gnostics, Arians, televangelists. He is a God of order, not chaos. Why wouldn’t God set a structure up to keep things in there proper place? It isn’t an issue of who “owns” the Church, but who cares for it?


Thank you, Tibby.  Order is important.  Some good points.

Yes, formal heretics are those who know the truth that the Church presents and through their own obstinancy refuse to accept it.  They are indeed at risk of not being saved.  I don't know of anyone who fits that category.  Most either don't accept the truth because they do not understand it or don't accept it.  Though I suppose it could happen that someone accept the truth of the Catholic Churches position and still refused to become a member, but that seems hypocritical or insane.


I suspect even most Protestant fall under the category of material heretics, those who simply have honestly not been convinced of the Churches position.  These heretics are not automatically considered to be at risk of damnation.  

If you were to obstinantly resist the charming, intelligent, convincing arguments of someone teaching the Catholic position (like me  ;D ), even if you knew in your heart he was right then you would move into the category of formal heretic.

At least this is the way I understand it.  I hope this clears up the confusion.

I am glad you accept the Nicene Creed (though I doubt you accept it the way it was intended and the way I accept it - talking mainly about the communion of saints here which was placed in the creed purposefully to include the saints in heaven and earth supporting the idea of prayer to saints).

Also I happen to have done a lot of study on the fililoque and would be willing to bet you don't even know what it is in the definition that is the source of the real controversy.  The Holy Spirit proceeding from the Son is not the issue, it is more complex than that.  The Holy Spirit obviously proceeds from the Son here on earth as He gave it to the Apostles in John 20:22.  There are other examples but that should suffice.  

The real disagreement between the Orthodox and Catholic Church on this issue is whether the Holy Spirit proceeds "eternally" from the Son as it does from the Father.   Most Orthodox Priests don't even know this.  There is no scripture to support the position of "eternally" proceeding from the Son or not "eternally" proceeding from the Son.    The entire argument is based on Tradition, something both Orthodox and Catholics accept but Protestants do not.  So I am not sure how you made you decision to not accept it as the only source you rely on scripture supports (as far as it is discussed) the idea that the spirit does proceed from the Son.

the Church does not change in matters of doctrine or dogma, though it may add to their understanding of doctrinal issues as man progresses since although God does not change, man's understanding is not perfect and so it changes.

The Church does change issues of discipline, but those are in relation to the directive of Heb 13:17 and do not imply any change of God.

Your theory might hold some water if it wasn't based on incorrect history.  All that happened in the 4th century was the addition of the name Roman to the Catholic Church to indicated it had been accepted as the official religion of the state.  All unbiased and secular historians and most reputable Protestant historians recognize the RCC as being able to trace its history all the way back through the Bishops of Rome to the Apostle Peter.   Peter was established as the leader of Christ's Church on earth by Christ Himself.  So we are not attaching any significance to human "conduct" but instead attaching significance to the conduct of Jesus.

Who? me?  I've no problem with praying to the saints.  I'm a bit confused about what that's got to do with the Nicene Creed though - you're not thinking of the Apostles Creed are you?


I did understand that much.  I don't claim to have the theological background to begin to answer the question, but what I said above was just supposed to be a very brief summary, not the full positon of the differing churches.


 Some protestants do not.

1.  You're making a heck of a lot of assumptions about what I believe - have you confused me with someone else?
2.  I never suggested I did reject the fililoque, just that the Creed was better off without it - an attitude that some leaders within the RCC seem to be sympatising with lately - in the interests of "whole church unity".   Leaving it out of the creed doesn't have to mean an acceptance of the Orthodox position.  Quite frankly, I don't pretend to be able to understand most of the arguments each way, although, within what I do understand I will admit to finding the Orthodox position the stronger.  (Based on a bit of reading up on it, and debates on other boards where Orthodox and Catholics can debate without the kinds of attack seen in some quarters).

I am sorry I did have you confused with someone else.  It appears we agree on alot of issues.  Once again I am sorry I did not mean to make differences where none existed.

I too do not claim to know enough theology to answer the issue of "eternally" proceeding.  I doubt the vast majority of Christians do, my point was that most accept one doctrine or the other based on the authority of either the Catholic or orthodox Churches.  I don't know how a Bible only Chrisitan addresses this issue.  But I suspect we agree on this too.

I'm kind of intregued by this.  What (in your experience) do most Orthodox priests think the argument is about then?

No worries.

The ones I have spoken with about it believe that this is about any proceedings of the Holy Spirit from the Son.  They almost exclusively claim that the times mentioned in scripture, when Christ gave the Holy Spirit to the Apostles, prior to Pentecost, that it was only "a taste" of the Holy Spirit, whatever that means, and I asked believe me, but I never got a good answer.

Ok. Wierd, but I'll take your word for it.  :-\

Yes, formal heretics are those who know the truth that the Church presents and through their own obstinancy refuse to accept it.  They are indeed at risk of not being saved.  I don't know of anyone who fits that category.  Most either don't accept the truth because they do not understand it or don't accept it.  Though I suppose it could happen that someone accept the truth of the Catholic Churches position and still refused to become a member, but that seems hypocritical or insane.

Could you elaborate on this?  :-\ Maybe speak s l o w l y and use small words?  :-X What would constitute the 'truth that the Church presents'? The 'Church' part is confusing me. Are we referring to 'the Body' or the the Catholic Church? And does the 'truth' include church memebrship in the Body or the RCC?  :-\


I suspect even most Protestant fall under the category of material heretics, those who simply have honestly not been convinced of the Churches position.  These heretics are not automatically considered to be at risk of damnation.

Same as above (re: 'Church')... :-\ And - which 'heretics' ARE considered to be at risk?

If you were to obstinantly resist the charming, intelligent, convincing arguments of someone teaching the Catholic position (like me   ), even if you knew in your heart he was right then you would move into the category of formal heretic.

LOL! That one caught me off-guard!  ;D But according to the RCC what if you didn't 'know' in your heart that 'he' was right? Back to material heretic?  :-\

At least this is the way I understand it.  I hope this clears up the confusion.

 :-X You are kidding, right?  :-X

As far as the RCC is concerned, the Catholic Church IS the Body of Christ.

The Nicene Creed is a good rule to follow. Normally group that don’t believe it are said to be heretical.
Other than that, I agree that the Nicene Creed (without fililoque), as the only truly whole church creed, is a pretty good standard.

From it:
???
So does 'the Body of Christ' have to be Catholic?  :-\

Is this accurate?  :-\

catholic just means universal, for everyone.  What actually consititues the One, Holy, Catholic & Apostolic Church is up for grabs.
Saying God has a plan for them isn't the same as saying they are right.  The Pope is saying that they worship the same God as us, even if they have some of their facts wrrong, and God has a plan for all who acknowledge Him.

As far as the RCC is concerned, the Catholic Church IS the Body of Christ.

But not all Catholics think the catholic church is the Catholic Church?  :-\

Sorry - don't understand the question  ???

 The Catholic Encyclopedia on line makes for some very interesting reading. I have also read some of vaticanII.

 I have spent a while trying to spell 'liture' and as you can see i have failed  :-[ i tried internet and a real dictionary!  So does anyone have any other writings i may like to read?

literature?

 :)

Ok I will start by answering your recurring question.  When I said Church I meant the Roman Catholic Church (which was the topic of the conversation as it relates to salvation being tied to ones heretical standing relative to it).  Of course Catholics see the Roman Catholic Church as The Church, as in the one and only Church of Christ.

As for your first question, maybe an example will make it clearer.  Say Joe decides that all he has heard about the Catholic Church finally makes sense and he cannot find any way to dispute it from scripture or logic such that he admits to himself at least that he has no course but to admit they are the true faith.  But then pride sets in and he refuses to public admit this and join the Catholic Church, he is a formal heretic and his salvation is at risk.  This scenario is so illogical and hypocritical I cannot image it happening but human nature being what it is I guess it is possible.

Same as above (re: 'Church')... :-\ And - which 'heretics' ARE considered to be at risk?

Formal heretics are considered lost, material heretics are possibly saved if they accept Christ as their savior and obey the Gospel practicing works of love.  They do not have to accept that the Catholic position is accurate as long as their lack of acceptance is due to ignorance or not being convinced by sufficiently persuasive arguments.  Think of it  like this - suppose for a moment, for the sake of argument that salvation IS by the Catholic formulation of salvation coming from Grace, leading to faith and works accepting the free gift together.  Now imagine a Protestant who doesn't accept the idea.  But they accept Christ as their savior and live a good life doing works of mercy (they see as fruits or results of their faith - which for the sake of this argument would be wrong).  The Catholic Church says this person too is saved.  God is not going to condemn someone because they in their short life time did not resolve a theological argument the best minds of the past 500 years could not solve or convince each other of.  Some Protestants (though not all) hold a similar view of Catholics who have faith in Christ and then add works to that faith as a loving response never intending to merit salvation.  These Protestants say that such Catholics are saved because the Faith in Christ is all that is important.  I know this is a debatable position but I think this should clear up how the RCC feels about those who fit this model.  


