Heretics?

[michael_legna]

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.  

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

Doubtless there are threads of continuity genuine and authentically "Christian"--from Peter and the others onward.  

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.

But something Jesus and the Holy Spirit is doing, and not some necessarily monolith or brotherhood of man(although Christians are brothers)?

I am not certain I understand this question.

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.?

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

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.

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.

Your emphasis on the Church, such as above, implies a justification outside of NT reference.  

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).

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?

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?

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?

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

[Symphony]

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.  

[michael_legna]

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.

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.

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.  

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

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?

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."

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.  So the Catholic Church carries with it the noble--antiabortion, anti-gay---but it's earthly, and earthy reality.  

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.

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.  

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?

[Pilgrim]

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

[Petro]

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

[michael_legna]

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.  

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.

The passage about the gates of hell are not even talking about keeping the church from error but deal with eternal life.

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.

[Symphony]

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?

[Petro]

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

[michael_legna]

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?

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."

[Symphony]

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.

[michael_legna]

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.

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?  

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

[Symphony]

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).

[michael_legna]

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.

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?

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?

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?

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.

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.

[Symphony]

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??  

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??

[ebia]

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?  

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.