Free Republic 3rd Quarter Fundraising Target: $85,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $11,249
13%  
Woo hoo!! And the first 13% is in!! Thank you all very much!!

Posts by Tao Yin

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • Why Sola Scriptura Honestly Scares Me

    07/11/2014 9:59:21 AM PDT · 169 of 183
    Tao Yin to Salvation
    The Bible Itself declares that it doesn't contain everything.

    There is a difference between everything and everything essential.

    Again, I'll reference Polycarp, student of Paul, who wrote a letter to the Philippians. In that letter he states that Paul "wrote a letter unto you, into the which if ye look diligently, ye shall be able to be builded up unto the faith given to you,"

    Polycarp was a disciple of the Apostle Paul. He says that just one letter of Paul is sufficient to build up the faith. Imagine what all of the letters of the new testament make possible?

  • The Reformers' Hermeneutic: Grammatical, Historical, and Christ-Centered

    07/07/2014 6:07:56 PM PDT · 117 of 147
    Tao Yin to Campion
    The difference is that our book was inspired by God and closed.

    The only reason you even know what books belong in your "inspired by God and closed" book is because the "RCC" decreed it, 1600 years ago.

    Why do you assume that Christians need the RCC to determine what is of God and what is not? Many years before 400 AD, the apostolic writing was within the churches. They shared their letters. Some true, some false. The false were rejected. The true endured.

    Revelation 2. to the angel of the church in Ephesus write... you cannot bear with those who are evil, but have tested those who call themselves apostles and are not, and found them to be false.

    Polycarp, student of Paul, wrote a letter to the Philippians. In that letter he states that Paul "wrote a letter unto you, into the which if ye look diligently, ye shall be able to be builded up unto the faith given to you,"

  • The Reformers' Hermeneutic: Grammatical, Historical, and Christ-Centered

    07/07/2014 3:06:04 PM PDT · 110 of 147
    Tao Yin to CynicalBear
    I’m thinking they don’t want to admit that they take what the RCC says as their scripture.

    Wow, I guess that's it. When the RCC says that protestants follow a book, the same is true for them. The difference is that our book was inspired by God and closed, while their book continues to be written.

    Our books beyond the Bible must agree with the Bible. If they disagree, the Bible wins.

    The RCC assumes that their books beyond the Bible automatically agree with the Bible. If they disagree, then it is the person who notices the disagreement who is in error. Anyone who notices a disagreement has either misinterpreted the Bible or the RCC teachings. Besides, anyone outside of the RCC hierarchy isn't eligible to judge.

  • "Is the Church invisible?"

    06/26/2014 8:35:45 PM PDT · 9 of 13
    Tao Yin to TheBattman
    Another way to look at it - Why did Christ institute “the church” on earth? Obviously first is that He might be glorified in/through her.

    But second, the Church was to “go, make disciples” - baptizing and teaching... How can any invisible nebulous entity do that?

    The way that Catholics understand the church always confounds me. It's like they have never considered the trinity. There is one God in three persons. There is one one church in many churches. The church in Rome is the church. The church in Corinth is the church. But just as the father is not the son, so the church in Rome is not the church in Corinth.

    From the Athanasian creed "So likewise the Father is Lord; the Son Lord; and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not three Lords; but one Lord. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity; to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord; So are we forbidden by the catholic religion; to say, There are three Gods, or three Lords"

    The same understanding applies to the church. In Revelation, the seven churches in Asia are listed. Each has a lampstand, with Jesus standing in the middle. The church in Ephesus "tested those who call themselves apostles and are not, and found them to be false". The church in Ephesus did this on it's own. Their own lampstand; their own judgement. When the scriptures say to take a problem to the church, they are not talking about some singular earthly institution that covers all believers, they are talking about the local church, which is the church.

  • Time for new reformation re: understanding of Biblical priesthood, sainthood, & ordination [Vanity]

    06/26/2014 4:03:17 PM PDT · 19 of 170
    Tao Yin to ealgeone
    Teachings that contradict Biblical truths are rejected. Practices that are forbidden are rejected. Links back to the ancient churches are cherished.

    Not on Mary....the RCC says she is sinless in contradiction to the Bible.

    I don't believe Mary was sinless. What's your point again?