If I understand your question right the answer is yes.  That individual who did not know in his heart that the Catholic apologist was right falls under the material heretic type but their salvation is still a very real possibility in the eyes of the Catholic Church, despite them being a heretic.  In this model material heretics can still be members of the Church, if they obey the entire message of the Gospel, even if they don't think it matches the Catholic teaching of it.  It would not be fair to condemn someone for properly obey Christ's teachings just because they never accepted the body He established to promulgate that message.  Of course the hidden meaning behind all this is that to obey the entire Gospel message in this argument means they are members of the Catholic Church whether they realize it or not.  

Not to open another can of worms but an extension of this idea is how the Catholic Church sees a possibility for salvation of those of other Faiths.  The idea is that there are those who KNOW Jesus Christ without KNOWING OF Jesus Christ.  These are people who follow the message of the Gospel without ever having heard of Jesus of Nazareth.  This mode of salvation is not a possibility in Protestantism (from what I understand) because of the focus (almost exclusively) on the role of Jesus as sacrificial lamb.  Catholics see Jesus' other roles as equally important (especially His role as shepherd) and do not limit God to requiring that we be aware of His sacrifice.  Yes, Jesus had to die for our sins but we do not have to be aware of it, necessarily.  The spirit of the law of love written in our hearts becomes a law unto ourselves to paraphrase Rom 2:14.  Their belief in Christ comes in the form of their acceptance of His message, the message of the Gospel and thus (again whether they realize it or not) following Him, become one of His sheep by following His voice.  Of course the other side of the coin is also true, for one of these people to have heard of Jesus and to have rejected Him would place them in the role of formal heretic and their salvation is suspect.

There are all sorts of good reading material to get involved in but I would always start with the scriptures.  As St. Jerome said "To be ignorant of the Gospel is to be ignorant of Christ."  Still sometimes you need some help understanding the Bible, so then i would recommend reading the early Church Fathers, beyond what you have already mentioned.  A good book is A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs by David W. Bercot  ISBN 1-56563-357-1  It is only one volume and makes for some interesting reading.  The whole writings of the Apostolic Fathers fills an encyclopedia of 10 volumes and is only really usable as reference material.  Then of course you have the Nicean and Anti-Nicean Fathers who fill another 20 or so volumes.  Finally there is a 5 volume set from the Eastern Church called the Philokalia which is very good, but can be very deep.  Of course if you want deep Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologae is it, and it is very thorough covering every question conceivable, if you have the time and energy to wade through it.

Sorry - don't understand the question    ???

Sorry - I said: "But not all Catholics think the catholic church is the Catholic Church? "

Translation:
But not all members of Catholic churches (i.e. Catholics) think the 'universal church/Body of Christ' (i.e. catholic church) is the Catholic Church (i.e. the RCC, etc.).


I know this is a debatable position but I think this should clear up how the RCC feels about those who fit this model.

Thanks! I'm really not looking to debate the points of Catholicism in here. Just to understand some of the things I read that totally confuse me.  :-\ I appreciate you and ebia taking the time to explain! Some of the things I read I will never agree with and some I read just plain confooze me  ;)

It would not be fair to condemn someone for properly obey Christ's teachings just because they never accepted the body He established to promulgate that message.  Of course the hidden meaning behind all this is that to obey the entire Gospel message in this argument means they are members of the Catholic Church whether they realize it or not.

Kind of a Catch-22?  :-\

If I understand your question correctly I would have to say no.  Not all Catholics, the broad sense of the term would see the RCC as The Body of Christ.  There is a loose communion of Churches under the heading Catholic and this communion extends in ever dimminishing strength the further out you go including Orthodox and Anglican, etc.  But even the tightest circles have differences with the Roman Catholic Church on some issue, or else there would be no distinction necessary.  The RCC is by far the largest Catholic Church and so is most often meant when the term Catholic Church is used but it is not an exclusive term.

In addition I cannot speak for what individual believers hold to be true, I can only try to relate the doctrine as I know it.  It is entirely possible that some Roman Catholics do not hold that the RCC is the one, true body of Christ.  However to hold that opinion is to be in contradiction of the teachings of the RCC.


I understand you are not looking to debate these issues and I am not trying to force one.  I hope I am answering your questions.


Yeah sort of, but not really a catch because it doesn't force the person into a choice between two options.  It is only a revelation, after the fact, of how the choice.

Isn't heresy simply persistently preaching messages that are't scriptural?

Heretics, can not recognize heresy.  

When traditions of men usurp biblical teaching, that is heresy...


Blessings,

Petro

That definition reveals a hidden assumption and bias that the scriptures are the only source of orthodoxy.

The proper not biased definition of heresy is:

any opinions or doctrines at variance with the official or orthodox position

Thus if one believes that the Church and Tradition also are sources of orthodoxy then heresy consists of being at variance with them as well.

Finally we need to point out that heresy implies a choice

The english word Heresy comes from a Greek word signifying (1) a choice, (2) the opinion chosen, and (3) the
sect holding the opinion. In the Acts of the Apostles (5:17; 15:5; 24:5, 14;26:5) it denotes a sect, without reference to its character. Elsewhere,however, in the New Testament it has a different meaning attached to it. Paul ranks "heresies" with crimes and seditions (Gal. 5:20). This word also denotes
divisions or schisms in the church (1 Cor. 11:19). In Titus 3:10 a "heretical person" is one who follows his own self-willed "questions," and who is to be avoided. Heresies thus came to signify self-chosen doctrines not emanating from
God (2 Pet. 2:1).

If you do not accept the concept of freewill then there can be no heretics.  Of course since the Scriptures make reference to them there must be freewill.

When discerning what is scriptural and what is not, it must be remembered that all of scripture has to agree. If we think we understand it then see something in scripture that seems to contradict it, then we have not understood scripture correctly.

michael,

Your statement above is false.

Because you have the misconception that your church and her doctrines and traditions are teachings even commandments of God to be observed as the truth, under the penalty of anathema and excommunication for those who will not adhere.

If the faithful, excersized freewill (which they do today, and your church does nothing to correct them, well I take it back, since recently they have making an attempt to clean house at the top, however I was thinking frst of the stance of abortion) they would disregard the churches teachings and they do today, supporting pro abortion politicians, which with the help of these who think as hey do, get elect year after year, because they are of like monds.

Heresy begins in the church in the minds of those in authority, who then teach it contrery to scripture.

It begns not only as a usurption of the truth, but actually replaces the truth, based on traditions not what Gods Word teaches.

This is the reason why you have people believing all sorts of false teachings..called heresy..

Jesus said;   "But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men."  Maqt 15:9


Blessings,

Petro

I think you missed my point.  My point is that you cannot have heretics if you do not have free will.  It had nothing to do with whether the Church identified them and punished them.  If man doesn't have freewill he cannot be a heretic because it is a choice.  That was all I was saying.



Catholics are free to support any candidate they see fit.  They are to choose them based on how well that candidate fits with their understanding of a proper moral approach to living.  I am dead set against abortion and the death penalty, but I could support someone who was pro abortion if they were on the wrong side of other moral issues, such as aid to the poor, nuclear war etc.  The problem is all of our candidates are flawed in some way and we have so few to choose from that we are forced to pick and choose the good with the bad in each one.  I would love to find a republican candidate who opposed abortion and cared for the poor in this country, or a democrat who cared for social programs and would come out against abortion.  Until I do I am forced to be selective in what I find abhorant or else not vote.


Yes that is how some heresies begin, some theologian high up begins teaching something contrary to the Oxthodox teachings of the Church and once identified a debate begins and the losing side is declared a heretic and they are forced to go off on their own and form a new Church.  

But not all Tradition is heretical.  The Tradition used to select the Canon of the New Testament was not heretical.  The Traditions Paul refers to in 2 Thes 2:15 were not heretical.

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

None of the Catholic Tradition is contrary to scripture so I claim it too is not heretical.  Traditions in one sense are the words of men but in one sense so is the writings of the Bible.  But in another sense Traditions are the Word of God just as the writings of the Bible are the Word of God.  Tradition does not try to replace the Word of God, it is the Word of God, because based on the protections promised to the Church in Matthew 16 we know the Church cannot error on matters of doctrine.

Hi, Michael_Legna.  I'm resurrecting this from a month ago.

It's human nature to immediately capitalize on anything of value.  That is what we do, in any number of ways.

Okay, if you want to move the initiation date all the way back to Peter, instead of just to the 4th Century.  But your sentence there does confirm it:  ...to indicate it had been accepted as the official religion of the state.   That is, at least there in the fourth century, we do have a very definite declaration there of a very distinct ownership--i.e., "the official religion of the state".  That's about as declaratory as one could make it, I think, here on earth, as to jurisdicition?

And, as an aside, wouldn't that be the fundamental argument of the RCC--jurisdiction?

And then in this case, we're simply moving it back all the way to Peter?

But still, if it hadn't been the RCC, and then before it, the "Catholic" church of Peter, wouldn't it just make sense, humanly speaking, that some group, somewhere, would latch on immediately to that declaration of Jesus, "...upon this Rock I will build my Church...", and then claim it as their own?

