Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

In Defense of the Papacy: 9 Reasons True Christians Follow the Pope
stpeterslist ^ | February 21, 2013 | HHAMBROSE

Posted on 02/22/2013 5:43:18 PM PST by NYer

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 421-440441-460461-480481-483 next last
To: Ecliptic
Now that I have answered your question, please be so kind to answer mine: Since Jesus and the thief on the cross were not Catholic, and the Bible does not say anything about being a Catholic, why would it be necessary for any Christian to be a Catholic?

until Christ died for our sins....we were under the old covenant

441 posted on 02/28/2013 8:04:54 PM PST by terycarl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 418 | View Replies]

To: Religion Moderator
you don't understand Reading the mind of another Freeper is a form of "making it personal." Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.

well, I guess that this admonition is justified, but by stating that he didn't understand, I was not reading his mind...I might have been pointing out that he did not understand the point that was being made at the time....he could be Einstien but he needn't have the ability to pick upn what was being discussed at the time

442 posted on 02/28/2013 8:42:29 PM PST by terycarl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 440 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o; Iscool
Ah, there’s the interesting part. Having rejected the traditional 1500-year-old Christian (Catholic-Orthodox) canon, the revisers had to seek a different OT canon, namely the Jewish Masoretic (Hebrew), derived ultimately from the work of Rabbi Akiva, the father of Rabbinical Judaism. Rabbi Akiva and his circle (the School of Jamnia) developed their own list of OT canonical books for reasons that were non-Christian, and in fact, theologically anti-Christian.

Just what exactly is in these "Apocryphal" books that made them "Christian" that the Jewish leaders rejected them from their canon?

These books were supposedly written prior to the coming of Christ and some spoke of battles fought by the Jewish nation. Why would they have wanted to exclude such writings as the victorious Maccabees?

Isn't it true that these extra-biblical books were ALWAYS considered separately from the universally recognized inspired sacred writings contained in the Old Testament and that such notaries as Jerome, Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, and Athanasius rejected them as divinely-inspired?

Isn't it true that these "extra" books were rejected as sacred inspired writings based on the facts that they contained errors and false teachings and because their authors were not recognized as Prophets of God? For a list of the errors in the Apocrypha, see http://carm.org/errors-apocrypha.

That being said, Jesus and Paul recognized the place of the Jews as, "Great in every respect. First of all, that they were entrusted with the oracles of God." (Romans 3:2) Seeing as they were the caretakers of God's written word since the time of Moses, did God take away this trust? Jesus never challenged their place.

It wasn't until the Council of Trent (1546 A.D.) that they were dogmatically decided on as belonging in the canon and this as a counter reaction to the Protestant Reformation.

From Reasons why the Apocrypha does not belong in the Bible:

    There are no clear, definite New Testament quotations from the Apocrypha by Jesus or the apostles. While there may be various allusions by the New Testament to the Apocrypha, there are no authoritative statements like "thus says the Lord," "as it is written," or "the Scriptures say." There are references in the New Testament to the pseudepigrapha (literally “false writings”) (Jude 14-15) and even citations from pagan sources (Acts 17:22-34), but none of these are cited as Scripture and are rejected even by Roman Catholics. In contrast, the New Testament writers cite the Old Testament numerous times (Mt. 5; Lk. 24:27; Jn. 10:35) and use phrases such as "thus says the Lord," "as it is written," or "the Scriptures say," indicating their approval of these books as inspired by God.

    Jesus implicitly rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture by referring to the entire accepted Jewish Canon of Scripture, “From the blood of Abel [Gen. 4:8] to the blood of Zechariah [2 Chron. 24:20], who was killed between the altar and the house of God; yes, I tell you, it shall be charged against this generation (Lk. 11:51; cf. Mt. 23:35).”

    Abel was the first martyr in the Old Testament from the book of Genesis, while Zechariah was the last martyr in the book of Chronicles. In the Hebrew Canon, the first book was Genesis and the last book was Chronicles. They contained all of the same books as the standard 39 books accepted by Protestants today, but they were just arranged differently. For example, all of the 12 minor prophets (Hosea through Malachi) were contained in one book. This is why there are only 24 books in the Hebrew Bible today. By Jesus referring to Abel and Zachariah, He was canvassing the entire Canon of the Hebrew Scriptures which included the same 39 books as Protestants accept today. Therefore, Jesus implicitly rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture.

