What is the Church for?

RayneBeau

Well-known member
I agree. But, also beware of false teachers. They don't even need to be in a cult group. So called "mainstream" Christianity has many of them.

Pastors should not be treated as a source of knowledge, understanding, and wisdom. Many brought harm to the flock during this pandemic.
Good point. False teachers are not genuine Christians, but are counterfeits and John 8: 24 tells us they will die under the curse of their sins. A true believer can never lose eternal life, nor will they live in sin or apostatize from their faith in Christ.
 

balshan

Well-known member
As I noted, there are already married Catholic priests.

And I think it's a legitimate interpretation - it's one Protestants make too - since the expression "one wife" is really odd. I mean, if I was married, I wouldn't say to people, "Oh I have one wife" but "Oh I have a wife".

The faith has never accepted divorce and remarriage. Perhaps that is what Paul is alluding to.
As noted I didn't say there were no married priests, did I. But it is not the normal in the RCC.

I don't think it is a legitimate interpretation at all. Because even if divorced or widowed you only have one wife. Maybe he is saying no having affairs. It could be referring to being faithful.

The ancient Romans and Greek believed in only one wife at a time. So none of the societies practiced polygamy.

Your institution accepts divorce and remarriage. It is just that it does the RCC twist and calls divorce a nullified marriage. God is not fooled.

Also, as I pointed out he doesn't say they should be single.
 

balshan

Well-known member
True but it could include not having to marry if it is about polygamy or divorce and remarriage.
Why monogamy was practised by the Romans and the Greeks and Hillel school, so the idea it refers to polygamy is highly unlikely as it was done. No one says that phrase about a divorced person who has remarried. But it could easily refer to no having affairs, be faithful to your wife. It also doesn't say be single.
 

RickyJ

Member
Simple - to preach the simplicity of the Gospel, and allow the Holy Spirit to CONVICT folks of their SIN and draw them to Repentance so that they can be Born Again of the Holy Spirit by FAITH in the perfect SIN OFFERING of Jesus on the cross, and be infilled by the Holy Spirit to become Christians. THEN they can go out and Minister the same to others who are Lost. The church always was, IS, and always will be People moving in the power and guidance of the Holy Spirit. - period.

And that is exactly what the Catholic Church, and being Catholic, is all about.
 

mica

Well-known member
Bob Carabbio said:
Simple - to preach the simplicity of the Gospel, and allow the Holy Spirit to CONVICT folks of their SIN and draw them to Repentance so that they can be Born Again of the Holy Spirit by FAITH in the perfect SIN OFFERING of Jesus on the cross, and be infilled by the Holy Spirit to become Christians. THEN they can go out and Minister the same to others who are Lost. The church always was, IS, and always will be People moving in the power and guidance of the Holy Spirit. - period.

And that is exactly what the Catholic Church, and being Catholic, is all about.
the CC isn't about any of those as taught in scripture.

what is the gospel ?

the RCC/CC is not the Holy Spirit

what happens when one is born again?
 

balshan

Well-known member
The Church has endured claims of false teacher during it's history just as Jesus endured that accusation. Some confidence can be drawn from the fact that no other leader of Christians has ever emerged from those denunciations. Sedevacantist groups have never established an alternative authority to lead and have suffered the same fate as Luthers followers. Endless division.
No it is your institution that suffers endless division. The various groups are from the disunity in your institution, just because you think it is united does not make it so, as the other groups show.

You can draw no confidence at all from anything from your institution. It teaches false doctrines therefore its teaches are false.
Okay, let's look at these qualities and see which of them Francis is violating:
- faithful to his wife; I'd say Francis is very faithful to the Church considering that he has given his life for her
- temperate; I've never seen him go off the rails, rant, get drunk or anything like that
- self-controlled; he seems pretty self-controlled to me
- respectable; I'd say he's respectable
- hospital; lots of evidence of his hospitality to those who visit the Vatican
- able to teach; while he's not the clearest or most precise theologian in the world, his teaching is generally fine
- not given to drunkenness, violent or quarrelsome; see above
- not a lover of money; if anything, Francis has made papal living more frugal than any recent pope
- manage his own family well; I think this is something he tries to do
- not a recent convert; obviously
- good reputation with outsiders; his reputation is excellent with outsiders
Oh, we went through your lists before. He is not married at all. If you make the claim you are attempting, then you are putting up a false Christ. The only one married to the body is Jesus, not your pope. Most popes have been evil, so more false rubbish from you.

