Church still attracting converts: CHN at record levels

The Wanderer ^ | 10/10/02 | Paul Likoudis

[xzins]

So, since I come to a 10 and you come to a 10, what difference does it make which denomination I'm in. You said that knowledge could only come through divine faith. Apparently, the protestant version of divine faith is working just fine.

No incentive to switch in there.

And even if your belief that the church decided which books went into the canon were true (and I don't fully buy that)...but even if true....that doesn't mean the church takes priority over the words of the apostles once they decided which books are in the canon.

They can claim it -- but that's not the same as saying it logically follows from it.

For example, Newton discovered the law of gravity. That doesn't mean he was in charge of it thereafter.

[xzins]

Sola Scriptura isn't a "bible verse" about a reformation teaching.

Sola Scriptura is recognition that the scriptures are the writings of the apostles and the apostles are authoritative over the church.

Jesus prayed for all who "believe through their (the apostles) word." Their eyewitness accounts (word of the apostles) are the prior basis of anyone's believing. Ultimately, Only believers are entering into and incorporating with the body of believers.

[Joshua]

"To begin with, the time frame of St. Paul writing this Letter was before the complete Canon of Scripture existed, such as the four Gospels. He seems to be commenting about the Old Testament."

Two points.

Peter refered to Paul's writing as "Scripture". If Peter didn't wait for Romes stamp of approval we can assume others didn't either. A silly argument that no one knew what was scripture for more than 300 years.

The whole salvation message is in the Old Testament. You can find it on every page.

"More importantly, nowhere does that statement, which is true and accepted by Catholics, state solascriptura. The sola concept just isn't there"

The verse says that Scripture perfectly,completly furnishes a person with all he needs to teach. I see no mention of anything else. Perhaps you can tell me what Paul forgot to tell Timothy?

[TotusTuus]

The Catholic Church has always venerated the Holy Scriptures - you can't venerate what is below you. Through the Life, Death, and Resurrection of our Lord Christ Jesus, God's plan for Creation (as recorded in the Holy Scriptures) proceeds with Christ establishing His Church on the 12 Apostles whom He chose with Simon, whose name He change to Peter, as their Head. The Church is His mystical Body and Bride, He is Her invisible Head. The Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, is Her very Soul. I suppose the biggest conflict amoung Catholics and Protestants of various stripes lies here in the definition of the Church - as if it were merely a human institution existing as any other.

I suppose my point is that Christ is united to His Church. She is the instrument through which He continues to spread His saving Gospel to the world. As per His promise to the Apostles to remain with Her to the end of time, and as per His promise to send the Holy Spirit to Her, She alone can authoritatively speak in His Name ("He who hears you, hears me") - the Name above all other names. Whatever conclusions I, or you, come up with individually are meaningless if they are separated and/or contradict His teachings through His Church. My existence as a Christian has no meaning except as being united to Christ's Church.

Hence the authority of the Holy Scriptures is known to be the Word of God, but only through His Church. Once we know which Books are in the Bible (and even here, there are slight differences between Catholics and some Protestants), who has the authority to correctly interpret them? Therein lies the problem.

I suppose that this is what the ministers in the posted article have discovered. Their whole view of the Church, which St. Paul calls the "Pillar and ground of Truth", has changed to the point that they recognize it as being more than merely groupings of people in different localities.

Our Lord meant for all His followers to be united in One Faith, One Baptism, One Church - because He is One. He did not establish "denominations". Hopefully, one day this will be realized.

[wai-ming]

It is CERTAINLY taught in the bible. Wai-ming, I'm not talking about an opinion of the rational-logical mind of humans.

Whether I understand it or not has absolutely NOTHING to do with whether that is what the text of the bible teaches over and over again at various places and in various ways.

Are you saying that the trinity is incomprehensible to you, but you believe it anyway because that is what (your interpretation of) the Bible teaches?

I respect your beliefs, but I need something more logical to support mine.

