ChristiansUnite Forums

Was Posted By Ambassador4Christ on the thread Two Minutes With The Bible
======================================
THE ONE TRUE CHURCH

By Cornelius R. Stam

Religious people -- even sincere Christian people -- may
divide themselves into various denominations or churches,
but there is no indication in the Bible that God recognizes
these divisions. Indeed, God makes it abundantly clear that
in His sight there is but one Church, composed of all who
truly trust in the Lord Jesus Christ as their Savior. In
I Cor. 12:12,13 the Apostle Paul declares by divine inspira-
tion:

"For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the mem-
bers of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ:

"FOR BY ONE SPIRIT ARE WE ALL BAPTIZED INTO ONE
BODY...."

Again, in Rom. 12:5, he says:

"SO WE, BEING MANY, ARE ONE BODY IN CHRIST, AND EVERY
ONE MEMBERS ONE OF ANOTHER."

Indeed, it is on the basis of the fact that there is but "one
body" in God’s sight that He exhorts us to seek to "keep the
unity of the Spirit":

"ENDEAVORING TO KEEP THE UNITY OF THE SPIRIT IN THE
BOND OF PEACE.

"THERE IS ONE BODY...." (Eph. 4:3,4).

How can we become members of that "one Body ," the true
Church? Ephesians 2 explains how Christ died for all, Jew
and Gentile alike, "that He might reconcile both unto God in
one body by the cross..." (Ver. 16). Indeed the Epistles of
St. Paul show how God "hath concluded... all in unbelief
that He might have mercy upon all" (Rom. 11:32), and offer
to them reconciliation and salvation by grace through faith
in Christ who died for our sins.

The question, then, is not: What church do you belong to?
but, Do you belong to the Church, the Body of Christ, com-
posed of all who have acknowledged themselves to be sin-
ners in the sight of God and have trusted in Christ and
His finished work for salvation?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Subscribe at:
http://www.bereanbiblesociety.org/twominut.html
Two Minutes With The Bible By Pastor Stam

Mailing Address:
Berean Bible Society
N112 W17761 Mequon Road
P.O. Box 756
Germantown, WI 53022

Web Site:
http://www.bereanbiblesociety.org/
Gospel Books, Materials, & Free Mailings

Email: berean@execpc.com

The truth is that there are a multitude of religions which belive in the bible, yet many of there core beliefs are very diffrent , and their doctorines vary. There religions that believe in worshiping idols, yet the bible cleary states that is wrong. There are religions that belive that God the father, the son Jesus Christ and the holy Ghost are all one person, yet when the Savior was baptized, all three were represented indivualy: Jesus in the water, the voice of God the father stating He was please with his Son, and the dove, the symbol of the Holy Ghost. There are many groups that say they are christian and yet they all belive diffrent things, many of which are outright contrary to what the Bible says. I blieve that we all are children of God, and having faith in the Savior is what unites us all, and happiness will come through that faith. But God is not a God of confusion,   and having so many churches based on one book , yet diffreing so much in there doctrine is utter and complete confusion. When Jesus walked the earth, he oraginzed a church, or at least some level of organization for his followers. Just read the new testament and see for your self. He called apostles. He called preachers. When moses was overwhlemed with his duties in the old testament, his father in law directed him to call a group of 70 men to help him direct the church. And if that wasnt enough , call more. There is an obvoius level or organization to what was considered the "true church".And if we all belive that baptisim is nessary for forgivness of sins, is every baptisim performed by any clergy man an accpeted baptisim? When jesus was going to be baptised, he could have went to anyone to perform the baptisim, but he didn't. He went to John the Baptistis, the one who had the athurity to actualy perform the baptisim. AN ordincace like that has to be done with the authority of God. If it is not, then it is just a baptisim from a man, and not in the name of God.
So there must needs be some sort of organization. And if someone has the authority to perform a baptisim in the name of God, like John did, how can someone whos belifes are completly diffrent, and doctorine is complete changed have the same authroity? You can't. I present this post with the utmost respect to all. But these are just some observations I have had apoun reading the good book. I welcome all your responses, feel free to email me. I mean no disrespect to anyone.

In this present dispensation of the grace of God there is only one church, which is called the body of Christ. It consists of all those who are saved and it had its beginning with the salvation of the Apostle Paul (Rom. 11:11; I Cor. 12:13, 27; Eph. 1:22-23, 3:1-11, 4:12; Col. 1:18, 24-25; I Tim.1:14-16).

I sure LOVE C.R.Stam.

Amen

Brother Love :)

"It consists of all those who are saved and it had its beginning with the salvation of the Apostle Paul"  

If the church had its beginning with the salvation of Paul then what church was in existence for such as should be saved in Acts 2:47?
What church is refered to in Acts 2? Was it before Pauls conversion? What church did Saul persecute if it began with Paul?

Ollie

He-he-he
I like that brother Ollie.  I like it a lot!

John 1:1-5 (Which, lately I seem to quote more often than any other scripture!)
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.

Translation: Jesus has always been and always will be. (After all - He is God!) So how old is "the church"?  Forever past and forever to come.
 ;D

Michael Legna says:

Isa 44:3   For I will pour water upon him that is thirsty, and floods upon the dry ground: I will pour my spirit upon thy seed, and my blessing upon thine offspring:
Isa 44:4   And they shall spring up [as] among the grass, as willows by the water courses.
Isa 44:5   One shall say, I [am] the LORD'S; and another shall call [himself] by the name of Jacob; and another shall subscribe [with] his hand unto the LORD, and surname [himself] by the name of Israel.
Isa 44:6   Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I [am] the first, and I [am] the last; and beside me [there is] no God.

1Cr 12:5   And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord.
1Cr 12:6   And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all.

What God does not like is anyone with the unmitigated gall to declare that their church is the "one true church" and the only holder of truth.


"Whatsoever God doeth, it shall be for ever: nothing can be put to it, nor any thing taken from it" (Ecclesiastes 3:14).

Rom 10:9   That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
Rom 10:10   For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

Now, if Christ's wonderful work of paying for our forgiveness and salvation is finished, what is there left for us to do to implement it for ourselves personally?

There is nothing left for us to do! "The wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord" (Romans 6:23). One does not receive a free gift by working for it, or by doing something more to be sure he gets it.

He can refuse to accept it, of course, if he does not want it. But if he considers the proffered gift to be desirable, and truly wants to have it, he must simply accept it gratefully, thanking the one providing it. "In (Christ) we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace" (Ephesians 1:7).

We are saved, of course, entirely by God's grace, plus nothing. We then, however, become "His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them" (Ephesians 2:10).

Amen Brother Evangelist!

It is an embarrassment to see someone claiming a structure of men to be the only holder of truth in a Bible Study Area. In looking at your writing, I don't think you will have any problem in proclaiming who holds the TRUTH. I'm also positive that you won't have any problem in describing THE CHURCH. I'm positive both will be quite Biblical and without the possibility of refuting. Brother, it's time to do a Bible Study, and I would really enjoy participating with you.
 

Michael,

It's a shame and a disgrace to see something like this in a Bible Study area. I did not intend this to be harsh, simply a plain statement of the TRUTH. You and I are not the TRUTH. If you take all of the churches listed in the largest telephone book in the world, none of them are the TRUTH. It is time for a Bible Study, and I hope to make my first post in a couple of hours. Matthew 16:18 will be fine for a start. I hope that Evangelist and others will join in with us. This won't be a debate, nor should it have the characteristics of a debate.  

I don't understand your point at all.

Evangelist Said:
 
What God does not like is anyone with the unmitigated gall to declare that their church is the "one true church" and the only holder of truth.


