THE TRUE CHURCH

http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/9170/RYLE2.HTM ^ | 11/4/03 | J.C. Ryle

[polemikos]

...about my bible

The fact is, the only reason you have the New Testament canon is because of the trustworthy teaching authority of the Catholic Church. As Augustine put it, ‘I would not believe in the Gospels were it not for the authority of the Catholic Church’ (Against the Letter of Mani Called "The Foundation" 5:6). Any Christian accepting the authority of the New Testament does so, whether or not he admits it, because he has implicit trust that the Catholic Church made the right decision in determining the canon.

The fact is, the Holy Spirit guided the Catholic Church to recognize and determine the canon of the New and Old Testaments in the year 382 at the Council of Rome, under Pope Damasus I. This decision was ratified again at the councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397 and 419) and in numerous venues thereafter. You accept exactly the same books of the New Testament that Pope Damasus decreed were canonical, and no others.

Furthermore, one reason you accept the books you do is that they were in the Bible someone gave you when you first became a Christian. You accept them because they were handed on to you. This means you accept the canon of the New Testament that you do because of tradition, because tradition is simply what is handed on to us from those who were in the faith before us. So your knowledge of the exact books that belong in the Bible, such as Philemon and 3 John, rests on tradition rather than on Scripture itself.

The question you have to ask yourself is this: "Where did we get the Bible?" Until you can give a satisfactory answer (and there can really be only one answer) you aren’t in much of a position to rely on the authority of Scripture or to claim that you can be certain that you know how to accurately interpret it.

[Havoc]

There are soooo many things one could say; but, It boils down to this. Everything she says is scriptural. You rely on what men have done since whatever date according to a group who can't prove themselves according to scripture and must therefore excuse themselves via an unproveable historical record that largely betrays them. Christians are not grounded in history, they're grounded in Christ.

I've been through these arguments over and over. Christ defined who the church is and what signs follow them. Pretenders to Christianity have largely created their own definitions of the church in order to mask the fact that they don't align with Christ's definition. Just as they have supplanted their own doctrines for the teachings of Christ.

Christ hung on a cross as a sacrifice that when finished, sealed the covenant making Christianity possible. He came off the tree and rose again to present the sin of the world to God once and for all as forgiven. At that point, the covenant was sealed. Never again since has a blood sacrifice been required for sin. How then, praytell, do you have a blood sacrifice in your mass? Spare us.

One really need not go very far in examining scripture to tell that the claimers of the "true church" banner historically are also trailing behind them a history that
looks more like the devil's work than that of Christ.
Where is it written that the church shall murder people for
believing differently. Where is it written that men must wear the mark of the church or be burnt at the stake? One by one we can rattle off issues of doctrine where the presumed "one true" church teaches contrary to scripture, acts contrary to scripture and has been contrary to scripture.

If we base it on historical action, then there is no unbroken lineage from the time of the Apostles - even a single "anti-pope" means that the line is broken. Accept those from the reign of harlots as it is lovingly called and it's an abomination. Reject them, and it's a broken line. Tough choice huh? Either they were holy or they weren't. Either they were a successor in spirit or in title. In all cases it's in title only and a title that was dreamt up over half a century after Christ ascended.

That church stole an empire through fraud, murdered those who believed differently, persecuted Israel, subborned the use of fraudulent documents and forged teachings, histories, laws and the like. It has both duped and been duped by fraud. If it doesn't care about the difference or can't tell the difference between fraudulent writings and true ones, then all claim of authority in such matters is forfeit. Authority is more than a claim. If you show me a pinto and tell me it's a corvette, reality wins. It's a pinto. Stop telling us it's a corvette then you won't have to be offended when all of us, seing it's a pinto, points out the fraudulent claim. Better yet, why not just read Christ's definition of the church and become one of us. Christians are not protestants. Nor are they anything else but Christian. Or did you not know that Christian was the term used early on. Christians follow Christ. Not men, not philosophy, etc. Christians follow Christ. Jump on the bandwagon. You too can be persecuted for following Christ and his example. You too can be defamed by Religious people and society at large alike.

[Quester]

Also, in John 6:60 (Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?) the listeners obviously understand Jesus in the literal sense. In the next verse, John 6:61, Jesus confirms this asking if they are offended. And then in John 6:66 (666) these followers who understand Jesus literally walk away from our Lord. The only place in the NT where Jesus loses followers for a doctrinal reason.

Of special note is what Jesus does NOT do. In all his other preachings, if there is confusion, Jesus explains his meaning. But here, Jesus lets followers depart from him. Would Jesus let a follower leave over a misunderstanding?

If you continue to read John 6, you will see that Jesus does ultimately explain His words to His disciples (after the crowds had left).

Jesus often left the multitudes in confusion in regard to His teachings, while He later took time to explain His teachings to His disciples. At some point, His disciples asked Him about this ...

Matthew 13:10 And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?

11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.

12 For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.

13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.

14 And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:

15 For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.

In keeping with this particular modus operandi, as explained by Jesus, he proceeds to explain to His disciples the meaning of His words in John 6:54,56-57 ...

John 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

[dangus]

I'm sorry, you missed my point... Let me try again...

I'm not saying that all Christians in the True Church would always be right about everything... certainly there are people in the Catholic Church who reject infallible doctrine.

My point is that Jesus makes a promise that his Church would be visible. A common protestant argument is that the True Church comprises of those people who have faith. But faith in what? How do I, or say a new Christian initaite, know which people comprise the true Church? How do I know which doctrines are true? How do I know how to live my life?

If you say, "read the bible for yourself," then I say, "the bible commands me to eat the flesh of the son of man. What does this mean?" Did Christ leave us with no guidance?

Well, for starters, he gave us the gift of the Holy Spirit. But preacher A says this and preacher B says that. Which one has the Holy Spirit? Part of me says I should throw my arms around that woman and take her for a wife, but part of me says I should go back and try to make ammends with my first wife. Which voice is the Holy Spirit?

The Catholic Church explains that the Holy Spirit guides the Church in unity. Although I must still seek spiritual discernment for myself, it can at least shield me from sin by clearly, unambiguously, and in unity teaching me how to discern, and how not to fall into sin.

If I go to a Protestant church, one will tell me divorce is unacceptable, one will tell me I should build a new Christian life; one will tell me I need to be baptized again, one will tell me the baptism I received as a kid suffices. I am lost, without a shpeherd.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

1948 Index of Prohibited Books Online here:

http://www.univ.com.br/ACMM/Diversos/Informacoes/filosofia/espiritismo_e_religiao/Index_Librorum_Prohibitorum/~ILB-index.htm

Test the veracity of Mom's claims for yourself.

"Ever since the first Index of Prohibited Books was issued by Pope Paul IV in 1559, the Bible has had a prominent place in these lists of forbidden books."

False translations of the Bible? Yes. THE Bible? No.

"Twenty-five years later, Pope Alexander VI issued a bull prohibiting the printers of Cologne, Mentz, Treves, and Magdeburg, from publishing any books without the express license of their archbishops."

These were Ecclesiastical states. The decree is one of civil censorship.

"All these New Testaments were translated from the original Greek, and not from the imperfect Latin Vulgate used by the papal church."

Rather, translated from Erasmus' Greek manuscript. They were hardly translated from the "orginal" Greek, which is certainly not what is found in Erasmus.

"Every honest intellect was at once struck with the strange discrepancy between the teaching of the Sacred Volume and that of the Church of Rome."

Of course. That's why it took 100 years to get the new religion off the ground. That's why conversion to Protestantism could only occur en masse by force of arms of the King in Germany, England, Scandanavia, etc.

Do you ever ask forgiveness for all these lies you tell against your ex-Church Mom?

[Hermann the Cherusker]

Acts 2.42. And they were convicted in the knowledge of the apostles, and they participated in prayer and breaking of the Eucharist*.
43. And there was submission in every soul and great signs, and heroic acts performed by the apostles in Jerusalem.
44. And all those who believed were like one [body,] and whatever they had, they shared,*
45. And those who had assets sold them and divided them, one with the other, as there was need.
46. And every day, they worshipped* in the temple in one spirit, and in the house, they spread the bounty,* and they received the message of hope as they conducted Mass, and with contrite hearts,
47. They worshipped God, as they engaged in the fellowship of grace before all the nation. And Lord Jesus Christ increased them daily, those that Lived in faith.
*2:42 Lit. Aramaic word retained: "Sacrifice from the Right [of God]" or, the Holy Communion.
*2:43 Lit. Ar. idiomatic expression: "Was for inside."
*2:46.1 Lit. Ar. idiomatic figure of speech: "Amened."
*2:46.2 Lit. Ar. expression: "Measured out the spread."

Acts 20.7. "And on Sunday, while we were gathered to break the Eucharist, Paul spoke with them, because on the following day he was destined to leave. And his speaking dragged until the middle of the night.

