Posted on 07/16/2009 12:27:42 AM PDT by GonzoII
You--- There have always been sinners and always will be. There were always some who lost faith in Christ as well. Judas was still an apostle even though he planned to betray Christ. Simon Magus was still a baptized Christian at one poit even though he clearly fell and left the Church.
Sorry...I didn't say sinners...I said unbelievers...Just because someone got wet doesn't mean he/she believes in anything...And just because someone is born into a religion and attends the services doesn't mean he/she believes in Jesus...
It would be impossible for an unbeliever to be a member of the Body of Jesus Christ...Therefore, it's impossible that your religion is the One True Church...
Me--- “Jesus did not establish a church to bring people to Him...”
You--- Yes, actually He did. Hence, the Great Commission. That’s why He said “Go” to the Apostles rather than, “They’ll come to you.”
Again, you're wrong...Jesus sent the disciples into the world to preach the Good News of the Gospel...The Good News of the Gospel is not to join the church but to believe on Jesus Christ...
Jesus never said, 'Join the church'...Jesus said that people that believed on Him were added to the church...NOT the other way around...
Me--- “The people that turned to Him ARE the church...”
You---The Church told them about Jesus FIRST.
So what's that prove??? Nothing...Lots of people talk about Jesus who have not been indwelt with the Holy Spirit and are NOT in Christ...Being religious does not equal being in the Body of Christ...
You guys have said yourselves that when a nonbeliever or someone unworthily dissolves the little cracker in his/her mouth, that the operation, whatever it may be, 'doesn't take'...Even if the person has been baptized...
That right there is an admission that yours could not be the One True Church because you allow non believers into the membership of your church...There can be NO unbelievers in the 'church'...Impossible...
Because God can only do what YOU--Iscool--can understand?
LOL
Riiiight.
I see vicious Klan-worthy anti-Catholic hatred is alive and well.
Just as the ‘church’ is the body of believers in Christ, so is the concept that the Holy Spirit only indwells a true believer. God knows the heart and only He can see if faith is genuine.
Church membership (meaning a particular religion) profits no one. We are assured of our place in heaven when we die because the Holy Spirit was given to us as a down-payment. We are “sealed” with the Holy Spirit and, as such, can never be lost again. Jesus said he would lose nothing and no one can pluck us out of our Father's hand.
Amazing to see the adjective “excellent” ascribed to post 81 (a poisonous and tarry ball of anti-Catholic hatred).
But your claim is informative on at least one level.
Can you point to a Scripture passage that says "catholic"? My understanding is that the Christian church in Rome didn't get designated as "the only true church" until centuries after the resurrection and only then by the council themselves.
In one way it is. It tells us clearly that Christ established a definite Church which He commissioned to teach all nations.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
There is only one reason for a post like this. This post is a shove it up your nose insult to your fellow Christians who are not Catholic. It’s purpose is to stir up antagonism and conflict.
I have tremendous respect for my Catholic friends and neighbors. We have enough in the way of common enemies that we should be united in our common faith in Christ’s salvation. We should not be looking for ways to drive wedges between us.
You---Uh, that doesn’t even make sense as a sentence. When you can form a coherent sentence let me know.
Makes sense to me...What, you couldn't figure out that I left out 'people'??? So many 'people'???
What happened to that God inspired logic and common sense you guys are always bragging about???And the Church already existed BEFORE Paul.
Not as we know it...The Gospel of Grace was revealed thru Paul by Jesus Christ...The adoption of of Gentiles into this church to make the Jews jealous was revealed thru Paul by Jesus Christ...
All Paul did was hand down in writing and orally what was already known and taught
That's what your religion teaches you??? So you are saying the Lord didn't reveal anything 'new' to the Apostle Paul...How ridiculous...
What ever would there be need of a 'new' Apostle??? Matthew, Mark, Luke or John could have written all those epistles of Paul then...Why did God waste His time with a new Apostle AFTER He was Crucified???
The teaching of your religion is very much in opposition of what the scriptures teach...I would encourage any and every Lurker to pick up a Bible to read and prayerfully ask Jesus to help you open your understanding before you consider joining a Catholic church...
Luk 24:45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,
Can you point to a Scripture passage that says "trinity?"
