Go Back   Christian Guitar Forum > Deeper Issues > Theology
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Arcade Mark Forums Read

Reply
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Unread 07-05-2005, 04:40 AM   #46
Registered User
 

Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 684
Quote:
Originally Posted by KFBobInsanesMom
Peter and the other 11 disciples had the power to bind and loose, but that power was not passed on.
Your interprutation. I see it differently and so did the Early Church Fathers who give witness that linus, cletus, and clement succeeded Peter. Who throughout the world named succeeding bishops of the Church, north, south, east, and west, accross cotinents and languages and cultures, many apporinted by the Apostles themselves, with examples of how these Bishops submitted to the Bishop of Rome. As for the Papacy, the keys indicate succession. I get keys to my house when I purchase it. They give me control, access and authority over that house. When I sell the house the keys are passed on to another. There is more of course. The direct parrellel of Matt 16:18, 19 to Is 22-24, where the keys are mentioned as well in an office that had been in existence for over 700 years (succession). Any self respecting Jew would not have missed the parrellel that Jesus was drawing but you likely will and will say I am imagining it. Oh well.

Quote:
What if the church willfully disobeys the word of God? 1 Corinthians 11 : 23-26 23 For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you: that the Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was betrayed took bread; 24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, "Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me." 25 In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me." 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death till He comes

Matthew 26:26-28 26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, "Take, eat; this is My body." 27 Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you. 28 For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Notice the words here? Eat AND drink. Not just eat, or just drink, or take in these elements.... but eat AND drink. Eat the bread that is His body, drink from the cup that is His blood. Now if a church teaches against the words of Jesus and does not teach that one needs to eat the bread and drink the cup, they are willfully disobeying the word of God. Should we follow a church that does this, or rely on others teachings of said church??
I don't know that it has. At every Mass there is the bread and the wine and it is eaten and drankk respectively. Further those words were spoken to men who were priests. At every Mass the priests eat the bread and drink the wine. Luke 24 is considered by the Fathers of the Church to be a Eucharistic event where the two men on the road to Emanaus meet Jesus. All they recieve is the bread. So I guess we shouldn't trust Jesus who gave it to them by your logic either.

My advice to you is "trust not in your own understanding (but rely on the Lord) " Prov 3:5 who will give you "shepherds after my own heart who will give you KNOWLEDGE AND UNDERSTANDING" Jer 3:15. It is "the Church" which is "the pillar and support of the truth (1 Tim 3:15) not the individual. Of course human pride makes you want to do it on your own and trust noone, even the legitimate authorities that God has placed over you. So sad.

By the way your post sounds like legalism to me.


Blessings


Last edited by thessalonian; 07-05-2005 at 05:00 AM.
thessalonian is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Unread 07-05-2005, 05:08 AM   #47
Registered User
 

Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 684
KFbob and all, Here is a little something from Ireanus in the mid 2nd century for you:

"This doctrine and this faith the Church, disseminated throughout the world, guards diligently, forming almost one single family: the same faith with only one soul and one heart, the same preaching, teaching, tradition as if having one voice. Churches of Germany do not have a different faith or tradition, as neither do those of Spain, of Gaul, of Egypt, of Libya, of the East, of the center of the earth, as the sun creature of God is only one and identical in the whole world, so the light of true preaching shines everywhere and enlightens all men who wish to come to the cognition of truth" ("Adversus Haereses" I, 10,2).

Irenaus was the Bishop of Lyons, France. He looked to Rome for guidance with regard to Church disputes because he recognized the binding and loosing authority had been transfered there by Peter. For 1500 years the Church throughout the world was essentially Catholic (the Orthodox rejected the Papacy in 1054 but are essentially Catholic, except for their late rejection of the Papacy at that date). Reformers for the most part ignore or bash that time period. After that time we have the advent of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura and division upon division. Today the Catholic Church is as Irenaus spoke, the same throughout the world, teaching the same doctrine. I can go to a Catholic Church in England or Australia and know what teaching I am going to hear just as Irenaus stated. You can't even find two baptist Churches accross the street teaching the same thing. There are Calvinists and Lutherans and Armenians. Pentecostals who say you have to speak in tongues, Anglicans who are wanna be Catholics but can't accept the Papacy, and Non-denominationals who have no history and are just trying to get away from the whole division thing but end up dividing it even further. Sounds like "blown around by every wind of doctrine" to me.

