Replies

This is just another of your propaganda pieces RC cultics post in their blind devotion to Rome, which end up being arguments against submitting to Rome. Which is the real polemic in this come home" papal promoting post referring "Catholic answers (deception), and thus I will respond to it as such.

Jesus started a religion Most dictionaries define religion as “the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.” It is abundantly obvious from Scripture that Christians are called to worship the one true God (cf. Matthew 4:9, Mark 5:6, Luke 4:8, John 4:23). I’m sure most “spiritual but not religious” Christians will agree with this.

Error #1. Jesus did not start a "new" religion in this sense of belief and worshiping the one true God, or not dependent upon what preceded it, but continued a faith in which believers worshiping the one true God from the beginning belonged to, fulfilling the OT which prepared for His coming. There can only be one true faith, and to have Christ starting a really new one would place the OT saints outside it. Instead, the "one new man" church was only possible as Gentiles were grafted into the true Israel, with OT Jews first believing on Christ and this faith being true Judaism, though this brought more revelation.

"And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree; Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee." (Romans 11:17-18) .

Jesus started a Church In Matthew 16:18, Jesus says to the apostle Peter, “you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church.” Catholics believe that in this verse Jesus is bestowing on Peter a position of authority from which the office of the pope is derived..

Error #2

Moreover, the faith of the NT church was not one,

being presided over by a pope the whole church looked to as it supreme infallible head in Rome, and being taught that he was the "rock" of Mt. 16:18?

Or even a successor for the martyred apostle James (Acts 12:1,2) being chosen like Matthias was and after that manner (Acts 1, in order to keep the original number of apostles)?

And a separate sacerdotal class of believers titled "priests ," as they uniquely changed bread into human flesh and dispensing it to the masses to receive life in them and eternal life (RCs keep quoting Jn. 6:53,54 to us)?

And a hierarchical order of priests, bishops, Cardinals, etc., with ostentatious religious dress and titles, including "Most Reverend?"

And required (with rare exceptions) clerical celibacy, which presumes all such have that gift.

And incognizant (usually) souls being formally justified by interior holiness via sprinkling of water in recognition of proxy faith, and (usually) ending up becoming good enough to enter Heaven in purgatory ?

And a separate class of believers called “saints,

And praying to the departed, or angels, and before images?

And the apostles teaching Mary was born and kept sinless?

And a church that conformed to this world in using papal sanctioned physical oppression torture, burning and death to deal with theological dissent

Or who, having lost that power, treats even notorious manifestly impenitent public sinners as members in life and in death, in contrast to the NT means of disfellowship and spiritual discipline.

And which members overall come in near last in things such as evangelism, commitment, and personal Bible reading, the latter which it hindered for a long time, and later sanctions teaching millions such things as that OT miraculous stories are fables or folktales, etc.

And teaches that the deity Muslims worship (not as unknown) is the same as theirs.

And which boasts of unity while being discouraged from objectively searching the Scriptures in order to ascertain the veracity of RC doctrine, while (on the other hand) lacking certainty about all the things they must hold as certain, and seeing varying degrees of interpretation by the magisterium, as well in the great liberty they have to interpret Scripture in order to support Rome.

This must suffice for now.

But even if the “spiritual” Christian has problems with this belief, there is no escaping the fact that Christ intended his Church to be both visible and authoritative. In Matthew 18, Jesus says to his disciples:..If Jesus did not intend his Church to be authoritative and visible, then what Church is he talking about in this verse? It’s clear in the text that this Church is communal.

Error #3, as supporting Rome as the infallible authority, for first, this text is actually about settling persons disputes, and for which Paul teaches,

"If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church." (1 Corinthians 6:4)

Nor is the magisterial office new, but this was established in the OT which had Divinely established authority for the interpretation of Scripture, and which parallels that given to the NT, both in application in civil matters and in doctrinal. (Lv. 10:10,11; Dt. 16:18; 17:8-13; 33:10; Neh. 8:8; 2Ch 19:8-10; Mal. 2:7)

And Westminster affirms,

It belongs to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of his Church; to receive complaints in cases of maladministration, and authoritatively to determine the same... — http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/wcf.htm

But what is entirely absent is a perpetually assuredly infallible magisterium, nor was one ever necessary. And which is The Issue, as the veracity of Rome's truth claims rests upon the premise of her assured infallibility, by which the RC has his assurance, despite the pretense of using Scripture as if the weight of its warrant was the basis.

It is also evident from Scripture that Jesus intended this community to gather regularly for worship:

Error #4, as pertains to Rome's gathering to worship a wafer as being the source and summit of their faith around which all else revolved, in which "the work of our redemption is accomplished," but which is simply not seen in Acts or the church epistles, instead it is only manifestly described once therein, and is interpretive of the gospel, and in which this "feast of charity" shows the Lord's death by the unselfish manner in which they partake of the communal meal, declaring their unity with the Lord who died for them and each other. As explained here . .

Is the Bible all you need? On his way from Jerusalem to Gaza, Phillip the Evangelist encounters a eunuch reading the Book of Isaiah:

Error #5, as pertains to refuting SS, as this does not claim Scripture formally provides everything, so that reason, the church, etc. are superfluous, but which is provides for.

This is reinforced again in 2 Peter 1:20: First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation,

Error #6, as this "authentic interpretation" itself is erroneous, as it pertains to how Scripture was written, and not that a soul is not to do as the noble Bereans did, (Acts 17:11) or that an RC is not to objectively examine the evidence to determine the veracity of RC teaching, which is cultic.

And yet again in 2 Peter 3:15-16: So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures. .. A teacher is necessary; preferably an authoritative one.

Error #7, as this does not teach an authoritative one means an possessing assured infallibility,even by those who were the instruments and stewards of Scripture. For indeed the church actually began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, who were the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture, and inheritors of promises of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation.

And instead they followed an itinerant Preacher whom the magisterium rejected, and whom the Messiah reproved them Scripture as being supreme, (Mk. 7:2-16) and established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church as it began upon this basis. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)

If one must submit to the magisterium after the manner Rome requires, then the church itself is invalid, but which false fundamental premise invalidates Rome as being the one true church.

What about scandals in the Church? As my colleague Tim Staples is fond of saying, “You don’t leave Peter because of Judas.” From a Catholic perspective this means you don’t leave the Church because someone didn’t live up to its teaching.

Error #8, as excusing Rome in seeking to justify her claims despite scandals, as she have never even elected a pope after the non-political Biblical method used for replacing Judas, nor kept simply 12 apostles as they did, which was in order to keep the original number of apostles (Rv. 21:14). And instead she has elected men who morally were more like Judas than Peter, and required obedience to them even in torturing suspected heretics or even possible witnesses of them.

Get back to where you belong

Error #9, as the church of Rome is fundamentally contrary to the NT church, is not where real disciples of Christ belong.

He founded a Church, gave it authority in the areas of faith and morals, and guards it from teaching error (Mt 18:17-18).

Error #10. That is the fundamental error, for besides the fact shown before that despite the wishful thinking of RCs, Mt 18:17-18 nor any other texts do not teach an an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth (including writings and men being of God) and to fulfill promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and preservation of faith, and authority. (Jn. 14:16,26; 15:26; 16:13; Mt. 16:18; Lk. 10:16)

Nor that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that Rome is that assuredly infallible magisterium, and thus those who dissent from the latter are in rebellion to God. For as said, this would invalidate the church itself, which began with common people recognizing what the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation would not, that a couple itinerant Preachers were of God.