|
|
Post by teresahrc on May 25, 2009 23:59:38 GMT -5
Ok, so if you don't believe in an infallible Church (to interpret scripture) and you know that you could be wrong about something (that something could be of small or great significance) Then basically you believe in complete relevatism?
Don't nearly all other non-Catholics do the same thing, that is "stick to what I can confirm with scripture, and what God confirms in my spirit"?
And don't most non-Catholics disagree on almost every doctrine in the Bible?
And how is it that until the 1500's, no one believed in this system of abandoning the teachings of the Church for private interpretation?
|
|
|
|
Post by teresahrc on May 26, 2009 0:04:25 GMT -5
No, they only contradict your private interpretation of scripture (and probably your misunderstandings of the Church's teachings).
If the Catholic Church is not infallible, then the Bible is not infallible. The Church not only wrote the New Testament, but also decided which books should be included in it. The Church also preserved the Bible from the time it was written until the present day.
If you say the Church is not infallible, then you would be saying that the entire Church was left without the complete truth until the Bible was canonized. You would also be denying the words of the Lord that the gates of Hell would not prevail against the Church. And that the Church is the "pillar and foundation of truth".
|
|
|
|
Post by watchman on May 26, 2009 0:06:08 GMT -5
You have twisted my words, I never said I knew I was wrong. I said ''I would not be so vain as to say I couldn't be''. However I do not care what other non catholics teach, they are wrong on many things, and I do know this for a fact, because scripture proves them wrong. Furthermore Catholics too can be proven wrong with scripture. So since I cannot trust man, I will lean on God and only God for my understanding.
|
|
|
|
Post by teresahrc on May 26, 2009 0:10:36 GMT -5
No I didn't.
I said this:
I said that you know that you could be wrong. Isn't that what you said?
|
|
|
|
Post by watchman on May 26, 2009 0:11:37 GMT -5
No, they only contradict your private interpretation of scripture (and probably your misunderstandings of the Church's teachings). If the Catholic Church is not infallible, then the Bible is not infallible. The Church not only wrote the New Testament, but also decided which books should be included in it. The Church also preserved the Bible from the time it was written until the present day. If you say the Church is not infallible, then you would be saying that the entire Church was left without the complete truth until the Bible was canonized. You would also be denying the words of the Lord that the gates of Hell would not prevail against the Church. And that the Church is the "pillar and foundation of truth". You are wrong on many side of this post. The Bible plainly states that Joseph did not know his wife until Jesus was born. It is not a [private interpretation to realize he knew her after Jesus was born it is common since that a child should have, and take indoctrination to not realize. Further more I do not believe the church was fallible until the Bible was form. I believe the RCC is fallible. I also do not discount the words of Christ who said the gates of Hell shall not prevail against His church. I know how it ends. It ends with Satan, Hell, and all who reject Christ being cast into the Lake of fire, and God's true church, the multitude of believers from all time, and all denoms ect... living with Christ in New Jerusalem. |
|
|
|
Post by watchman on May 26, 2009 0:13:18 GMT -5
No I didn't. I said this: I said that you know that you could be wrong. Isn't that what you said? Yes I misunderstood what you said my fault. I thought you said I knew I was wrong. not that I knew I could be wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by teresahrc on May 26, 2009 0:14:09 GMT -5
You said before that you believe that the "Apocrypha" is the Word of God, right?
I think it's good that you don't trust anyone. I don't really either.
But, you do trust Jesus who is no mere man. Why don't you believe His words about the Church?
|
|
|
|
Post by watchman on May 26, 2009 0:15:36 GMT -5
You said before that you believe that the "Apocrypha" is the Word of God, right? I think it's good that you don't trust anyone. I don't really either. But, you do trust Jesus who is no mere man. Why don't you believe His words about the Church? I believe Jesus' words, I do not believe that the RCC is the church. Why you ask? because they have false teachings and practices. |
|
|
|
Post by teresahrc on May 26, 2009 0:19:34 GMT -5
But Jesus was talking about a Church that teaches. An authoritative teaching body. A real and actual Church that "binds" (forbids) and "looses" (allows). Such teaching and authority must be passed, unbroken and those truths must be able to be learned, studied and obtained.