What Irenaus noted as being taught throughout the world could not have been from any other source but the Apostles. The same is true today. Division is not of God. As I said, Irenaus recognized the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome and also recognized that Peter passed on his office Irenaeus

The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome], they handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus (Against Heresies 3:3:3 [A.D. 189]).

He noted that the whole Church was united and would not have stated such if the whole Church throughout the world was not united in this matter. Irenaus speaks of many other doctrines of the Catholic faith. His writings are consistent with what the Catholic Church teaches today. He refutes many of the heresies of his day. I highly recommend that you read him.

Blessings
thessalonian is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 07-05-2005, 06:02 AM   #48
Registered User
 
BobbyB's Avatar
 

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 754
The whole sum of the debate I see so far is Sola Scripture vs. Tradition and the Catholics vehemently defending Tradition on par with Scripture. (Holy Bible). Where it should be is how does Tradition fit with Scripture.

The only problem I have with Tradition is for me it is too ritualistic and we get into worshiping the Church over Jesus (whether we realize it or not).

As far as people who sincerely follow Tradition as a way of getting closer to Christ, I have no problem. As long as Tradition is tested against Scripture. You can't use teachings on Tradition as defense of Tradition. You should be able to defend it with Scripture.

We may dissagree on what Scripture teaches. That is ok as long as we agree on the essiential doctrine of Scripture. (death, burial and ressurrection of Jesus Christ, and that only through Jesus Christ we can have eternal life.)
BobbyB is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 07-05-2005, 07:50 AM   #49
Registered User
 

Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 238
If we look at the timeline, this is what we have:

1) Tradition
2) Old Testament
3) Church
4) New Testament

Tradition came first.
We have Tradition before the Old Testament.
And we have the Church before the New Testament.

As it has been pointed out that's why the Bible says the Church is the "the pillar and bulwark of the truth." (1 Ti 3:15)
(It is NOT scripture that is the "the pillar and bulwark of the truth", but the Church. This is the hierarchy defined by the Bible.)
The Church actually defined the canon of Scripture.



From a jewish point of view, tradition is uphelp along the the Old Testament.
The two go hand in hand. The Old Testament is part of the tradition.
Tradition encompasses the Old Testament.

So denying tradition is denying the jewish roots of Christianity.

Here is how a jewish puts it:
Quote:
Being Jewish, I have always had a problem with the concept of Sola Scriptura, and I have always thought that there is a very good religio-historical argument against it.

Now I think we can all agree that Judaism is the foundation upon which Christianity of all types is built. After all the Christian bible contains both an Old (Jewish) Testament and a New (Christian) Testament. And Jesus and the Apostles and (especially) St Paul were all brought up as Jews and had a firm grasp of Jewish Tradition.

That said Judaism has always had written law, the Torah, i.e. the first five books of the Old Testament. And it has an oral law, Mishnah, that expounds on and explains Torah. By way of an example there is a verse in Leviticus (unfortunately I don't have a Bible handy so I can't give an exact verse cite) that says "Thou shalt not scald a kid [i.e a baby goat] in its mother's milk." This is Torah. Mishnah expands on that verse to provide a great deal of the basics of the kashruth food laws, namely things like not cooking meat in milk, not eating dairy foods and meat at the same meal, keeping separate dishes and utensils for cooking and eating meat or dairy, etc.

So to recap, at the time of Jesus and the early Church there was a written law and an oral law. And this is key, the oral law was not written down until around the 3rd or 4th century AD, where it became the basis for later Talmudic commentary.

Therefore since Jesus and the Apostles and St Paul were all Jews coming out of a Jewish tradition, it logically follows that the early Church would follow Jewish tradition and have it's own written law (the Gospels and the Epistles) as well as it's own oral law (Tradition).
IesusDeus is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 07-05-2005, 07:56 AM   #50
Registered User
 

Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobbyB
Where it should be is how does Tradition fit with Scripture.

