Posted on 12/07/2015 3:37:20 AM PST by markomalley
Take the red pill.
“LOL. The Church is the entire body of believers.”
Believers in what or Whom? All people believe in something. Are Lutherans and Mormons the same in their beliefs? No. Yet there were no Lutherans until 1520 - even though the Church already existed almost 1500 before them.
“The Roman Church is as much a sect as any other.”
A Church cannot be a sect. The two are mutually exclusive as words, ideas, and realities.
“It is merely the most successful sect, but it is not the first or oldest in existence.”
It is not a sect at all.
>>Believers in what or Whom? All people believe in something. Are Lutherans and Mormons the same in their beliefs? No. Yet there were no Lutherans until 1520 - even though the Church already existed almost 1500 before them.
The Apostles Creed is a good reference for belief in what or whom.
Yes, Lutherans did not exist before 1520, but they exist as Christians after 1520. Where you worship isn’t very important when compared to who you worship.
>>A Church cannot be a sect. The two are mutually exclusive as words, ideas, and realities.
Then stop calling my church a sect. I am a Christian, just as you are a Christian. We are both part of the body of believers, the Invisible Church. For you to claim that Christ’s finished work on the cross is insufficient because we do not use the same rituals for worship is to deny Christ altogether. For you to claim that your traditions and rituals complete the work of Christ is ludicrous.
“The Apostles Creed is a good reference for belief in what or whom.”
Okay, let’s see if that works: Sola scriptura, sola fide, Consubstantiation. Three Lutheran doctrines. Show me where you see any of those three in the Apostles’ Creed. Oh, that’s right. They’re not there. The simple fact is the Apostles’ Creed is the barest of summaries of the faith and comes no where near summing up the beliefs of any Christian group.
“Yes, Lutherans did not exist before 1520, but they exist as Christians after 1520. Where you worship isn’t very important when compared to who you worship.”
Who said anything about “where”? The point is if Lutherans only started in 1520 - which you just admitted - then that means Christ didn’t start their sect.
“Then stop calling my church a sect.”
So you’re not a Protestant? Protestants have sects. Catholics and Eastern Orthodox have Churches. There are no Protestant Churches in the proper understanding of the word Church because they can only have sects. Remember, they’re all just recent man-made sects.
“I am a Christian, just as you are a Christian.”
Oh, we’re both Christians, but we are not the same. A sectarian cannot have the fullness of faith. This is not about anything personal about you or me. This is simply about the Truth which existed before us and is independent of us. Christ founded one Church. He founded no Protestant sect. They came 1500 to 1970 years later.
“We are both part of the body of believers, the Invisible Church.”
Christ established a VISIBLE Church. To ignore it is to reject part of the work of Christ.
“For you to claim that Christ’s finished work on the cross is insufficient because we do not use the same rituals for worship is to deny Christ altogether.”
When did I EVER claim Christ’s “finished work on the cross is insufficient”? You COMPLETELY made that up. You made that up out of thin air. I defy you, I DEFY YOU, to find a single time I ever said any such thing. You will utterly fail because I know I have NEVER, EVER SAID ANY SUCH THING. I have never once impugned the work of Christ. EVER. How can you just make up something like that? Seriously, do you not believe bearing false witness is wrong?
“For you to claim that your traditions and rituals complete the work of Christ is ludicrous.”
Again, WHEN AND WHERE DID I EVER SAY THAT? Seriously, how can you just make up things like that and call yourself a Christian in the same post? How can you do that?
>>Again, WHEN AND WHERE DID I EVER SAY THAT? Seriously, how can you just make up things like that and call yourself a Christian in the same post? How can you do that?
OMG. You whine like a little liberal girl! Do you have your own hashtag campaign? Gonna go do a campus protest? Give me a break.
You claim that Protestant churches are real churches and therefore Protestants aren’t real Christians...unless they go join your church. That is saying that Christ was not sufficient because it is YOUR church that matters. Your silly bigotry is so tiresome.
Have the Moslems been reading up on St Malachy’s prophecy?
bkmk
“OMG. You whine like a little liberal girl!”
So, in other words, you can’t show what you claimed I said? Yeah, that was obvious from the start. Thanks for proving my point.
“Do you have your own hashtag campaign? Gonna go do a campus protest? Give me a break”
Your failure is your own. You made a claim that was OBVIOUSLY FALSE and now you are utterly failing to back it up.
“You claim that Protestant churches are real churches”
No, the Protestant sects are not real Churches. I never claimed they were “real churches.” Is that a typo on your part or yet another entirely false claim?
“and therefore Protestants aren’t real Christians...”
Completely false. I said the exact opposite in fact. Again, you say something that is not only illogical but totally false and that never shows up in anything I have EVER said.
“unless they go join your church.”
Again, completely false.
“That is saying that Christ was not sufficient because it is YOUR church that matters.”
Your conclusion is not only illogical but completely false. Acknowledging the obvious - that sects were started by men and that Protestant sects were started 1500 years too late to be from Christ - in no way says that Christ was sufficient but that He is sufficient and sent a Church and not sects. To insist otherwise is to automatically deny Christ’s work which includes the establishment and sending out of the Church.