I called him on this and asked him...

Do you have scripture to back up that claim... which in my mind is exactly the type of question one should be ready to answer in a Bible Study area.

If he could not provide a verse that says this, then I would be correct in accusing him of it being

... just your personal opinion.

If it is just his opinion and yet he has the gaul to say that God hates it - then he is  

...putting words in God's mouth.

I might have been harsh but I do not like to let people get away with speaking for God out of one side of their mouth without being able to back it up with scripture while at the same time claiming sola scriptura out of the other side of their mouth.

Perhaps you need to explain to me what a Bible Study area is for if it is not for looking to see what the Bible has to say rather than making statements of opinion without scriptural support as Evangelist did.

Michael_Legna,

I already have much of a study done on this subject, but I'm going to stop and pray about how far I want to go with this. I may not even honor your post with a reply. Your claim that the Catholic church is THE CHURCH is so ridiculous and ignorant that I don't know that I could have this discussion in a civil manner. Your mention of Matthew 16:18 in hinting at your claim doesn't rate a beginner's understanding of the New Testament. At best, it is a Greek play on words that Peter finally understood, but he didn't then, and you don't now. The Greek play on words is really pretty funny when you understand it.

I'll give you a few hints and decide after some additional prayer if I wish to go forward with this. If I do, it will be extremely rude. Peter is not the rock THE CHURCH was built upon. Peter was a nickname given to him by Jesus meaning stone - a movable kind of stone - probably one that could be thrown. The ROCK which THE CHURCH was built upon is NOT movable and NOT Peter. If you will notice 2 verses later, Jesus is telling Peter "get behind me Satan". See if you can guess what Peter was told by our LORD shortly before the crucifixion, and see if you can remember the reply of Peter. You will have to study Matthew 16:16-21 to get a clue what Verse 18 means. One last clue - Peter preached a sermon that will explain Matthew 16:18, and Peter is not the subject of the sermon.

Michael, the Catholic church is nothing but a pile of movable stones from the earth, as are all the rest of man's churches. The walls, foundation, and ceilings of the Catholic church are corruptible, and there is nothing unique in a Godly manner about the people who walk in the door there or the people who are in charge there. Many of the leaders and those in attendance will spend eternity in hell, just like all of men's devised denominations and corruptible structures.

Tom  

Its been along time Tom, since I coud say AMEN to one of your posts.

Brother Love :)

<:)))><

Secular history has shown that what you say is true.

The church at Rome seems to have much scholarly knowledge and wisdom of men, but it has drifted over thousand of years from the "mind of Christ" that Paul said it had in the first century. Compare the actions of the church at Rome, for the last 1700 years, with what we have revealed as the mind of Christ. Any comparison?

  1 Corinthians 2:16.  For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.

"We" in the verse meaning all the congregations in Christ, not just Rome's congregation, all those called by God's word, then and now. That particular writing was directed to the church at Corinth and all that in every place call upon the Lord Jesus Christ.

1 Corinthians 1:2.  Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours:

Ollie

The Church has made mistakes in its relations with others in the past but what specifically in the past 1700 years would lead you to believe that they no longer have the mind of Christ as other Christians do?


Do you mean to imply that the Catholic Church for the last 1700 years has stopped calling on the name of the Lord?  What do you base this opinion on?

The Church has always seen Jesus Christ as it's head.  They recognize salvation only comes through Christ.

There is even a Society within the Church which emphasizes reverence of His name (called the Holy Name Society - my father was a member).  It tries to remind everyone to bow their head or genuflect at each mention of the name Jesus or Christ.

Phi 2:10  That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;

When was the last time you saw a Protestant do that routinely?

Michael:
Let me begin by saying I am not, and did not intend anything to be taken as RCC bashing....so please try to adopt a little less defensive/offensive tone. Second, on the assumption that you ascribe to Jesus' atonement and resurrection as the basis of your salvation, then I recognize (assume, accept) that you are a brother in Christ, not an enemy.  Considering that a recent encyclical reiterated the RCC position that salvation cannot be found outside of the RCC, I doubt you would accord me the same honor, and therein lies the crux of disagreement.

Quote:
What God does not like is anyone with the unmitigated gall to declare that their church is the "one true church" and the only holder of truth.
Isa 10:1 Woe unto them that decree unrighteous decrees, and that write grievousness [which] they have prescribed;
Eze 34:2 Son of man, prophesy against the shepherds of Israel, prophesy, and say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD unto the shepherds; Woe [be] to the shepherds of Israel that do feed themselves! should not the shepherds feed the flocks?
Mat 23:13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in [yourselves], neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.
Luk 11:44 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are as graves which appear not, and the men that walk over [them] are not aware [of them].
Luk 11:47 Woe unto you! for ye build the sepulchres of the prophets, and your fathers killed them.
Luk 11:52 Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.
Rev 2:6   But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate.
Rev 2:9   I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and [I know] the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but [are] the synagogue of Satan.
Rev 2:15   So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate.
Rev 2:20   Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols.
Rev 3:9   Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.
Eze 8:12   Then said he unto me, Son of man, hast thou seen what the ancients of the house of Israel do in the dark, every man in the chambers of his imagery? for they say, The LORD seeth us not; the LORD hath forsaken the earth.
Eze 8:13   He said also unto me, Turn thee yet again, [and] thou shalt see greater abominations that they do.
Eze 8:14   Then he brought me to the door of the gate of the LORD'S house which [was] toward the north; and, behold, there sat women weeping for Tammuz.
Eze 8:15   Then said he unto me, Hast thou seen [this], O son of man? turn thee yet again, [and] thou shalt see greater abominations than these.
Eze 8:16   And he brought me into the inner court of the LORD'S house, and, behold, at the door of the temple of the LORD, between the porch and the altar, [were] about five and twenty men, with their backs toward the temple of the LORD, and their faces toward the east; and they worshipped the sun toward the east.
Eze 8:17   Then he said unto me, Hast thou seen [this], O son of man? Is it a light thing to the house of Judah that they commit the abominations which they commit here? for they have filled the land with violence, and have returned to provoke me to anger: and, lo, they put the branch to their nose.
Eze 8:18   Therefore will I also deal in fury: mine eye shall not spare, neither will I have pity: and though they cry in mine ears with a loud voice, [yet] will I not hear them.

There are many more verses in scripture that are plainly an indictment by God against those who claim to speak for Him when they indeed do not...and that includes (see Nicaolaitans) those who claim they are the sole holder of truth.



An open declaration was unnecessary, since what you say is the same thing promulgated by the RCC and the Eastern Orthodox church, and the Mormons, and the Branch Davidians, and the JW's, and ........on and on. As to your interpretation of what Jesus meant, that is dealt with later.

Due to post length, it is continued below

Ahhhh.,..only from one who insists that we must "complete" the "incomplete" work of Christ could we see the understanding that the "work" of confession and belief is indeed a work of the flesh. Please consider:
Eph 2:8   For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God:
Eph 2:9   Not of works, lest any man should boast.
Plainly declares that a gift (grace) saves us by faith, and that faith is not something that comes from us, but is also a gift (grace) from God. As Jesus said to Peter, "flesh and blood hath not revealed this unto you, but my Father which is in heaven". In addition, Jesus also said that "no man cometh (to me) except the Father draw him", which again removes it from the category of "works".
Finally, consider again what you say...."acceptance of the free gift is not done through faith alone", which is somewhat oxymoronic. If we must accomplish a task, or a series of tasks to receive a gift, then that gift is not free...it is being bought and paid for by the fulfillment of the tasks. A gift is either free, or it is not...it cannot be both (law of non-contradiction).
"Works" of grace are completely distinguishable from works of the flesh, or will.