As far as people who sincerely follow Tradition as a way of getting closer to Christ, I have no problem. As long as Tradition is tested against Scripture. You can't use teachings on Tradition as defense of Tradition. You should be able to defend it with Scripture.
I agree that Tradition and Scripture must not be in contradiction with each other.
They are both expression of the Truth that we receive from God.
IesusDeus is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 07-05-2005, 09:49 AM   #51
Banned
 

Joined: May 2005
Posts: 104
I stand corrected on what the Church taught in the 20’s, but Nolidad, you still have not explained why Jesus prophesied that his followers would fast and why Jesus gave instructions on how to fast. I knew you wouldn’t. You still won’t. But you have no compunction on ranting against the Catholic Church‘s teachings on fasting.
Quote:
UMMMM--- Its a lot older than that-- it goes back to the gospels and epistles.
Wrong. Show me. The only implicit verse you will use is “all have sinned”, but “all” does not mean “every single one”. And you still haven’t shown me who taught that blasphemy before the 16 century. You can’t, because none exists, so you give a cheap shot for an answer.
Quote:
And if I prove you wrong openly ont his thread will you recant and repent of your slanderof me before all you have falsely accused me??
Oh, your too much!!!
Quote:
Well if by that do I not hold to the RCC definition--then yes you are right I do not. The church has made enoprmous erroprs opver the centuries--that does not stop it from being universal and triumphant.
Would you accept a dictionary?
Quote:
Okay here is the passage now prove your assertion.

10And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews.

11These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
This proves you did not read my previous post. I discussed this in detail and it proves the opposite of your presuppositions.
Quote:
This is who God is as declared by Scripture and is not "owned" by any denomination.
I never sad anything was “owned”, you did. The Trinity was clarified in the Council of Ephesus which you reject most of, to refute the heretic Nestorius.
Quote:
If I take the time to do the searching and cutting and pasting to show how utterly ignorant you are fo yoru own denominations history of "doctrine" making-- what are you prepared to do with the truth????
There is not one “bible-only-Christian” site on the internet that tells the truth about the Catholic Church. Not one. That is why you make such a ridiculous claim.
Quote:
Well let me shopw you where it comes from: Mark 7

7Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

8For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.

9And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.

You really need to set aside your anger ands look at Gods word .
You need to grow up. If YOU LOOK, it says, “…ye reject the commandment of God…”
YOU are saying it says, “making void the commandments…” You are reacting and not reading. You misquote the bible and you misquote everything I say. This will be my last response to you, so enjoy yourself with your next rage.
Quote:
Are you calling Tradition the decrees of god as brought forth in Scripture??? I can agree withthat. for the word tradition means teaching.
The Bible itself is Tradition. The problem is most evangelical/fundamentalists are totally ignorant of the history of the early Church. If the subject is not totally avoided it’s re-written. Catholic teachings, the ones you rant against, existed before the canon of the Bible.
no_fixd_address is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 07-05-2005, 10:14 AM   #52
Banned
 

Joined: May 2005
Posts: 104
As far as people who sincerely follow Tradition as a way of getting closer to Christ, I have no problem. As long as Tradition is tested against Scripture. You can't use teachings on Tradition as defense of Tradition. You should be able to defend it with Scripture.

Very well said, Bobby. I agree 100%.

It is true that any proposed tradition which contradicts Apostolic Scripture is a false tradition and must be rejected, but this does not make Apostolic Tradition inferior to Scripture for that reason. It is also true that any proposed scripture which contradicts Apostolic Tradition is a false scripture and must be rejected.

This was, in fact, one of the ways in which the canon of the New Testament was selected. Any scriptures which contained doctrines which were contrary to the Traditions the apostles had handed down to the Church Fathers were rejected. Between the Gnostic gospels (like the Gospel of Thomas) or Marcion's edited version of Luke and Paul's epistles, there were a lot of heretical writings that different groups wanted to see in the New Testament.

But the Fathers said, "No, this contradicts the faith that was handed down to us from the apostles. Thus it must be a forged writing."
So while tradition must be tested against Scripture to see if the tradition is apostolic, it is also true that scripture must be tested against Tradition to see if the scripture is apostolic. There is complementarity here, and one mode of teaching is not automatically inferior to the other.