I mean, what the Catholics have done--wouldn't that just be predictable, human behaviour?

And if any group would do that--or, basically, the first group that got there first, like school kids running to a chow line, would it be any great surprise if it took on a jurisdictional color, and therefore, an ownership one?

And if that were no surprise, then if it didnt' have the name of Catholic, and then RCC, it would still have a name that would still represent, in the final analysis, still the same basic argument, that man is always seeking to claim and make his own, whatever there is, of value out there(whether tangible, or intangible)?

And if that is true, what original claim would any of us have  to that declaration that Jesus makes regarding Peter?

No jurisdiction is not being discussed here.  Christianity (the Catholic Church) was the official state religion in the same way that Microsoft is the official software of the NFL.  That does not mean that the NFL has jurisdiction over Microsoft or the other way around even.  It merely means that within the NFL no software will be allowed other than Microsoft.  In the Roman Empire it meant that no religion (such as rule worship) would be allowed.  This was entirely a good thing.  


Not as an aside but directly, yes the whole point to Christ establishing His Church on earth was to lead and that implies jurisdiction.


Yes Peter was made the rock the Church was to be built on (Mt 16:18), told to strengthen the others (Lk 22:32) feed His sheep (Jn 21:17)


But just because human nature would have arrived at the same conclusion does not prove that God did not do it that way.


I agree that the claim that any of us would have to that original declaration Jesus made regarding Peter would have to be supported.  That group would have to show a continual link of succession from Peter through his successor, etc.  Or it is possible there might be some other proof, but only one Church can offer even the one I suggest.  All throughout history until the recent 500 years when the term Church was used it meant only one thing - the Catholic Church or the Orthodox Church (which is in very close communion).  The largest by far group within these two bodies is the Roman Catholic Church and it is also the one with the most direct link to Peter.

So yes human nature being what it is there was bound to be at least one group to claim this jurisdiction.  Maybe in history there were others but their claims could not be supported I don't know I am not an expert in history.  I am just glad the the true claimant survived.  But then we knew it would because Christ promised it would prevail even against the gates of hell.

But just because human nature would have arrived at the same conclusion does not prove that God did not do it that way.


But doesn't the fact that human nature would have arrived at it that way make the entire unfolding then at least suspect--i.e., "manmade", and...

even if that didn't, would that still necessarily prove then that God did indeed do it that way?



Surely with Paul we know that he was literally "handpicked"?
As were the disciples, and Peter, before Paul.

And with Peter, he was certainly at least "honored"(if nothing else, by Jesus' prediction that he would deny Him, yet Jesus' had prayed for Him, and forgiven Him...), tho it is at least arguable whether Jesus was indeed referring to Peter as that Rock and, even if He were, what exactly He meant by that(i.e, did He in fact mean a development of the concept of a "pope", and men we call "padre" or "father"...etc., all out of that one single pronouncement...??).

Yes I have nothing against someone who wants to be suspect of the idea.  Only against those who reject things out of hand without researching or thinking them through.  I would not accept it just because the Church said so, if there were not independent documentation of the succession starting immediately from Peter.


Right again, if I did not see evidence of the plan for a visible Church to continue through succession of laying on of hands in scripture, and in the teachings of the earliest Church Fathers I wouldn't accept it either.  

Even if I only saw a little evidence and not uniformity of the idea I would doubt.  But the reality of the situation is that all of the Church Fathers accepted the idea and there is no clear statement refuting it in any of their works.  Think of it this way, if some human through their nature decided to grab power as it were and declare the Church to be something it wasn't intended to be there would have been an out cry by those true Christians of the time against this move.  No where in any of the writings of the early Church Fathers is there found anything like that.  It is conspicuous by its abscence.


But it doesn't stop there Matthias was also hand picked, by the other Apostles but only as they were led by the Holy Spirit.  

Do you realize that there are 18 Apostles mentioned in the New Testament?

Peter, Andrew, James the son of Zebedee, Philip, Bartholomew, Thomas, Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, Thaddaeus; 4Simon the Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot – Mt 10:2

Matthias - Acts 1:26

Paul and Barnabas - Acts 14:14

Andronicus and Junia - Rom 16:7

Christ - Heb 3:1

plus a few other references that hint at others who might be considered Apostles.


I don't doubt that the administrative form of the Church has changed, but remember the Church was given power to bind and loose.  So as the world changed and the needs of the Church to fulfill the ministry given it changed, it was able to grow and adapt.  That is one of the advantages of a viable organism like a Church over a static text like the scriptures.  Doctrine cannot change but how we serve and carry out the ministry does.  There is even evidence of this change carried out by the Church in New Testament times.  The Church saw a need that was not being fulfilled and decided to establish deacons to fill it.  This office was unknown and complete outside of scripture yet the Church felt it had the authority to do this.

Think of it this way, if some human through their nature decided to grab power as it were and declare the Church to be something it wasn't intended to be there would have been an out cry by those true Christians of the time against this move

But this is sort of the point.  This is the predictable "human nature" I was alluding to--a "power grab".   An all-encompassing grab--so that any outcry is successfully sanitized or otherwise absorbed.  Too, there were doctrinal issues unsettled or unclear for any convert, regardless of your stripe or sympathies.  Doubtless there are threads of continuity genuine and authentically "Christian"--from Peter and the others onward.  But something Jesus and the Holy Spirit is doing, and not some necessarily monolith or brotherhood of man(although Christians are brothers)?  What you are describing provides excuse for such as the Crusades--not much better than the "infidel" they were seeking to crush?  Ill-sought ambitions, vain-glory, etc.?

So as the world changed and the needs of the Church to fulfill the ministry given it changed, it was able to grow and adapt.  That is one of the advantages of a viable organism like a Church over a static text like the scriptures.  Doctrine cannot change but how we serve and carry out the ministry does.

Thus suggesting the Church as evolving?  

That is one of the advantages of a viable organism like a Church over a static text like the scriptures.  

This just emphasizes the Church.  Which is understandable--very human, and is my point.  There are doctrines of the Church in the NT, but not nearly to this emphasis.

Your emphasis on the Church, such as above, implies a justification outside of NT reference.  In other words, this is my contention, that the Catholic argument is one of very human terms:  It brings with it that human tendency to own and orchestrate whatever is of value, attaching control as soon as possible--thus the apparent Catholic determination to build an entire hierarchy, or doctrine, etc., on even just a simple allusion that Jesus makes about "the Rock", and that that might have been referring to Peter(is it even totally clear that that is in fact what Jesus was referring to?), and even if it were, would that necessarily justify an entire worldly hierarchy built on that one allusion, especialy when such is not even half-way clearly laid out by Jesus(and which such omission certainly must be deliberate, on Jesus' terms), in practical worldly terms, and also expecially in light of that very human tendency to simply go ahead and do it that way anyhow?

In short, without NT scripture to substantially support it, it appears that you have just very human, human beings attaching their own very predictable tendency or "agenda", to refashion into their(our) own likeness, or his own control, what maybe the Holy Spirit, or Jesus, is trying to do--or wanting to do?

Not that Jesus isn't working through this too, of course.  Arguablly, no matter what we did to His Gospel, or how we perverted it--if He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life--then whatever we attempt against HIs Kingdom, in the final analysis, will only end up working for His good?

So in the final case it won't matter anyway.    All things work together for good to them that love the Lord.

But just because that was a possible way things could have developed it does not prove that was the way it happened.


There were Churches that were formed based on the missionary work of the other Apostles but any unbiased historical source will show you that these other Churches all saw the Church in Rome as having primacy.


I am not certain I understand this question.


How does the idea of a monolithic Church excuse the Crusades?


Yes the Church's form and method of administration and even its doctrine evolves, though no new doctrine can of course ever contradict a previous doctrine.


In a way you are right, because the Church existed before the New Testament.  We got the New Testament from the Church (in the sense that God used the Church to select the Canon), we don't get the Church from the New Testament (though it appears there repeatedly in detail).


I disagree with your asserting that it is not clearly laid out by Jesus, but think for a moment that every argument you put forward for this conspiracy of establishing a Church without merit could be applied to the determination of the Canon and yet you accept it.  Why the paranoia in one case but not in the other when the same body was involved in both?


I again disagree that the New Testament does not substantially support the idea of a centralized authoritative Church.  

But just because that was a possible way things could have developed it does not prove that was the way it happened.


I'm not saying that it was just "possible".  I'm saying that it's just human nature to naturally do that.  Human beings always gravitate towards whatever is of value.


There were Churches that were formed based on the missionary work of the other Apostles but any unbiased historical source will show you that these other Churches all saw the Church in Rome as having primacy.


An unbiased historical source may indeed show that; I'm not a scholar of that period, but it seems apparent that is indeed what happened--at least probably by 350 A.D., or thereabouts.  Perhaps even well before that.  But also perhaps that is my point:   A mingling of already pagan or secular power(the Romans) with what soon became an absorption of the Christian faith, by Constantine.  My point is it was all just following a very human predictable path--but of a human or earthy sort, validated by the facts we know of of the prior pagan power.  The ordinary Roman soldier, as I understand it, was already accustomed to a "mithraism" paganism of sorts.  