*snip* long series of scriptures designed to "reinforce" the requirement of work to receive salvation.


   As shown above, we do not "do", He does it....we acknowledge it....and that is not a "work", it is grace. That "works meet for repentence" flow naturally from the grace received is the living faith you refer to, but to reiterate...it comes from, rather than preceeding grace...and the grace is not contingent upon that living faith, since such contingency would automatically make it "works (upon which) man could boast".

Abundantly agreed. The preacher who preaches the same tired old sermon on the same day every year for 35 years just because a calendar says to falls into that category...the same as the person who makes a special donation to a church so that a new wing, or library, or book, or pew can be named after them.

Why did I give my 3 year old a balloon? Because I loved him (her)? Or because they had done something special? And if I gave it to them out of love (as you specify), did I then accompany it with a long list of "honey-do's" before they could keep it? Pardon, but this is not a particularly good analogy...especially with the phraseology used.



Just a quick note about the play being in Aramaic. There are no extant Aramaic texts considered to be original...only copies of well documented GREEK texts, which contain the "petros" "petras" appellations. Since the Aramaic also does not contain a gender pointer for "ke-phas", it was necessary to be translated (into Aramaic from the Greek) as identical in both instances.

The rock on which the Church is founded is not Peter, but Peter's confession, "thou art the Christ". (Matt. 16:16).  Matt. 21:42; Acts 4:11; 1 Cor. 10:4; Eph. 2:20; 1 Peter 2:6-8 unambiguously states that Christ is the Rock. Paul explicitly states, "For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ". (1 Cor. 3:11). To take Peter as the foundation flatly contradicts this passage.
It is clear that a difference between Peter and the foundation is meant or the word "petros" would simply have been repeated. "Petros", therefore, shows Peter's instability, (e.g., Matt. 16:22-23) while "petra" indicates the immovable rock-like character of Christ, or the confession of Peter, "thou art the Christ."


How, if the RCC has been promised divine protection to prevent false leadership (and interpretation), could there be  "sme Popes (who) may spend eternity in hell..."?


Isn't this statement at odds with all the scriptures you posted concerning what we have to do?



With ADR, let's please not do such body slams to scripture in wresting them completely out of context. Aside from that, is that the criteria for determining whether or not one belongs to Christ? Does bowing the knee at the mention of His name automatically make one a "better" or "more-saved" Christian?


Sola Fide, Sola Scriptura.
 :)

You might well say "don't let go".  Or wouldn't you?


So you think Christ made the original statement in Greek?  ???
No - it's at odds with your flawed understanding of what the RCC says.

Considering that Jesus was believed to have spoken Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic, why would you suppose that He didn't? Considering that in the Gospels there are only a few definite statements that He spoke something in Aramaic, why would one suppose otherwise? Considering that the Gospels themselves, written by Hebrews who also understood Aramaic and Greek, wrote them in Greek, would you suppose that everything was spoken in Aramaic?


Then please, elucidate upon what the RCC says, show me how it is consistent with what Michael said in posting the scriptures followed by an obviously  contradictory statement, then explain what it is I "flawedly understand" about what the RCC says.....especially in light of what I've posted concerning what the RCC says.  Can you show me a quote?

And since we're being obtuse;

Quote from: blackeyedpeas on Today at 03:58:26am
Your claim that the Catholic church is THE CHURCH is so ridiculous and ignorant that I don't know that I could have this discussion in a civil manner.

Argumentum ad populum......hardly a recommended method of determining that something is true. Last I heard, Christianity (and Christ) was not something determined by popular vote....or democratic concensus.

AMEN EVANGELIST!

EXACTLY!  A man only has THE TRUTH when that man is talking about having Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Saviour. A man only has THE WORD in a similar manner, but this could be talking about having or holding the Holy Bible. A man only has THE WAY through Jesus Christ, and no other, certainly not involving anything a man does especially self.

Peter was just a man, but he finally understood what Jesus told him in Matthew 15:18. Peter fully understood that he wasn't the foundation of anything, but Peter knew who that foundation was, JESUS CHRIST, HIS LORD AND SAVIOUR!  Peter was just a small stone, but he knew the UNMOVABLE ROCK! See below:

____________________

1 Peter 2:4  To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious,
1 Peter 2:5  Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
1 Peter 2:6  Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.
1 Peter 2:7  Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,
1 Peter 2:8  And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.
1 Peter 2:9  But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:
____________________

Love In Christ,
Tom

Because greek wasn't the normal spoken language of his people in that time and place.   He may well have been capable of speaking in Greek, he may well have made some statements in greek, but I'd want some pretty solid evidence before I'd assume that he had normal conversations with his friends in a foreign language.


Because:
a.  with the exception of Matthew, the gospels were initially written to audiences outside of Palestaine, for whom greek would be the appropriate language.
b.  at least one gospel writer wasn't even a hebrew (Luke).
c.  greek was the normal scholarly written language in the world where most of the NT was written and (more importantly) read, and was the language that the OT was read in, in that world.
Greek is the language you would expect the NT to be written in, given when and where it was written, by whom and for whom.   Aramaic is the language you would expect Jesus to have spoken in every day life.  Therefore, if you are going to base your whole ecclesiology on the assumption that something was originally said in greek, you ought to have some pretty solid evidence to show that it was, and that evidence isn't there.


How can the statement "The Church has always seen Jesus Christ as it's head.  They recognize salvation only comes through Christ." be contradictory to Scripture?  Which are you disagreeing with - Scripture or the statement that Christ is the head of the Church?

Try reading what I said - I never said the RCC view was right or wrong.  I said that to pretend it is naive (as BEP did) is absurd given that many great men who have spent their whole lives studying the bible have supported that view.

Ebia,

I said nothing about it being naive to think that the Catholic Church is THE CHURCH.  I said that it was ridiculous and ignorant to even hint that the Catholic Church is THE CHURCH! I'll try to be more blunt the next time.

Quite the contrary. Because of the success of Alexander, Greek became the normal patois for the vast majority of the known world by 150BC, including Palestine. Greek was the everyday language of the Hebrews, whereas Aramaic was a little used dialect of the northeastern peoples if Israel.  Outside of the far reaches of the old Assyrian and Sumerian empires, Aramaic was the foreign language. Note also that when Jesus said (in Aramaic), "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabacthani", the HEBREW speaking witnesses misunderstood Him.....because the use of Aramaic was highly unusual. The evidence is there.



Astute observation....except for the part about the OT being read in Greek. The Septuagint was considered "trash" by the Hebrews of Israel....they neither trusted nor appreciated it, since it came from Alexandria, and they continued to rely on their trusty old original Hebrew scrolls.....reading from them in the Hebrew.


Aramaic is NOT the language you would expect Jesus to have spoken in every day life.  Again, the evidence indicates that Greek was the normal everyday language of Palestine and the world....Hebrew was secondary, and used primarily in Israel during business transactions that did not involve "gentiles", and in the Temple rites. Latin ran a distant third, and Aramaic was considered a regional dialect of a dead language that very few spoke.


Why don't you try reading what was posted? Michael posted a slew of scriptures to "prove" that works for salvation are required...which takes it out of the court of "only through Christ". That is the contradiction, and I would thank you to pay closer attention to the arguments before replying, and do not attempt to twist what is said into that which is NOT said.
"It is foolish to answer a question that you do not understand."  G. Polya



Joseph Smith spent the vast majority of his life studying the Bible. So did Armstrong, and Koresh, and a multitude of others. Even Ghandi spent more time studying the Bible than he did reading his own works. So what? 10,000 people over 15 centuries that get it wrong still get it wrong....even if they all agree (well, almost agree).