Both Tradition and Scripture originate from Apostolic teaching.
no_fixd_address is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 07-05-2005, 11:33 AM   #53
Registered User
 
BobbyB's Avatar
 

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 754
Quote:
Originally Posted by IesusDeus
I agree that Tradition and Scripture must not be in contradiction with each other.
They are both expression of the Truth that we receive from God.
So when they contradict, which one do you go with?
BobbyB is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 07-05-2005, 01:37 PM   #54
Gone Golfing
 
mlqurgw's Avatar
 

Joined: Sep 2004
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 1,539
Many here have tried to prove that the Bible came by the Church who also would seek to prove the church by the Bible. This seems to me to be a vicious circle. You can't claim one to prove the other and then use the other to claim the one.
__________________
If you want someone to find Christ take them to where He has promised to be. Where two or three are gathered in His name.
mlqurgw is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 07-05-2005, 01:42 PM   #55
exo
A Provocative Title
 
exo's Avatar
 

Joined: Sep 2002
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 3,521
Send a message via AIM to exo
Quote:
Originally Posted by mlqurgw
Many here have tried to prove that the Bible came by the Church who also would seek to prove the church by the Bible. This seems to me to be a vicious circle. You can't claim one to prove the other and then use the other to claim the one.
The answer to this is: Jesus created the church and the Bible is just a recording of him doing so. So, they don't use the Bible, but Jesus' own actions and words. But, of course, this, again, elevates the church and tradition above Scripture. It is not on equal ground. There is no getting around that.
__________________
Brian

"Trust in the LORD forever, for the LORD, the LORD is the rock eternal." Isaiah 26:4

Jesus is my Guild Leader.
exo is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 07-05-2005, 03:18 PM   #56
Registered User
 

Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 238
Scripture and Tradition

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobbyB
So when they contradict, which one do you go with?
For me this is a false dichotomy, because they both reflect the Truth and thus cannot be in contradiction of each other.
Personally, I see no contradiction with Scripture and Tradition upheld by the (Catholic) church.
(We can have a specific thread on this if you wish.)

But let's pretend for one minute that there is a contradiction.
Then, I would hold the Church to be the "the pillar and bulwark of the truth." (1 Ti 3:15)
I would let the Church be the final authority.

We know how hard it can be to rely only on the Bible. (Sola Scriptura.)
Look at the myriads of different movements in Protestantism.
Each one, claims to hold the truth. (Correct me if I am wrong.)
They can’t ALL be right on different doctrinal matters.
You cannot at the same time, hold that infant baptism is valid or that it is not valid.
You cannot at the same time, hold that baptism is merely symbolic, or that baptism washes away original sin.
Both cannot be right (or "truthful") at the same time.
On what interpretation should I rely upon?

We have evidence on how relying upon our own interpretation of the Bible have led to divisions.
(Rodney disagree with Edgar on some doctrinal matter, leaves and starts his own Church.)
(There is now a lot of differents denominations in protestantism.)

What if we have differences, what are we to do? What does the Bible say?
"If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them."
Here, we see the authority of the Church. The Church is the final authority, not the Bible.
And we should "listen to the church", those who do not listen to the church are compared to "gentiles".

For me, the Church is the final authority, the "the pillar and bulwark of the truth."
Or as As exo stated, I put "Church and Tradition above scripture."

Peace...
IesusDeus is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 07-05-2005, 03:43 PM   #57
Registered User
 
BobbyB's Avatar
 

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 754
Quote:
Originally Posted by IesusDeus
Scripture and Tradition



For me this is a false dichotomy, because they both reflect the Truth and thus cannot be in contradiction of each other.
Personally, I see no contradiction with Scripture and Tradition upheld by the (Catholic) church.
(We can have a specific thread on this if you wish.)

But let's pretend for one minute that there is a contradiction.
Then, I would hold the Church to be the "the pillar and bulwark of the truth." (1 Ti 3:15)
I would let the Church be the final authority.

We know how hard it can be to rely only on the Bible. (Sola Scriptura.)
Look at the myriads of different movements in Protestantism.
Each one, claims to hold the truth. (Correct me if I am wrong.)
They can’t ALL be right on different doctrinal matters.
You cannot at the same time, hold that infant baptism is valid or that it is not valid.
You cannot at the same time, hold that baptism is merely symbolic, or that baptism washes away original sin.
Both cannot be right (or "truthful") at the same time.
On what interpretation should I rely upon?

We have evidence on how relying upon our own interpretation of the Bible have led to divisions.
(Rodney disagree with Edgar on some doctrinal matter, leaves and starts his own Church.)
(There is now a lot of differents denominations in protestantism.)

What if we have differences, what are we to do? What does the Bible say?
"If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them."
Here, we see the authority of the Church. The Church is the final authority, not the Bible.
And we should "listen to the church", those who do not listen to the church are compared to "gentiles".