I'm not convinced though that this gradual rise of a new Christian Rome(or any other center--what about Athens, or Corinth, or Tarsus, or Alexandria, or Damascus, or Jerusalem...?) is anything other than what it had been before, a seat of secular or earthly power--the same as any other city..  If it became "Christian", it only did according to an already-existing template, into which "Christianity" was merely absorbed or re-fashioned.  The liturgy of the Catholic Church would tend to validate or reflect that.

How does the idea of a monolithic Church excuse the Crusades?

Mammoth organizations, or bureacracies, tend to justify individual actions.  Thus James Bond, for instance, with "a license to kill."  It may not be right for me to kill you, but if any organization I belong to issues me "a license", as His Majesty's Secret Service, then all of a sudden "it's okay".  So with the Crusades, all these noblemen/knights with red and blue crosses painted on their shields...

In a way you are right, because the Church existed before the New Testament.  We got the New Testament from the Church (in the sense that God used the Church to select the Canon), we don't get the Church from the New Testament (though it appears there repeatedly in detail).

Hmm, now I've never seen that one.  There were Jewish synagogues all over the Mediterrean, but only in reflection of a central Temple.  And even in the early days there was no central Temple.  I only see the Church as appearing once Christ had died and risen( :)).  I only see "the Church" as a particular result of what Jesus did on the cross--a "winning of His bride", so as to speak?   Yes, God used scholars, or scribes, or priests, to select the Canon, the scriptures, before Jesus--but as a formal "Church"?  No, I don't see any "Church" before Jesus.  Although even Abraham was most definitely a "Christian", because he believed God, and it was reckoned unto him as righteousness--so in that respect there were "Christians" in the Old Testament--or, that is, just "believers", on the OT caveat that "thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart...", or, from perhaps Isaiah, "...I desire mercy and not sacrifice..."(certainly a contradiction already to the OT legalism).  Certainly from the very beginning, with Abel onwards, we have a template for "the Church" or, the "bride of Christ", or, just basically, those who "believe".  As opposed to those who just rely upon the law, etc.  From that standpoint you might argue that there always has been "a Church", but certainly only figuratively, at least in the OT or before.

I disagree with your asserting that it is not clearly laid out by Jesus, but think for a moment that every argument you put forward for this conspiracy of establishing a Church without merit could be applied to the determination of the Canon and yet you accept it.  Why the paranoia in one case but not in the other when the same body was involved in both?


Because God is still working throught the noble as well as the ignoble.  Just because Jesus' message has been co-opted from the very beginning by only earthly ambition, doesn't mean He isn't still working through that earthly ambition.  Indeed, He came here, and became one of us.  Thus Paul's admonition, that man meant it for evil, but God meant it for good.  So you have a very long line of less-than-savory Church history(outside the Catholic as well as inside), and certainly long before even the Catholics you have very less-than-savory examples by the Israelites themselves, outdoing the nations about them, the OT says, in their apostasy.  So the Catholic Church carries with it the noble--antiabortion, anti-gay---but it's earthly, and earthy reality.  After all, a harlot, for instance, was once a beautiful woman, or girl, before she became what she is.  And it took outside corruption to do that to her.  A harlot can't become a harlot, by herself?

I again disagree that the New Testament does not substantially support the idea of a centralized authoritative Church.  

Well, figuratively, it does support a "certaized authoritative Church"--at least in terms of Jesus as the Head, etc.  Certainly that is the imagery of the whole NT.  I see that as what is to come.  We have places of worship, here, as members of "a brotherhood", but I certainly don't see any centralization to that argument, necessarily.  

Yes but just because it is human nature to do things a certain way does not prove that human nature was the driving force behind the event happening.  It could be that God’s plan and human nature just happened to coincide at that time.  The evidence of the scriptures is that this is precisely what happened.  You idea that this formation of the Church being due to human nature is a possibility, but that is all you have shown it to be – a possibility.


In 1 Cor 9 Paul said he became all things to win all men to Christ.
 
1Co 9:20-23  And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law.  To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.  And this I do for the gospel's sake, that I might be partaker thereof with you.

The Church used this same process to win converts when it helped the early pagans to accept Jesus Christ and His Gospel.  Ritual, Pageantry, and Observances are unimportant relative to coming to know Christ.  Just as eating meat offered to idols does not condemn us, neither does the inclusion and Christianizing of formerly pagan symbols and rituals condemn us as long as we know an idol is nothing.


Then you need to acquaint yourself with the teachings of the New Testament on the Church, because it is clearly laid out that Christ established a Church, that the Church was promised protection from error and attack, that the Church had certain authorities given to it, that it had to be a physically identifiable presence on earth to exercise those authorities, that it had a leader on earth, that it had to have a succession and indeed practiced that succession, and that it had to be a centralized body to regulate the different locations of its missionary efforts.


Oh I see what you mean that those in a monolithic organization may try to use that size to justify their actions, not that it really justifies them.  I agree this is a possibility, but again only a possibility.  We have to look deeper at the actual historical evidence to see if that is what happened.  Certainly the Crusades are a good example as many of the rich who supported the Crusades twisted the intent and used them to line their own pockets.  Even during the time many were censured by the Church for their behavior.  The Knights Templar are a good example being in fact disbanded by the Church for some of their actions.


You misunderstand I did not say the Church existed before New Testament times, but before the New Testament.  The New Testament did not exist in its entirety until almost 100 AD and the Church was already around having been continued by the successors of Peter in Rome.  There were 7 different Popes before the last epistle was written!  Also we have to remember that it was not until 367 that the first accurate listing of the 27 books we use in the New Testament was even put forward and it was not accepted as Canon until 393 at the Council of Hippo.  So we see that the Church was around a long time before the New Testament.  That is why Augustine said "I would not believe the Gospel unless moved thereto by the Church."


But that view denies the protection Jesus promised for His Church, that not even the gates of Hell would prevail against it.  It makes no sense to be told in the Bible to submit to those in the Church who teach us an are responsible for our souls, and to go to the Church to resolve difficulties since it has the power to bind and loose if Christ was not going to keep it from error.  I certainly don’t want to rely on a Church that I think has any possibility of error, there is just too much at stake.


We have a laying on of hands required for succession, that in and of itself means we all point back to one central authority just as in a family tree.  We have a requirement that the Church be a physically identifiable presence on earth to fulfill its mission to resolve differences between Christians in local Churches as even Paul had to resort to.  Both of these, point to a need for a centralized body on earth.  Without a centralized body you get chaos, heresy, division and confusion for those inside the Church and especially for those outside who are the targets of the great commission.  How are non-Christians who do not accept the scriptures as authoritative to know which Church missionary to accept the teachings of if there is no central authority?

Quote from Michael:

"But that view denies the protection Jesus promised for His Church, that not even the gates of Hell would prevail against it.  It makes no sense to be told in the Bible to submit to those in the Church who teach us an are responsible for our souls, and to go to the Church to resolve difficulties since it has the power to bind and loose if Christ was not going to keep it from error.  I certainly don’t want to rely on a Church that I think has any possibility of error, there is just too much at stake."


Jesus is talking about the true Church, not the RCC which teaches an anti-christ gospel.  The passage about the gates of hell are not even talking about keeping the church from error but deal with eternal life.

Saint Pilgrim


In the Image of Christ
Colossians 3:8-11

“The Gates of Hell”

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

 

        These are the words that Jesus spoke to Peter after he confessed in verse 16 that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the living God.  This is just one little sentence spoken by Jesus, yet it speaks volumes about the church.  As we study God’s Word, we learn that the church is not buildings made up of brick and mortar, wood and nails, but by individuals who have placed their trust in Jesus for the salvation of their souls.  These individuals are not called Christians because of where they attend, but because they have put their trust in Christ and follow Him.

        One of the first things a careful student of the Bible will observe is that the church was not in existence at the time Jesus spoke these words.  Notice that Jesus said, “I will build my church”.  He is talking future tense here.  This would not make sense if the church was already in existence.  Also, we see that the church belongs to the Lord Jesus, He refers to it as, “my church”.  The church doesn’t belong to any individual, family or group, no matter how important or famous or rich they may be. One can own a building or a piece of land, but not the church. The church belongs to the Lord Jesus Christ, because it was purchased with His very own blood (Acts 20:28).  We also learn that the Lord Jesus is the master builder of the church; He said “I will build my church”.  It is the Lord who adds to the church; we may co-labor with the Him, but it is the Lord who gives the increase  (Acts 2:47, 1 Cor. 3:6-7).

        As you have already seen, with just five words the Lord has taught us many wonderful things concerning the church.  Yet, I believe one of the priceless truths for the believer is to be found in the remaining part of the verse, “and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it”.  The truth that is taught here is most precious because it clearly declares the security of salvation that the one who believes has.  There are many today who teach that a person can be saved and yet somehow afterwards lose their salvation.  Some say that a person can lose their salvation by his own will, saying he no longer wishes to be saved, others teach that a person can lose his salvation by willful sin.