And finally, re the
Nice try. No, I believe that I would do the same thing my Heavenly Father has done for me. Out of genuine love and concern, and recognition that this poor 3 year old doesn't have a fully functioning brain yet, I would tie the balloon SECURELY to him, with an UNBREAKABLE cord, thus GUARANTEEING that even if he should unclasp his little fist, or get tired, or fall asleep, that balloon would FOREVER be with him...SAFELY AND SECURELY ATTACHED.  ;D

I am sorry I cannot get right back to you on this I began preparing a response to your post last evening but did not finish it.

Starting today and going through the weekend I am converting 4 servers on my network from Novell to Microsoft (yes I am going over tot he dark side) and will be to busy to finish but I will get back to you hopefully by Monday.

Thank you. I appreciate your tone, and look forward to some brotherly (and scholarly) jousting.  :)




Oh my.....Luke, Luke, where art thou Luke (Skywalker, that is). I like the new Linux Lightsabers.......makes hash out of Darth Gates.

No es problema....whenever is convenient.

Excellent points, Bro. Ollie:

Satan would have us believe that the Church of the living God is something other than what is revealed in ALL the Scriptures.

The Church is the BODY OF CHRIST since the day of Pentecost, in which there is no Jew nor Gentile.  It is the Holy Spirit who baptizes each one of us INTO the Body of Christ, and those who responded to the Gospel on the day of Pentecost received the gift of the Holy Ghost, as does each one who believes, repents, and receives Christ.

I just read Acts chapter 2 three times, and I only see the men of Israel, no Gentiles.

True, but men of Israel came to Christ first and were added to the church such as should be saved.  In Him there is neither Jew nor Gentile, but one in Christ.

Gentiles come later as revealed in Acts with Peter and Cornelius.

There is not a church of the men of Israel and a church of the gentiles. There is one church, believers in Christ. It did not start with Paul, but with Peter, the other apostles and those that believed Peter's preaching about Jesus Christ as revealed in Acts :2.

Did The Body Of Christ Begin At Pentecost?

By Clyde L. Pilkington, Jr.

Many Christians assume that the Body of Christ began on the day of Pentecost. Without ever stopping to prove why (I Thessalonians 5:21) they then move ahead to establish their doctrines concerning this dispensation with this as their key. Have you ever considered what actually took place on the day of Pentecost? What follows is a list of fourteen reasons why the church, the body of Christ, could not have begun at Pentecost.

1) There was already a church in existence on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:41, 47). This church was not the church which is His Body (Ephesians 1:22-23), because this was hid until it was revealed to Paul (Ephesians 3). This church, to which the believers of Pentecost were added, was the Israel’s kingdom church and was based on the confession of Peter that Jesus was the Christ (or Messiah). Peter was then given the keys to this kingdom church and power to "bind" and "loose" (Matthew 16:15-20; cf John 20:23).

2) Peter preached the "Last Days" of Israel on Pentecost and not the first days of the church which is His Body (Acts 2:16-17).

3) There is no indication in Acts 2, or anywhere in scripture, that the Body of Christ is being formed on Pentecost.

4) Pentecost was a Jewish feast day given in the Law of Moses (Leviticus 23; Deuteronomy 16). In the dispensation of the Grace of God there is no observance of days and they are spoken of as "weak and beggarly elements" and "bondage" (Galatians 4:9-11). It is inconceivable that the Lord would begin a church on a feast day which He had for another economy.

5) There was no casting off of the nation Israel on the day of Pentecost, as was necessary for the establishing of the Body of Christ (Romans 11:11-15, 32). On the contrary, the first real offer of the kingdom was made by Peter on Pentecost. The kingdom was not offered during the Gospels, it was only said to be "at hand." It actually was impossible for it to have been offered until after the New Testament was established by the death of Christ (Luke 17:24-25; 24:26). Christ must first have suffered and then have entered into His glory (I Peter 1:11).

6) The Body of Christ is a joint body of Jews and Gentiles. Peter only addressed Jews at Pentecost. Notice the identifying phrases, "Ye men of Judea" (vs. 14), "Ye men of Israel" (vs. 22), "Men and Brethren" (vs. 29), and the "House of Israel" (vs. 36).

7) Part of the Pentecostal celebration was the two wave loaves of Leviticus 23. They are attempted to be used as a type of the "Jews and Gentiles" by many dispensationalists, but they cannot match the clear teaching of I Corinthians 10:17, which shows that the body of Christ is one bread.

8) Part of the message that Peter preached on Pentecost involved water baptism as a requirement for salvation (Acts 2:38). Water baptism has no part in the gospel message committed to Paul for the Body of Christ (I Corinthians 1:17; Ephesians 4:5).

9) On the day of Pentecost the promise of the Father was fulfilled to Israel. This was a spiritual baptism where Christ was the baptizer, and Israel was baptized into the Holy Spirit (Matthew 3:11-12; Acts 1:5). This spiritual baptism is quite different from the baptism of this dispensation of grace, where the Holy Spirit is the baptizer and the believer is baptized into the Body of Christ. The student of the Bible should learn to make a difference where God makes a difference. There are two different spiritual baptisms: one is to Israel’s kingdom church, the other is to the church which is His Body. One is associated with signs and wonders, and the other is not (I Corinthians 12:13; Romans 6:3-4).

10) Pentecost was a fulfillment of prophecy (Acts 2:16, 33; 3:24), whereas the body of Christ was a mystery which had been kept secret since the world began (Romans 16:15; Colossians 1:24-26).

11) If there was any dispensational change, the Apostles were completely unaware of it, for they continued at the Jewish Temple (Acts 2:46; 3:1, 3, 8, 11; 5:20-21, 25, 42).

12) The Twelve and Israel’s kingdom church at Jerusalem also continued, throughout the book of Acts, to observe the Law (Acts 21:20-25; 22:12).

13) Israel’s kingdom church, in accordance with the kingdom teachings of Christ, sold their possessions and established a common treasury (Acts 2:44-45; 3:6; 4:32-35).

14) Peter, in his message on the day of Pentecost, did not preach the Gospel of the Grace of God, which is the clear and distinctive message of Paul given to him by revelation (Acts 20:24; Romans 16:25).

Some would argue at this point that God started the Body of Christ here, despite the accounts given in Acts 2, and that Peter was simply ignorant of it being formed. This is hard to believe since Peter had his understanding opened (Luke 24:45), the indwelling of the Spirit (John 20:22), the Baptism of the Holy Ghost (Acts 1:5), and the filling with the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:4). No, Peter was not ignorant – he was completely aware of the program which Christ was carrying out at Pentecost and was right on target.

© 1989, 2000

Pilkington & Sons 111 Charity Lane, Gladstone, VA 24553

Phone: 804.946.2750 / Fax: 804.946.2315 / Toll Free: 888.316.8608

E-mail: Books@Pilkingtonandsons.com

www.pilkingtonandsons.com

I believe that all, regardless of "dispensational" leanings, would agree that, according to scripture, an enormous event took place on the day of Pentecost.

Act 2:1   And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.
Act 2:2   And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.
Act 2:3   And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.
Act 2:4   And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

This event signified two things in particular: (1) the fulfillment of the promise made by Jesus to send another comforter, and (2) the setting of the new covenant standard of the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit to allbelievers.


Then we will notice what Paul later declares:
1Cr 12:13   For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether [we be] Jews or Gentiles, whether [we be] bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

What man recognizes as having been done by God is not the criteria for determining when God did it.  We can say that Peter did this,  or Paul declared that, or whatever...but  again, the sole determination as to what God has declared is dependent ONLY upon what God did...not on our perception.