  • Restore Latin to the Mass [Lutheran / LCMS Mass, that is]

    06/26/2014 3:03:45 PM PDT · 68 of 83
    Tao Yin to BillyBoy
    According to the ECLA, they believe in the authority of both the Bible and the Book of Concord:

    Their belief and authority is different in quality. They do not believe that the Bible in inerrant. Their writings include the careful phrasing "Inspired by God’s Spirit speaking through their authors". So anything in the Bible they don't like was the authors speaking and not God. They use it as a buffet rather than a rule and guide.

    How can they claim the Bible has authority when they can throw any parts of it out the window? For example, the ELCA tolerates the belief that Jesus was not born of a virgin. They say that in general, Lutherans believe in the virgin birth. The Bible with that kind of authority is no authority at all. If they do that to the Bible, imagine what they do with the Book of Concord...

  • Restore Latin to the Mass [Lutheran / LCMS Mass, that is]

    06/26/2014 2:06:47 PM PDT · 65 of 83
    Tao Yin to Memphis Moe
    I did not understand the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America was not Lutheran.

    Any synod that rejects the authority of the Bible and the Book on Concord should not be called Lutheran. Even though the ELCA contains Lutheran in the name, they are not Lutheran in practice. Or maybe it's just that members of the LCMS are embarrassed every time Lutheran is mentioned and the ELCA is the focus.

    I also missed in the article anything about churches in Missouri; rather, the author refers to a Lutheran communion.

    The title contains the abbreviation LCMS, which stands for Lutheran Church Missouri Synod. Even though the name contains Missouri, the LCMS churches are around the world. It really confused Canadians, so they changed the name in Canada but maintain communion fellowship.

  • Time for new reformation re: understanding of Biblical priesthood, sainthood, & ordination [Vanity]

    06/26/2014 1:45:55 PM PDT · 11 of 170
    Tao Yin to delchiante
    If a reformation starts, it should start with reformers admitting they ‘worship’ from the false premise of the greco roman latin mother church’s teachings or practices...

    Tradition is respected, not worshiped. Good order is a guiding principle. We do not have to follow any specific calendar, sabath, or holy days. These things may not be Biblical, but neither are they forbidden.

    The tradition, especially the liturgy, mirrors many biblical principles and is built upon historical good order. While Lutherans may consider the pope an antichrist, we do not reject the history of the ancient churches.

    Teachings that contradict Biblical truths are rejected. Practices that are forbidden are rejected. Links back to the ancient churches are cherished.

  • [Cardinal] Tagle Tells Priests: Don’t Say ‘Good Morning’ During Mass

    06/26/2014 8:07:37 AM PDT · 40 of 92
    Tao Yin to married21
    on Easter, the greeting is “He is risen!”

    He is risen indeed!

  • The Coming Evangelical Divide

    06/19/2014 10:20:41 AM PDT · 117 of 128
    Tao Yin to af_vet_1981
    The text says the foundation is the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself bring the chief cornerstone. Jesus said to Peter 18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Jesus chose Peter as both foundation and steward with an awesome power and responsibility.

    I'm not sure how you get from "the apostles and prophets" to then "built on Peter alone". I'm not sure how you get from all of the apostles given the power to bind and loose to the "Peter alone can bind and loose". Jesus said he would give the keys to Peter, but he did not say Peter alone. If the power of the keys is to bind and loose, and all of the apostles have that power, what does that imply?

    in I Corinthians 3, Paul is very clear. "I laid a foundation, and someone else is building upon it. Let each one take care how he builds upon it. For no one can lay a foundation other than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ."

    Peter is foundation. Paul is foundation. The foundation is laid and others are building upon it. The Roman Catholic Church is not foundation. The popes are not foundation. The foundation has been laid and others are building on it.

    In Romans 15, Paul writes "and thus I make it my ambition to preach the gospel, not where Christ has already been named, lest I build on someone else's foundation,". Paul laid a foundation where none existed before. He didn't build on Peter. The churches he founded built upon the foundation Paul laid, which is Christ Jesus. Those churches did not build on Peter.

    Again, the foundation is not Peter alone. The power to bind and loose was not given to Peter alone.

  • Messianics discuss Israel misconceptions

    06/17/2014 12:24:21 PM PDT · 40 of 53
    Tao Yin to Zionist Conspirator
    Of all the peoples and religions in the world, from the most ancient times down to today and for all time to come, only the Jews believe in the Torah because G-d told them to--directly, with no mediator or go-between.