To say that the Church is only about who's saved and who's not and nothing more is not Biblical. The Church is about that, but is also given authority to teach "whatsoever I have commanded thee" by Jesus.
|
|
|
|
Post by watchman on May 26, 2009 0:22:58 GMT -5
But Jesus was talking about a Church that teaches. An authoritative teaching body. A real and actual Church that "binds" (forbids) and "looses" (allows). Such teaching and authority must be passed, unbroken and those truths must be able to be learned, studied and obtained. To say that the Church is only about who's saved and who's not and nothing more is not Biblical. The Church is about that, but is also given authority to teach "whatsoever I have commanded thee" by Jesus. The Roman Catholic Church teaches things that Jesus never commanded them to teach. |
|
|
|
Post by emily445455 on May 26, 2009 8:30:29 GMT -5
I don't think agreeding on certain issues shuld be the main focus. All born-again Bible-believing Christians are one...simply because they love God and His Word and want to follow it to the best of their ability. The rest is just pety stuff that should be worked out in time.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 26, 2009 8:46:29 GMT -5
About what? God keeping "his church" (the catholic church) from doing the wrong thing? Def don't believe that. You confuse what The Church did as opposed to what members of The Church did in it's name. For example, if a "wrong" was done in the name of The Church, that was not The Church doing it, but men doing it in it's name (which is wrong). Just like Benny Hinn...everyone (except those who believe him) knows he a con artist, but are we to hold all Evangelical Fundamentalist Christians guilty of his acts? Of course not. But what he does in the name of God does not soil God. It soils Benny Hinn. |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 26, 2009 8:47:21 GMT -5
Yes, I do believe either the Catholic Church became curropt and not a Christian church...or it was that way from the get-go. Why do you believe that? Do you have proof? What defines a Christian Church for you? Everything The Church does (Sacraments, Priesthood, Mass, etc...is in The Bible). |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 26, 2009 8:48:53 GMT -5
God did start His Church and has helped them with use of the HS. But it is no denomination or building. It is God fearing, Bible believing and teaching born-again Believers. In order for you to believe that, you have to believe that The Catholic Church (Roman/Orthodox) is the true Church because it was the only Church in existance before Protestants were created in Europe in the 16th century. |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 26, 2009 8:54:54 GMT -5
But I am not talking about the RCC. Which Church did Christ' started and was preserve by the Holy Apostles? What Church existed during the Apostolic Era and afterward? Based on Scriptures, there still must be a Church that have the whole truth, being guided by the Holy Spirit. So either that's true or Scriptures are false. Either God guided His Church that he started from get-go or Scriptures are false. Which is it Emily? How can you believe that the Church (not talking about the RCC) in the Apostolic Era got corrupted, and so forth wherein that is a direct contradiction to Christ' word in Matthew 16:18? In IC.XC, Ramon Well, we know the Orthodox church isn't the true church otherwise Constantinople would not have been taken over by the Turkish Moslems. If you believe that any non-Christian God taking over a country is a sign of the country's church not being of God, then how do you explain all the times that God allowed non-Jewish countries to defeat Israel to punish them, yet they still hold favor with God? Can't have it both ways. Here's a question for you: How many Protestants died defending and protecting Christianity in the Crusades against The Muslim incursions? Answer: 0 Why? Because they didn't exist before the 16th Century. They can never take credit for saving Christianity from The Muslims. We were the only ones who did that and do you know why we did it? Because our brothers (The Eastern Orthodox Church) was being attacked by Muslims. They sent The Pope a letter. The Pope sent an army to defeat The Muslims and even though we never united back 100%, The EO Church and The RCC remembered that we are sister Apostolically Succeeded Churches. We ran to help our sister Church out. No one else. We were the pillars of Christianity, protecting Christianity and keeping it from being overtaken by pagan religions. That's why we are the only Church (The Catholic Church/RCC/EO) that is One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic. Our own differences are only 3% of doctrinal issues, but we cannot deny them their validity as members of The Church (The Only Church) founded by Jesus Christ in the world. No other Church can lay claim to that. |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 26, 2009 8:57:05 GMT -5