        Those who think that a true believer could lose his salvation for whatever reason would have difficultly reconciling their belief with this verse.  You see, if a person could lose their salvation it would make Jesus out to be a liar in this verse, since the gates of hell would in fact prevail against the church.  It would be helpful to understand what Jesus was talking about when He spoke of the gates of hell.  Death and the grave throughout the scriptures is called hell or hades.  Acts 2:26-31 is a good example of this when speaking about the Lord Jesus.

     “Therefore did my heart rejoice, and my tongue was glad; moreover also my flesh shall rest in hope: Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.  Thou hast made known to me the ways of life; thou shalt make me full of joy with thy countenance.  Men [and] brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day.  Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption”.

        In Luke 16:19-31 we read about the rich man and Lazarus.  In verse 22 we read “the rich man also died, and was buried;  And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments”.  In this passage we learn that the rich man’s body was buried in a grave yet his soul was being tormented in hell.  Hell, then, is the place for those who die in their sins, those who never called on the name of the Lord for salvation (Rom. 10:9-13).  It is a place of great unrelenting torment and eternal suffering (Rev. 14:9-11 20:10-15)

        The gates of hell open to receive the dead but they never open to let the dead escape. This is a sobering thought. Friend, if you die in this life without Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior your dwelling place will be in the torments and sufferings of hell where there is wailing and gnashing of teeth.  There is no escape from that place.  The only time death and hell will give up the dead is when the dead are judged and thrown into the lake of fire along with death and hell (Rev. 20:13-15).  This is the wrath of God that all men deserve because of their rebellion and sin against Him.  Yet, because of His great love for us, God sent His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ to die in our place.  God poured out His wrath on His own Son, the divine Substitute, so that those who place their trust in Jesus as Lord and Savior would never see the wrath of God which is the second death.  Instead of wrath, God gives eternal life to those that trust in His Son (John 3:16, 5:24, 10:27-30).  They will never see the second death.  This is why I say that those who believe that you can lose this great salvation would have to make Jesus out to be a liar when He said, “And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”  You see, if even one individual Christian (Remember that the church is made up of individuals who place their trust in the Lord Jesus) could lose their salvation and end up behind the gates of hell, then the gates of hell would in fact have prevailed against the church.  Death would still have its sting and the grave would still have its victory.  The apostle Paul would not have been able to declare these words in
1 Corinthians 15:54-57:

     “So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.  O death, where [is] thy sting? O grave, where [is] thy victory?  The sting of death [is] sin; and the strength of sin [is] the law. But thanks [be] to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.”

 Visit our web site for more articles and information at  http://nlbchapel.org

I agree. with the idea, that;

The church of God is not an organization, that is to say established as a corporation and identified by buildings, it is a body made up of believing members who are joint heirs with Christ, himself being the head.

And I do believe th believers possess His Spirit, and are taught and led by HIM (John 14:26)

Furthermore, it matters little what any man says especially the likes of michael (who has been seduced, and seeks whom to seduce) who is completely deluded into believing this instituiton is the real enchilada, who now is quoting scripture as though he understands it.

However, I do love the scripture on the same note;

1 Jhn 2
26  These things have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you.
27  But the anointing which you have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

It is important to listen, even to heretics, so that one may mark them, and have nothing to do with these.

Petro

Yes He is talking about the ture Church.  Do you have another candidate that was established by Christ and has been around ever since that time?  Surely not the local congregation you attend.  As for your claim that the RCC teaches an anti-christ gospel is only that a claim and we have all seen your pitiful attempts to prove it in the past fall flat on their face when confronted with the facts.


But that is not what I said was it, always trying to put words in the mouths of others aren't you (I must admit it does make it easier to attack them if you get to state their strawman arguments for them).  What I said was the Church was granted protection from attack so it would endure and that endurance only made sense if you were going to establish as a physical presence on earth that individuals could go to to clear up disagreements.  The "prevailing against the gates of hell" was the promised protection, the "binding and loosing" is the keeping safe from error.  If you don'[t know Catholic doctrine any better than to have not followed that in my post you need to stop attacking what you clearly don't understand.

As to your local congregations interpretation of this verse it is clearly new, novel and wrong.  The idea that each individual person is the Church so that we can misinterpret the gates of hell as refering to their individual salvation requires us to be fill so many roles.

We have to go to ourselves to resolve difficulties between ourselves and others.  Sure puts others in their place doesn't it?  

It requires us to be Bishop, Presbyter and Deacon all rolled into one.  My but won't we be busy.

It requires each of us to be the pillar and ground of truth.  So many pillars so little agreement.

No who ever came up with this idea needs to do a lot more research on how the early Church understood this verse.

Michael_Leg:  How are non-Christians who do not accept the scriptures as authoritative to know which Church missionary to accept the teachings of if there is no central authority?


This is what I mean by monopolism of your Church(and/or others, too).

I mean, it's like, Gee, how is the world going to get along without me?

It adopts and monoplizes a good thing, and then claims that no one can come unto the Father than by or through it.


It's a surrogate or subterfuge for what Jesus said, that no one comes unto the Father except through Him(through Jesus).


This is understandable.  It's human nature to "presume", and then monopoplize anything of value.

It could easily be said of any number of Protestant persuasions also.

Our brotherhood and unity exists in and through the Person,  Jesus Christ.  In the same way(well, not much any longer, I guess... ::)), a bride exists in and through her husband(she takes his name...).

This is what makes it liberating,

rather than monopolizing, or pejorative,  or hostile...


What Jesus came to do was not a hostile takeover(contrary to what the Jews, including Judas Iscariot apparently, were expecting, or wanting, in their Messiah).

But we are by nature hostile creatures; so what the Catholic Church did--or became--was understandable, or predictable:  A hostile monopoly?

Jesus knew this and this is why He said, while discoursing concerning His sheep;

Mk 7
15  Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
16  Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
17  Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.

The apostlePaul to the elders at ther church of Ephesus;

Acts 20
18   .............when they were come to him, he said unto them, Ye know, from the first day that I came into Asia, after what manner I have been with you at all seasons,
19  Serving the Lord with all humility of mind, and with many tears, and temptations, which befell me by the lying in wait of the Jews:
20  And how I kept back nothing that was profitable unto you, but have showed you, and have taught you publicly, and from house to house,
21  Testifying both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.
22  And now, behold, I go bound in the spirit unto Jerusalem, not knowing the things that shall befall me there:
23  Save that the Holy Ghost witnesseth in every city, saying that bonds and afflictions abide me.
24  But none of these things move me, neither count I my life dear unto myself, so that I might finish my course with joy, and the ministry, which I have received of the Lord Jesus, to testify the gospel of the grace of God.
25  And now, behold, I know that ye all, among whom I have gone preaching the kingdom of God, shall see my face no more.
26  Wherefore I take you to record this day, that I am pure from the blood of all men.
27  For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God.
28  Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
29  For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
30  Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.


Petro

I don't disagree with your point, the Church is a monopoly in the sense that there can only be one true Church.  I disagree with your assertion that this is not what Christ intended and that this only evolved due to human nature.

You still haven't answered my question though.  

How are non-Christians who do not accept the scriptures as authoritative to know which Church missionary to accept the teachings of if there is no central authority?

I have given you Augustine's answer.  "I would not believe the Gospel unless moved thereto by the Church."

How are non-Christians who do not accept the scriptures as authoritative to know which Church missionary to accept the teachings of if there is no central authority?



From your question, it doesn't sound like a non-Christian could accept any Church missionary, if he doesn't accept the scriptures as authoritative.

Even a Catholic missionary would come away empty if the scriptures he uses are not accepted by the proselyte?

Ultimately, if you're going to tell someone the story of Jesus, you're going to have to appeal to scripture at some point?  Certainly Jesus was always quoting scripture.


To me, if someone doesn't accept authority of scripture, then there's not much more I would know anyone could do, save prayer for them.

So your Church doesn't  evangelize those who don't already accept the Bible as the Word of God?  Do we abandon Hindus, Muslims, Buddists?  


That is strange because the Roman Catholic Church evangelized the entire western world from scratch when none of them accepted the Bible as the word of God.


Yes, you do have to eventually tell them the Gospel and Christ's message but you can't get them to accept that message by claiming a written text is the inerrant word of God.  Accepting that is an issue of faith not something that can be proven.


How do we fulfill the great commission then?  Do we wait to find people who believe the Bible is the inerrant Word of God but yet somehow aren't Christians?

So your Church doesn't  evangelize those who don't already accept the Bible as the Word of God?  Do we abandon Hindus, Muslims, Buddists?

That's twisting what I said, or meant to imply.  Sooner or later, one has to appeal to scripture.  Although Jesus' love, and what He did for us, transcends even just the written word.

That is strange because the Roman Catholic Church evangelized the entire western world from scratch when none of them accepted the Bible as the word of God

I'm not sure I would call it "evangelization":   Africa became voodoo, as did the Caribbean; South America is sky-high inflation and economic shambles...

Maybe that's part of their problem--they accept the "Church", but not the Bible as the word of God?

Yes, you do have to eventually tell them the Gospel and Christ's message but you can't get them to accept that message by claiming a written text is the inerrant word of God.  