On the day of Pentecost, God sent His Holy Spirit to confirm His new covenant with mankind. On that day, the Jews who preached at Jerusalem, and those who believed at Jerusalem, were baptized, by that Spirit, into one body...the Body of Christ, His Church.

There is not a church of the men of Israel and a church of the gentiles. There is one church, believers in Christ. It did not start with Paul, but with Peter, the other apostles and those that believed Peter's preaching about Jesus Christ as revealed in Acts :2.

WFC,
You have not answered my questions from a previoues post.


If the church had its beginning with the salvation of Paul then what church was in existence for such as should be saved in Acts 2:47?
What church is refered to in Acts 2? Was it before Pauls conversion? What church did Saul persecute if it began with Paul?

Ollie

Amen brother Ollie...there is only one Gospel

As far as water baptizm- i cant find one apostle who said it was not necessary...on the contrary they say we are baptized into his death...the holy spirit does not baptise into death, it baptises us to walk in newness of life... not death.

Just the other day i was at a website where a guy was saying water baptizm was not necessary...and in the same sentence he said him and his wife got water baptized just in case...so we see they were not sure, just like every one else. Even Jesus was water baptized...John said i have need to be baptized by you...Jesus then said let us fulfill all righteousness.

Paul baptized-Peter baptized-Phillip baptized a Gentile...Paul even rebaptized some of Johns followers in the name of Jesus. Paul got a little angry with some of the church because they where saying they where followers of him and so on...so he said im glad i didnt baptise any of you( Meaning they where baptized) if your gonna act like this. Then he said the lord didnt call me to baptise...but that doent mean his followers where not. As we see Jesus also had his followers baptized...but it wasnt him who did it, it was his followers that baptized one another. Jesus even had more people water baptized than John...he was burrying them into his death.

Romans...Gentile Church

Rom 6:4  Therefore we are buried with him by baptizm into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.  

He didnt say buried by the spirit.

Col 2:11  In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:
Col 2:12  Buried with him in baptizm, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God...Holy spirit

1Co 15:29  Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?

The holy spirit does not baptise into death. It baptizes us to walk in newness of life...for it is life :)

Rom 6:3  Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
Rom 6:4  Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
Rom 6:5  For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:

In the likeness of his death,=Water baptizm

In the likeness of his resurrection:=Holy Spirit

Rom 6:11  Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Did The Body Of Christ Begin At Pentecost?

NO WAY!!

It started with Paul, chapter 9 of Acts.

Good Post WFC, AMEN!!!!!

Your Friend and Brother

Brother Love :)

<:)))><

Rofl!!

Act 2:38   Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Act 2:39   For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, [even] as many as the Lord our God shall call.
Act 2:40   And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation.
Act 2:41   Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added [unto them] about three thousand souls.

Question...to what ekklesia (church) were these three thousand added?

Act 2:47   Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.

What church?

Act 4:4   Howbeit many of them which heard the word believed; and the number of the men was about five thousand.

And another group...

Act 5:11   And great fear came upon all the church, and upon as many as heard these things.

What church?

Act 5:14   And believers were the more added to the Lord, multitudes both of men and women.)

Added to whom?

Act 6:1   And in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplied, there arose a murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration.

Seems this ekklesia had Greeks and Hebrews....were they Jewish? or was this the Church?

Act 8:1   And Saul was consenting unto his death. And at that time there was a great persecution against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judaea and Samaria, except the apostles.

What church was being persecuted by the Jews?

Act 8:3   As for Saul, he made havock of the church, entering into every house, and haling men and women committed [them] to prison.

What church was being made havoc(k) of? Surely a Jew (Saul, aka Paul) wasn't persecuting the Jewish church, now was he?


Get real folks.....the Church of Jesus Christ, His Body, the one true church, began when He sent His Holy Spirit back to this earth to indwell and empower those who would believe on Him for salvation.

Unless, of course, you want to consider those untold thousands of people who believed, and were baptized as not really part of the body...unsaved, cast off, forgotten, etc.  Or did they walk the sawdust trail and change their memberships after Paul got converted?

Which brings up another question. What church did Ananias belong to?

Which brings up a second question: To what "church" do ultra-dispensationalists belong?

LOCAL CHURCHES EXISTED SINCE PENTECOST
At the time that Paul returned to Tarsus following his conversion and visit to Jerusalem (Acts 9:17-30) we read of a plurality of existing local churches throughout Palestine which had come into being since Pentecost: "Then had the churches [assemblies] rest throughout all Judaea and Galilee and Samaria, and were edified; and walking in the fear of the Lord, and in the comfort of the Holy Ghost, were multiplied." (Acts 9:31)

THE CHURCH, THE BODY OF CHRIST, EXISTED SINCE PENTECOST
Then in the next verse we read about "the saints which dwelt at Lydda": "And it came to pass, as Peter passed throughout all quarters, he came down also to THE SAINTS which dwelt at Lydda" (Acts 9:32).

When we read of "saints" in the NT, we are reading about those who have been (1) sanctified by the Holy Spirit (1 Pet. 1:2) and baptized into the Body of Christ (the Church) by the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 12:13) -- born-again believers (Tit. 3:3-7).  

So here we have, at the time Paul barely begins his ministry, (1) local churches or assemblies of believers and (2) saints who are already in the Body of Christ.

The teaching that the Church began with Paul is utterly without Scriptural foundation, and is another "doctrine of men" such as Bullinger, C.R. Stam, Clyde Pilkington, etc.  It is a shame that this teaching has surface among those who are genuinely born-again and should be of one mind and one spirit regarding such fundamental truths. Ultradispensationalism is a dangerous doctrine, since even the ordinances of water baptism and the Lord's Supper are called into question.

Brother Sower,

I have a lot of respect for you, your errors and all. I don't know much about the men you listed above except for Pastor Stam. I'm sure that he has errors also, but God used him to point a host of people to Christ. If one doesn't read what you said very carefully, one would think that Brother Stam was lost or doing something evil, and the opposite would be true.

I don't agree with everything you say or believe, and I don't agree with everything Brother Stam says and believes, but I have a great deal more respect for him than I do you.

You know, God uses imperfect people with errors every day, mainly because there are no perfect people without errors. I read something from Pastor Stam at least once per day and feel like God used him as a mighty servant. I'm sure that Pastor Stam had some "warts", but God used him in a mighty way regardless. You and I have "warts" also, but I'm positive that our "warts" are much larger and uglier than Pastor Stam's.

Sower, I love you anyway, huge warts and all.

There is love in Jesus,
Tom

KILLER QUESTION

What difference does it make - in the eternal perspective - as to exactly when the Church started? Considering the Great Commission, and salvation by grace through faith, does Paul starting the Church, or the day of Pentecost starting the Church, or the baptism of the eunuch, or the saving of Cornelius and his household, or anything else make any difference whatsoever in the Gospel?

I don't think so.

As far as God is concerned, souls were saved according to His plan of grace....and that is the ONLY thing that matters.

 Scripturally, it could be argued that the age of grace (unmerited salvation) began when Jesus first uttered the words "your sins are forgiven".

We should all try to keep in mind one thing......eternity......and when the church started isn't going to bring one more soul into the Kingdom....but our arguments over it might keep someone out.

And that is NOT good.

We should all try to keep in mind one thing......eternity......and when the church started isn't going to bring one more soul into the Kingdom....but our arguments over it might keep someone out.


Well said Evangelist



In the likeness of his death = Water baptizm

In the likeness of his resurrection = Holy Spirit

Amen AJ

For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

AMEN Evangelist!