Revelation 19 states "for the marriage of the Lamb has come, and his Bride has made herself ready". The lamb is not your pope. If you say he is married to the church, he is a false Christ or one of the anti Christs.

If he is self controlled why are his underlings always cleaning up what he says. He is not respectable, he has allowed and ignored abuse. No matter what his current position is, his historical position screams volumes. Look at this example:

has apologised for suggesting that victims of sexual abuse by priests should show "proof", in a rare act of self-criticism, while continuing to defend a Chilean bishop accused of covering up abuse.

He doesn't have a family to manage, and under his watch as pope, there continues to be upset victims of abuse, who are not supported by the your institution. However, their abusers are supported and even continue to be priests. There are financial scandals as well. The list showing that he is not managing are endless.

But the Pope and Church hasn’t done much more than speak about child abuse,...
But the bishops were allowed to leave office without the Vatican’s ever making clear why, and all three remain bishops.” This latest action is part of a long appalling tradition within the Catholic Church which allows either the perpetrators or enablers of child sex abuse to escape persecution and often keep their rank within the church.

Let me see he is not married otherwise he is a false Christ. He does not have a good reputation and is not respected. The actions of your institution still shows he is not managing the institution well at all. The errors of the past are still happening and there is no change concerning abuse victims eg look at the post where I have shown what happened in Broome with the bishop there. The change is all talk.

Jesus is coming back for a spotless bride and your institution is not spotless. The dress, the shoes, the veil and the heart are dirty, stained with the blood of its victims throughout the centuries.

This pope maybe temperate but popes throughout the centuries have committed incest, conducted orgies, drunks. So the office is stained and has failed the requirements for leaders throughout the ages.
 
Last edited:

RickyJ

Member
the CC isn't about any of those as taught in scripture.

what is the gospel ?

the RCC/CC is not the Holy Spirit

what happens when one is born again?

Catholics are "born again " at Baptism.
They don't need a ceremony, reciting the sinners prayer etc,
 

mica

Well-known member
mica said:
the CC isn't about any of those as taught in scripture.

what is the gospel ?

the RCC/CC is not the Holy Spirit

what happens when one is born again?

Catholics are "born again " at Baptism.
They don't need a ceremony, reciting the sinners prayer etc,
you answered neither of my questions. why is that?

that's a spiritually fatal teaching of the RCC/CC.

no one is born again by water baptism. water baptism happens after one is born again.

catholics who believe it is by water baptism do not know what it is to be born again.

no one needs a man made ceremony to be born again.

what is it that you consider to be a 'sinner's prayer' ? I had no idea what a 'sinner's prayer' was when I was saved. never learned anything about that or being saved in all my yrs in the RCC.
 

RayneBeau

Well-known member
I'm curious to know what people on this forum think about the Church's purpose in the world. Clearly, establishing the Church - the called out community of God - was central to Christ's mission, but why? What is the Church for?
Apart from Jesus Christ, the Roman Catholic Church has absolutely no meaning. Despite what they proclaim, the RCC is NOT the community Christ founded, the RCC has NOT carried out His mission of building up the kingdom of God or of preaching God's call to man to repent of their sins and to enter into a love relationship with Him.
 

balshan

Well-known member
Which church?
That is the question at the base of everything. If it is a church with false doctrines then it has no useful purpose whatsoever. Jesus didn't establish a church, He gathered people to Him, He gave them love and still does. This means that they want to share His love with others. It is not a mission, it is a change in a person that grows.

If someone sees it as the church's purpose then the don't understand Jesus. Jesus showed God's love and through us people should see Him, not a purpose.
 

Johan

Well-known member
I think establishing the Church was central because if there was no Church to minister to the world, belief in Jesus would have ceased within one or two generations.