    Makes sense if you deny the divinity of Jesus. Otherwise, I believe in the Bible because God directly taught the apostles, who wrote letters and taught their successors. I don't believe in Jesus because a book tells me to. I believe in Jesus because I believe the Bible is an authentic (and authenticated) testament of those who God told to believe and teach.

  • Saint Athanasius on the Trinity

    06/16/2014 4:57:00 AM PDT · 4 of 5
    Tao Yin to Tao Yin
    Link was mangled. Try this link:

    www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQLfgaUoQCw

  • Saint Athanasius on the Trinity

    06/16/2014 4:55:38 AM PDT · 3 of 5
    Tao Yin to NKP_Vet
    I too enjoyed Trinity Sunday and confessing the Athanasian Creed.

    There is a funny Lutheran Satire about the Trinity that includes part of the Athanasian Creed. St. Patrick's Bad Analogies on YouTube

  • Scripture and Tradition

    06/10/2014 8:59:44 AM PDT · 50 of 141
    Tao Yin to Petrosius
    Let us not quibble over the exact number of Protestant denominations. There is clearly division and discord among those who call themselves Protestant.

    There were clearly divisions in the early churches. They held councils to root out heresy. The creeds were created to clearly outline the necessary belief to be considered orthodox (right-glory) Christians.

    Creating the creeds was not easy or straight forward. If you look at the content of the creeds, that was the entirety of Christian unity. Outside of these creeds, there was a wide variety of traditions and beliefs that they could not reconcile.

  • 500 Years of Chaos: Protestantism’s Anniversary

    06/10/2014 7:02:07 AM PDT · 479 of 683
    Tao Yin to LurkingSince'98
    Theotokos is an ancient Eastern Rite name that is enthusiastically embraced by all Catholics.

    I do embrace Theotokos (God-bearer). I dislike the poor translation of "Mother of God". Rationalization aside that someone who bears a child is the mother of that child. The poor translation starts with the mother while the appropriate translation starts with God. Regardless of the translation, the term is important because of what it signifies about Jesus, not about his mother.

  • 500 Years of Chaos: Protestantism’s Anniversary

    06/10/2014 5:54:50 AM PDT · 476 of 683
    Tao Yin to metmom
    The Holy Spirit clarifies who Mary is quite nicely.

    Just as the term Trinity isn't in the Bible, neither is the term Theotokos, which means God-bearer. Both of these terms were uses to clarify theology and guard against heresy.

    Theotokos, which has the more colorful translation "Mother of God" which I dislike, is a statement about Jesus more than a description of Mary. The heresy that prompted the statements regarding Theotokos is interesting reading.

    Even though I am not Catholic, I do consider myself catholic. If you've ever proclaimed the Athanasian Creed, you've given a far better refutation to the heresy that the term Theotokos, which is a catholic term.

  • 500 Years of Chaos: Protestantism’s Anniversary

    06/09/2014 7:28:18 PM PDT · 424 of 683
    Tao Yin to matthewrobertolson
    Iscool, you may be unfamiliar with the history of Theotokos (Mother of God) vs. Christokos (Mother of Christ).

    The Chalcedonian Creed of 451 uses Theotokos. It clarifies Theotokos nicely.

    born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood

  • 500 Years of Chaos: Protestantism’s Anniversary

    06/08/2014 5:41:22 PM PDT · 151 of 683
    Tao Yin to Salvation
    One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic

    So your response to my complaint of faulty exegesis is faulty capitalization? The words of the Creed (381), one holy catholic and apostolic Church.

    Before the council of 381, the Edict of Thessalonica clearly defined the term catholic. Christians who held to the council of Nicea were properly called catholic. Others who did not hold to the council were called heretics.

    There is no creed that requires obedience to a pope or declares a line of succession.

    Trying to retroactively apply the words of the creed to mean submission to Rome is just as sad as the faulty interpretation of the Biblical verses I complained about.

  • 500 Years of Chaos: Protestantism’s Anniversary

    06/08/2014 2:36:18 PM PDT · 28 of 683
    Tao Yin to matthewrobertolson
    The end of the article lists 4 verses. Reading each one in context, they have nothing to do with the point of the author. That was very sad exegetical work. Very sad indeed.

    John 6:68, John 14:6, Ephesians 1:22-23, Colossians 1:24

  • Islamic prayers to be held at the Vatican

    06/06/2014 5:47:31 PM PDT · 27 of 260
    Tao Yin to Gamecock
    Read the comments. There are quite a few Roman Catholics, errr, well… PROTESTING!

