Posted on 03/15/2013 10:51:35 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
What Catholics simply cannot wrap their minds around is what Paul refers to as *disputable matters* in Romans 14. They think that unity demands unswerving adherence to one specific doctrinal position on anything, but the beauty of the unity of the Spirit, is that any believer can have communion and fellowship with any other believer in spite of differences in worship style, how communion is served, whether women should wear long dresses and long hair, whether you speak in tongues or not, what day of the week you worship, whether you eat meat or not, whether you're OK with an occasional beer or glass of wine or not, and so on.
We've learned to relax over things that are not critical in matters of salvation. The foremost unity comes from salvation by grace through faith in Christ.
Almost everything else is incidental and Catholics simply cannot tolerate shades of gray. With them is has to be black and white, period. No questions asked.
The freedom found in Christ is simply beyond their comprehension.
Jesus doesn’t soften his statement in John 6:53, He is very clear in response to the discussion detailed in John 6:52.
Furthermore, every serious Christian believed this for 1500+ years, until Luther decided that scandals & corruption in the church empowered him to toss aside a vow of celibacy and somehow gave him license to remove books from the Bible and personally interpret scripture.
It’s logically laughable in the face of history. Especially when one considers a new denomination has sprouted up on average every week or so since.
And while the Church will fight... Sola Scriptura will allow many individuals to claim that Jesus told them to give unto Ceasar.
—— The body of Christ is the body comprised of those believers who have been born again by the Spirit of God by grace through faith. THAT is the pillar and foundation of truth.-——
But the Bible says that “the church of the living God” is the “pillar and foundation of truth.” Shouldn’t we follow Scripture?
Additionally, under your theory, how would Christians recognize this invisible group, which would also possess a non-contradictory body of teaching, necessary to resolve disputes?
—— Believers can take their disputes to the local assembly at which they worship and they have Scripture as the authority to guide them in settling disputes. -——
Which local assembly of believers in sola scriptura? Baptists? Presbyterians? Seventh Day Adventists? Oneness Pentacostals? They all claim Scripture as their guide, yet their doctrines are extremely diverse. What disputes could they settle?
———The Bible as it stands is Scripture, which includes all of the OT as recognized by Jesus and His disciples, and at least the writings of Paul, as recognized and stated by Peter.-——
That would be the Catholic Canon. Luther removed books from the Canon that had been accepted since Apostolic times.
——The matter of the canon has been addressed many times in the past. If you wish to rehash it again, fine, but the 66 books of the Bible are it.-——
Does the Bible tell you that? That would be circular reasoning. An extra-biblical authority is logically necessary to make such a determination. Protestants, like Luther, commonly claim the so-called “council of Jerusalem,” which is a strange authority for Christians to claim as infallible, and elevate above Christ’s Church, which had already been established.
If you had taken a moment to think about what you posted, you would have seen the following on EVERY reply screen:
Please: NO profanity, NO personal attacks, NO racism or violence in posts.
That applies to ALL and ANY threads. You should know about this after all your time here, shouldn't you?
What I have found is that this claimed "unity" only shows up in disputes with non-Catholic Christians in an attempt to demonstrate a superior religion. In general practice, however, they pretty much tolerate a lot of different "points of views" among themselves - even among the very clergy that boasts of its unity!
Sorry, but what is logically laughable is the pitiful LACK of knowledge of history! Let me explain:
The idea of the literal change of the bread and wine of the Lord's Supper into the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ (transubstantiation) by which those who received the elements were infused with a measure of grace towards the attainment of their salvation was one that developed over hundreds of years. Many of the early church fathers viewed the spiritual component of what those elements represented and participating in the ordinance was a testimony of professed faith. Most of the writings from those first centuries dealt with disputing the Gnostic belief that Jesus didn't HAVE a literal body. It should be obvious that, even at the Last Supper, that Jesus was speaking symbolically as he held up the bread, broke it and handed it out as well as the shared cup of wine. The bread and wine did NOT change physically, but remained the same as they started. Any change at all was figurative and symbolic. A look at the history of the Eucharist is found HERE.
I've been having to repeat this over many times here, but Luther DID NOT remove ANY books from the Bible. I really wish people would do a little research before they mouth the propaganda. Here's a good place to start: Luther and the Canon. Can we put this one untruth to bed once and for all?
As to what else Luther did and didn't do and his supposed motives, I'll leave that to God to judge as ONLY God sees a man's heart. I don't follow any man, I follow the Lord Jesus Christ and the truth HE ensured we would all know in sacred Scripture. Through the Holy Spirit, that truth gets illuminated to our hearts and minds.
Apparently, there are plenty of nominal Catholics. Generally, the Church let’s the weeds grow along with the wheat. It isn’t the Church’s job to condemn.
Just thought these make an interesting comparison...
You are so cute when you say ignorant things. “Nicotine demon be gone”
Christians know. When you are born again, you have spiritual life and can tell.
Besides, it says to take it to the local assembly. There is no word for *church* in the Greek.
What disputes could they settle?