For me, the Church is the final authority, the "the pillar and bulwark of the truth."
Or as As exo stated, I put "Church and Tradition above scripture."

Peace...
So to you Church and Tradition are to be held above scripture.

Ok one more question.

You all are quick to state that protestants in one corner and "the Church" in the other corner. So are you saying protestants are not part of "the Church"?
BobbyB is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 07-05-2005, 04:28 PM   #58
Gone Golfing
 
mlqurgw's Avatar
 

Joined: Sep 2004
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 1,539
Quote:
Originally Posted by IesusDeus
Scripture and Tradition



For me this is a false dichotomy, because they both reflect the Truth and thus cannot be in contradiction of each other.
Personally, I see no contradiction with Scripture and Tradition upheld by the (Catholic) church.
(We can have a specific thread on this if you wish.)

But let's pretend for one minute that there is a contradiction.
Then, I would hold the Church to be the "the pillar and bulwark of the truth." (1 Ti 3:15)
I would let the Church be the final authority.

We know how hard it can be to rely only on the Bible. (Sola Scriptura.)
Look at the myriads of different movements in Protestantism.
Each one, claims to hold the truth. (Correct me if I am wrong.)
They can’t ALL be right on different doctrinal matters.
You cannot at the same time, hold that infant baptism is valid or that it is not valid.
You cannot at the same time, hold that baptism is merely symbolic, or that baptism washes away original sin.
Both cannot be right (or "truthful") at the same time.
On what interpretation should I rely upon?

We have evidence on how relying upon our own interpretation of the Bible have led to divisions.
(Rodney disagree with Edgar on some doctrinal matter, leaves and starts his own Church.)
(There is now a lot of differents denominations in protestantism.)

What if we have differences, what are we to do? What does the Bible say?
"If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them."
Here, we see the authority of the Church. The Church is the final authority, not the Bible.
And we should "listen to the church", those who do not listen to the church are compared to "gentiles".

For me, the Church is the final authority, the "the pillar and bulwark of the truth."
Or as As exo stated, I put "Church and Tradition above scripture."

Peace...
There is that vicious circle I spoke of.
__________________
If you want someone to find Christ take them to where He has promised to be. Where two or three are gathered in His name.
mlqurgw is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 07-05-2005, 05:04 PM   #59
Banned
 

Joined: Aug 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 4,766
Quote:
The Catholic Church does not require a fast on meat because they consider it to be bad as this verse implies the wicked do with regard to marriage and eating meat, as the early gnostics did.
Well please show me where this verse IMPLIES anything. Paul is writing to Timothy and he is in Greece. Far removed from Israel ( matter of fact Timothy was not even circumcised till PAul did it) The gnostic heresy I do not beleive hqad made it far out of Israel by the late 50's early 60's. The gentile churches were still in their infancy and being established-- they were fightoing more legalism form Jews and paganism form their neighbors that a pseudo christinamovement of the gnostics-- I beleive this still was very much a problem in the Jewish poart of the church in Israel and had little or no outreach to asia minore atr this point.

Quote:
I stand corrected on what the Church taught in the 20’s, but Nolidad, you still have not explained why Jesus prophesied that his followers would fast and why Jesus gave instructions on how to fast. I knew you wouldn’t. You still won’t. But you have no compunction on ranting against the Catholic Church‘s teachings on fasting.
Well I am glad you see tht the church had this teaching for centuries. You need to understand I have no problem with the church calling for a fast. That is biblical--but to declare that if someone breaks that fast ( in reality not even the RCC caLLS IT FASTING- as the qoutes I posted showed they call it abstaining) and ests meatr and then dies- they are going to hell for it-- that is a usurpation of authority that belongs to Jesus alone-- And by the way MAtthew 18 and boinding and loosing-- it is on context when a church member sins and the action the local church takes-- it is not a catch all for tany church having authority to make up irulesd asa it goes along likke damning people to hell for ewating meat on Fridays.

Quote:
Wrong. Show me. The only implicit verse you will use is “all have sinned”, but “all” does not mean “every single one”. And you still haven’t shown me who taught that blasphemy before the 16 century. You can’t, because none exists, so you give a cheap shot for an answer.
The all Paul used does mean every single one-- He also said that there is NONE righteous-- and trhen for emphasis says NOT ONE:

10As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

Now Gods Word says NOT ONE ( Mary would be ONE) but the Catholic church says There is not riughteous no not one (except the blessed Virgin Mary) I just wonder why God would want to exclude something that the RCC considers so very very important that inthe 1500's they condemend to hell anyone who declared Mary was a sinner (Council of Trent) So who should I beleive--What Gods Word says- or what a denomination says??????