    The Apocryphal books do not share many of the characteristics of the Canonical books: they are not prophetic, there is no supernatural confirmation of any of the apocryphal writers works, there is no predictive prophecy, there is no new Messianic truth revealed, they are not cited as authoritative by any prophetic book written after them, and they even acknowledge that there were no prophets in Israel at their time (cf. 1 Macc. 9:27; 14:41).

This asserted "authority" the Catholic Church claims to define what is or isn't Holy Scripture denies the fact that it is God who is the author of Scripture and even the Catholic Church accepts this truth. If, therefore, God is the author and the preserver of His word, all the church and its members are authorized to do is receive, believe and obey what God has given forth. The Old Testament Jews understood this. There's no reason New Testament believers can't as well.

It seems that many Catholics throw out this challenge as if no other Bibles are "complete" and that they, alone, have the only "true" one. This is a false assurance considering the above information as well as the fact that ALL the early translations (even Martin Luther's) did include these Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical books. They were simply placed in a separate section noted as for the reading and "edification" of the church but not for deriving doctrine because they were not accepted as Divinely-inspired.

It is also NOT a true statement that "Protestants" accept the Jewish canon rather than the Roman Catholic one. Again from the above source:

    There are various divisions of the Hebrew canon. The Protestant Old Testament Canon contains 39 books while the Hebrew canon has 22 or 24. These are the exact same books as the Protestants have, but they are just arranged differently and some of the books are combined into one. For example, Kings is one book. There is not 1st Kings and 2nd Kings. Also, all of the 12 minor prophets (Hosea through Malachi) are one book in the Hebrew Canon.

The ONLY difference between the Bibles we have and the one used by the Catholic Church is these seven books. ALL of the others ones are identical. So the real question must be what is missing in a Bible that excludes these seven books? The answer is simply that the one that leaves them out is the TRUE Holy Scripture God meant us to know and trust. That's because they ARE from the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and given so that men and women of God may be complete, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

443 posted on 02/28/2013 8:47:50 PM PST by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to Him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 432 | View Replies]

To: boatbums
Just what exactly is in these "Apocryphal" books that made them "Christian" that the Jewish leaders rejected them from their canon?

Why would you accept the authority of a small group of Jews to determine the canon of Scripture, over Christ's followers? They had more authority than Christ's Church, "the pillar and foundation of truth"?

444 posted on 02/28/2013 8:58:34 PM PST by St_Thomas_Aquinas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 443 | View Replies]

To: Syncro
Please bear in mind though, verga, that no matter how well trained one is in learning the Greek language, the way to understand the scriptures (no matter what language you read it in) is for the Holy Spirit to reveal the meanings.

the proper way to interpret the bible is to follow the Catholic Church....as Christ demanded...if everyone could interpret the bible on his/her own terms we would have millions of different interpretations.....doesn't work that way...listen to what the church teaches...follow it....believe it.

445 posted on 02/28/2013 9:01:35 PM PST by terycarl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 431 | View Replies]

To: verga

I lit a candle for you.

It was much prayer and study (with guidance from the Holy Spirit) that influeneced my post to you that you did not comment on.

I put complete trust in God and His inspired word.

I’m glad you read my post, God’s word does not come back void.


446 posted on 02/28/2013 9:26:38 PM PST by Syncro ("So?" - Andrew Breitbart The King of All Media (RIP Feb 1, 1969 – Mar 1, 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 384 | View Replies]

To: St_Thomas_Aquinas
Why would you accept the authority of a small group of Jews to determine the canon of Scripture, over Christ's followers? They had more authority than Christ's Church, "the pillar and foundation of truth"?

Why would you accept the authority of group of followers of Jesus, 400 years after the last book of the Old Covenant was written, to dictate to the Jews (to whom belong the Oracles of God) what "their" sacred writings should contain? Why were these books placed within the Old Testament (the Jewish canon) instead of separately (as the Septuagint had them)or as part of the New Testament/Covenant? What the "church" decided to do (finally, after 1500+ years) was tell the Jewish people what did and did not belong in their sacred scriptures. Could you understand their concern and anger?