That's a hasty and broad generalization--and a mischaractization.  You're aren't "getting them to accept that message" by claiming inerrancy--that claim is just a part of the reality where you're coming from, a justification, a reason.

The reason they accept the message is because it resonates with human understanding.  I.e., it only makes since that we would kill The Righteous ONe, being who we are(that is, renogades, rebels).  Even w/o the inerrancy question, the Gosepl message just makes very human sense.

How do we fulfill the great commission then?  Do we wait to find people who believe the Bible is the inerrant Word of God but yet somehow aren't Christians?

I see your point but again, I'm not using inerrancy as the essential Gospel message.  It's supplemental to it--integral yes, important yes(obviously, if the scriptures are fictional, all the rest is pointless).

I realize that you didn’t mean that, I was just making the consequences of your claim come starkly to the forefront.  Still the issue remains.  How do you evangelize those who do not accept the scriptures as the inerrant Word of God if you cannot appeal to the authority of the Church?  Do you just hope the message makes good sense to those who hear it?


Interesting claims but they have little to do with the Churches efforts.  Voodoo has nothing to do with Catholicism it is a hang on to the old pagan religions by a small minority of the population.  The economic situation also has nothing to do with the Churches message.  Not to mention you ignore the first 1500 years of the Church’s ministry in Europe.  How did all the Christianization of the Pagans occur then if you cannot reach someone who does not accept the scriptures as the inerrant Word of God?


But that idea is contrary to scripture itself, to the Greeks this idea was foolishness and to the Jews it was the stumbling block  (1 Cor 1:23).  No this teaching does not resonate with human understanding.  I still do not see a way to reach non-Christian individuals without an appeal to the authority of the Church.

Do you just hope the message makes good sense to those who hear it?

To the ordinary, unlearned mind I think that is the definite priority.  A child can understand the gospel; he isn't concerned about the inerrancy??   To the learned, in probably most cases, they aren't going to listen anyway--"If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be convinced if some one should rise from the dead?"  (Luke 16:31)?

I thot voodoo was a direct, resulting mixture of pagan and catholic influence?

The economic situation also has nothing to do with the Churches message.  

Hmm.  I think economics is uniquely tied in--by the Church's "ommission" of it?  An article in U.S. News recently raised the interesting point, that one reason European Jews may have grown to be so hated was b/c of the Christians ban on usury, which the Jew didn't have(in trading with the "ghuyim"), and thus filled the resulting "vacuum"; thus Jews freely advanced in the banking and finance industries("Rothschilds", Roosevelts, etc.)?

Not to mention you ignore the first 1500 years of the Church’s ministry in Europe.  How did all the Christianization of the Pagans occur then if you cannot reach someone who does not accept the scriptures as the inerrant Word of God?

Well, look at the "Christianization" of, say, France.  Now there is a, by far, predominantly RCC country--right?  except perhaps for the recent growth of the guest workers there, which are Moslem?  But just look at France.  Their "mardi gras", and the wholesale infidelity, to each other, etc.  And the gay community there now.  And the bloody Revolution in 1792.  And their heavy demise into wholesale socialism.  And their traitor "Vichy" government, with the Nazis, of WWII? Yikes.  

I mean the Luthren or "reformed" or "rebel" Germany was perhaps no better.  But really, I mean is the RCC really that much of a moral icon??   :-X

I'm not totally convinced there ever was much real "Christianization" going on; just more and more "worldliness", under the pretense or labels of various "religous" persuasions?   Sure, there are tons of "crosses" everywhere emblazoned, on every steeple.

But that idea is contrary to scripture itself, to the Greeks this idea was foolishness and to the Jews it was the stumbling block  (1 Cor 1:23).  No this teaching does not resonate with human understanding.  I still do not see a way to reach non-Christian individuals without an appeal to the authority of the Church.

Well, perhaps the better term might be, it "contra-resonates" with human understanding.  That is, the natural man spots it as the truth right away, and therefore instinctively wants to kill it.  I didn't mean that by "resonating", it meant that man agreed with it(tho children will readily embrace it).

But then your appeal to a Church as the authority is a hair's breadth then from "enforcement"--which is sorta my point, because you get on that slippery slope then to the Inquisition.  I might appeal to you that scripture is "inerrant", and that the story I'm telling you is "true"; I'm not sure I can "force" you, by the authority of the, or any, "Church", to accept it, which I think is the abyss the RCC slid into??

I don't agree with much of what Symphony is saying, but I also don't see how this helps.  If someone doesn't accept the scriptures as being accurate, why would they accept the church as having any authority?  Surely if you're starting from scratch then they won't have already accepted either; I can't see why a hindu (say) would accept the authority of the church but not the bible.  ???

(http://www.feebleminds-gifs.com/bugs1.gif)


   

I understand the issue and agree with it on a theoretical level.  But for some reason on a practical level mankind wants to belong.  They see a group of people for whom a belief system works and they are willing to apply it.  You give the same group a dry text and they refuse the message.  The other advantage a Church with authority has is it can be questioned to clear up misunderstandings, which is not possible to do with a text.

I don't have a good answer for you, I just know that throughout history evangelization was done without reference to the authority of scripture as the inerrant word of God.  This is obvious in the first 350 years of Christianity as the canon had not even been established, so the message of the Gospel had to be taken on Church authority.  Then even in the remaining 1200 years before the reformation most who were converted were unable to read an write even there own languages.  

A point often missed when discussing the availability of the Bible to the masses is that it was only in recent times (this last century) that illiteracy rates dropped below 50%, so an inerrant text had no appeal since they would have to rely on those who preached the message anyway.  Therefore trust in the Church was as, if not more, important to those being evangelized as the accuracy of the scriptures.

I am not sure a child can understand the Gospel, at least not until a certain level of maturity exists, but then maybe we are thinking of children differently.  The verse you quote is less about the level of learning then of the hardening of those peoples hearts.


I don’t doubt that there was an influence on the pagans by the preaching of the Catholic missionaries that may have played a role in the development of some aspects of voodoo, but voodoo is not Catholicism, at most it is evidence of the failed attempts to reach a small portion of the community.


Actually this debate has raged in the Catholic Church for some time as often the Jesuit missionaries wanted to get involved in the economic situation of their missionary parishes to right the wrongs inflicted on the people by the land owners/slum lords and the corrupt politicians.  The Vatican would always step in and stop them as it almost always meant siding with the communist rebels who were looking to overthrow the current regime.  You statement on Jews and usury is to jumbled grammatically for me to be certain of what you point is, if you feel it is significant please restate it.


What you are addressing is the life of sin of those who had the Gospel preached to them it does not have any bearing on whether the message was effectively preached to them or even if they accepted or what the basis of that acceptance was.


But the message of the Gospel was preached and they heard about Christ, and it was not through a referral to a text which was claimed to be inerrant, it was based on the authority of the Church and its history.


I agree it is a slippery slope (not that all slippery slopes are bad).  The instruction in the scriptures to submit to those who have responsibility for our souls can easily be abused by unscrupulous individuals and we must be always wary of that but at the same time it does not eliminate the requirement on us to obey what our leaders say (not necessarily what they do).  As for the Church forcing those it is evangelizing to become Christians I would agree that is a bad thing, though I don’t think that was the mechanism at work as much as convincing people to join (human nature has made us social animals and joiners by nature) a successful and reasonable assembly who have already accepted and even died for a serious but strange set of religious beliefs, which the incarnation and death and resurrection appear as to a pagan.

 This is obvious in the first 350 years of Christianity as the canon had not even been established, so the message of the Gospel had to be taken on Church authority

But for the first 350 years could you really call it a literal church, with a capital "C"??   It was a growing "reality", that someone had risen from the dead, a story circulating based certainly on parchments, and documents, and oral report, and much martyrdom(Sebastian? etc.).  Being that it came literally "from the Jews", it came with an automatic, tho perhaps unspoken, incentive to authenticate--in view, if nothing else, of the strict scribal tradition of "the scribes and Pharisees".  Even Jeremiah, some 500 years earlier, had his own "scribe"(Baruch, whose signet ring they have found).  The Jewish tradition virtually insured an incentive to accurate records, in any new "twist", or development, in the Hebrew narrative--tho it might be so "contradictory", as certainly this new Jesus twist, turned out to be, for them.   But as a literal "Church", wasn't it just too fragmented, and dispersed, to have much form to it?  Therefore newcomers were relying basically on two things:  The unbelievability of it all, like a fairytale(God offering His Son, His Son rising from the dead) and, 2) the authentication process already entrenched in place, thanks to the scribal profession, as it was??

Perhaps the Christian's response today, or my response today, is, it's pretty much the same.  I rely upon the "context" in totality of where such a report is coming from, then I look at the story itself.  Certainly, I'll agree readily, that in a way, the Church, or that is, the RCC, could be construed simply as continuing the tradition so already firmly in place by the Hebrews with their torah, except for this 300 or 400 year hiatus, in their scribal tradition.  From that, obviously, came the Councils, deciding on the "Canon".  But ultimately, even those councils, were made up of men selected basically for their "belief", in what the story was suggesting.  

You statement on Jews and usury is to jumbled grammatically for me to be certain of what you point is, if you feel it is significant please restate it.

