|
|
Post by teresahrc on Apr 19, 2009 12:55:20 GMT -5
But Cepha, where do you draw the line? Mormons claim to be "Christian" but their beliefs are not Christian.
So, there must be some way to determine which churches teach sufficient truth to enable it's members to at least understand the gospel.
|
|
|
|
Post by teresahrc on Apr 19, 2009 13:00:32 GMT -5
Yes, Emily you are. We aren't doubting that.
But the point is that different churches teach different things. Someone could be a true believer and really be a member of the One True Church, but attend a Jehovah's witness church. They are not going to a Church that teaches the truth (maybe some percentage of truth?) but that doesn't mean they are separated from the Body of Christ.
We aren't saying that only Catholics are part of the Body of Christ, we are just saying that as far as Apostolic Sucession and teaching doctrine and truth, there can only be one because truth cannot contradict itself.
So, someone could go to a church that teaches that women can be pastors, and someone else could go to a church that teaches they can't and both people could be saved, but both churches couldn't be right about that particular teaching. Does that make sense?
peace
teresa
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Apr 19, 2009 13:06:29 GMT -5
I personally question any religious organization that claims they alone have the corner on truth. If I were to name the others that make this claim you and I would both agree they are all cults. Such as JWs, Mormons, and Church if Christ ect.... That doesn't give you pause at all when you here Catholics claiming they and they alone a hold of the truth? Catholics don't claim that we alone hold all truth. You'll note in The Catechism that we recognize that other Christians have truth in their churches as well. We claim that we have all truth for universal Christians, but not for denominational Christians. That is between them and their own respective churches. |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Apr 19, 2009 13:09:16 GMT -5
Here is my take on this issue. First, nowhere in the Bible does it say that Scripture interprets Scripture; Not only that, Satan would use scripture to mis-interpret scripture when he was trying to seduce Christ into sin by using...scriptures. So, one could be misled into misinterpreting what they read. Again, if there was no need for a teaching authority, Christ wouldn't have had to create The Church. There'd be no need for a Church if we were to do away with the sacraments that He implimented, The Priesthood of which He was a part as were The Apostles, a "physical" building where one was to go and do one thing and one thing only...worship God, etc... |
|
|
|
Post by watchman on Apr 19, 2009 13:12:01 GMT -5
As long as you believe the Bible as it is written you should be pretty theologically sound. According to that very strict statement, then Jesus only promises to be the "way" to The Father for men only in that particular verse (John 6:14), right? Wrong, actually in the most strictest biblical since man is male and female. Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. |
|
|
|
Post by emily445455 on Apr 19, 2009 13:15:07 GMT -5
Teresa- I agree, there are Saved people in false churches.
|
|
|
|
Post by watchman on Apr 19, 2009 13:15:38 GMT -5
Here is my take on this issue. First, nowhere in the Bible does it say that Scripture interprets Scripture; Not only that, Satan would use scripture to mis-interpret scripture when he was trying to seduce Christ into sin by using...scriptures. So, one could be misled into misinterpreting what they read. There is no question that satan purposely misinterprets scripture and then uses his ministers to promote this false interpretation, whether they know they are ministers of satan or not is debatable. I would say some do and some don't |
|
|
|
Post by teresahrc on Apr 19, 2009 13:17:59 GMT -5
Amen to that! You got him good. (not sarcastic)
And, to add an element of "mystery" to the discussion, If man is "male and female" then who is the "female" part of Christ?
The Church is the literal body of Christ because we are His Bride and actually and really physically united with Him. That's another reason why the Eucharist is so important. Eve was "taken" from Adam's rib, and in the same way, the Church was "taken" from Christ's blessed pierced side, which flowed with blood and water.
Speaking of which, this is Divine Mercy Sunday Isn't it?
I couldn't go to Church because my daughter is sick.
peace
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Apr 19, 2009 13:18:33 GMT -5
Your whole diatribe that scripture does not interpret itself or that no one can form sound doctrine by scripture alone can be overcome with one passage of scripture itself. 2nd Timothy
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.That verse taken in context has Paul talking about "doctrine" as well (doctrine outside of scripture): 10But thou hast fully known my doctrine, manner of life, purpose, faith, longsuffering, charity, patience,
11Persecutions, afflictions, which came unto me at Antioch, at Iconium, at Lystra; what persecutions I endured: but out of them all the Lord delivered me.
12Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.
13But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.
14But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;
15And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.Paul talks about " his" doctrine (meaning "his" teachings) here. All that verse 16 says is that scritpure is inspired by God and that it can be used for doctrinal teachings etc... It doesn't say that it is the only source for correction and reproof, but that it is "a" source. Paul literally also says that he has his own doctrinal teachings there in verse 10. Since they appear in this book, are they now automatically to be accepted as scripture too even though he didn't mention in detail what they are? That leaves the door open to wonderment. And, this is in reference to whom? To those who teach...The Church (a "man of God" is a Priest). Remember, this letter is "to" Timothy, a leader in The Church. These are Paul's instructions to an instruc"tor" in The Church. |
|
|
|
Post by teresahrc on Apr 19, 2009 13:23:02 GMT -5
Actually, taken literally, this verse would mean that the OLD TESTAMENT is able to make "thee wise unto salvation". Remember, that's all the Scriptures that existed at the time.
peace
teresa
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Apr 19, 2009 13:26:43 GMT -5
#1 That is not what I was saying, however even though you may not have every part of your life controled if the pope said you must now believe this or that instead of what we use to believe if you are a good catholic you would conform your belief to what the pope said regardless of what scripture says or what belief had been previously held by the church , that sounds like control to me. For that statement to be true, one would have to believe that The Pope is not working on God's behalf (which Catholics do not believe). The Bible tells us that men have been placed in authority over us by God. By obeying those men in authority over us by God, we obey God. It's like all those Christians who were converted by The Apostles as opposed to by Jesus Christ Himself. They heard The Gospel through them and after The Apostalic Age, through their students (The Church Fathers) and passed their Apostolic Teachings to their students and so on and so on and so on, generations detached from Jesus Christ. As for following what The Pope teaches as opposed to what scripture teaches, that requires personal interpretation. See, The Pope can teach about things that are not in The Bible that are salvation related (like The Holy Trinity). Not everything that even Jesus taught is in The Bible and as The Bible itself says, it is The Church that upholds the truth (not a book that can be edited by human beings leading them into false beliefs). To just trust a book is idolatry. That's placing one's faith in an inaminate object when even that object is the product of human hands that could've deleted or added words/phrases/books to it. The Holy Spirit (unless you believe it has it's own printing press) didn't physically produce The Holy Bible. It influenced men to do so. One would have to believe that The Holy Spirit stopped influencing men at that point (which is not in The Bible thus making it an unBiblical belief). |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Apr 19, 2009 13:29:07 GMT -5
#3 I do not believe aliens will ever attack earth matter of fact I do not believe in extra teresterals LOL! I thought he wrote "extra Teresaials"! LOL! |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Apr 19, 2009 13:30:31 GMT -5
Cepha- I am a member of the One True Church. I don't care what anyone has to say about it. You are.  |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Apr 19, 2009 13:31:31 GMT -5
But Cepha, where do you draw the line? Mormons claim to be "Christian" but their beliefs are not Christian. So, there must be some way to determine which churches teach sufficient truth to enable it's members to at least understand the gospel. In all honesty, I'm no one to draw a line. God does that. I'm too busy working out my own salvation to worry about whether or not others have it wrong or right.  |
|
|
|
Post by watchman on Apr 19, 2009 13:32:17 GMT -5
It does not bother me that Pal was talking about the O.T even the Septuagent, or even if he was speaking of his own doctrine. It still remains that he stated that the doctrine is contained in scripture and that all scripture is useful for doctrine for reproof of that doctrine ect...
I am sure you both agree that the N.T. is God's infallible word so even though Paul at the time may have been speaking about the O.T. the N.T. is just as must scripture and just as useful to create and reprove doctrine as the O.T. is.
|
|
|
|
Post by watchman on Apr 19, 2009 13:33:05 GMT -5
Teresa- I agree, there are Saved people in false churches. And unsaved people in good churches. |
|
|
|
Post by emily445455 on Apr 19, 2009 13:37:17 GMT -5
Teresa- I agree, there are Saved people in false churches. And unsaved people in good churches. Yup. |
|
|
|
Post by watchman on Apr 19, 2009 13:38:03 GMT -5
To just trust a book is idolatry. That's placing one's faith in an inaminate object when even that object is the product of human hands that could've deleted or added words/phrases/books to it. The Bible is just a book to you? To me it is the living breathing word of an Holy God. Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Apr 19, 2009 13:38:42 GMT -5
Yes, Emily you are. We aren't doubting that. But the point is that different churches teach different things. Someone could be a true believer and really be a member of the One True Church, but attend a Jehovah's witness church. They are not going to a Church that teaches the truth (maybe some percentage of truth?) but that doesn't mean they are separated from the Body of Christ. We aren't saying that only Catholics are part of the Body of Christ, we are just saying that as far as Apostolic Sucession and teaching doctrine and truth, there can only be one because truth cannot contradict itself. So, someone could go to a church that teaches that women can be pastors, and someone else could go to a church that teaches they can't and both people could be saved, but both churches couldn't be right about that particular teaching. Does that make sense? peace teresa The problem with non-Christians is that they think we (Catholics) don't see them as members of "our" Church. They think just because they don't see us as members of their church, we exclude them from ours. They don't know that we see them as members of The Catholic Church because of how they were formed and because of their roots. They can all trace their roots back to the tree that is The Catholic Church (The Universal Christian Church). If they for a split second took off the "protesting" hat and put on the reality hat, they'd be surprised at what we think of them, but they are sold a bill of goods that tells them that we think we're better than them, that we feel superior to them and that we don't acknowledge their Christianityness. This is Satan's work to keep them from bonding with us. They need to just "ask a Catholic" if they want to know what we think of them and how we feel for them instead of just accepting every anti-Catholic point that is made about us by (no surprise here) "Anti-Catholics". Let us all remember that Catholics didn't break away from anybody (not that there was anybody to break away from anyway). We were here first. That's just a fact. The Christian Church was first called "The Catholic Church". That cannot be denied and this isn't some distant Church that doesn't exist today, but it is the Church that today practices what "that" Church practiced back then (communion, confession, holy orders, Marian doctrine, etc...). We just go back 2,000 years and practice what the first Christians practiced. This doesn't in anyway take away from what Christian groups that are not Universal Christians do today. We don't have to down anybody else for us to be who we are. Anybody who studies Christian history will see that what I am saying can be confirmed by history. |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Apr 19, 2009 13:40:37 GMT -5
According to that very strict statement, then Jesus only promises to be the "way" to The Father for men only in that particular verse (John 6:14), right? Wrong, actually in the most strictest biblical since man is male and female. Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.Notice that in that same verse, it says God created "him". Also, don't forget that God created man (Adam), but Eve (woman) He made "out of" Adam. He didn't make Eve from scratch, but out of "man". So, man literally means "man" (not woman and man)...that is, "if" you want to use the literal definition. |
|
