OUR LADY AND ISLAM: HEAVEN’S PEACE PLAN

>I>" Rev 22:18-19 18 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. 19 And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book. (NIV) "

It is amazing how they will use the latter part of this passage and ignore the beginning

"..the only common base we have is scripture.." Are you sure?

UMMMMMM point well taken

You're right. It's sometimes hard to take Luther's doctrine of Sola Scriptura seriously when he removed the deuterocannonical books from Scripture based on the decision of the Jewish council of Jamnia from around the years 70-100 A.D., the same council that rejected the New Testament as Scripture, while he also rejected the authoritative canonical determination of several Church Councils from around the year 400 A.D.

To get back to my "invisible church" argument.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you folks generally believe that Christ founded an "invisible church," or an invisible church of those who "confess Jesus as personal Lord and Savior."

I have pointed out the passage in which Jesus tells his followers to take their disagreements "to the church" after they have taken their disagreements to "several witnesses" without satisfaction.

I also assume that you believe that "the church" mentioned in this passage is "the invisible church."

Now, suppose one of you members of the invisible church accuses a Catholic, a Christian who "accepts Jesus as Lord and Savior," another member of the invisble church, of propagating an heretical doctrine. To which invisible church should we go to settle our disagreement?

If a Baptist accuses a Calvinist of propagating an heresy, to which church should they go to settle their disagreement?

***********

It's obviously an impossible situation that Christ did not intend to create. He commanded his followers to settle their disagreements in His Church, a visible Church, the Church that he founded, the Church that the gates of hell would not prevail against and the Church that has been in existence since Pentacost.

If you know of any churches, other than the Catholic and Orthodox churches, that have been in continuous existence since Pentacost, please provide the evidence.

We have to understand that the Word of God is not enough, we need the traditions of man to see the whole picture.

Not exactly. Catholics have Scripture, Tradition, and Magesterium (authoritative teachings of the Church). Of course, this is Scriptural. Sacred Tradition is supported by the passage that says that more has been revealed than has been written down. And authoritative Church teaching (the Magisterium) is supported by the passage that calls the Church "the pillar and foundation of truth."

Without authoritative teaching and Scriptural interpretation, each man is left to interpret Scripture on his own, leading to error, conflict and disunity, in opposition to Christ's Scripturally-expressed desire that his followers be one.

Catholicism is not Christian so the beliefs etc. will not reflect the teachings of God and later Jesus.

Mark 9:39-40 "Do not stop him," Jesus said. "No one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, for whoever is not against us is for us."

The Catholic Church teaches that the Lord Jesus is sovereign and divine. That's certainly not against Him.

#323..want to answer for the Baptists among us?

Not really.

What Aquinasfan doesn't seem to realize is the fact that while there is the invisible church, there are also local gatherings of believers who constitute the local church.

Now, in churches with an established heirarchy, the "local" in "local church" may be greatly extended, all the way up to the top. This is one of the reasons that I think that we Baptists have it right when we insist on local church autonomy. For example, the SBC doesn't tell any Baptist church what to do. The SBC exists for the churches, not the churches for the SBC. This is a difficult concept for non-Baptists to grasp. In fact, the SBC only exists for a couple of days each year, when the Convention meets for business. There are organizations that exist under the SBC umbrella, such as our Seminaries, publishing house, missions boards, etc., but they technically are not the SBC.

Now, on to the question at hand.

If there is a need for church discipline within a local church, the local Baptist church will carry out the requirements of Matthew 18, and they don't have to answer to anyone other than Christ. I have seen several instances where members were "disfellowshipped" under Matthew 18, and it is never pretty, but it is required.

As far as disciplining Christians who do not belong to your local church, that is a matter for the local congregation to which they belong.

However, let's pose a theoretical case: Suppose that Uriel1975, an orthodox Presbyterian, was to cheat me in business, and that I was to consider him to be a Christian brother and not a "tare". (I know that he would never cheat anyone, much less me, but I also know that he will undestand my point). My first step would be to go to him in private, and attempt to reason with him and obtain relief. If he was to rebuff me, then I would contact the Pastor or another elder in his local church, and take them with me to talk with him. If he was to continue to resist, then I would expect the leadership of his local congregation to take appropriate action in "disfellowshipping" him.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you folks generally believe that Christ founded an "invisible church," or an invisible church of those who "confess Jesus as personal Lord and Savior." I have pointed out the passage in which Jesus tells his followers to take their disagreements "to the church" after they have taken their disagreements to "several witnesses" without satisfaction. I also assume that you believe that "the church" mentioned in this passage is "the invisible church."

Yes Jesus founded the invisible Church,but there is also the visible church of Jesus Christ,which is catholic (small c) in nature.

That visible church includes wheat and tares that will grow together untill the final judgement,when the invisible church will be harvested and the tares cast into the lake of fire..

Now as much as you would like to believe that that the church that Jesus founded is called Roman Catholic,I do not see that written anywhere in the bible. The church discription in the NT seems much closer to my own church or Jerrys Baptist Church....I do not read in Acts of a pope, icons,roseries,incense,robes,or a mass...those Aquinasfan are the acts of man ,not God..

Without authoritative teaching and Scriptural interpretation, each man is left to interpret Scripture on his own, leading to error, conflict and disunity, in opposition to Christ's Scripturally-expressed desire that his followers be one.

What makes you believe that those "men" taught or interpreted the scriptures correctly? Why do you believe that what they..or any man writing a commentary is by its nature inspired?The Holy Spirit was promised to all belivers not just the "church fathers".

