Posted on 07/26/2015 7:30:39 PM PDT by NKP_Vet
And NOW look what has happened!
No man can find salvation except in the Catholic Church.
Kinda like Mary appearing to three Portuguese children?
I think it's because people see a female as more approachable like a mother might be. More loving especially for those who might not feel so. To approach a male God more often then not comes with responsibility, where seeking a female entity is far easier and comfortable....gives the "feel good" sense sought after.
I see...
That’s not what Four Witnesses discusses.
Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Then had the churches rest throughout all Judaea and Galilee and Samaria, and were edified; and walking in the fear of the Lord, and in the comfort of the Holy Ghost, were multiplied.
He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it.
Are you serious? The church of Rome is neither one, except in an organizational sense and with a paper unity, and it certainly has not existed in that sense since the first century, as both Scripture and historical research attest. Or do I need to post documentation?
Thus the recourse to claiming that both sources only mean what Rome says they do in any conflict. For Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares
The church of Rome in its distinctives stands in such contrast to the NT church that it is basically invisible in Scripture. .
There is an unbroken chain of succession by the laying on of hands from that time until now.
That also is absurd. Or do I need to post documentation? But like the stipulated unanimous consent of the fathers, "unbroken" means whatever Rome means.
You could try arguing that you belong to one of the other original churches rather than an offshoot sect that devolved from, but may not even acknowledge its origin in, the Sixteenth Century. Any movement forming so late has to account for a lack of apostolic authority, a lack of divine origin...,
Nonsense. So your argument is that unless one cannot show formal descent from the historical magisterium but dissents from it, then such necessarily cannot have validity? And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that such is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus any who knowingly dissent from the latter must be in rebellion to God?
On the other hand we see one holy catholic apostolic church that has a visible historical witness in every century since the Messiah, with scriptural evidence of both its formation, as well as its apostolic succession.
That is mere whistling in the dark. For the fact is that the church of Rome simply does not a visible historical witness in every century since the Messiah, with scriptural evidence of both its formation, as well as its apostolic succession. Or do i need to post the abundant documentation that testifies against that propaganda, even from Catholics?
It includes any who basically do as i described, from Calvary chapels to most SBC and Reformed to many holiness Pentecostals. But Catholic does not work well.
Note that my "historical manifestation" refers first to the visible NT church, that being where those in the one true church (as it alone only consists 100% of true believers) expressed their faith, along with a number ot tares.
Secondly, historical manifestation refers to later visible churches which basically preached the gospel of the NT church which Peter (Acts 10:36-43) and Paul (Rm. 3:10-51) preached, with baptism confessing that faith, it being a living faith which characteristically follows its Object
And is not seen praying to created beings, or "priests" offering the Eucharist as a sacrifice for sins, and that event being the source and summit and center of church life around which all revolved, and looking to Peter as the first of a line of infallible popes in Rome, etc .
As the post-apostolic church suffered its progressive deformation, the body of Christ continued as a remnant of believers, per usual, within the visible organizational institution, whose deformation and corruption finally necessitated the incomplete Reformation. In which remnant type believers, along with the inevitable tares, were able to once again express their faith in organized organic bodies, even though the visible church is yet imperfect.
Glory of God.
I wouldn’t touch it; either!
Those 7 very visible CATHOLIC churches in Asia didn't CONFORM very well; either!
The seven churches of Asia were bona fide churches of the one holy catholic apostolic church. The Messiah wrote letters to them (their angels) through his servant John by the Spirit of God. He both commended and criticized them, warning them repeatedly to do the works. I don't see him writing letters to tares, but rather to those in danger of losing their salvation. He threatened to remove those churches' candlesticks if they did not repent and do the works.
There are no letters to the Reformation, Chuck Smith, Aimee Semple McPherson, or any other Protestant denomination, sect, branch, or faith community.
I see a 1500 year gap with disparate streams of denominations, sects, movements, and communities with no apostolic succession or divine authority. Some of these also allow, and follow, female founders and pastors.
Your choice of words ("except") admits that the Church of Rome has historically existed since the First Century and admits it was apostolic. Do you believe its candlestick was removed ? If so, which year or century do you believe that occurred and when do you believe Christianity was restored and re established ? One of your comments indicated this has not yet occurred and that church is still reforming and emerging. Is that why you point to Calvary Chapel and the Pentecostal Holiness movement as examples ?
It remains that what you failed to answer is your premise"that unless one cannot show formal descent from the historical magisterium but dissents from it, then such necessarily cannot have validity? And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that such is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus any who knowingly dissent from the latter must be in rebellion to God."
Since that must be your argument, you might as well make that clear.
Are you serious? The church of Rome is neither one, except in an organizational sense and with a paper unity, and it certainly has not existed in that sense since the first century, as both Scripture and historical research attest. Or do I need to post documentation?Looks like you will have to show documentation. Daniel1212.Your choice of words ("except") admits that the Church of Rome has historically existed since the First Century and admits it was apostolic.
Check out the mindreading and an example of someone twisting words to make it seem like they are being agreed with.
The "except" was in the context of denying what is erroneous posted all the time, that the "OTC" is ONE, no reference to being one for 2000 years, or 2012 years as we see posted all the time.
Funny how the word "deny" is seen as "except" for those that disagree.
Do you believe its candlestick was removed ?
The candlestick of Jesus' church made up of all believers of and born again followers of Jesus cannot be removed just as by proclaiming that Christians outside the Catholic belief system can't be saved without become part of the Catholic church and be subject to the pope.
It isn't any "Church" it is THE church.
And Catholicism was created over 200 years after Jesus walked the earth and those that say that Jesus was the first Catholic and that all the disciples and all the saved people were Catholics have NO Biblical proof of that.
If wishes were horses nuns would fly.
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.