[Salvation]

We just had 9 people start our Catholics Can Come Home for Christmas. It ended tonight and 7 people finished it.

Three are already receiving the Sacraments again. Another has received the Sacrament of Reconciliation.

You should have seen their eyes tonight -- the last night -- when we take them over to the church and talk about the changes. It is wonderful to see their sincereity and genuine questions about the church.

If you want more information about this powerful ministry, FReepmail me.

Salvation

[Salvation]

Evangelization. That's what it is all about.

Go out and spread the good news.

God bless

[Salvation]

**I have yet to hear a satisfactory explanation for the veneration and elevation of Mary in the Catholic faith.**

Don't you take the Bible seriously when Elizabeth, the angel, and even Mary uses the word "Blessed"?

Think about it. It's right there in the Bible.

[Salvation]

** to attempt to communicate with Mary or win her favor,**

Again in the Bible, the crucifixion story when Jesus gives his mother to John and John to his mother. What does your Bible say about the literal and the symbolic message here?

[Salvation]

This is a wonderful website.

[pegleg]

I can demonstrate to you the histories of the apostle's writings.

Please do so.

To me, it's a "which came first, chicken or egg" thing....the apostles' proclamation or the church.

Then please answer the question I asked, which Church?

Me -- I think people responded to the proclamation. (How can they hear without a preacher?)

Yes they did respond. So where did they hear the word proclaimed and what were they required to do when they believed?

And then it's a matter of who should be in charge: the apostles' proclamation or the people who interpret the apostles' proclamation. I choose the scripture.

You’re getting closer here xzins. The proper interpretation of the scripture would be the Truth. So where does the Bible say the Truth is to be found?

You are free to believe what you want. I'm just not convinced of your case.

Jesus instructs all of us to seek the Truth. I urge you to keep seeking.

[xzins]

The "trinity" is more than my interpretation of the bible. There is a broad consensus that it is the correct interpretation of the combined revelation of the old and new testaments.

So, we are not talking about an "opinion." We're talking about numerous people who have fairly reviewed the pages and come to that conclusion. Historically, it's an overwhelming agreement that that is the correct teaching of the bible.

Now, there is nothing "logical" that explains the nature of God. The nature of God could ONLY be explained by God himself.

He would actually do best if He became a human and then came and explained it to us Himself, directly. But He would only do so if He were the pure embodiment of Love.

(Omigosh....that's the revelation found in............The Bible.)

And, yes, the Bible definitely takes priority over my own opinions.

[Matchett-PI]

"A concept of God which stresses his role as judge (Protestantism) ..."

"A lie from the pit of hell and it smells like smoke." ~ Dr. Steve Brown

"... vs a more compassionate God (Catholicism). The latter allows for a more generous place for Mary."

An opinion which proves that Arminianism (the man-centered religion) is the religion that appeals most to the feelings and the needs of the emotion-driven (feminized males and the females that feminize them).

[pegleg]

The "trinity" is more than my interpretation of the bible. There is a broad consensus that it is the correct interpretation of the combined revelation of the old and new testaments.

The doctrine of the trinity was made official by the Council of Nicea (A.D. 325) and was given its definitive statement by the Council of Constantinople (A.D. 381). As you know, these were Catholic Councils. The fact that there were no Protestants around then doesn’t concern you?

[xzins]

You’re getting closer here xzins. The proper interpretation of the scripture would be the Truth. So where does the Bible say the Truth is to be found?

Maybe this is where we're hung up, Pegleg. You've been more than attentive and fair, and I appreciate that.

So, I'm going to intentionally overstate something, and I truly want you to notice this NEXT line before I overstate it.

I believe the book itself IS the Word of God and, therefore, the book is God. The words on the page ARE the presence of God, the substance of the mind of God....Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Therefore, whether you or I or anyone else interprets it correctly, or incorrectly, or middle correctly, is NOT even an issue at the most basic level. The words themselves are God's words.