Yes; I see the Church, or that is, most any worldly, Christian church, as uniquely, for better or for worse, entertwined with any particular economy(that's why I'm seeing that most churches, regardless of stripe, are being "absorbed"--that is, they are staying the "same" on the outside, but inside they are gradually changing everything, from liturgy, to doctrine--perhaps part of the "evolvement" you referred to, tho I would see it as "de"-volvement, or "devil-volvement).  So I was mentioning the Jewish tradition in Europe as indirectly influencing much of that; many of the big names, apparently, in European finance, from medieval on up to the present, were Jewish simply b/c of the Christian caveat on usury, which Jews didn't have(I think Leviticus allows loans to non-Jews--Gentiles, or the "ghuyum"(sp)?), and therefore could easily fill.  So very wealthy people in Europe tended to turn out to be Jewish(but also, a part fulfillment too, arguably, of God's blessing to Abraham...).

But the message of the Gospel was preached and they heard about Christ, and it was not through a referral to a text which was claimed to be inerrant, it was based on the authority of the Church and its history.



Yes, the Gospel, in one form or another ( ::)), was preached.  But again, this sounds of enforcement, or the reality that in fact turned out to be true:  "... it was based on the authority of the Church and its history".     I mean, true, those things are a part, but in relevance to the story itself??   In fact, Jesus' appeal always, when it came to His authority was, simply, either based on His own identity, or, just simply, he quoted OT scripture, "It is written...".    Yes, I see where you're going, in order to lend a command authority to such RCC figures as the pope and cardinals, etc.   But my impression, again, it's one of either, on one hand, an anemic or corrupt authority, or, on the other hand, a pejorative or dictatorial--or jealous--"jurisdiction".  

As for the Church forcing those it is evangelizing to become Christians I would agree that is a bad thing, though I don’t think that was the mechanism at work as much as convincing people to join

Well, I just see that as tendency of any organization.  Unfortunately, that's how I tend to see the Church(your RCC)--as more of an organization, as perhaps some or many Protestant churches too, as organizations.  I think if your "church" becomes an organization, then it's no longer a church.  And organizations usually, or perhaps even always, ultimately adopt an enforcement measure--either that, or an "exclusive" one--they either "encourage"(hehe)others to join, or they exclude others from joining(like Free Masons).

That's why human beings coming together in what they are calling a "church", is not a light thing at all.  It's not a club.  Indeed, it comes with particular risks.  It's really a wholesale admition, that we're at war.  Really, it's not a place in which to find security--fellowship, encouragement, yes.   It's really just a place where you give, more that you "get".  I don't see the RCC, or many others as necessarily fulfilling this, in the sense Jesus' example seemed to set for us.  I think Jesus' example is that we have revitalization through him, but that it comes with a cost.  It's not about finding security, in a social setting.  It's an admission that I'm a sinner, deserving of death, thankful for forgiveness, and ready acceptance of the cost...

I think maybe the RCC and others' emphasis is on the security and integrity of the organization...

I think it was a Church with a capital C.  I mean in the first 350 years there had already been 35 Bishops of Rome, and 28 Bishops in Constantinople and a similar number of Bishops in Alexandria.  The Church had already built the first Basilica of St Peter in Rome.  Constantine had already declared that Christianity was to be tolerated and in 30 more years Theodosius would declare it the official state religion.  And Eusebius of Caesarea considered it enough of a Church to have written the "Ecclesiastical History”.   Think of it this way at 350 years old the Church was as old as most Protestant or non-denominational churches are today, and probably had more members than most of them as well.

I think it was more than just a growing reality.


Yes, but it is just that willingness to believe that is convincing to the average man.  If you had a text you declared was inerrant and nobody but you believed it was, what is the chance you think you would have of effectively evangelizing anyone else to join in that belief?  For better or worse man’s nature is to be convinced by numbers and history.


Yes if the Church was not promised the protection of the Holy Spirit by Jesus I see that as a real possibility.  That is why the lack of any change to even a single point of doctrine in the Catholic Church throughout its history is so amazing.


But what does this have to do with the Church.  If these individuals were claiming to be Jews during this time they certainly weren’t members of the Church as the animosity between them during this period was immense.  Or were you just using this as an example of human nature?  Because I admit that human nature could have done many things to the Church if it had been formed any other way than to have been established by Christ and promised His protection.  But the possibility of these things happening is a far cry from showing them to have occurred in the Church.

From earlier:
 
--"If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be convinced if some one should rise from the dead?"  (Luke 16:31)?

The verse you quote is less about the level of learning then of the hardening of those peoples hearts

Perhaps.  But aren't those two more directly proportional-- typically the greater the learning, the greater the disbelief, the more cynical one becomes?

I think it was a Church with a capital C.  I mean in the first 350 years there had already been 35 Bishops of Rome, and 28 Bishops in Constantinople and a similar number of Bishops in Alexandria.  The Church had already built the first Basilica of St Peter in Rome.  Constantine had already declared that Christianity was to be tolerated and in 30 more years Theodosius would declare it the official state religion.  And Eusebius of Caesarea considered it enough of a Church to have written the "Ecclesiastical History”.  Think of it this way at 350 years old the Church was as old as most Protestant or non-denominational churches are today, and probably had more members than most of them as well.


Yes, these are some very good points...

I think it was more than just a growing reality.

...Well, it was becoming a very tangible reality.  A very formal, integrated tangible reality.  The RCC took Jewish history/heritage, with what Jesus did, and embellished it all beyond measure, immensely.

Yes, but it is just that willingness to believe that is convincing to the average man.

Yes.  To me that's the crux of it--not really the inerrancy, which is integral, but secondary; nor the Church, which is a result, not a cause?

Yes if the Church was not promised the protection of the Holy Spirit by Jesus I see that as a real possibility.

But His promises are to us as individuals, not to us as a formal "Church"--or to "it", the Church.

But what does this have to do with the Church.  If these individuals were claiming to be Jews during this time they certainly weren’t members of the Church as the animosity between them during this period was immense.  Or were you just using this as an example of human nature?  Because I admit that human nature could have done many things to the Church if it had been formed any other way than to have been established by Christ and promised His protection.  But the possibility of these things happening is a far cry from showing them to have occurred in the Church.


They needn't have occurred in the Church--at least as concerns the Jewish accommodation of the European banking industries.  The Church would have been aggressively and dramatically enmeshed in the evolving economies, tho in contrast to, and not in concert with, the secular/and/or Jewish influences there.   As I recall, an ongoing friction between the Church and the various magistrates of any given jurisdiction.

My ultimate point is that the Church is a manmade institution bringing with it all the baggage of the prior pagan religions, absorbing then this new twist to the Jewish song and dance--Jesus Christ--and applying to this new twist the same old baggage but with all the bells and whistles in just the right places.  Or, i.e., arguablly, the "skeleton" of the RCC existed long before Jesus, and merely absorbed it, or what He taught, into its already existing agenda, which essentially is just the nature of man, as I said earlier, we naturally assume "ownership" of all that we see and hear, if we are the first one's there.

How could it have been any different?  It wouldn't have been any different.  Becuase this is just what men do.  But we make it into something worse, not better--or, at least, it becomes "manmade".  Who wants a "manmade" orange, to eat?  Just the sound of it turns your stomach.   We can't make our own orange--or even our own orange jello.  It has to be concocted in a laboratory, and then it says "artificially flavored".  ::)


The "Church" to me, which is really "the church", is as He dictates, indirectly, any place on earth, whereever there is someone who believes--there being an automatic or natural bond between us regardless of distance.  But it's not mystical, like the Masons, perhaps, and it's not defined literally, or that is, tangibly, necessarily--tho "works" are indeed important and are the wonderful point of like James, or Titus--and Jesus, very much so.

One aspect of the argument we're having I believe, is similar to the Federalist argument over the U.S. Constitution--centralized or decentralized goverment, and I think was how A. Hamilton and Aaron Burr wound up pacing off over.  

For me the typical Catholic, I suppose, is looking for a tangible, physical manisfestation, in human form, even tho Jesus left, and therefore has contrived an elaborate argument as to why that form can be in a pope and vicars, or other individuals.  It essentially bears the imprints of all the pagan cultures rampant at that time and before, down to today--mithraism, the human tendency to female worship, etc.

Typically yes, but not necessarily.  This is the problem I think with your whole argument.  It is not enough to prove something by showing there exists a sufficient condition, but it must be also be shown that there exists a necessary condition.  Sufficient conditions show that it is possible, necessary conditions require or prove that it did in fact happen that way.  That it is possible should lead one to be careful, but should not lead them to abandon the idea, which is what you have done in regards to the idea of a central Church if I understand you correctly.


I am not sure I follow you on this.  What specifically are you referring to?  


But that willingness to believe is evidenced only in the Church not in the scriptures.  So one cannot rely on just the scriptures to reach those who are not Christians.


No, I disagree with you there the verses Protestants use to support this idea (when viewed in detail) always refer to the Church, or the leaders of the Church at that time, the Apostles.  The protection from error is never promised to the individual members of the Church.