So the body of Christ that you belong to has unbelievers in it, eh Petronski???
The body of Christ that I am a member of has NO unbelievers in it...That’s where our conflict lies...We are members of different Bodies...
Just like you guys claim you worship the same God the muzlims do...And your religion’s claim that your church has more in common with Izlam that it does with Protestantism...
I nor the body of Christ that I belong to do not worship the same God as the muzlims...And we have NOTHING in common with the muzlim religion...
There ya go...
I can definitely show you many verses that refer to the concept of the trinity. If you mean ‘catholic’ as in a universal church of believers, we have no disagreement, but that's not what you mean, is it?
Absolutely not.
Doesn't even hold a candle to the attacks by Catholics of Protestants on this thread.
“No, my argument is irrefutable. The Church came before the NT. Period. Irrefutable. Any sect today - like yours - that claims to be Bible based is really just a johnny-come-lately man-made sect based on the opinions of men.”
Tell me, what is Scripture? Is it not the teachings of the prophets, apsotles and the Lord Himself? Yes, it most certainly is. The Lord and the Apostles established the Church, which is His Body, to carry out His teachings. Thus the teachings came first.
When Protestants and Evangelicals insist on a Bible based Church, they are insisting on a Church that is rooted in the teachings of the prophets, apostles and the Lord Himself. Catholics insist on the same thing. So when a Protestant asks “Where’s that in the Bible?”, he is asking “When did Jesus teach that? What Apostle taught that? What prophet said that?”
It really is very simple. Unfortunately those among us who insist on dogmas that are not found in the teachings of any prophet, apsotle or the Lord Himself (some of the excess of Mariology and eschatology) try to downplay the importance of thos teachings.
The shoe fits. Wear it with pride.
Actually, Necessary and sufficient are two different, though often complementary concepts.
Fuel is obviously necessary for your car to run. It is just as obviously not, in itself, sufficient for your car to run.
When we talk about knowing the word of God, is the Bible both necessary and sufficient as a means of knowing God's word? Or, as the authors of this article might ask, can we take Scripture as our only guide to God's word?
Again, even Scripture (e.g., John 5:39-40) says that the Bible is not "sufficient" in the technical sense of the word -- why would God bother sending a Holy Spirit if it were? The Bible is, however, clearly necessary.
The authors are correct in saying, "He who believes in Scripture as his only guide ends by believing in his own mistaken interpretations of the Bible, and that means that he ends by believing in himself."
Had an older gentleman in one of the churches early in my ministry who would always include in his prayers a line about God granting us what we need, but not necessarily what we wanted.
One of my favorite prayers is that of St. Chrysostom, which says in part, "Fulfill now, O Lord, our desires and petitions as may be best for us; granting us in this world knowledge of your truth, and in the age to come life everlasting."
It is Christ's. ****
Now wait a minute. It depends on which side of the fence you are looking from.
About 35 years ago I read an interesting newspaper interview with a Greek Orthodox priest.
He said that Christian Church was one organization in agreement until about 1000 years ago the Catholics broke away from the TRUE CHURCH! His words, not mine!
That would make the Catholics the first Protestants!
And I remember a thread on FR many years ago about how Martin Luther tried to establish contact with the Patriarch of Constantinople after his break from Rome.
Now there are hundreds of BIG WALLS separating Christians, all screaming WE ARE THE TRUE CHURCH THAT CHRIST ESTABLISHED! while others see only little fences and minor things separating us.
To all three: Fair enough. In fact, I have often been astonished by how convoluted and filtered through complex rules of hermeneutics the Protestant reading of the Bible is.
The rhetoric of Bible perspicuity still makes rounds in some circles though, does it not? At least historically that was a major part of Luther's theological revolution.
We view “necessary” differently because you are seeing an object and I am seeing an objective.
I see transportation being the purpose of the car, so gas in the car is part of what’s necessary. So are wheels, battery, etc.
I see salvation to the glory of God being the purpose of the Bible (these are written so you may have life), so when I say it contains all that’s necessary, then I mean that in terms of salvation. It doesn’t give me step-by-step instructions on how to conduct a church homecoming program. That, however, is not necessary for salvation.
And, the reason it must be the bible is because the bible ONLY has the word of God.
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.