Finally, do you consider these seven books "inspired" by God and useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that everyone who belongs to God may be proficient, equipped for every good work? If yes, how do you explain their errors? Did God make mistakes?

447 posted on 02/28/2013 9:28:55 PM PST by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to Him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 444 | View Replies]

To: terycarl; Boogieman
you are right....if you can show that in the last 2013 years the Catholic Church has erred in one of its statements or declarations....go fo it, you could get rich!!!(it didn't happen)

Have you gotten to post #416 yet? Do these council proclamations meet the qualification to be considered "statements or declarations" unable to be in error?

448 posted on 02/28/2013 9:38:55 PM PST by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to Him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 439 | View Replies]

To: terycarl
So far

Your posts have denied scriptural truths and ridiculed salvation

And accused the brethren of doing something that was not done.

And typed a comment that virtually told another poster that what he posted about himself was a lie.

And now denying the Holy Spirit His power, and instead putting the Catholic church's teachings above Gods. Illustrated by your post to which I am responding now:

no matter how well trained one is in learning the Greek language, the way to understand the scriptures (no matter what language you read it in) is for the Holy Spirit to reveal the meanings.

the proper way to interpret the bible is to follow the Catholic Church....as Christ demanded...listen to what the church teaches...follow it....believe it.

No terycarl, I will continue to follow God instead of man.

God did not demand we follow the Catholic Church, He told us to follow Him and trust the Holy Spirit for guidance, not a church or a Catholic who denies the power of the Holy Spirit.

Holy Spirit trumps Catholicism, sorry that is not understood universally through all denominations.

449 posted on 02/28/2013 9:45:22 PM PST by Syncro ("So?" - Andrew Breitbart The King of All Media (RIP Feb 1, 1969 – Mar 1, 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 445 | View Replies]

To: terycarl
So far your posts have denied scriptural truths and ridiculed salvation

And accused a poster of doing something that was not done.

And had no desire to apologize for posting falsely against another, even thought you did acknowleged you were wrong.

And typed a comment that virtually told another poster that what he posted about himself was a lie.

And now denying the Holy Spirit His power, and instead putting the Catholic church's teachings above Gods. Illustrated by your post to which I am responding now:

no matter how well trained one is in learning the Greek language, the way to understand the scriptures (no matter what language you read it in) is for the Holy Spirit to reveal the meanings.

the proper way to interpret the bible is to follow the Catholic Church....as Christ demanded...listen to what the church teaches...follow it....believe it.

No terycarl, I will continue to follow God instead of man.

God did not demand we follow the Catholic Church, He told us to follow Him and trust the Holy Spirit for guidance, not a church or a Catholic who denies the power of the Holy Spirit.

Holy Spirit trumps Catholicism, sorry that is not understood universally through all denominations.

450 posted on 02/28/2013 9:47:46 PM PST by Syncro ("So?" - Andrew Breitbart The King of All Media (RIP Feb 1, 1969 – Mar 1, 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 445 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

Salvation is already complete though, at this point. It was completed on the cross, once and for all time. Christ returns next time, not to bring salvation, but to bring the sword.


451 posted on 02/28/2013 10:34:04 PM PST by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 436 | View Replies]

To: boatbums
Why would you accept the authority of group of followers of Jesus,

• "On this Rock, I will build my Church." --Jesus

Do you agree that Jesus founded a church, His Church?

• "the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth."

Do you agree that Jesus' Church is "the pillar and foundation of truth?"

• "If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector."

Do you believe that if someone refuses to listen to Christ's Church, that he should be treated as an unbeliever?

Do you agree that Christ's Church is visible? If not, how are we to take our disputes to Christ's invisible Church? Was His command nonsensical?

Do you believe that Christ's Church has the final authority in determining the canon of Scripture? Or did Martin Luther, who isn't mentioned in Scripture? Or a gathering of Jews, around 90 A.D., about 60 years after Pentacost?

400 years after the last book of the Old Covenant was written, to dictate to the Jews (to whom belong the Oracles of God) what "their" sacred writings should contain?

You know that "the Jews" were not a monolithic group, and that various groups held various canons of Scripture, even at the time of "the council of Jamnia," which was simply a local group of Jews, who had no authority, even within Judaism.