    No worries. It's all the fault of the translation and the cherry-picking media. If you read his comments in the original language and in context, it all makes sense.

  • Is Holy Communion Real or Symbolic?

    06/02/2014 6:02:45 PM PDT · 72 of 1,091
    Tao Yin to NYer
    For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.

    I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.

    I agree that "This is my body" means that it is his body, but the idea of transubstantiation denies the bread and denies the wine.

    Consubstantiation admits to the real presence, but does not deny the presence of the wine or bread. Of course there is still bread and still wine. Do our senses lie? If it appears to be bread and taste like bread, how can we say that there is no bread and only body. It's a fools errand.

    Within the LCMS say that the body and the blood is with, in, and under the bread and wine. We do not deny the body and blood and we do not deny the bread and the wine. How is this possible? We don't know and that's okay.

  • Brothers of Jesus: Biblical Arguments for Mary’s Virginity

    05/31/2014 5:21:33 PM PDT · 23 of 452
    Tao Yin to narses
    just as all heresies are much later corruptions

    That's just it. In the Bible, I can understand the arguments about brothers versus cousins. And I can understand the argument about the verb where "Joseph didn't know his wife until she gave birth". Either way, perpetual virgin or virgin until she gave birth but not after, they both can be argued from the Biblical passages.

    But I can't understand throwing out the heresy word. A heresy is a belief against a core doctrine of the Christian faith. Read the creed, Jesus was "born of the virgin Mary". There is no core doctrine about what happened with Mary afterwards. It's not about Mary...

    Additionally, the angel told Joseph not to worry about taking Mary as his bride. If the marriage was never consummated, was it really a valid marriage? So Joseph could have asked for an annulment?

    But either way, it does not impact my salvation.

  • Pope, Orthodox Patriarch Look to New Council at Nicea

    05/30/2014 2:20:20 PM PDT · 35 of 72
    Tao Yin to Campion
    The old one, which we recite (or sing) at Mass every Sunday, works just fine, thanks. :-)

    Yes, we recite one of the three Ecumenical Creeds every week. The purpose of the creeds is to clearly define the catholic faith to distinguish those who are inside the church and those who are not.

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but it is my understanding that Rome does not accept the creeds as a sufficient test of catholic belief. There are additional stipulations and axiomatic beliefs that are required to be considered part of the church.

  • Pope, Orthodox Patriarch Look to New Council at Nicea

    05/30/2014 8:52:14 AM PDT · 6 of 72
    Tao Yin to Claud
    And can there be a true ecumenical council with two sides in schism? Is this laying groundwork for healing the breach?

    Really interesting. As a protestant and someone who professes the Nicene Creed as a representation of the true catholic faith, I'm curious what a new creed would look like that represents the true catholic faith as understood by the Roman Catholic Church.

  • The Rosary Magazine (Good to die Catholic)

    05/28/2014 1:16:09 PM PDT · 41 of 97
    Tao Yin to verga
    Pictures or it never happened. Better yet show chapter and verse for this please.

    Thomas Bozius, Henricus Sedulius, ... Interesting read in "The Magazine of Christian Literature" titled "Did Luther commit Suicide?"

    The pamphlet's were referenced in an article about the house where Luther died, but I couldn't find any original sources or pamphlets.

  • The Rosary Magazine (Good to die Catholic)

    05/28/2014 11:43:41 AM PDT · 19 of 97
    Tao Yin to NKP_Vet
    Luther always feared death.

    His death was very mysterious, but certainly not the death of a saint.

    Inaccurate and shameful. He was not fearful of death in his later years. His death was not mysterious.

    When he died, the Catholics spread all kinds of nasty rumor about him ranging from suicide to alcoholism. Shameful.

  • Pope Francis recalls birth of Church in Upper Room

    05/27/2014 11:39:50 AM PDT · 34 of 35
    Tao Yin to CTrent1564
    if you prefer the Athanasian Creed’s formula, rather than Theotokos [which you accept as an appropriate term] to describe Mary’s role, that is not un-orthodox.

    I love the Athanasian Creed. We recite it every Trinity Sunday. I grew up pentecostal and married into the LCMS.

    This discussion about Theotokos has been very interesting. I prefer the literal translation of God-bearer, rather than the more colorful "Mother of God".

    Interestingly, the Chalcedon Creed includes the statement born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood. So this creed uses the phrase "mother of God", but with a qualification.