If God took back his GIFT from men with errors or sin, no man would be saved.

There is Love in Jesus,
Tom

Colossians 1:18.  And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

Therefore:

If the church, (body of Christ), had its beginning with  Paul then what church, (body), was in existence for such as should be saved in Acts 2:47?
What church is refered to in Acts 2? Was it before Paul in Acts 9? What church, (body of Christ), did Saul persecute if it began with Paul?

One body, (church), one faith, one baptism, one God.

 Ephesians 4:4.  There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;
 5.  One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
 6.  One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

Never the less when someone says the church started with Paul and God's word says otherwise are Christians not obligated to show the error.

Too much emphasis is placed on Church other than it being simply the faithful in Christ. Godly people that have the Holy Spirit through obedience to Him.

 8)  When it says we should submit to the "Leadership" of the church, the only sensible thing to do is check who eexxaaccttllyy is the leader of the church.  Christ says He is the leader of the church and God says, Him alone shalt thou serve.  Anyone who takes it upon themselves to say that someone else is the leader of the church is serving man.  Ooops.  God alone shalt thou serve.   :P

Brother Tom:

You say "your errrors and all".  That is a serious charge, and unless you can support it with documented evidence, it is also a "false accusation". That is not Christian love. So if you are going to accuse me of "error" you must prove it, or retract that statement. I believe I have consistently supported all my posts with the relevant Scriptures, and simply because I do not support the doctrines of men does not mean that I teach "error".

Note carefully what I said about the Ultradispensationalists:
"It is a shame that this teaching has surfaced among those who are genuinely born-again and should be of one mind and one spirit regarding such fundamental truths".  I am not questioning the salvation of these men.

I have read some of the writings of C.R. Stam. He rejects the Great Commission, water baptism for believers, and the truth that the Church began on the Day of Pentecost. He lists three "Great Commissions" and tries to put a division between the Gospel of Paul and that of the apostles. If he desires to twist the Scriptures to suit his ultradispensational theories, that's fine. However, it is the right and moral obligation of those who differ to point out what Scripture really teaches.

I will say it again.  Ultradispensartionalists are bringing unnecessary division into the Body of Christ by "wrongly dividing the Word of Truth".  That is not just my opinion, that most fundamentalist Christians would agree.

I have read some of the writings of C.R. Stam. He rejects the Great Commission, water baptism for believers, and the truth that the Church began on the Day of Pentecost. He lists three "Great Commissions" and tries to put a division between the Gospel of Paul and that of the apostles. If he desires to twist the Scriptures to suit his ultradispensational theories, that's fine. However, it is the right and moral obligation of those who differ to point out what Scripture really teaches.

WOW!!! I agree with everything C.R. Stam teaches. How about giving some names of teachers you like Sower.

The English word "church",is an unfortunate "coined word". Much doctrinal confusion has resulted from it's scriptural mis-interpretation. The original Greek word for "church", is Ecclesia, i.e. the combining of the two Greek words Kaleo--meaning "to call", and Ek--meaning "out from". Simply stated; the word Ecclesia,refers to "ANY ASSEMBLY OF CALLED OUT ONES", be they "religious",or otherwise. It's meaning,can only be determined by it"s in-context usage. For example; in Acts 19:32,39,41, we find that "an assembly of unsaved Ephesian towns-people" are called "an ecclesia"--i.e. "a church",so to speak.

What is The One True Church?

Eph 1:22,23 "AND HATH PUT ALL THINGS UNDER HIS (Christ's) FEET; AND GAVE HIM TO BE THE HEAD OVER ALL THINGS; TO THE CHURCH,WHICH IS HIS BODY". The One True Church,is therefore not composed of any one of the well over 1,2OO visible,earthly, man made churches, in view today, but is a heaven based, invisible Divine Living Organism, called "THE CHURCH,WHICH IS HIS (Spiritual) BODY".

Brother Sower,

First, I would assume that you claim that you are without error, and anyone who disagrees with you is wrong. That, alone, would be an error. Any mature Christian should already know they are NOT without error in their understandings and beliefs about the Holy Bible. If you wish to maintain that stance of perfection, that would simply be a continuing error.

I reject your named condemnation of servants of God, specifically servants like Pastor Stam. You are simply an anonymous entity, and you've certainly not presented any convincing evidence that he is wrong about such matters as water baptism. In fact, there are threads already on the forum about water baptism that you can't and didn't refute. Visit those threads again and try if you wish. In the meantime, beliefs pro or con about water baptism do not effect my desire to have fellowship with someone. I won't belittle you because of your stance on water baptism.

I'll have to pray about it first, but I may join you in one of the already existing threads about water baptism.

There is Love in Christ,
Tom

So those, such as should be saved, that the Lord added to the ecclesia in Acts 2:47 were not added to Christ's ecclesia?

Because that ecclesia didn't come until Paul in Acts:9?

Then what Lord in Acts 2 added, such as should be saved, to what ecclesia in Acts 2:47?

WOW! Such division of God's word seems sinful.

Quote Ollie: WOW! Such division of God's word seems sinful.

Yes Ollie to you I am sure it is. :)

Brother Love :)

<:)))><

Michael:
Thanks for the replies. Since they are rather long, and to keep the thread from being too unwieldy, I'll respond one item at a time as I have the opportunity to read.

The very first item quickly caught my eye, so here we go:


Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus (there is no salvation outside the Church)

"Urged on by our faith, we are obliged to believe and hold that there is one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. And we firmly believe and profess that outside of her there is no salvation nor remission of sins"
Pope Boniface VIII in his Bull, Unam Sanctam in 1302

Pope Eugene IV, Papal Bull Cantate Domino proclaimed the "infallible dogma of no salvation outside of the Roman Catholic Church"

3866.......Among those things which the Church has always proclaimed and never leaves off proclaiming is contained the infallible proposition by which we are taught that "outside the Church there is no salvation."
excerpt of letter from Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston, 1948

Vatican II appeared to redefine the millennium long edicts of the RCC to include "some" outside of the RCC, but:

In the fall of 2000 Rome issued the Dominus Jesus edict: On September 5th 2000, the Roman Catholic document "DOMINUS IESUS" was issued by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.  Carrying the full authority of an official Vatican decree, it declares the Roman Catholic Church to be the only "instrument for the salvation of all humanity. "DI has been "ratified and confirmed" by "The Sovereign Pontiff John Paul II."

1215, Fourth Lateran Council, exclusive salvation defined by Pope Innocent III
1302, Unam Sanctum, Pope boniface VII
1441, Cantate Domino, Pope Eugene IV
Pius IX and St. Pius X confirmed, plus:


"...but this we do dare say, that, if one dies a Protestant, and the presemption, if he remains an adhering Protestant up to the last moment, is that he does so die, he is most assuredly damned, that is, forever deprived of heaven and will never see God as He is."
Orestes A Brownson, 1803-1876
In Hoc Signo Vinces (IHSV.com), the official Catholic website, ©2000.

From the "controversies" section, IHSV.com

I would humbly suggest to you, Michael, that before making any more statements such as your last two lines in the above quote, that you might insure that you yourself are not misrepresenting either a position, or another person. As you will eventually learn, I am neither in the habit or attitude of just throwing something out without believing that I have (a) understood it, and (b) researching it. Misrepresentation and twisting of anothers position is not only morally untenable, but makes for easily refuted argumentation.

Let's try a little logic.

In a previous post, you said:


The church Michael Legna attends is a Roman Catholic Church.
Michael Legna says that Jesus has declared that church to be the "one true Church".
Therefore, Michael Legna's church (the Roman Catholic Church) is the one true church.

Either the Roman Catholic Church is the one true Church or it isn't (law of non-contradiction).
Either Michael Legna accepts what Jesus says as true, or what the Catholic Church catechism says is true.
By the law of non-contradiction, you cannot accept both.

Which is it?



see above.


According to Fr. Matthew O'Herlihy (DDiv, PhD.,) who taught my Comparative Theology courses in the late 50's, Papal Bulls ARE ex-cathedra statements, and binding upon the entirety of the RCC.  I believe you are perfectly capable of finding the bull yourself....aren't you?


see above.


Your tackiness is unbecoming. Does it make you feel better?
 

The ugly spectre of logic:
The protestant position is that the RCC is not the true church.
The RCC position is that it is the one true church (according to Jesus).
Therefore, all protestants are not saved.

The RCC position is that it is the one true church (according to Jesus).
Anyone not a part of the RCC is not part of the one true church.
Therefore all who are not a part of the RCC are not saved. (even if they are Orthodox).

The law of non-contradiction again rules.



see above


Ignored? Not quite...just put it in comparison to over 1000 years of RCC position, and found it inconsistent. Now, in your last sentence are you "subtly and with infinite nuance"  suggesting that I made up the existence of such a bull?


As the RCC likes to suppose, tradition trumps. Since the tradition of the RCC is as presented over a period of roughly 700 years, the latest catechism is merely a bump in the usually rocky road of RCC dogma...and inconsistent, as previously explained.


Rather than respond to another tacky piece of innuendo, I would prefer to direct you to the following site
http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html
which will give you a basic introduction to the fallacies of argumentation. Take a few months to digest it, then come back.....we just might make a serious (and capable) apologist of you yet.  ;)

We'll keep this short and sweet, Michael, since I find no real value in our interchange.

You say:

On the presumption that this statement, as a dictum from the pontiff and the RCC, is one in which you agree (otherwise I don't believe you would have posted it), I find that you (and the RCC) have, in one fell swoop, declared that Jesus is a liar (NO ONE cometh to the Father but BY ME), have declared His shed blood to be inefficacious (without the shedding of blood there is NO REMISSION OF SIN), and placed yourself (via the RCC) squarely outside the realm of Christian orthodoxy.

 

Glad you recognized the level of the website...it was chosen to fit your level. And IF you had a "vast background at the graduate level" in logic, you would have been able to prove the BOOLEAN syllogisms as invalid...but you cannot, since they are valid as formed.  Additionally, the premises can be proven (by your previous statements) to be adequately rendered in syllogistic form, thus they are true.

Finally, since your primary argumentation is based upon something that falls into the category of non-contradiction, it is so named....repeatedly. Care for more variety? How about :
Argumentum ad Verecundiam (your appeals to the catechism)
Argumentum ad Hominem (via your barely concealed snidisms)

and several others.

Anathema Maranatha.

Actually the Pope doesn't claim to be infallible to usurp the honor and glory and power of God.  The Pope admits that he is infallible only because of the power of God, and the decisions he reaches when guided by the Holy Spirit (as promised by Christ in scripture) are for the glory of God through the success of His Church.

Mat 16:19  And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.


You are not very familiar with history if you make such a claim - as miraculous healings and even raising people from the dead have been accomplished hundreds of times by members of the Catholic Church and even some Popes.  But that is only one gift and we should not focus on it alone.


Now you have pushed the gifts idea too far as we see in scripture that there are many diverse gifts.  Not all heal, some are teachers, some speak in tongues.  

1Co 12:28-31  And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.   Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles  Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret?   But covet earnestly the best gifts: and yet shew I unto you a more excellent way.

In fact healing the physical body is not even one of the better gifts.  Being an Apostle (which the Pope is) is the best gift and yet even that (like faith alone) is nothing without love.

1Co 13:13  And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.


You can believe that if you want but there is no evidence for that in scripture.

If God is the one responsible for the Popes infallibility, that is if God is the one protecting the Church from error as Christ promised He would.  Then by listening to the Pope when he speaks ex cathedra you are listening to God as He speaks through the Pope.


Your saying the Pope has contradicted scripture is a long way from actually proving it.  Many have tried and all have failed to prove such a ridiculous claim.


Now you are taking the verses out of context.  Yes it is the body that will not fail but the power to bind and loose was given only to the Apostles (Matt 18:18) and it was first given to Peter (Matt 16:19) to strengthen the others (Luke 22:32) as leader (John 21:16-17).


What rules of men do you think I am slave to by being part of the Catholic Church?  I am not under any rules that do not come right from scripture, rules I would follow regardless of the denomination I choose; because my interpretation of scripture makes it clear that Christ instructed us to do them.

I am free in Christ, but free in the sense to understand that God desires mercy not sacrifice (Mt 9:13), that the letter of the law is death but the spirit is life(2 Cor 3:6), that Christ came not to destroy the law but to fulfill it (Mt 5:17), that we fulfill the law through love (Rom 13:8).

How many "churches",i.e. how many "religious bodies" is God building?

Eph 4:5 "THERE IS (ONE) BODY--", i.e. There is only "ONE" True Church.

 Is this "ONE BODY", i.e. "ONE CHURCH", to be one of earthly, corporate unity? Or solely that of a heavenly,spiritual unity?

 Solely that of a heavenly,spiritual unity,e.g.Eph 4:3 "ENDEAVOURING TO KEEP THE (heavenly) UNITY OF THE SPIRIT,IN THE BOND OF PEACE"--as follows: Eph 2:6 "AND HATH (now,positionally) RAISED US UP TOGETHER,AND MADE US SIT TOGETHER,IN HEAVENLY PLACES,IN CHRIST JESUS:Col 1:13 "WHO HATH DELIVERED US FROM THE POWER OF DARKNESS,AND HATH (now,positionally) TRANSLATED US INTO THE (heavenly) KINGDOM OF HIS DEAR SON". Eph 1:3 "--WHO HATH (already) BLESSED US WITH ALL SPIRITUAL BLESSINGS IN HEAVENLY PLACES,IN CHRIST".Note: Positionally speaking,the saved are (already) saved,sainted,and seated in the heavenlies,(in) Christ's One Body. One need seek no other "church body".

HE purchased it with His blood (Acts 20:28).

HE is the Head (Eph. 1:22-23; Col. 1:18).

HE nourishes and cherishes it (Eph. 5:29).

HE dwells in it (Eph. 3:17; Col. 1:18).

HE adds only saved to it (1 Cor. 12:13).

HE places the members in it (1 Cor. 12:18).

HE designates the qualifications of its leaders (Titus 1:5-11; 1 Tim. 3:1-15).

HE instructs its members to be of one mind and speak the same thing (1 Cor. 1:10).

HE instructs its members to have no divisions among them (1 Cor. 1:10, 3:1-4).

HE instructs its members to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace (Eph. 4:3).

HE instructs its members to not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers (2 Cor. 6:14-17).

HE thouroughly furnishes it unto all good works by the scriptures (2 Tim. 3:16-17).

HE is coming again to catch only His church away (1 Thess. 4:13-18; 1 Cor. 15:51-58).

Then, he Who has provided all of the above and more, commands His church to do all they do in His name, thus giving thanks to God and the Father that He might righly receive the glory (Col. 3:17).

i agree, but do you think its a bad thing to go to a church to worship , pray , share with your brothers , and refill your spirit .  ( church in the sense of a physical building )

michael_legna,

If you can't discern a false gospel and a false church, then you can't discern the true gospel and the true church. If you cannot discern a false gospel and a false church, then you are in very serious spiritual trouble...