Old Testament Canon

When you consider Luther's motivation and actions, that he originally sought to remove the books of Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation from the New Testament, because these books contained passages which contradicted his doctrines, particularly his doctrine of "faith alone," it is obvious that he wanted to remove the books of Maccabees from the Old Testament because 2 Maccabees (2 Maccabees 12:43-46) contradicted his rejection of Purgatory.

452 posted on 03/01/2013 4:20:57 AM PST by St_Thomas_Aquinas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 447 | View Replies]

To: boatbums; terycarl

Yes, I’m still waiting to see if he is going to put his money where his mouth is and defend some actual proclamations, instead of just making blanket declarations. If they are all 100% correct, then it should be easy enough to say that the church encouraging violence and persecution against heretics is a-okay and Holy Spirit-inspired.


453 posted on 03/01/2013 7:18:38 AM PST by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 448 | View Replies]

To: Boogieman; All

But that’s YOUR interpretation of Scripture. David Koresh, Joel Osteen, “Bishop” TD Jake, Rev. Wright; Rev. Sharpton, and pro-gay and lesbian marriage Lutherans plus 35,000 other “Christian” denominations all have THEIR view of Scripture.

We can’t have infinite number of TRUTHS. There is but One Christ, a One Truth given to His Apostles and their successors as taught by One Church until the end of time.


454 posted on 03/01/2013 9:16:51 AM PST by Steelfish (ui)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 451 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

It’s not Biblical interpretation, it’s Biblical teaching. I am not saying, “hey the Olive tree represents this or that”. I am just paraphrasing what the Apostles wrote in plain language, which is unmistakeable. Even Christ himself said “It is finished” with his last breath.

If you don’t feel Christ’s death on the cross was a perfect enough payment to cover the wages of sin, for anyone, for all time, then I feel sorry for you and I hope God opens your eyes.


455 posted on 03/01/2013 12:47:44 PM PST by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 454 | View Replies]

To: Boogieman; All

We can go on forever about the interpretation of Christ’s death. It sure opened the door to salvation to all of us but that doesn’t mean we get a free pass. This brings us back to the initial proposition, namely the authentic teachings of Christ as reflected not only in scripture, but in all what was handed down to the Apostles and their successors including those acts that were recorded and those that were not, what Christ said that was written and what was not written. Scripture alone won’t cut it. This is why in establishing His Church on earth He entrusted to Peter the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven. “Whatsoever thou shall bind on earth will be bound in heaven and whatsoever thou shall loosen on earth, shall be loosened in Heaven.”

And again we revert to the threshold question. Whose interpretation of Scripture, revelation, and tradition do we accept? You have on one hand the Catholic Church and on the other hand some 35, 000 other Christian denominations including the likes of Joel Osteen; “Bishop” TD Jake; Rev. Sharpton; Rev. Wright; David Koresh; Rev. Jim Jones; or gay and lesbian ordinations of Christian bishops like Lutherans, Episcopalians, and Anglicans or simply trust you own interpretation and judgment like what the Gnostics tried to do? To ask this question is to answer it.


456 posted on 03/01/2013 7:34:17 PM PST by Steelfish (ui)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 455 | View Replies]

To: St_Thomas_Aquinas
• "On this Rock, I will build my Church." --Jesus
Do you agree that Jesus founded a church, His Church?

Yes, Jesus established His body, called a "church" or called-out assembly, also it is the Bride of Christ. It was a "spiritual" house per Peter so it cannot mean it is restricted to a single organization/institution that imagines it alone can lay claim or copyright the name "Christians".

• "the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth."
Do you agree that Jesus' Church is "the pillar and foundation of truth?"

It most certainly SHOULD be where the truth Jesus taught is found. But no matter what a group calls itself, if it ceases to be the upholder of the truth, it ceases to be "a" church of the living God. That doesn't mean other local assemblies cannot continue to be the upholder of the truth. I think where Catholics get tripped up is when they read that the church is the "pillar and foundation of the truth", they believe it means THEIR church determines what is the truth. That is not what the verse says nor the context of the other verses. There IS truth, and a Christian church is to be a supporter and announcer of that truth. They don't have the authority to MAKE truth.