  • Pope Francis recalls birth of Church in Upper Room

    05/26/2014 9:50:17 PM PDT · 32 of 35
    Tao Yin to NYer
    You are restating a 5th century heresy.

    I am not dividing the person of Jesus. He was true man and true God.

    In the Nestorian view, the human and divine persons of Christ are separate. Nestorianism argues that Jesus had two persons, the divine Logos and the human Jesus. This is not what I'm arguing.

    The rationalization of the council that supported the term Theotokos is correct. Mary is Theotokos because her son Jesus is one person who is both God and man, divine and human. The significance of the term is what is says about Jesus rather than any declaration about Mary.

    Rather than the simplistic term Theotokos, I prefer the Athanasian Creed.

    [Jesus] is God, begotten from the substance of the Father before all ages; and He is man, born from the substance of His mother in this age: perfect God and perfect man.

  • Pope Francis recalls birth of Church in Upper Room

    05/26/2014 4:36:06 PM PDT · 29 of 35
    Tao Yin to NYer
    The Pontiff went on to consider how the Church is like a family, “that has a mother, the Virgin Mary.”

    Now that's weird. Mary is the mother of Jesus. The church is the bride of Jesus. If Mary is the mother of the church, then that means incest. Illegal in all 50 states.

  • Pope Francis recalls birth of Church in Upper Room

    05/26/2014 2:58:45 PM PDT · 22 of 35
    Tao Yin to stonehouse01
    Since Jesus is truly man and truly God, and Mary is his mother, Mary is also the mother of God. This does not make her a God herself, and the concept is perfectly benign and not should not cause issues.

    Jesus is one person with two natures. Mary is the mother of Jesus, who was both true man and true God. Mary did not give birth to a nature, but to a person. Mary is the mother of Jesus. Rather than mother of God, you might as well say she's the mother of man. It makes as much sense.

    Since God is triune, He exists in 3 persons. To call Mary the mother of God seems wrong. She is the mother of the son of God. She did not birth the father. She did not birth the holy spirit. I realize this term was from the early 200's, but it still sits wrong.

    So Mary is the mother of God, as in the son of God. Mary is not the mother of God, as in the triune God.

  • Extraordinary ministers at Papal Mass deny Communion in the hand

    05/21/2014 12:56:19 PM PDT · 39 of 45
    Tao Yin to IrishBrigade
    on the tongue, so that any contact with uncleansed hands would be minimized

    Weird. I would have never thought that was the reason. What about an unclean tongue?

    Mark 7: 5-7 And the Pharisees and the scribes asked [Jesus], "Why do your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat with defiled hands?" And he said to them, "Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written,
    'This people honors me with their lips,
    but their heart is far from me;
    in vain do they worship me,
    teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.'"

  • (Pope) Francis: “Pray with your heart, not like a parrot”

    05/17/2014 8:07:28 AM PDT · 17 of 109
    Tao Yin to MayflowerMadam
    Good for the guy. Guess he’s taking to heart the Bible’s warning against “vain repetitions”. Chanting is prevalent in cults.

    Matt 6: 7-9 And when you pray, do not heap up empty phrases ( vain repetitions) as the Gentiles do, for they think that they will be heard for their many words. Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him. Pray then like this: Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name

    I think you misunderstand the warning against vain repetitions. Context is always important.

    Even denominations that pride themselves on not using the same prayer repeatedly, always use the same prayers repeatedly. They just repeat their own words rather than inspired words.

  • ‘Makes Christianity Look Silly’: Creationist Ken Ham Unleashes on Pat Robertson

    05/16/2014 5:35:56 AM PDT · 25 of 253
    Tao Yin to stormhill
    Can't see how Robertson is wrong in this debate. Petrified fossils are millions of years old, not 6,000 and to assert the contrary accuses the Creator of lying through the fossil record.

    If you believe the Bible, you must accept that all of creation was affected by Adam's sin. If that is the case, we can not take our science of today and look at a world before sin.

    We have no way of knowing if the rules that work in a sinful world would also apply to a sinless world.

    History is not a straight road, but has a corner we can not see around.

  • EARLY HISTORY OF THE BIBLE

    05/15/2014 5:37:47 AM PDT · 10 of 417
    Tao Yin to stonehouse01
    He's not laughing at St Jerome, but the idea that Catholics wrote and own the Bible.