1Ki 8:27  But will God indeed dwell on the earth? behold, the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain thee; how much less this house that I have builded?

Act 7:48  Howbeit the most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands; as saith the prophet,
Act 7:49  Heaven is my throne, and earth is my footstool: what house will ye build me? saith the Lord: or what is the place of my rest?

1Co 3:16  Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?

2Co 2:14  Now thanks be unto God, which always causeth us to triumph in Christ, and maketh manifest the savour of his knowledge by us in every place.

Eph 1:22  And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him [to be] the head over all things to the church,
Eph 1:23  Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.

The one true church is you and me and whosoever will.

 ;D  Actually, it's soooo funy you mention this, but I really felt the Lord press upon me that this binding in earth and in heaven has to do with forgiveness.  FORGIVENESS.  Please go back and read the scripture in it's context, otherwise I would quote it here.  but go back in the book and go back waayyyy as far as you can tolerate and read and read until you get to that very part.  You will notice that this is about forgiveness.  Michael, I certainly would want your sincere input.  Please don't rehash what someone already taught you or what you learned in school.  Because nobody taught me this and I didn't learn it in school.  Matter of fact the Bible that I'm reading has all sorts of notes on it that detract away from this meaning -- of it being about forgiveness.  Anyway, I'm sure there's no one that I worship with that will see it this way if they re-hash what they've learned.  The key thing is that I've been struggling with this idea that the gospel is preached to the dead by those that have passed on.  I can think of only two scripture references that have popped out that have confirmed this idea in my  mind.  I know that the Catholics believe in purgatory and that's why I wanted you to have a gander at this idea.  If the loosing in earth and in heaven is about forgiveness and a person has to go to the body of Christ to  get things loosed and bound--I'm not saying I'm able to comprehend eternity or how things work but if a group of people can get a person to really forgive, I'm not talking about forgiving in word, I'm talking about the forgiveness that heals the wounds and gives joy to the forgiver.  Then it would take the body of Christ to do that.  anyway, I guess my whole idea is that I never thought the Church would be the legislature.  As a matter of Fact when a man approached Christ to have him settle a dispute, Christ refused to do it.  As Christians following Christ we have to take note of what Christ did and did not do and then we can live out His love that way.  So, I'm pretty sure binding and loosening isn't about settling earthly disputes, and I think it's about forgiveness.  What do you think?  Actually, I'm pretty sure about this topic in my own heart, but I'm not sure enough about it to start and argument.   So, if it's just for arguements sake, then I don't want to argue.  I just want your pure an adulterated, thoughts on the topic.  If you're going to fork out someone else's thoughts or type out what you learned in school, don't bother, I've already heard it all.

Thanks, Mike!

I love you for answering my question!!   ;)  When I was a child people used to break out this verse or that verse and make me do things that were wrong.   :'(  So, I never break out verses anymore.  I admit, I have big problems when folks zero in on this scripture or that without reading the part way ahead and the part way after.  I always go a chapter or two before and I don't stop at the end of the chapters because we know that the chapters were started just two hundred years ago or so.  When the texts were originially written, there were no divisions such as chapters.  I think it's starts with the way that Jesus handled this Tax Collector
Peter and His Master Pay Their Taxes
24 When they had come to Capernaum,[7] those who received the temple tax came to Peter and said, "Does your Teacher not pay the temple tax?"
25He said, "Yes."
And when he had come into the house, Jesus anticipated him, saying, "What do you think, Simon? From whom do the kings of the earth take customs or taxes, from their sons or from strangers?"
26Peter said to Him, "From strangers."
Jesus said to him, "Then the sons are free. 27Nevertheless, lest we offend them, go to the sea, cast in a hook, and take the fish that comes up first. And when you have opened its mouth, you will find a piece of money;[8] take that and give it to them for Me and you."

Who Is the Greatest?


Offenses and Forgiveness
(1) 1 At that time the disciples came to Jesus, saying, "Who then is greatest in the kingdom of heaven?"
2Then Jesus called a little child to Him, set him in the midst of them, 3and said, "Assuredly, I say to you, unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven. 4Therefore whoever humbles himself as this little child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. 5Whoever receives one little child like this in My name receives Me.

Children forgive easily


Jesus Warns of Offenses
(2) 6 "Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to sin, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were drowned in the depth of the sea. 7Woe to the world because of offenses! For offenses must come, but woe to that man by whom the offense comes!  8"If your hand or foot causes you to sin, cut it off and cast it from you. It is better for you to enter into life lame or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet, to be cast into the everlasting fire. 9And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you. It is better for you to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes, to be cast into hell fire.

People causing the little children to get all offended get a warning here.
The Parable of the Lost Sheep

(3) 10 "Take heed that you do not despise one of these little ones, for I say to you that in heaven their angels always see the face of My Father who is in heaven. 11For the Son of Man has come to save that which was lost.[1] (I think that Jesus is actually looking at souls that are lost like they are children.)
It's not good to despise.

12"What do you think? If a man has a hundred sheep, and one of them goes astray, does he not leave the ninety-nine and go to the mountains to seek the one that is straying? 13And if he should find it, assuredly, I say to you, he rejoices more over that sheep than over the ninety-nine that did not go astray. 14Even so it is not the will of your Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish.


Dealing with a Sinning Brother
15 "Moreover if your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother. 16But if he will not hear, take with you one or two more, that "by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.'[2] 17And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church. But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector.  Did you take note about how Jesus dealt with the tax collector????  He gave himi what he wanted!!   18"Assuredly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.
19"Again I say[3] to you that if two of you agree on earth concerning anything that they ask, it will be done for them by My Father in heaven. 20For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them."


The Parable of the Unforgiving Servant
21 Then Peter came to Him and said, "Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? Up to seven times?"
22Jesus said to him, "I do not say to you, up to seven times, but up to seventy times seven. 23Therefore the kingdom of heaven is like a certain king who wanted to settle accounts with his servants. 24And when he had begun to settle accounts, one was brought to him who owed him ten thousand talents. 25But as he was not able to pay, his master commanded that he be sold, with his wife and children and all that he had, and that payment be made. 26The servant therefore fell down before him, saying, "Master, have patience with me, and I will pay you all.' 27Then the master of that servant was moved with compassion, released him, and forgave him the debt.
28"But that servant went out and found one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred denarii; and he laid hands on him and took him by the throat, saying, "Pay me what you owe!' 29So his fellow servant fell down at his feet[4] and begged him, saying, "Have patience with me, and I will pay you all.'[5] 30And he would not, but went and threw him into prison till he should pay the debt. 31So when his fellow servants saw what had been done, they were very grieved, and came and told their master all that had been done. 32Then his master, after he had called him, said to him, "You wicked servant! I forgave you all that debt because you begged me. 33Should you not also have had compassion on your fellow servant, just as I had pity on you?' 34And his master was angry, and delivered him to the torturers until he should pay all that was due to him.
35"So My heavenly Father also will do to you if each of you, from his heart, does not forgive his brother his trespasses."[6]  

I definately think if a person looks at the WHOLE thing and sees how Jesus treated a tax collector and then he tell us to treat folks like heathens and tax collectors, did you notice that the only people that Jesus taught us to be harsh with are with religious leaders and teachers of the law.  It's because they know better.  Everyone else are like little children and we have to remember that they are our neighbor and we have to love them.  And any teacher of the law or preacher that can't love a person that disagrees with him shows that he isn't Christ's follower.  They know the good teachers by how the love each other.  We should focus on loving if we want our words to amount to anything.

In this context, do you agree that scripture may be about forgiveness??