• "If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector."
Do you believe that if someone refuses to listen to Christ's Church, that he should be treated as an unbeliever?

Since this passage is speaking about a complaint between two believers and one has wronged the other, the wronged brother should make every effort to settle the matter between him and his brother. If the person refuses to correct his wrong action, the offended brother is told to bring two other members with him to face the offender to try to get him to repent of his wrong. It is ONLY then, that the matter is to be taken to the church (their mutual local congregation) in an effort to correct the offense. Obviously, this sounds like way more than a minor issue if it gets to this point. But, if the members of the church are unable to get the brother to correct his wrong action, they are to expel him from their fellowship. That's just what it says. Paul wasn't talking about hauling someone off to Rome to get them involved in it. To presume that is what Paul meant is ignorant of history seeing as there only WERE local assemblies. While the Apostles were still alive, disputes such as concerned ALL the young churches, such as whether or not the Gentiles had to be circumcised, were dealt with at the founding city of the faith, Jerusalem, and it is there that James settled the matter Paul brought to them. I don't, however, think this implies that ALL matters, large or small, must go to a central, overarching authority to decide matters of local interest. We have Paul's instructions for that. Also, treating someone like a "tax collector" or unbeliever only means they don't let the guy keep worshiping with them and being associated with their ministry, it doesn't mean they stop trying to win him back to the fellowship or quit loving him and reaching out to him.

Do you agree that Christ's Church is visible? If not, how are we to take our disputes to Christ's invisible Church? Was His command nonsensical?

Christ's church is obviously, or should be, a visible one, but it is also a spiritual house, per Peter. It is a body of believers and as the faith community grew, so did the different local churches. They should ALL be visibly the upholders of the truth as Jesus taught it, though. So, there is no ONE church, as if the only legitimate one is called by a specific title or sign on a door. Every believer is a member of Christ's body, his church, his bride, regardless of where they choose to worship. He knows His sheep and they know Him and follow Him. A false shepherd they will not follow. That's how you can tell the difference.

Do you believe that Christ's Church has the final authority in determining the canon of Scripture? Or did Martin Luther, who isn't mentioned in Scripture? Or a gathering of Jews, around 90 A.D., about 60 years after Pentecost?

Again, the "canon" was man's attempt to compile all the sacred books into one volume. At one time, each book was on its own scroll. Then recording processes change and codices were used (looks more like a book). The Jewish people always accepted the Torah, because they believed it came directly from God to Moses. As time went on, various prophets of God wrote down their prophecies received by the Holy Spirit. Various leaders wrote down the activities and actions of the Jewish people in what are called chronicles and they recorded the actions of the different kings and judges God set up among them. In the book of Deuteronomy (one written by Moses), God gave quite specific instructions for how the people would be able to tell the difference between true and false prophets. If what they predicted would happen, happened as they said it would AND they did not try to lead them to worship false gods, then that was a prophet of Jehovah. If the person who claimed to be God's prophet predicted something and it did not happen OR they tried to lead them to worship false gods, then they were NOT Jehovah's prophets AND they were to be executed. So, that tells me both the Jews and God were pretty respectful of the role of the prophets. It is no surprise that their words were recorded in sacred Scripture. There were major and minor prophets, but God showed them who they were to listen to as he also proved to them that he was the true God since only God could foretell the future exactly as he had done.

It was up to the church of believers to receive the writings passed down to them from the Apostles or their direct disciples and we have no reason to believe that they excluded the Old Testament seeing as Jesus and the New Testament writers quoted directly from nearly every one of the books in the Old Testament using words such as, "it is written", "thus sayeth the Lord", and so forth. They recognized what was and wasn't considered sacred Scripture which tells me that there already WAS an understanding and recognition of the body of writings we call the Bible. The Temple had every scroll of every book in it as did most of the local synagogues. They revered the writings as from God just as we Christians should today, because they ARE from God.

I said: 400 years after the last book of the Old Covenant was written, to dictate to the Jews (to whom belong the Oracles of God) what "their" sacred writings should contain?

You asked: You know that "the Jews" were not a monolithic group, and that various groups held various canons of Scripture, even at the time of "the council of Jamnia," which was simply a local group of Jews, who had no authority, even within Judaism.