St. Luke 22.19. And he consecrated the bread and pledged it and broke it and gave it to them and declared.
"This is my body that I give on your behalf.
This is what you shall be doing* in your Offerings* to me.
20. And likewise also the cup, after they ate, he declared.
"This is the cup of the new covenant* in my blood
...that will be spilt on your behalf.

[dangus]

chapter and verse, please.

[dangus]

Sempere ubi sub ubi?

Always where under where?
I thought I made that up!

[SoothingDave]

Words being "spirit" and "life" means that you don't have to take them literally? Do you have an example from elsewhere in Scripture where "spirit" is used to mean "metaphor" or "symbolic"?

SD

[SoothingDave]

Always where under where. No, you didn't make that up.

SD

[Quester]

I am lost, without a shpeherd.

If you seek Christ, the Good Shepherd, God will draw you to where you need to be.

John 6:37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.

39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.

40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

John 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.

46 Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.

47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.

John 10:14 I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine.

15 As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep.

16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

That's okay. I don't believe you are a Christian. So all's fair and even.

[Gamecock]

Why was it that the first Pope could be married, but current priests and popes can't?

[SoothingDave]

Why was it that the first Pope could be married, but current priests and popes can't?

Petrine privledge?

SD

[RnMomof7]

I have yet to find a Protestant who actually agrees with either of these creeds.

You need to get out more dave.I have been in many non Catholic churches and they all accept them as valid

http://www.religiouseducation.co.uk/school/ks3/year9/guide_info/christian.htm

[Uri’el-2012]

Terri

You are scaring the children again.

Blessings for you and yours !

1 John 4:4 You are from God, little children, and have overcome them;
because greater is He who is in you than he who is in the world.

a bondslave to the Christ

chuck

[Calvinist_Dark_Lord]

How dare you question Hank Hanegraaff on this forum--you're goin' burn baby burn [/sarcasm]!

Hey, i see the sarcasm tag, so i'm going to be a bit light here. Fact is, though i don't presume to speak for Catholics or Episcopalians/Anglicans, we Calvinists don't have much respect for Hannegraaff's 'scholarship' (he has no college at all), and really don't care for the controversy that surrounds him. Walter Martin was worth six of him.

Actually, i'm waiting for some new Trolls who have just joined, that will be amusing

[RnMomof7]

Terri
You are scaring the children again.
Blessings for you and yours !

Who does Truth scare??
Never mind...

Blessings to you and your too Chuck.

[biblewonk]

The fact is, the only reason you have the New Testament canon is because of the trustworthy teaching authority of the Catholic Church. As Augustine put it, ‘I would not believe in the Gospels were it not for the authority of the Catholic Church’ (Against the Letter of Mani Called "The Foundation" 5:6). Any Christian accepting the authority of the New Testament does so, whether or not he admits it, because he has implicit trust that the Catholic Church made the right decision in determining the canon.

The fact is, the Holy Spirit guided the Catholic Church to recognize and determine the canon of the New and Old Testaments in the year 382 at the Council of Rome, under Pope Damasus I. This decision was ratified again at the councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397 and 419) and in numerous venues thereafter. You accept exactly the same books of the New Testament that Pope Damasus decreed were canonical, and no others.

Furthermore, one reason you accept the books you do is that they were in the Bible someone gave you when you first became a Christian. You accept them because they were handed on to you. This means you accept the canon of the New Testament that you do because of tradition, because tradition is simply what is handed on to us from those who were in the faith before us. So your knowledge of the exact books that belong in the Bible, such as Philemon and 3 John, rests on tradition rather than on Scripture itself.

The question you have to ask yourself is this: "Where did we get the Bible?" Until you can give a satisfactory answer (and there can really be only one answer) you aren’t in much of a position to rely on the authority of Scripture or to claim that you can be certain that you know how to accurately interpret it.

This argument is very old and very lame. Jews are responsible for bringing my OT through the ages and it is entirely about Jesus. Now for them to say that since they "gave me" my OT then who am I to believe anyone but them to interpret it would be pretty foolish too wouldn't it. This argument is also blasphemous because it puts man in the place of God in His bringing His Word to me. Now if only the RC's who work this sorry argument to death would start reading that book that "they brought to the world(not)" then we could dispense with the many RC traditions that do not appear in the bible.

[SoothingDave]

You need to get out more dave.

He's Al. I'm Dave. ;-)

I have been in many non Catholic churches and they all accept them as valid

They accept the words, but they don't accept the creeds. That is, like everything else, the creeds have been re-interpreted. Take, for instance, this posting of yours. It is utterly inconsistent with the creedal pronouncement of belief in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church.

Don't even begin on the "communion of saints."

SD