I have a lot more in common with Catholics who believe in original sin, the virgin birth, sanctity of life, etc., than I do with agnostic Protestants who believe in separation of church and state, freedom of choice, etc.

Just because you see people in a Protestant church does not mean that they are christian. Therefore, all true believers believe in original sin. They, furthermore, unlike the RC church, believe that only God can overcome the hopelessness of this situation; i.e. we don't believe (and the Bible agrees with us) that Baptism can remove the effects of original sin.

We do believe in the virgin birth of Christ. We do cherish life, etc. I don't know where you are obtaining your false information, but you should not believe them.

What do you mean by freedom of choice?

"...agnostic Protestants who believe in separation of church and state..."

How about Bible-believing, God-fearing, Christians who believe in separation of church and state?

We Baptists have seen far too often the terrible consequences of the unholy alliance between "church" and state. We want nothing of it, and are glad that we live in a republic that does not have an established state church.

I hope that this was a "misprint" on your part.

Not exactly. Catholics have Scripture, Tradition, and Magesterium (authoritative teachings of the Church). Of course, this is Scriptural. Sacred Tradition is supported by the passage that says that more has been revealed than has been written down. And authoritative Church teaching (the Magisterium) is supported by the passage that calls the Church "the pillar and foundation of truth."

These things I write unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly, but if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou ought to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

For this passage to mean what you want it to mean, you must change it to say: ...the pillar and source/intrepretation of the truth. It does not. In fact, you are reading a spiritual mountain out of this passage. God is the only authoritative teacher of the Truth. You are running away with scripture without ever checking to see what else the Bible has to say about Truth:

Sanctify them through Thy truth: Thy Word is truth.
Lead me in Thy truth and teach me, for Thou art the God of my salvation; on Thee do I wait all the day.
Behold, Thou desirest truth in my inward parts; in the hidden part Thou shalt make me to know wisdom.
Teach me Thy way, O LORD; I will walk in Thy truth; unite my heart to fear Thy name.

And yet we know that the RC church cannot be the ultimate authority of the truth:

841 The Churches relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; those profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day,"
Jesus said unto him, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life; no man cometh unto the Father, but by Me.

For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but having itching ears, they shall heap to themselves teachers in accordance with their own lusts. And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned toward fables.

How about Bible-believing, God-fearing, Christians who believe in separation of church and state? We Baptists have seen far too often the terrible consequences of the unholy alliance between "church" and state. We want nothing of it, and are glad that we live in a republic that does not have an established state church. I hope that this was a "misprint" on your part.

All we need to do is look at the Islamic countries to see the problem of a "religious" government..I do not want my grandchildren,in the name of diversity,praying to allah,or reading the "sacred writings "of Bahi ,Hindus..I do not want them reciting the Hail Mary...

In short I do not favor prayer in the schools..I do not favor the presidents plan to "spiritualize" public services..letting Big Brother "get his foot in my church's door..

I really like just having the State do nothing that interfers with my religious freedoms..

If it aint broke dont fix it!

For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but having itching ears, they shall heap to themselves teachers in accordance with their own lusts. And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned toward fables.

Not to mention, teaching for doctrine, the commandments of men. A lot of people do that.

If he was to continue to resist, then I would expect the leadership of his local congregation to take appropriate action in "disfellowshipping" him.

And what if they don't? Where can you go to appeal or settle the matter?

****************

Another problem. If "the church is the pillar and foundation of truth," then how can it be possible for two churches to teach conflicting doctrines, especially doctrines regarding salvation? How can their be "two truths"?

Re: #328

How do you reconcile the passage that the church is "the pillar and foundation of truth" with the fact that non-Catholic churches teach conflicting doctrines, especially doctrines regarding salvation?

*****************

Re: the papacy

Matthew 16:18-20 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Isaiah 20:22 And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.

Revelation 3:6-8 And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write; These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth;

And if they don't? I don't remember Jesus laying down any appellate procedures in Matthew 18.

One of the biggest problems today is the fact that most churches, Catholic, Protestant, or other, totally ignore Matthew 18. This problem is due to the fact that they want to keep the seats in the pews and the dollars in the coffers. Forget the fact that the majority of so-called "christians" are indistinguishable from their pagan neighbors. The "church" in America is overrun with "tares", and the "wheat" is getting choked out. God deliver us from our "churches"!

YIKES -- this thread is rivaling the Catholic Causus!

God bless you T the Good Lord sure gave you perseverance!

What makes you believe that those "men" taught or interpreted the scriptures correctly? Why do you believe that what they..or any man writing a commentary is by its nature inspired?The Holy Spirit was promised to all belivers not just the "church fathers".

True, the Holy Spirit was promised to all believers. And I'm sure that He is working in your life.

But the matter of interpreting Scripture infallibly is another issue. Yes, individual Catholics (aside from the Pope) are just as fallible as non-Catholics in interpreting Scripture, but the Church that Christ founded, which is "the pillar and foundation of truth," is infallible in interpreting Scripture when this authority is invoked (which is not often).

Interestingly, we can only know that Scripture itself is inspired and infallibly transmitted because of its infallible source: the Church. This article could be helpful, particularly the Spiral Argument paragraph.

"...that non-Catholic churches teach conflicting doctrines, especially doctrines regarding salvation?"

All the Calvinistic "non-Catholic" churches teach the same regarding salvation. No conflict among those of us who hold to the "doctrines of grace".