Quote:
Oh, your too much!!!
wELL YOU WERE REAL SURE i WOULD NOT PROVE YOU WRONG-- I just want to know what you are wiloing to do if I do show you you are wrong about what the RCC has taught and ion some cases still teaches.

Quote:
This proves you did not read my previous post. I discussed this in detail and it proves the opposite of your presuppositions.
Well you did do a nice song and dance around the verse-but Jesus clearly said that the Jews establishes a SACRED TRADITION of washing pots and cups (just like the church did with giving up meat) and Jesus said there SACRED TRADITION was agasinst the laws of Gods and trhey swept aside the commnands of God to keep their SACRED TRADITION.

Quote:
Would you accept a dictionary?
I would love to see a dictionary definitionthat says universal or triumphant= error free.

Quote:
I never sad anything was “owned”, you did. The Trinity was clarified in the Council of Ephesus which you reject most of, to refute the heretic Nestorius.
And I and anyone of the over 1,000 people I have taught can give a very lengthy detailed description of trhe Trinity form SOLA SCRIPTURA apart from any denominations writings.

Quote:
The Bible itself is Tradition. The problem is most evangelical/fundamentalists are totally ignorant of the history of the early Church. If the subject is not totally avoided it’s re-written. Catholic teachings, the ones you rant against, existed before the canon of the Bible.
Well chruch teachings existed beofe the birth of the Catholic church with Constantine. I will take my 10 volume setro fwritings of the antenicene fathers thank you as an exhaustive series of the early church writings. I can show disagreement in them as today as was in Pauls day and will be till Jesus physically retrurns to reign. The canon of the bible were the first works of the Body of Christ-- it became the New Testament later-but they were the works by which the fathers (when faithful) referred to when making "absolute" declarations.

Quote:
There is not one “bible-only-Christian” site on the internet that tells the truth about the Catholic Church. Not one. That is why you make such a ridiculous claim.
Well the sites I have used so far have all been Cathoic web sites- some even cited the NIHIL OBSTAT and IMPREMATREUR whiuch makes them officially approved Catholic writings. I do not have to stray far from "Catholic" sites to prove whatr I hve claimed.

Quote:
For me this is a false dichotomy, because they both reflect the Truth and thus cannot be in contradiction of each other.
Quote:
We can have a specific thread on this if you wish.)
I would appreciate this but the futility of it is shown oin your next statement:

Quote:
I would let the Church be the final authority.
So even if a glaring error were to be shown-- it would appear you would hold to the catholic interpretation over anything else thus making it a futile chase.

Also by saying this is the perview of the RCC as you have declared - you have directly implied that those who are not adherents to the RCC are outside of the church. And no fix'd adress has shown that some do not take it kindly at all to show the RCC wrong and resort to all sorts of slander and presumptions. Would you if the discussion got intense??? Or would you recognize it is just a deep serious debate and recognize hard stastments are not designes as attacks.
nolidad is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 07-05-2005, 05:19 PM   #60
Registered User
 

Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobbyB
So to you Church and Tradition are to be held above scripture.
Yes, because the Church is the “Pillar and bulkward of the Truth”.
(Scripture is not.) The church gave us scripture.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobbyB
You all are quick to state that protestants in one corner and "the Church" in the other corner. So are you saying protestants are not part of "the Church"?
I make a distinction between church=the body of Christ and the Hierarchical Church.

The body of Christ is composed of everyone who has received the Holy Spirit.
I believe that many people have received the Holy Spirit. That there are many protestants that are part of the body of Christ.
If you have receive the Holy Spirit, than you are Christian; you are part of the church as defined as Body of Christ. (See Col 1:18)

In the verse stated above, Matthew 18:15-18.
One of my brother in Christ (part of church=body of Christ) has sinned against me.
But he refuses to "even listen to the Church".
We are not talking about church=the body of Christ here, we are talking about the Hierarchical Church, the apostolic Church.
This is the Church we need to “listen to”.

The apostolic Church, as I use it here, is defined as build upon Peter:
And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." (Matthew 16:18-19)
The "powers of death" does not prevail against it.
IesusDeus is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:11 AM.


Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2