    St Paul, in writing the Bible, says that he laid a foundation and others are building on it. He said the foundation he laid was not based on the foundation of anyone else. Paul told Peter he was wrong to his face. How was Paul Catholic?

    Have fun devoting yourself "to myths and endless genealogies, which promote speculations rather than the stewardship from God that is by faith."

  • Pope Francis demands 'legitimate redistribution' of wealth

    05/09/2014 7:32:03 AM PDT · 36 of 307
    Tao Yin to ElkGroveDan
    Before the Pope haters pile on, this is inline with the best traditions of Christian capitalism.

    He called for government to do it, not individuals. Big difference.

    I think the pope should review the 10 commandments, specifically 7 and 9.

    From Luther's small catechism,

    7) Thou shalt not steal.

    We should fear and love God that we may not take our neighbor's money or property, nor get them by false ware or dealing, but help him to improve and protect his property and business [that his means are preserved and his condition is improved].

    9) Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house.

    We should fear and love God that we may not craftily seek to get our neighbor's inheritance or house, and obtain it by a show of [justice and] right, etc., but help and be of service to him in keeping it.

    Sigh. Why doesn't this pope understand stealing and coveting? Just because you can make it legal, doesn't make it right.

  • Joint Anglican-Catholic Statement on Moral Teaching Highlights Differences

    04/24/2014 2:46:47 PM PDT · 21 of 21
    Tao Yin to FatherofFive
    With regards to the apostles spoken words, that is not something I can follow.

    You just said the apostles clearly write that we are to follow their spoken and their written word. You make no sense.

    You equate the words of the apostles with the words of the Roman Catholic Church. I do not. Other than scripture, I have no sure record of what the apostles said.

    1 Corinthians 3: 10 "I laid a foundation, and someone else is building upon it. Let each one take care how he builds upon it."

    The foundation is finished through the Apostles. There is no more foundation to lay. We are building on their foundation. The words of the apostles are written down. There are no new words of the apostles to be spoken.

    Where do you get the idea that "the Church will always teach truth"? The verses you quoted say nothing of the sort. Repeatedly in the scripts, individuals are charged with testing the words that are spoken and reproving those who teach a different gospel.

    Paul writes in 1 Timothy 1: "remain at Ephesus so that you may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine, nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies, which promote speculations rather than the stewardship from God that is by faith."

    Endless genealogies indeed. You can trace the office of Pope all the way back to Peter. So what? If there was a clear promise in scripture that an unbroken line of apostles would descend from Peter, I could understand. There is no such promise. God will work in God's way. The idea that the gates of hell will not prevail against the church is correct. The interpretation that an earthly organization will claim this mantle and always teach truth is rationalization and self-justification.

    The story of Peter's confession is also told in Mark 8 and Luke 9. If the Roman Catholic Church's interpretation of Matthew 16 was correct, why do these other tellings only mention the confession? Why? Because it is the confession that is important.

    To reiterate Ephesian 2: 20,21 "built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord."

    Peter is not the foundation of the church. The church is not joined together by Peter and his heirs.

  • Joint Anglican-Catholic Statement on Moral Teaching Highlights Differences

    04/24/2014 11:42:22 AM PDT · 18 of 21
    Tao Yin to Romulus
    The spoken teachings of the apostles are well known. You simply choose to reject them.

    What are you talking about? What teachings of the apostles, not contained in the Bible, have been authenticated as accurate and inspired? What was the test of these spoken words attributed to the apostles?

  • Joint Anglican-Catholic Statement on Moral Teaching Highlights Differences

    04/24/2014 11:38:45 AM PDT · 17 of 21
    Tao Yin to FatherofFive
    “I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.” John 16:12-13

    Here Christ says, and Paul reaffirms, that the Church will always teach the TRUTH.

    Were we reading the same verses? What you quoted is clearly about the holy spirit, not about the church.

    Titus 1:9 "He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it."

    Titus 2:15 "Declare these things; exhort and rebuke with all authority. Let no one disregard you."

    The authority and command is given to individuals, not to an earthly organization.

    But despite how many times “This is my body” shows up in Scripture, YOU DO NOT BELIEVE IT!!!!! You do NOT have absolute faith in the clear words of Scripture, but believe “Is” really means “represents” That is not absolute faith. That is believing what you want to believe, and ignoring the clear words of Scripture.

    Wrong assumption. I do believe that IS means IS. The body and blood of Jesus is in, under, and with the wine and the bread. How is this possible? I do not know. It does not trouble me that my rational mind can not understand all of the truths of God.