Yes, I do believe either the Catholic Church became curropt and not a Christian church...or it was that way from the get-go. I agree with you, however I was banned for that point of view one time. My personal belief is that it was corrupt from the get go, and when I say get go, I do not mean the upper room, I mean the late 4th century when the RCC started to dominate other christians. So, The Catholic Church (mentioned by Saint Ignatius in the year 107 AD) was not corrupt then, but became corrupt? Guess Jesus was wrong when He said His Church would not become overtaken by Hades (which is what you're saying happened). Maybe, Jesus didn't make The Church strong enough and man was stronger than Jesus? It is impossible to believe in scripture and to know history and to make that claim...that The Catholic Church become corrupt: Now, list your proof(s) with citeable references: ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 26, 2009 8:58:18 GMT -5
Where in Scriptures does it state that the Church is only spiritual and not visible? How could the Early Christians be part of this Church if they had no Bible but were taught orally by the Holy Apostles for 10+ Years? Did not Saint Paul said that there is ONE Faith, ONE Spirit, ONE Baptism? There must have been a common belief/practices in Apostolic Church. A visible Church which taught others about the Apostolic Faith. St. Paul called the Church the "body" of Christ, not the "soul" of Christ. Bodies are visible and souls are invisible. In John 10:16, Jesus says there must only be one flock and one shepherd. Christ is head of only one Body (one Church) not many bodies and many Churches, which you are saying. How can Christ start a spiritual Church and not a visible Church? Did he not pray for unity in the Holy Apostles and the Church in John 17? How is "everyone believing differently" a correct expression of unity? Which"God fearing, Bible believing and teaching born-again Believers"? Each "born again" believer you talking about believe differently about the Bible and each "born again" believer teach different things. Who, today, is teaching the fullness of the faith, like the Holy Apostles and the Early Church? In IC.XC, Ramon I agree that the body of Christ was visible in the first century, but that Church was not the RCC. I also agree with emily that the church is still visible today, you just have to know what you are looking for to see it. The Church Fathers that you say always taught The Truth and that you yourself said were infallible stated that The Universal Church (Catholic Church) was founded in Rome. You seem to disagree with History. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 26, 2009 9:00:14 GMT -5
I never said it was invisible...people seem to see me and other Saved Christians just fine. No, the body of believers is one body. Not multiple ones. Born-again believers who believe and obey the Bible are of one faith, one spirit and one baptism. Not individual churches. We are the sheep, and Christ leads his sheep. Emily did not say nor indicate that Christ was the head of many bodies, just one, however that one bodies is scattered through out many denominations as well as some catholicas and orthodox. All true believers are a part of one body regardless of the denominational or religious affiliation. I for one think that we as true believers should not be ''affiliated'' at all, except to Christ. ...except to Christ's Church...The Universal Christian Church founded in Rome (the home of his crucifiers to show how Christianity could even overpower the most powerful rulers of the earth). We are supposed to be "affiliated"...to His Church. The New Testament (post Gospels) is full of Paul's teachings preaching against one going outside of The True Church (being churches unto themselves). You should read his works. |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 26, 2009 9:02:35 GMT -5
Ramon- Born-again people who seek to serve Christ through His Word...that is those are the sheep Christ leads. It is not a physical building...but a group of believers, as watchman said, in many different denominations including Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant. I do not believe in prive interpretation. I believe in rightly dividing the Word of Truth and putting precept upon precept, line upon line, here a little, and there a little. I don't know for sure...but my guess would be the Holy Bible wasn't complete at the time 2 Thes was written. So spreading the Word orally would have still be appropriate. You are using one definition of the word "church" to eliminate all others. If what you're saying is true, Jesus would've never have defended the "buildings" as His Father's House. You cannot pick and choose which definition of the word "church" you want to use in a given argument. Church means building, it means group of believers, it means all believers, it means Jesus' bride, it means The Apostles, it means all of that. There is no one meaning to it. It's bigger than human mental capacity. It cannot be confined by your inability to comprehend it.  |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 26, 2009 9:04:04 GMT -5
There are people within the CC that do not agree with some of what it practices/teaches. Are those people still God's "sheep"? Born-again Believes who love and want to serve God are not limited to a certain demonination. According to the Google search, 2 Thess was written around 50 AD and the Bible completed around 80-100 AD Not all Catholics will be saved. Not all Protestants will be saved. Not all non-believers will be saved. Jesus: Sheeps and Goats proves that not all Christians will be saved. A sinful unrepentant Christian (be he a Catholic Christian or Denominational Christian) will not be saved. |
|