Not sure what you mean by they were not a "monolithic group". If you mean they were not all of one tribe, then, yeah, we know they were twelve tribes all from Jacob who was the son of Isaac who was the son of Abraham. Under the leadership of Moses, they were a single "group" and they entered the Promised Land as a group. As years went by, they split off but they never stopped being the people of God. Again, he knows his own and all the promises God made to Abraham, to Isaac, to Jacob (Israel, Prince of God) and to Moses he WILL fulfill. Many prophecies are yet to be fulfilled but God is faithful and He will keep his promises.

When you consider Luther's motivation and actions, that he originally sought to remove the books of Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation from the New Testament, because these books contained passages which contradicted his doctrines, particularly his doctrine of "faith alone," it is obvious that he wanted to remove the books of Maccabees from the Old Testament because 2 Maccabees (2 Maccabees 12:43-46) contradicted his rejection of Purgatory.

I really don't care what Luther's motivations were. He translated the entire Bible into the German vernacular. He even translated all those books you accuse him of omitting. He never removed any books. As for the Apocrypha/Deuterocanonical books, he was hardly alone in viewing them as uninspired works. He was not the first to place them in a separate section from the mutually recognized inspired writings. Rather than question why Luther would do that for ALL of those seven books and not just the one you say he disagreed with, you should ask what motivated those at the Council of Trent to include them with the other inspired writings AS equally inspired. They had NOT done that prior. There were several high-ranking bishops there who also rejected these books being placed in the Old Testament canon. My question to you is what right they had to decide what was God-breathed Scripture and to mandate to the Jews what belonged in THEIR canon of the Old Testament. Unto them was the Oracles of God, Paul stated, so I seriously doubt he would have approved of Christians 1500 years later placing books that were NOT divinely-inspired along with those that were universally recognized AS from God. I do not give them that right. If Catholics want to read these books and think they came from God, go for it, just don't demand that every other Christian must also accept them. They do not hold a candle to those books that did come from God. He doesn't make mistakes.

And, just one more thought about that passage in Maccabees. How can anyone possibly think it is talking about there being a place called Purgatory from that? The men that were prayed for were idol worshipers! Wouldn't that be a mortal sin in Catholic thinking and wouldn't these men have gone to hell rather than Purgatory? Anyway, I think it is extremely shallow reasoning to base such a dogma on this passage and even less reason to think this was the only reason Luther and many before and after him rejected those books as inspired and sacred.

Thanks for the conversation. Have a blessed weekend.

457 posted on 03/01/2013 10:18:08 PM PST by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to Him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 452 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish; Boogieman
And again we revert to the threshold question. Whose interpretation of Scripture, revelation, and tradition do we accept? You have on one hand the Catholic Church and on the other hand some 35, 000 other Christian denominations including the likes of Joel Osteen; “Bishop” TD Jake; Rev. Sharpton; Rev. Wright; David Koresh; Rev. Jim Jones; or gay and lesbian ordinations of Christian bishops like Lutherans, Episcopalians, and Anglicans or simply trust you own interpretation and judgment like what the Gnostics tried to do? To ask this question is to answer it.

Please don't revert to this straw man argument! First of all, there are NOT 35,000 other Christian denominations. That bogus number has been disputed so many times here it is crazy to have to do so yet again. Secondly, it is pretending to think that the Catholic Church is unified on all questions of doctrine and dogma. It is a sham and there are numerous polls that prove beyond doubt that such unity is a pipe dream. Though "officially" there are stated beliefs and doctrines, only a small minority, if that, holds dogmatically to each and every one. I doubt you could get all those cardinals gathering in Rome to universally agree on every point. All throughout its history, the Catholic Church has had various theologians toss ideas back and forth to try to come to agreement. Often, there was NO unanimity but majority rules. One church father revered in one century becomes a heretic in the next. One Pope proclaiming dogma gets contradicted by the next one and that one gets overruled later. I know how dearly Catholics want to hold onto that equilibrium and believe it is all true whatever they are told, but declaring herself the One, True Church did not prevent Rome from falling into debauchery and excess. Even the current homosexual/pedophile scandal is nothing new. It's been going on for well over a thousand years if not longer.