“Your silly bigotry is so tiresome.”
A sect is a sect - and not the Church. Many Protestants will call the truth bigotry to protect their man-made sect. What is tiresome is to deny that sects started by men in Germany, England, the U.S. and so on 1500 to 1970 years after Jesus sent out the Church are not exactly what they are: SECTS.
God save Pope Benedict.
"There are no Protestant Churches in the proper understanding of the word Church because they can only have sects."
Says who?
Says the partisan sectarians of the Latin Church, and perhaps some others who hold to the notion there must be some (imagined to be) unbroken chain of man-occupied office of Church administration in order for an ecclesiastical organization to at all also be a Church. The Lord Himself set no such artificial limitations.
When Ratizinger wrote about (his own views) of what Church was, and what qualified, he didn't stoop to calling all those ecclesiastical organizations outside of Roman Catholicism "sects" as your have done here. Yet his own definitions undo & unravel themselves once one looks towards the root word for "Church".
Additionally, proof-texts which Romanists read-in-between-the-lines of, where they claim that Christ did set such limitations; that Christ's own ekklesia would never be in error ----and that that one ekklesia is (of course!) their own and absolutely none others ---is about as sectarian as it gets.
The ones who originally invented that limitation were as [then] latter-day Sanhedrin, inventing doctrines that perhaps had some initial sourcing from within Scripture, but came to the fore in the shapes which they did more from within their own developing traditions, which arose not narrowly shaped from the Word and original Church traditions, but also strongly influenced by their own mere & lesser customs concerning those considerations.
Similar to what rabbinical teachers propound, portions of what they would insist upon were God's own instructions simply were not the Word of God as they (the Sanhedrin, and the latter-day Sanhedrin) were wont to advertise those doctrinal inventions to be.
It would be good to remember right about here that Paul, as he noted, was taught by no man --- meaning that he was not taught by other Apostles concerning Jesus, yet was used by God as instrument within the Church in establishing and furthering the Church.
From outside of the initial circle of chosen Apostles was added by God (not coming up through the ranks of church teaching, through submission to the teachings of the Apostles) the very one who (arguably enough) most defined what the Church was in it's various assemblages of that which came to be known as (plural) Churches of the one universal Church.
Many members -- but one body, and not one which necessarily had as it's headquarters one particular ekklesia from among them all to rule over all the rest.
Using later arising man-made shifts of definition for what the Church is in order to allege that; ecclesiastical organizations arising from the Reformation are not Churches, is nifty self-serving circular reasoning, but circular still.
There must be definition of what Church is coming from outside that very thing, a word not being able to define itself, lest that Word be God Himself. Hence the need for such precepts as sola scriptura to keep promoters of that inevitable alternative, sola ecclesia, in check.
Despite your own and many other 'Catholics' steadfast denials, the Word of God as supreme (reliance upon the Holy Writ foremost to guide) being over and above whatever exercise of ecclesiastical authority there may be ---WAS among early Church precepts & understanding, Christ Himself providing examples of the principle in his own actions, and words.
I think it best that we all take Him at his own word, rather than rely upon partisans -- like [Roman] Catholics who think their own ekklesia the only one, along with all the blather about others "not having the fullness of faith" etc., when that alleged fullness includes "extra" inventions far outside of (and at times in conflict with) the more original Church purposes and charter.
“Says who?”
Common sense. If someone has chosen to be a member of a sect that means he either is ignorant of the FULL truth or is deliberately rejecting some of it. There is no other possible logical understanding.
Even Protestant theologians intuitively recognize this fact and over the last 500 years have honed the idea of the “invisible church” to try to get around it.
As Jason Stellman, once a stalwart Protestant, put it:
“In a word, I fought the Church, and the Church won. And what it did was beat me, but it didn’t draw me, entice me, or lure me by playing upon some deep, latent psychosis or desire on my part for something Protestantism just couldn’t provide. Catholicism went from being so obviously ridiculous that it wasn’t even worth bothering to oppose, to being something whose claims were so audacious that I couldn’t help opposing them. But what it never was, was attractive, and in many ways it still isn’t.
“But what Catholicism is, I have come to discover, is true.”
The rest of your post seems to be the usual self-reassuring blather I’ve come to expect from you rather than an actual argument of any substance.
Christ sent a Church. He never sent a Protestant sect. All Protestant sects are just man-made bodies with no authority. It’s just that simple.
Jason Stellman, who must have never found fullness of Christ outside of the RCC, and may still never have ---as a witness that anyone should be impressed with?
That's what you have to lead off with. Not impressed. There are more potential "Stellmans" who don't fall for the multitudinous sales-pitches which those of Rome have long been polishing (including polishing things which can never take a polish).
I've seen probably most everything the Stellmans of the world have seen in regards to theological considerations, history of the Christian Church, etc. Fortunately enough for me, the Lord supplied His own fullness of spirit to myself upon many occasions otherwise, long before I encountered the special pleadings argument of the Church of Rome. You can have Stellman -- my own testimony is stronger than his (if you only could know what I know...).
The Lord has revealed himself to me greatly (and who's own spirit still is never far, my own thoughts never without the knowledge and remembrance of the Truth of Himself) with nary a so-called "priest" of Rome around for miles.
That does not mean that the Lord overlooks and never visits those within Roman Catholicism, but He does have other sheep to attend to, also. Those who are His, are His Church.
Church (the ekklesia) is wherever His people are, worshiping Him. Yourself may not see them nor yourself understand them (how to describe the spirit of the Lord? are there words that can convey what can only be known in relationship with Him?) but that does not make them invisible.
The definitions which you asserted are as I said, artificial. When a Church goes wrong --- people have been known to go out, and take the name of Jesus with them -- or else be driven out by the corrupt -- and still take the name of Jesus with them.
It matters only little if a troubled ecclesiastical organization 'reforms' itself at some later date (and arguably, in the instance of the RCC, not reformed entirely. It is not the same Church which Christ and the Apostles initially established). The continued existence of the troubled org does not invalidate those other Churches which the membership of troubled org may disapprove of while comforting themselves that at least they're not as bad as those people ---over there.
Meanwhile, I see you're back to the usual projecting, this time in regards to characterizing what I wrote as being "self-reassuring blather".
That's you, pretty much all day.
As expected you didn’t deal with the simple - and irrefutable - point I made. If someone has chosen to be a member of a sect that means he either is ignorant of the FULL truth or is deliberately rejecting some part of it. There is no other possible logical understanding. Christ established and sent out the Church. Christ never once established a single Protestant sect 1500 or 1600 or 1700 or 1800 or 1900 years later.
And the rest of what you posted is the usual self-assuring blather and is not projection on my part at all. And, you’ll do it again.
That's pure projection on your part.I've noticed that is all you've got. Blame everyone else for what you yourself are guilty of ---to the nines.
Not deal with simple "irrefutable" points? That's what you did in regards to the initial points which I raised.
All the rest you have here is mere argument by assertion.
Christ didn't do anything without checking in prior with the priests of Rome -- is essentially what you are saying. Yet that priesthood had long been at least as representative of it's own 'self' than of God (arguably more representative of themselves rather than Christ), hence there is conflict of interest there which invalidates claims which they may make towards exclusivity.
The issue was what is rightly (enough) a Church.
Paul was taught by no man --- was not taught the things of the Lord by "the Church", yet was the man who through his writings most defined what the Church is.
Later arising definitions which include self-serving, self-reverential added qualifications stipulated by scholastics are not the inspired Word of God, nor should be treated as if those "developments" were.
That's the Church of Rome for ya' --- they were more guilty of that than most anyone whom they later jabbed accusatory fingers toward.
Full truth, you say? Like the grab-bag of errors which is Papacy as that is known amid the Latin Church?
The Orthodox don't accept Latin doctrines in regards to that, and do not reject those out of ignorance, nor are rejecting what was once accepted among themselves and all the rest of the Church. Rome is out-of-order, had long ago become their own "sect", so can lecture no one on that score without being judged & condemned by their own words.
As expected you didn’t deal with the simple - and irrefutable - point I made. That’s where things will stand. You failed. Again.
“That’s what you did in regards to the initial points which I raised.”
Once again we see that projection you mentioned only it is clearly coming from you - as it always is. You made no “initial points” that had any impact on the issue. What I said was still true. You have not refuted it nor could you anyway. Your sects were started 1500 years too late. They were not founded by Christ. They are not Churches nor will they ever be. All of that is irrefutably true. None of it will ever change.
The usual five minutes of (subtle) hate coming from Roman Catholics aimed towards so-called "Protestants" with the argumentative based on a collection of ill-founded assertions.
An example of that, the writer speaking of Christians baptized elsewhere than narrowly within [Roman] Catholicism;
How would the writer know there be no "infusion...of grace"? He has no way to know, but is making it up as he goes along!
The writer goes on to compare Christian baptisms which take place outside of the narrow confines of Roman Catholicism (including those done in the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit?) with Islamics publicly confessing their own "faith" (that Muhammad is God's prophet, etc.) which is entirely another thing.
WHAT a STEAMING LOAD that link you brought here is, Al Hitan.
I could point to places within RCC ordinary teaching majik-steeringthem which is at odds with the assertion of the bigoted writer Francis Lynch.
Although in one sense it has been only fairly recently remembered among RC hierarchy in "official" positional statements (such as Vatican II) it stretches all the way back to the 4th century or so, back when Latin Church Catholics and North African 'Catholics' were forced to accede the point that each others' baptisms were entirely valid.
Nothing, as usual.
“You failed first.”
No, not even remotely.
“So what else have you got — other than MOUTHY assertion?”
Irrefutable logic - that’s why you keep failing to refute what I said. You just failed to do it again. That will keep happening.
“Nothing, as usual.”
Again, I posted irrefutable logic. Thanks for proving it in post after post.
Here we go again, mr. legend in his own dialectical mind.
The problem is the jealously guarded and protected underlying premises which you rely upon to consider your so-called :logic: to be irrefutable. Those premises have been previously shown to not be irrefutable, many times over.
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.