    My foundation is the words of the prophets and the apostles with Jesus as the chief cornerstone.

    This proves you do not believe Scripture, and just make up things or believe what someone else told you.

    I was referencing Ephesians 2:19-21 "So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord."

    This is what Scripture teaches is the ‘foundation of truth’: “But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.” 1Tim 3:15

    Poor translation. Only the NIV uses the word foundation. Other versions use buttress, bulwark, and support. We build on the foundation, which is the words of the prophets and apostles.

  • Joint Anglican-Catholic Statement on Moral Teaching Highlights Differences

    04/24/2014 11:09:00 AM PDT · 15 of 21
    Tao Yin to FatherofFive
    1. Where did Jesus give instructions that the Christian faith should be based exclusively on a book?

    The apostles clearly write that we are to follow their spoken and their written word. Because of the work of Christians and the holy spirit, I have faith that the written word as recorded in the Bible is authentic.

    With regards to the apostles spoken words, that is not something I can follow. Their spoken words, if not recorded, can not be authenticated. There are no secret revelations. Everything they taught, they taught in public.

    2. Other than the specific command to John to write the Revelation, where did Jesus tell His apostles to write anything down and compile it into an authoritative book?

    Why would hearsay be a better option? That's just silly. Have you ever reviewed the amount of work that went into authenticating the written words of the apostles?

    3. Where in the New Testament do the apostles tell future generations that the Christian faith will be based solely on a book?

    We're repeating ourselves, but it's a simple process. The apostles said to follow their words (written and spoken). What promise do we have that their spoken words have been preserved through the Roman Catholic Church?

    4. Where did the table of contents of the Bible come from?

    Christians working together producing works that have been tested by other Christians.

    5. What do you think happened to all the “stuff” in John 21:25? “Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.

    Interesting, but irrelevant for my salvation. If it was not written down, it is gone from history. If it is gone from history, my salvation does not depend upon it.

    What words or deeds of Christ has the Roman Catholic Church preserved that were never written down? There might be a book of stories somewhere, but which stories are true, which are fiction, and which are some of each? How can we tell? Such stories and hearsay are irrelevant because they have not been tested and retested by Christians.

  • Joint Anglican-Catholic Statement on Moral Teaching Highlights Differences

    04/24/2014 10:49:40 AM PDT · 14 of 21
    Tao Yin to Romulus
    Well that's your problem right there, because you have no way of know what is and what is not the word of God -- unless you accept it on someone's authority. So where can that rock-solid, reliable authority be found?

    Christians throughout history have worked together to collect and preserve the scriptures. One group or individual can try to elevate themselves to supreme authority, but it is the Christian collective that has worked through the holy spirit.

    The Bible is not self-authenticating or self-interpreting. Some person has to have the authority.

    There is no final authority on earth. Test every spirit. Who is to do the testing? The individual christian within the individual churches within the various synods.

    With regards to the interpretation, there is a process that has been going on since the beginning of the church. Not everything that has been interpreted has been true. Mistakes leads to heresy and heterodox. Starting with the early church, through the reformation, and continuing until today. The individual does not have his own interpretation, but works with other like-minded Christians to follow those who interpretations are right and orthodox. We judge to the best of their ability, never expecting perfection.

    So who's the pope? Me? You? Unless Jesus played us a dirty trick, somebody has to be.

    Stop thinking of earthly matters and earthly dominion. There is no final authority on earth who can speak for all of Christianity. The authority is based within each congregation, with the pastor having the primary role. But this is not unquestioning devotion, but a trust. If the pastor breaks that trust, he is reproached. If he does not repent, he is removed.

    Why would you put your trust in a man and abdicate your responsibility to the word of God. There is no new revelation. There is no secret revelation. There is the written word. Hearsay doesn't cut it.

  • Joint Anglican-Catholic Statement on Moral Teaching Highlights Differences

    04/23/2014 7:40:02 AM PDT · 7 of 21
    Tao Yin to FatherofFive
    "Without such a universal teaching authority it is difficult to state definitively the teaching Anglicans hold on many specific matters, beyond the governing documents and prayer book of each particular church."

    That is why Christ established His ONE Church, with a structure, and a leader with the power to 'loose and bind'

    The easy things are easy. More complex things are less so.

    Just because you believe the Pope can be infallible given the right situation, why do you extrapolate this to all situations? Why have blind faith in an earthly organization that is known to make mistakes?

    I have absolute faith in the word of God, but I do not have absolute faith in anyone's interpretation. If something is wrong or askew, I question it. I learn, I pray, I grow. I will never get it 100% correct, just as my synod will never get it 100% correct.

    My foundation is the words of the prophets and the apostles with Jesus as the chief cornerstone. Everything else must be built on top of that foundation. When we build, we either use gold or straw. The straw will burn away and be forgotten. To claim everything is built with gold ignores the reality of this fallen world.

  • Federal Lands: How much could they be sold for -- and would it pay the national debt?

    04/16/2014 6:45:56 PM PDT · 4 of 57
    Tao Yin to BenLurkin

    Don’t do it because they’d just run it back up again.

  • Pay No Attention to That Man Behind the Curtain! Catholic History and the Emerald City Protocol

    04/05/2014 5:22:59 PM PDT · 60 of 1,459
    Tao Yin to LurkingSince'98
    ‘unsolicited advice’ is ignored....

    Really? That's a weird thing to say. Only the arrogant ignore sound advice.

    Regarding the church in Corinth, they continued to read the letter for many years. The letter spread to other churches. Ultimately, the letter was not considered divinely inspired and was not included in the canon.

  • Pay No Attention to That Man Behind the Curtain! Catholic History and the Emerald City Protocol

    04/05/2014 7:16:23 AM PDT · 18 of 1,459
    Tao Yin to Campion
    Clement's letter to the Corinthians commands their obedience, to him.

    That's not right. You should read the letter yourself. My favorite parts include the phoenix being real and salvation through faith.

    The letter offered unsolicited advice. Since no one said he shouldn't have sent it, it is therefore assumed that he had the right to send it. Hence, he was over them and therefore supreme.

  • Noah: One of the Most Moral Stories Ever Told (Why the Movie won't do it Justice)

    03/18/2014 7:06:32 AM PDT · 5 of 17
    Tao Yin to SeekAndFind
    It is expressly stated in Genesis 9:10 that there were other animals in the world that were not killed by the flood.

    Genesis 9:9 “Behold, I establish my covenant with you and your offspring after you, 10 and with every living creature that is with you, the birds, the livestock, and every beast of the earth with you, as many as came out of the ark; it is for every beast of the earth.

    The first part of verse 10 makes a covenant with those who came out of the ark and only those who came out of the ark. The second part of verse 10 is a restatement not an expansion. This clearly states that the beasts who came out of the ark equals every beast of the earth.

  • Here Are The Basic Science Questions That 1 In 4 Americans Got Wrong

    02/19/2014 4:58:41 PM PST · 34 of 91
    Tao Yin to equaviator
    2(1.25) + 2(1.25) = 5!

    5! = 5 * 4 * 3 * 2 * 1 = 120

    Just saying...

  • The Age of the Universe

    08/05/2013 6:34:23 PM PDT · 6 of 159
    Tao Yin to wmfights

    Genesis is literal. There is no poetry like Revelation. A day is a day. If your human intellect must try to comprehend the math, then realize that sin broke the world and reshaped everything. What was the speed of light before sin corrupted existence? You can not look back at time and apply today’s knowledge like our reality has always been relevant. Before sin entered the world, we have no way of comprehending what that may have been like.

  • Cut your time in purgatory by following pope on Twitter

    07/18/2013 5:35:11 AM PDT · 110 of 331
    Tao Yin to D-fendr
    In this, our salvation, faith and works are never separate, but complementary.

    Not the point. The article began with the statement...

    If you're Christian, you might believe the keys to salvation are faith and good works.

    Our works are not a key that unlock salvation. Salvation is not based on our merit. Of course faith without works is dead, but our works do not earn us salvation.

  • Cut your time in purgatory by following pope on Twitter

    07/17/2013 9:21:57 AM PDT · 39 of 331
    Tao Yin to D-fendr

    Faith is something we are given. Works is something we do. Of course they are separate.

  • Cut your time in purgatory by following pope on Twitter

    07/17/2013 8:50:00 AM PDT · 27 of 331
    Tao Yin to Nervous Tick
    If you're Christian, you might believe the keys to salvation are faith and good works.

    My problem starts with this first sentence. We are saved by grace, through faith, for works. Works are NOT a key to salvation. Works are the fruits of salvation. Our works do not earn us salvation.