Despite what they do with it, the book remains GOD'S VERY WORDS. In our world, in this day and age, there is nothing that begins to approach it in terms of authentic presence of God. (Jesus said, "These WORDS I speak to you, THEY are SPIRIT AND THEY ARE LIFE!")

Now do you understand why I say the WORD has priority OVER ANY human interpreters of the WORD? (Not asking if you agree....just if you understand. Think of Icons....you say they "contain" a "window" to the holy. The WORDS are the PRESENCE of the Holy.)

[xzins]

I am not not a "protestant." I'm not protesting anything. "Protestant" is an old issue from hundreds of years ago.

I'm a Christian. There were plenty of those around who believed the doctrine of the Trinity before any council met to make a statement.

If no one had the trinitarian opinion, then why did the council meet? The doctrine preceded the meeting, and the meeting had nothing to do with CREATING the doctrine.

[Matchett-PI]

"... we must not let the emotional trajectories of our loving glances turn our attention off of the fullness of truth found only in union with the Catholic Church."

...the fullness of truth found only IN UNION WITH the Catholic Church."

What a PROFANE statement! But not out of the ordinary for members of one of the Arminian (man-centered) churches.

[pegleg]

Now do you understand why I say the WORD has priority OVER ANY human interpreters of the WORD?

Yes I understand where you are coming from. I am trying to get you to understand where I am coming from but you keep avoiding my questions.

1. What Church?
2. Where does the Bible tell us the Truth is found?

I am not not a "protestant." I'm not protesting anything. "Protestant" is an old issue from hundreds of years ago.

If you don’t believe the Pope is the Vicar of Christ then you are a Protestant. But I do understand if you don’t want to identify with them.

I am a Christian. There were plenty of those around who believed the doctrine of the Trinity before any council met to make a statement.

Who were they and where can I read about them.

If no one had the trinitarian opinion, then why did the council meet?

To combat the Arian heresy. What did your Church do to fight this heresy?

[xzins]

If you don’t believe the Pope is the Vicar of Christ then you are a Protestant. But I do understand if you don’t want to identify with them.

This is clearly extra-biblical opinion, PL. The bible does not contain the word "Pope" or the expression "Vicar of Christ." It's simply not there.

That automatically renders it a matter of personal opinion.

You realize, of course, that your church claims to be in fellowship with other communions that do NOT recognize the "primacy" of your leader?

THE CHURCH is the mystical body of Christ; that is, ALL who believe in Him, past, present, and future. It is and always has been bigger than what "denominational" sign you hang in the front lawn.

Jesus HIMSELF is the Way, THE TRUTH, and the life. He is THE WORD. The Bible contains HIS WORD. Truth is found IN THE BIBLE.

[pegleg]

This is clearly extra-biblical opinion, PL. The bible does not contain the word "Pope" or the expression "Vicar of Christ." It's simply not there.

These terms are consistent with the authority of having the keys.

You realize, of course, that your church claims to be in fellowship with other communions that do NOT recognize the "primacy" of your leader?

Who would they be?

THE CHURCH is the mystical body of Christ; that is, ALL who believe in Him, past, present, and future. It is and always has been bigger than what "denominational" sign you hang in the front lawn.

Ok. However this Church has a name that you don’t want to acknowledge.

Jesus HIMSELF is the Way, THE TRUTH, and the life. He is THE WORD. The Bible contains HIS WORD. Truth is found IN THE BIBLE.

Yes Jesus is the way, the truth and the life and I agree the Truth is found in the Bible. That’s why I believe 1 Tim 3:15 that clearly states the Church is pillar/foundation of truth.

So if your Church has been around since the time of the Apostles you should be able to answer my previous questions.

I am a Christian. There were plenty of those around who believed the doctrine of the Trinity before any council met to make a statement.

Who were they and where can I read about them.

If no one had the trinitarian opinion, then why did the council meet?

To combat the Arian heresy. What did your Church do to fight this heresy?