I agree that is how it could have happened but that does not mean it did happen that way.  You never really offer proof that it did other than as follows in your next paragraph seeming to be content that if it could happen this way it did.  That is not good enough for me when I see so much in scripture that points to a Church exactly as it exists today, hierarchy and all.


Jesus could have made it different if He wanted to.  He is all powerful and when He says he is building a Church and it shall prevail against all attacks, even the gates of hell and that it shall have a hierarchy and be a place to go to in order to resolve disagreements between us and that we should submit to it I expect it to happen.    Wouldn’t it look just like what you claim would evolve naturally from man’s efforts?  If not how would this Church look different?  Where does this Church, He built, exist such that it is visible enough that we can do as He instructed?


Without it being a physically identifiable entity on earth how do we go to it to resolve differences between Christians as we are instructed to?


I definitely would side with centralized government.  It is the only way to ensure consistency and without consistency you cannot have truth.


I agree but only because the scriptures tells us that is how the Church is to function.


That is attempting to apply guilt by association. It is a fallacious form of argument.  For example - Christians everywhere pray to God, but pagans did it centuries before the Christians did, that by itself does not make it wrong.  So just because someone else did something first does not make it wrong.

Typically yes, but not necessarily.  This is the problem I think with your whole argument.  It is not enough to prove something by showing there exists a sufficient condition, but it must be also be shown that there exists a necessary condition.  Sufficient conditions show that it is possible, necessary conditions require or prove that it did in fact happen that way.  That it is possible should lead one to be careful, but should not lead them to abandon the idea, which is what you have done in regards to the idea of a central Church if I understand you correctly.

Well, the "necessary condition" is that we are all corrupt human beings.  So any organization we form by definition is corrupt.  Thus a physical manifestation of God's Church here is impossible--man's Church, yes, but not God's Church.  Just because I decide collectively with dozens of other men that so and so is "infallible", does that make it so?  All of our churches are corrupt, in varying degrees.  That's why so many as they drive by never go in--just a bunch of hypocrites inside.  And they're right, much of the time.  


I am not sure I follow you on this.  What specifically are you referring to?

Christian churches picked up where the synagogues left off.  The Christian "church" has a wonderful heritage from which to grow out of, when you stop and think about it.  The rich heritage of the Hebrews, carried on, and then all of a sudden, the Christians pick up the ball and run with it.  Look at Western Civilization.



Well, the "necessary condition" is that we are all corrupt human beings.  So any organization we form by definition is corrupt.  Thus a physical manifestation of God's Church here is impossible--man's Church, yes, but not God's Church.  All of our churches are corrupt, in varying degrees.  That's why so many as they drive by never go in--just a bunch of hypocrites inside.  And they're right, much of the time.  

But that willingness to believe is evidenced only in the Church not in the scriptures.  So one cannot rely on just the scriptures to reach those who are not Christians.


You make a huge jump between those two sentences.  I agree with the first--yes, as a result of our new faith we become members of the Church "universal", the Bride of the Lamb.  I don't see, tho, how that leads others to Christ, except through the scriptural Gospel.

I'll have to come back later.

Just because we are corrupt does not mean that we only do corrupt things.  Especially once we have become converted.  Then God begins to act through us and with His grace we cooperate to do pleasing things for Him.  So while we are still corrupt it is possible to do good things and thus your sufficient condition is lost.

I agree that if God did not get involved then what you say would be true.  But we know from scripture that He did get involved.  It was Christ who built the Church, not man.  It was Christ who promised it protection even from the Gates of Hell.  It was the Holy Spirit who tells us to look for this physical manifestation (that you say cannot exist) to resolve our disagreements, just as Paul did at the Council of Jerusalem.


No but if the Holy Spirit gives you power to bind and loose and the keys tot eh kingdom, there is only one way you can exercise that authority and that is if you are protected from error in matters of doctrine.  The decision of the dozens of men is not what makes something infallible it is the protection and guidance of the Holy Spirit that makes it infallible.  The same protection and guidance that was at work when the dozens of men selected which books to include in the Canon of the Bible.  If you can trust them for that why don’t you trust them to act as a Church and resolve differences as God instructed them to?


No not all of our Churches are corrupt but many are full of hypocrites.  Still you should never judge a Church on its members lives or even its leaders lives, but on the doctrine they espouse.  Christ railed against the Pharisees for their hypocrisy, but He still told the people to do as they say, if not as they do.


You cannot blame the Church for the fact that there are still sinners in the world.  The Church is responsible for protecting the message of the Gospel and spreading it so everyone can hear.  It cannot make them accept it.


My point is that people tend to be joiners.  We will join a group that we see works for others, which is what the evidence to believe of those already in the Church does.  But we are likely to join just because they claim authority, which is all we have to go on when we present the scriptures to someone who does not accept them as the Word of God.

Just because we are corrupt does not mean that we only do corrupt things.  Especially once we have become converted.  Then God begins to act through us and with His grace we cooperate to do pleasing things for Him.  So while we are still corrupt it is possible to do good things and thus your sufficient condition is lost.
.

Yes, we do pleasing things for Him.  But only He knows what is and what isn't pleasing.  We only do it because it is our "...reasonable service."(Rom 12:1b).  There is no "sainthood" in doing something only He allows us to do in the first place(which begs the question as to whether there are even such things as "battlefield heroes", for instance).  We aren't saintly b/c we avail ourselves of opportunities He gives us; but we are corrupt if we don't.

If you can trust them for that why don’t you trust them to act as a Church and resolve differences as God instructed them to

But I'm not so sure that I do trust "them" for the scriptures.  After all, I only ultimately accept a given version or story, still, on according to the interface it makes with my own thoughts internally(thus, "...bearing witness.." to our inner compass...).  I trust the accuracy of a Bible or manuscript because of the dynamics of what I know goes on between humans--the "office politics", as it were, down through the ages, the context.  I don't see that I'm "trusting" these men to tell me the truth any more than I "trust" a bank in keeping any money for me.  The only reason--I repeat--the only reason a bank will keep any money for me is b/c of other dynamics going on that literally force it to(mainly, competition).  

So I'm not so sure that I see the scriptures as a result of any innate, human trustworthiness.  Therefore I don't see any "church" similarly, either--except what is based on love.  I may "submit" to a church's authority out of "love"--and perhaps only for that reason.  But I tend to see the community in which I live as "the church", and practice my "love" in that fashion, to or for the community...

Still you should never judge a Church on its members lives or even its leaders lives, but on the doctrine they espouse.

He did say that we shall know them by their fruits.

My point is that people tend to be joiners.  We will join a group that we see works for others, which is what the evidence to believe of those already in the Church does.  But we are likely to join just because they claim authority, which is all we have to go on when we present the scriptures to someone who does not accept them as the Word of God.


Well I certainly agree that someone can join regardless of substance, based on just an authority.  People will lust or thirst for authority in their lives.  Yes, in that respect we are certainly "joiners"--"sheep", for sure.

No you miss the point by failing to extend the argument.  Yes if we do only that which we are required to do we are just a unworthy servants, but that does not mean we cannot be more.

Compare

Luke 17:7-10 But which of you, having a servant plowing or feeding cattle, will say unto him by and by, when he is come from the field, Go and sit down to meat? And will not rather say unto him, Make ready wherewith I may sup, and gird thyself, and serve me, till I have eaten and drunken; and afterward thou shalt eat and drink? Doth he thank that servant because he did the things that were commanded him? I trow not. So likewise ye, when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do.

with

Luke 12:37  Blessed are those servants, whom the lord when he cometh shall find watching: verily I say unto you, that he shall gird himself, and make them to sit down to meat, and will come forth and serve them.

See how if we only do the minimum required we are just doing our reasonable service but we can do more.  We know this is possible because the Lord will not make us sit down to meat and wait on us if we only do the reasonable service expected.  But note how the scriptures say it is possible that the Lord will be so happy with our works that He would treat us like that, making us sit down to eat while He waits on us,  so your contention that we can’t be saintly or that there are no battle field heroes appears to be wrong.


Wow!  Most people don’t trust organizations specifically BECAUSE of these unseen dynamics.  That is the reason no one wants to have electronic or Internet voting because they don’t trust what is going on behind the scenes and have some comfort in knowing that there is a physical paper trail of some sort.

I would be on your side of the argument if I thought all I had to reply on was the men involved.  The idea that I am relying on just their supposed good intentions not to pervert the Bible as they kept it down through the years is beyond my acceptance.  I have to believe the Holy Spirit was involved in guiding the Church or I would expect the type of additions like the doxology of the Lord’s Prayer (only far worse) would have snuck in, in far greater number and much earlier in the process.


If not the Holy Spirit and not the trust of men than all you have to go on is how you feel the scriptures resonate with your beliefs, or as you put it “the interface it makes with my own thoughts internally (thus, "...bearing witness.." to our inner compass...).”  This places way too much importance and confidence on our conscience for me as I have met too many people whose conscience is no longer dependable.


He was talking about individuals not about a Church.  The Church cannot force members to adhere to its teachings or even stop them from claiming to be of the Church when they are not.  Only people have a free will and it is their fruits that we can judge.