Where we know who are the true body of Christ, his bride, is by their hearts and no one can see another's heart. That's something only God can do, so He knows his own and he couldn't care less what sign is posted outside a believer's house of worship. The true bride will show herself by her fruits, the fruits of the Holy Spirit. The "authentic" teachings of Jesus ARE found in Holy Scripture. That's why He gave it to us! It alone is the only objective and authoritative source we have for knowing what is or isn't truth. On the basic doctrine of our salvation, it is crystal clear that we are saved by grace THROUGH faith in Jesus Christ and NOT of our own works so that we cannot boast. Jesus did it ALL. He redeemed us by his precious blood shed upon the cross at Calvary so that the sin debt of the world would be paid IN FULL. It is only man-made religions that add onto that simple plan of salvation. Is it important to know about the nature of our God and how he has worked and will work in our world and lives? Sure, but it doesn't affect our salvation. That thief next to Jesus on the cross didn't need to know about the Trinity to be saved. He didn't have to get down from his cruel cross to get baptized "properly" to be saved. He didn't have to take a new members class to be saved or be able to quote Bible verses. He didn't even have to receive the Eucharist to be saved. But Jesus said, "Today, you will be with me in Paradise.".

We have the writings of the Apostles and their direct disciples that explain the doctrines Christians need to know to be good Christians and live lives that honor and glorify God. He certainly wants us to. He gave us the Holy Spirit to be our guarantee of eternal life and to lead us into all truth. He gave to the believers within each local church pastors and teachers and evangelists to equip and edify the saints to help us be all that God desires for us. He didn't leave us without the Comforter - HIS presence with us for all time. We CAN know we have everlasting life right now, because we believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and his grace is sufficient for us. What a wonderful plan God has for each one of us! It starts with being born again into HIS family by grace through faith in Christ. That is the simple - deceptively simple for some - plan of salvation.

458 posted on 03/01/2013 10:57:24 PM PST by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to Him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 456 | View Replies]

To: boatbums

If real Christians followed the Pope, would they be resigning from their assigned royal priesthoods when they felt they should do so? I’m so confused. /s


459 posted on 03/02/2013 12:39:28 AM PST by Cvengr (Adversity in life and death is inevitable. Thru faith in Christ, stress is optional.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 458 | View Replies]

To: boatbums; All

Oh, how nice! So when Christ gave His Apostles the Great Commission to go forth and teach all nations and established His Church that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it, this was all pointless because we are all saved by God’s grace. There is no reason to teach and evangelize a single Truth.

But no worries. In your mind “the ‘authentic’ teachings of Jesus ARE found in Holy Scripture.” So all of His unrecorded words and deeds are redundant! And who do you think first sorted out the “authentic” from the “inauthentic”? Was it not up to the early Church Fathers and their successors to Peter and the early Church who adopted the books we call the “Bible” as authentic?

You see these select set of books did not drop from the sky. And it was the oral and received tradition of His disciples that believed in the Holy Eucharist and the First Mass. Some serious reading and scholarship might help.

A good place to start is to read the book: “How Christ Said The First Mass” by Fr. James L.Meagher D.D.This nearly 500 page book is replete with historical scholarship that will take some reading since it analyzes early Hebrew worship to what Christ’s disciples did. But then again, this takes serious study and its not the stuff your local corner street FourSquare Church pastor would bother to do or for that matter the Joel Osteens and Rev. Al Sharptons of this world.

And by the way if its not 35,000 denominations, I’ll settle for 5000 as a threshold number. Yes, there were sinners even among his Apostles. Tradition tells us that Christ fell on the road to His crucifixion (BTW, that’s not found in Scripture) and so would His earthy representatives fall as well. The Church is not simply a hotel for saints but also a hospital for sinners and its non-believers. But alas, any of that is not important. One wonders why one of the greatest non-Catholic Christian scholars converted to Catholicism was made a cardinal and is now a Blessed after whom universities have on-campus societies and clubs named after him. His name? Blessed Cardinal Newman. Here, in the US, the top-ranking Lutheran Theologian and scholar, Fr. Neuhaus not only converted to Catholicism, he admitted how he was led astray by the errors of Luther and fundamentalists.


460 posted on 03/02/2013 12:55:40 AM PST by Steelfish (ui)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 458 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 421-440441-460461-480481-483 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson