The Church vs. The Individual

cjab

Well-known member
You are welcome

or we could just look at scripture....

Heb 13:17 Obey them that have the RULE OVER YOU, and SUBMIT yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.

Lk 10:16 Whoever listens to you listens to ME. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me.
Indeed. But how does this address the issue when those who have the rule are lacking in faith, being merely schoolmen. For as Paul said, Jas 2:5 "Listen, my dear brothers and sisters: Has not God chosen those who are poor in the eyes of the world to be rich in faith and to inherit the kingdom he promised those who love him?"

Why should those who sole claim to leadership is academic qualifications be called "teachers?" Why is a priest who had gone through a formal education more qualified to be a teacher that one who hasn't, but has more faith? Many priests have no faith at all. This apply to every denomination.

In the days of the NT, it could be assumed that the leaders had passed various tests of faith etc. Nowadays those unfit to hold any spiritual office can be priests and teachers. Why does the church need the equivalent of a Rabbi?
 

cjab

Well-known member
Okay, do you think Matt 23 is specifically foreshadowing the Catholic Church?
There's the Catholic church, the whole membership, which is vast, and then there's the hierarchy, the priesthood, the papacy, etc.

In one sense, the Catholic church is a quasi-political institition. In that sense, Matt 23 is foreshaddowing its sins, and particularly the sins of the hierarchy, but also the sins of every other wayward church. I don't single out the RCC hierarchy especially, and I don't include all of it. There's the good and the bad everywhere.
 

cjab

Well-known member
Yes, the Universal 'Catholic' Church.
The Universal 'Catholic' Church doesn't universally acknowledge the RCC either as a church at all, or if it does, as supreme. In any case, much of the Universal 'Catholic' Church has been excommunicated by the RCC.
 

Arch Stanton

Well-known member
Indeed. But how does this address the issue when those who have the rule are lacking in faith, being merely schoolmen.
I would trust the Church....

Heb 13:17 Obey them that have the RULE OVER YOU, and SUBMIT yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.

1 Tim 3:15 But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is THE CHURCH of the living God, the PILLAR AND FOUNDATION OF TRUTH

Eph 3:10
so that the manifold WISDOM of God might now be made known THROUGH the CHURCH to the principalities and authorities in the heavens.

Mt 18:17-18 If he refuses to listen to them, TELL THE CHURCH....

Why is a priest who had gone through a formal education more qualified to be a teacher that one who hasn't, but has more faith?
I would refer to my signature [1Jn2:19]...

1 John 2:19 They went out from us, but they were not really of our number; if they had been, they would have remained with us. Their desertion shows that none of them was of our number. [One Church, One Faith, One Baptism, No Divisions, No Other Gospel, One Shepherd]

Also, I would trust the faith coming from those that had hands laid on them from the beginning.
 

Arch Stanton

Well-known member
The Universal 'Catholic' Church doesn't universally acknowledge the RCC either as a church at all, or if it does, as supreme. In any case, much of the Universal 'Catholic' Church has been excommunicated by the RCC.
The first part is a bit confusing to follow.... being excommunicated [anathema] refers to Catholics only.
 

Anselm01

Active member
There's the Catholic church, the whole membership, which is vast, and then there's the hierarchy, the priesthood, the papacy, etc.

In one sense, the Catholic church is a quasi-political institition. In that sense, Matt 23 is foreshaddowing its sins, and particularly the sins of the hierarchy, but also the sins of every other wayward church. I don't single out the RCC hierarchy especially, and I don't include all of it. There's the good and the bad everywhere.
Okay, then you also accept that Jesus confirmed the Pharisees authority over the Jewish people in verse 2. Therefore, if this chapter is looking ahead to the Catholic Church, then we can see that the Church now occupies this seat in the New Covenant.

2 “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. 4 They tie up heavy, cumbersome loads and put them on other people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.
 

Anselm01

Active member
A doctrine invented by the RCC to promote itself over others. All Christians everywhere are successors of the apostles.

“Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry” Clement I (Letter to the Corinthians 42:4–5, 44:1–3 [A.D. 80]).

1 Corinthians 9:5
Were any apostles unmarried?
IMO it is specifically alluding to those calling or rather those demanding to be called "Father" on account of their spiritual authority. It is saying no-one had any right to be called father, even if in practice they are actually a father, because to do so would detract from God's perogatives and authorship of faith.
How does God exercise His authority?
What reason for anathemas?
Anathemas are given by those in authority.
What about dogmas are created by wolves that arise from within and seek to destroy the church?
What if your beliefs are those that seek to destroy the Church?
I have the final say on what I admit to be biblical. Same for you. It is the perogative given to everyone. It's called "freedom to choose." Unlike in Islamic countries where people have no freedoms, and the RCC dominated world in the past.
Where is this taught in Scripture?
What did you expect?


Rome has been conquered by Islam in Spirit. It is clearly a tactic promoter of Islam. It was in large measure due to Rome that Islam became resurgent after the near destruction of Islam by the Mongols. It was in large measure due to the Trinitarian formulations espoused by Rome that Islam came to exist at all, as a kind of rebellion against Trinitarian formulations. Even now RCC recognizes Islam as an alternative way to heaven: "
No. No. No... You are conflating history with your own take on things. The phrase "conquered by Islam in Spirit" has no true meaning in reality.
Catholics and Muslims are both "descendants of the same father, Abraham," Pope Francis said, and the trip was another step on a journey of "dialogue and encounter with (our) Muslim brothers and sisters."

In saying that he admitted muslims are of the true faith. Whereas Christ called those who didn't believe in him followers of satan.
No.. He is not saying this. He is saying we are all human beings and therefore are part of the human family.
Sounds like an arbitary decision made to empower the priesthood, as in no wise did the bread that Jesus broke resemble his body in any sense.
Nope. This view has been held since the beginning.
It is everyone's duty to preserve themselves against false doctrines. It is the perogative given to everyone. Everyone has a brain to be used for God's glory. Are you denying me the use of it?
How do you know you are not deceived?
Only in respect of those concealed. Neither he nor the apostles commanded that the unconcealed tares be tolerated, which is what RCC does.

tare: (in biblical use) an injurious weed "resembling corn when young."
We all sin and fall short of the glory of God, even bishops. I trust in God faithfulness, not in man's unfaithfulness.
I said "Christ alone is the object of faith"
John 14:6 "Jesus answered, 'I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.'"

Nothing about the RCC in this instruction, which also opposes Pope Francis' views on Islam being a valid religion.
Again, you are a man, so therefore I cannot accept what you say.
 

cjab

Well-known member

“Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry” Clement I (Letter to the Corinthians 42:4–5, 44:1–3 [A.D. 80]).


Were any apostles unmarried?
Paul

How does God exercise His authority?

Anathemas are given by those in authority.
Not sure an anathema has any scriptural basis. Prove it.

What if your beliefs are those that seek to destroy the Church?
The RCC should ask itself such questions. It has sought to destroy more churches than any other: Waldenses, Albigenes, Lollards, Hussites, Bogomils, Papal States (Ceasare Borgia), Irish Protestantism, English Protestantism, etc etc. It is a terrifying institution. The thing is, it doesn't limit its destructive tendencies to itself. It seeks to destroy other churches by the sword.

Where is this taught in Scripture?
Deu 30:19 "This day I call the heavens and the earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live"

No. No. No... You are conflating history with your own take on things. The phrase "conquered by Islam in Spirit" has no true meaning in reality.
Both RCC and Islam are infected with the Spirit of global supremacy. It's bizarre why RCC allowed Islam to survive when it had the opportunity to wipe it off the face of the earth back in the 13th century. Actually it preferred Islam to engaging with Nestorian heretics. When Pope Francis asks why God permitted Islam to exist, "RCC allowed it to."

No.. He is not saying this. He is saying we are all human beings and therefore are part of the human family.
Human family? I think you're confusing Christianity with communism. Jesus only knew of God's family.

Nope. This view has been held since the beginning.
Not by Paul.

How do you know you are not deceived?
Sounds like you think that the RCC disapprove of peoples who use their brain. Actually it doesn't. I think may be you've got the wrong idea. Although the RCC breeds superstitions such as transubstantiation, and blind faith in the spurious doctrines handed down by history (Mary Queen of Heaven(, you don't have to be a moron. Intellectuals are always respected. May be you should aspire to more.

As for me, I try to rely on the bible for everything. It's not that hard to read (unless in Latin).

We all sin and fall short of the glory of God, even bishops. I trust in God faithfulness, not in man's unfaithfulness.

Again, you are a man, so therefore I cannot accept what you say.
How rude. Do you say that to everyone?
 

preacher4truth

Well-known member
How is it different?
See? Nope.
Luther was under the authority of the Catholic Church and he disagreed with it.
Of course because this religion was, and remains, apostate.
He then demanded the whole Church accept his interpretation of Scripture.
Really? Cite where he demanded this.

It wasn't that he wanted it to accept his interpretation but to accept Scripture itself. That's where you err.
 

cjab

Well-known member
I would trust the Church....

Heb 13:17 Obey them that have the RULE OVER YOU, and SUBMIT yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.

1 Tim 3:15 But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is THE CHURCH of the living God, the PILLAR AND FOUNDATION OF TRUTH

Eph 3:10
so that the manifold WISDOM of God might now be made known THROUGH the CHURCH to the principalities and authorities in the heavens.

Mt 18:17-18 If he refuses to listen to them, TELL THE CHURCH....
That's OK, if the church is a true church and not led by a wolf. Don't forget you're talking to someone whose ancestors had their house burned down by a mob of Roman Catholic bigots and were obliged to emigrate.

I would refer to my signature [1Jn2:19]...
I have turned off signatures and can't see them.

1 John 2:19 They went out from us, but they were not really of our number; if they had been, they would have remained with us. Their desertion shows that none of them was of our number. [One Church, One Faith, One Baptism, No Divisions, No Other Gospel, One Shepherd]

Also, I would trust the faith coming from those that had hands laid on them from the beginning.
The laying on of hands doesn't confer true faith. It is only useful if there is true faith to begin with. Your using it as a short cut to validating your own faith is impermissible.
 

Binyawmene

Active member
Yes, the Catholic Church has defined what is essential and what is debatable, but once it speaks on what is debatable, then what is debatable now essential.

That's a twist.

Maybe you and your catholic friends should come over to the Trinity board. But I think it would be hard to keep the discussion on the Trinity. Because you know most cultists will want to discuss catholisim instead of the Trinity.

I do appreciate the time you took to write all that out, but I am not unclear on what is and is not essential. Is it a universal consensus on essentials and whatever is left over is non-essential? If that is the case, you have a theology of consensus, not the Bible.

No problem.

What do you mean by consensus? My stand-point, any Scriptures that provides warning is essential and any doctrine that is not in alignment to salvation is heretical. I don't hold the interdenominational church I occasionally attend to as authoritative. That church split from Methodist before I was even born and they slap the label interdenominational on it. Its the same church my mom raised me up in and my was dad was a Baptist layman preacher and cessationist. I don't even think that church have a consensus on what is essential or peripheral. They only teach godly living and evangelizing and that's it. Nor am I subjected to that church. I am not even water baptized into that church or a member of any church if that matters. For the pass 10 years or so that church has lean more towards Calvinism. So its evolving.

Besides, on doctrines, I study in my own spare time and CARM is a good place test out what I've studied. I have a variety of beliefs. My doctrinal beliefs is based around from my spiritual experiences. I am a historical Trinitarian/Hypostatic Unionist and not a expert. Most of my studies is center on Cyril, Chalcedonian and constantinople. I don't have a favorite preacher I look up to or follow. I believe in water baptism (emerging) and not regenerational or repentance baptism, but believer baptism only. That based on experience since I was saved and speaking in tongues long before I was ever water baptized. My soteriology is Calvinistic because my experience matches, regeneration, faith and repentance, justification, etc. When it comes to the Holy Spirit, I am a Traditional Penecostalism based on my experience. That there are wo separate experiences between salvation and Spirit baptism, and I am Continuationist. Spirit baptism happen when I was in prison from a RCC visitors from franciscan university holding a 'Holy Spirit revival' by priest/missionaries. Three days later, after the revival, I was speaking in tongues that happen right in the middle of worshipping God. No connection to Charismatic/Word of Faith movements.

But there are those who who proper exegesis and yet still disagree. For example, William Lane Craig on the nature of Christ.

I am a old earth creationist. I believe we can debate young versus old creationism since its clearly peripheral and not essential. I believe continuationism and cessationism is peripheral. And many more. I don't know anything about William Lane Craig. I have read couple of his articles online but I don't follow any preacher or teacher. Cyril would be your best option if you want to challenge me Christologically.
 

Anselm01

Active member
See? Nope.

Of course because this religion was, and remains, apostate.
According to you...
Really? Cite where he demanded this.
Luther believed he had the correct interpretation of Scripture and was not open to correction from his Church. He also declared that the Church submit to this personal understand:

"Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Scriptures or by clear reason (for I do not trust either in the pope or in councils alone, since it is well known that they have often erred and contradicted themselves), I am bound by the Scriptures I have quoted and my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and will not recant anything, since it is neither safe nor right to go against conscience. May God help me. Amen."
It wasn't that he wanted it to accept his interpretation but to accept Scripture itself. That's where you err.
No, there were theologians on both sides. Yes, there were abuses, and these were addressed at the Council of Trent. To say he demanded they "accept Scripture itself" makes no sense, as Scripture is interpreted differently by different people. Is the Church to change to suit each individuals understanding of it? No.
 

Manfred

Well-known member
Did you not write:
"It is illogical how your claim your tradition trumps divinely inspired scripture, looking at the horrible history of your so called Popes."

By stating my "tradition" trumps Scripture, you are really stating that your tradition (interpretation of Scripture) trumps the Catholic Church's understanding of Scripture. Therefore, you believe the Church should submit to your understanding of Scripture.
Illogical nonsense and strawman of your making.

16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever, 17 even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, for he dwells with you and will be in you.

It would be like me trying to convince you that you think your church is the Holy Spirit.
Also the fact that you think I believe that scripture is my tradition and not revealed by the Spirit of God, shows you lack Spiritual discernment, just as I thought.

I get what you are saying. But I am saying God can work through even flawed vessels. In fact, He has only flawed vessels to work with, sadly...
Please. Why do you stay flawed, and become even worse if the opposite should happen.
The indwelling HS leads you on a path of sanctification and not total depravity and debauchery. Being a flawed christian, means you repent of sin and turn away from it.

You are defending sin against God and your neighbor, just because you are trying to defend devils who were the so called representatives of Christ on earth.

You should open your eyes.
Succession has nothing to do with how holy or unholy the successor is. They should all be holy, but as stated above, God can use flawed vessels.
No

It has everything to do with holiness: (1Cor 5)
5 It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that is not tolerated even among pagans, for a man has his father's wife. 2 And you are arrogant! Ought you not rather to mourn? Let him who has done this be removed from among you.

You think the immorality of the Borgia Pope among others qualified him/them to be seen as Christ on earth, when Paul inspired by the Holy Spirit says to remove them from among the Body of Christ.

You should start seeing the truth staring you in the face instead of trying to justify sin against God.
Most of your post is an interpretation of Scripture (and history).
I do not need to interpret scripture. That is your made up nonsense.
The Holy Spirit reveals scripture to the church. It is not about me, no matter how hard you try and make it so.

(Eph 1)
15 For this reason, because I have heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus and your love toward all the saints, 16 I do not cease to give thanks for you, remembering you in my prayers, 17 that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give you a spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of him, 18 having the eyes of your hearts enlightened, that you may know what is the hope to which he has called you, what are the riches of his glorious inheritance in the saints, 19 and what is the immeasurable greatness of his power toward us who believe, according to the working of his great might 20 that he worked in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places, 21 far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and above every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come. 22 And he put all things under his feet and gave him as head over all things to the church, 23 which is his body, the fullness of him who fills all in all.

It is clear that you desire a relationship with your so called church and that you have no personal relationship with Jesus as you depend on secondhand stories and not revelation received by the indwelling Holy Spirit.
Is there a Scripture that explicitly states that only the Scripture teaches what is revelated truth?

What do you mean? Do you mean that secondhand stories are revealed to you as truth? How can you verify it?
13 thus making void the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And many such things you do.

Do you think your traditions of Marian prayer and adoration and making her equal to Christ does not make void the the word of God...

There is a spirit of stupor clouding your mind.
Is there a Bible verse that explicitly states this?

There is a verse that explicitly states that tradition handed down makes void the word of God, thereby condemning your tradition that is held in higher regard to the scriptures.
 

Arch Stanton

Well-known member
That's OK, if the church is a true church
and it is 'The true Church' (y)
Don't forget you're talking to someone whose ancestors had their house burned down by a mob of Roman Catholic bigots and were obliged to emigrate.
I had a friend who was shot by a protestant... :( :cautious:
I have turned off signatures and can't see them.
1Jn 2:19
The laying on of hands doesn't confer true faith.
The true faith comes to us through the laying on of hands.
 

Manfred

Well-known member
and it is 'The true Church'
All the evidence says it is not.

You also believe a devil/s was seen as the representative of Christ on earth, and you too will seek to justify the sin of these devil's as "God works through devils"

This is of course a falsehood that comes from the pit of hell or from your Church, which is similar in my opinion.

If the Borgia Pope was indeed a saved Christian there would be evidence of a changed life, not a life descending more and more into debauchery.

You will however find a way to try and convince people that Paul and the other Apostles would wholeheartedly approve of him and other Popes that were even worse as being successors of Peter.

Your claim that the RCC is the Church, is nothing more than hopeful thinking, and belief in a church being built on a man, and not Christ who is the cornerstone.
 

Arch Stanton

Well-known member
All the evidence says it is not.
All the evidence says it is. (y)
You will however find a way to try and convince people that Paul and the other Apostles would wholeheartedly approve of him and other Popes that were even worse as being successors of Peter.
No Catholic should 'approve' of sin.
belief in a church being built on a man, and not Christ who is the cornerstone.
That would be all of the ecclesial communities since the 16th century.
 
Top