This sort. Acts 6:1-6 Now in these days when the disciples were increasing in number, a complaint by the Hellenists arose against the Hebrews because their widows were being neglected in the daily distribution. 2 And the twelve summoned the full number of the disciples and said, “It is not right that we should give up preaching the word of God to serve tables. 3 Therefore, brothers, pick out from among you seven men of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we will appoint to this duty. 4 But we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word.” 5 And what they said pleased the whole gathering, and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolaus, a proselyte of Antioch. 6 These they set before the apostles, and they prayed and laid their hands on them.
Of the type found in Romans 14.
Not every dispute is a dispute of theology.
An extra-biblical authority is logically necessary to make such a determination.
Not so. The Holy Spirit guides.
If people lived their lives according the the instructions found in Scripture, there wouldn't be the kinds of disputes which require an extra-Biblical authority.
Most of Scripture is plenty easy enough to understand without having someone hold your hand and *interpret* it for you.
God calls us into relationship with Him.
*Religion* is a construct of man. It's all the trappings man adds which he thinks please God. There is none which is superior to another. They're all an exercise in futility because religion saves no one. They're all dead ends.
Religion has done more harm to the cause of Christ than anything else Satan has come up with.
So one can have no life in himself unless he physically consumes the Lord's literal flesh, otherwise he remains dead? Or is this open to interpretation?
Furthermore, every serious Christian believed this for 1500+ years, until Luther decided that scandals & corruption in the church empowered him to toss aside a vow of celibacy and somehow gave him license to remove books from the Bible and personally interpret scripture. It’s logically laughable in the face of history.
Your statement is not laughable in the face of history, but distressing, as you have manifested an ignorance of history, as dissent on the inclusion of apocryphal books or doubt of them continued among scholars remained for centuries, right into Trent. And thus Trent was the first infallible, indisputable decree on the entire Roman canon, occurring over 1400 years after the last book was penned. See here .
Moreover, titling bishops/elders "priests" in distinction to the priesthood of all believers is something the Holy Spirit never did in Scripture, as well as require celibacy of them (with rare exceptions).
Meanwhile, division exists and disagreements abound within Catholicism, and under its model for unity, that of the church being supreme and with assured veracity, versus Scriptural substantiation being the basis for establishment of truth, which Rome does not require.
I disagree that discipline is not the job of the church, as the NT church was commanded to put away practicing impenitent fornicators, covetous, idolaters, railers, drunkards, extortioners, and even engaged in severe proactive spiritual punishment for some grievous offenders. (1Cor. 5; 1Tim. 1:10)
But what it did not do was use the sword of men to deal with theological challenges, as Rome did in the past, as it claims the power to punish members by physical means, that is, coercive jurisdiction.
But regarding public sinners and scandal, the clergy have been lax for some time. <
And which neglect is not restricted to Catholicism.
Technically no, but that doesn't mean that they stop presenting themselves for it.
Unless you were not telling the truth.
And you should become acquainted with some before shooting your mouth off.
Your attempts to equate Catholics with Obama, is as deceptive, false, and calumumnous, as Obama's Center for American Porgress spin tactics.
If you don't like the Catholic church, don't go. What false prophet told you that bashing other Christians is in any way Christian. I don't agree with other Christian faiths that have embraced secular actions that go against God, or the one's that offer Beatles and Jazz concerts at their mass, or the ones who have ex cons as priests, or the ones that have pink hair, or the ones that promise wealth and health, or the ones who pretend to play God promising salvation. My list goes on, but I really have no need to tell how wrong they are. Some some of Chisttianity is better than nothing, even it is some superficial fellowship or whatever else.
I don't understand why non Catholics are so obsessed with Catholics. Why don't they worry like that about Muslims, Jews, or Hindus?
Bears repeating, thanks metmom.
...the beauty of the unity of the Spirit, is that any believer can have communion and fellowship with any other believer in spite of differences in worship style, how communion is served, whether women should wear long dresses and long hair, whether you speak in tongues or not, what day of the week you worship, whether you eat meat or not, whether you're OK with an occasional beer or glass of wine or not, and so on.
We've learned to relax over things that are not critical in matters of salvation. The foremost unity comes from salvation by grace through faith in Christ.
Almost everything else is incidental and Catholics simply cannot tolerate shades of gray. With them is has to be black and white, period. No questions asked.
The freedom found in Christ is simply beyond their comprehension.
I have walked into many Christian churches for the first time and instantly realize that I am among family, brothers and sisters in the Lord.
The unity among Christians is amazing.
Well does Jesus say his words in John 6 are subject to interpretation? Does the inspired author label his words as a parable, as they are elsewhere in scripture?
Sola Scriptura is one of your standards, how does it work with your assumptions here?
“have walked into many Christian churches for the first time and instantly realize that I am among family, brothers and sisters in the Lord”
That is truly amazing considering there are approx. over 40,000 christian denominations and counting. Many idividual churches with leaders, that have NO accountability to anyone. The exact number of churches is unknown because churches like Westborow Babtist Church (sp) pop up everywhere and NO ONE is keeping track. With God all things are possible.
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.