Abraham believed in God and followed His direction all his life without a church "guiding" him to do so. And he is the spiritual forefather of all who believe (Rom. 4:16). So to say that no one would have believed in Christ without a church ministering to the world is really to exaggerate the necessity of the church. God chose to establish a church through which the Gospel is disseminated to the world, but He is not dependent on the church for anything.
 

jonathan_hili

Well-known member
Abraham believed in God and followed His direction all his life without a church "guiding" him to do so. And he is the spiritual forefather of all who believe (Rom. 4:16). So to say that no one would have believed in Christ without a church ministering to the world is really to exaggerate the necessity of the church. God chose to establish a church through which the Gospel is disseminated to the world, but He is not dependent on the church for anything.
The Church is the structured community of God. Abraham had that. As the leader of a Bronze Age Mesopotamian tribe, there would have been a strict sense of hierarchy and authority structure in the Abrahamic community.

The Church gives organisation and continuity to the community. Isolated individuals would have failed in any attempt to spread and maintain the Gospel. Some of the most essential elements of Christian living (e.g. worship, collecting funds for missionary work or to write/copy biblical manuscripts, supervising orthodox teaching, etc.) would not have been possible on a large scale without the Church.
 

mica

Well-known member
Okay, let's look at these qualities and see which of them Francis is violating:
- faithful to his wife; I'd say Francis is very faithful to the Church considering that he has given his life for her
- temperate; I've never seen him go off the rails, rant, get drunk or anything like that
- self-controlled; he seems pretty self-controlled to me
- respectable; I'd say he's respectable
- hospital; lots of evidence of his hospitality to those who visit the Vatican
- able to teach; while he's not the clearest or most precise theologian in the world, his teaching is generally fine
- not given to drunkenness, violent or quarrelsome; see above
- not a lover of money; if anything, Francis has made papal living more frugal than any recent pope
- manage his own family well; I think this is something he tries to do
- not a recent convert; obviously
- good reputation with outsiders; his reputation is excellent with outsiders
how well do you know him? do you spend a lot of time with him on a regular basis?

he teaches beliefs made up by men. He does not teach God's word.
 

mica

Well-known member
The Church is the structured community of God. Abraham had that. As the leader of a Bronze Age Mesopotamian tribe, there would have been a strict sense of hierarchy and authority structure in the Abrahamic community.

The Church gives organisation and continuity to the community. Isolated individuals would have failed in any attempt to spread and maintain the Gospel. Some of the most essential elements of Christian living (e.g. worship, collecting funds for missionary work or to write/copy biblical manuscripts, supervising orthodox teaching, etc.) would not have been possible on a large scale without the Church.
why is it then that the RCC is a major fail in this?
 

jonathan_hili

Well-known member
how well do you know him? do you spend a lot of time with him on a regular basis?

he teaches beliefs made up by men. He does not teach God's word.
Francis and I go way back. When I was a little kitten, he'd often give me a saucer of warm milk and a chin rub purrrr...
 

Johan

Well-known member
The Church is the structured community of God. Abraham had that. As the leader of a Bronze Age Mesopotamian tribe, there would have been a strict sense of hierarchy and authority structure in the Abrahamic community.
Regardless of that being historically true or not, it is irrelevant to the point that I just made. God did not call Abraham through a church hierarchy. Abraham was called directly by God, believed in His promise, and was justified before God because of his faith (Gen. 15:6). Abraham also did not maintain his faith in God because of a hierarchical church guiding him, but because he walked with God. He even learned of the Gospel without being taught by any emissaries of a hierarchical church (Gal. 3:8). And the Bible uses his example as the prototype of faith as well as justification by faith.
The Church gives organisation and continuity to the community. Isolated individuals would have failed in any attempt to spread and maintain the Gospel. Some of the most essential elements of Christian living (e.g. worship, collecting funds for missionary work or to write/copy biblical manuscripts, supervising orthodox teaching, etc.) would not have been possible on a large scale without the Church.
I do not belong to any denomination, so according to you, I am an "isolated individual" in this sense. This does not in any way prevent me from spreading the Gospel. I did not even learn to know the Gospel through any established denomination. God calls and maintains His children through His Spirit. You are implicitly claiming that God's salvific plan would have failed without a hierarchical church, which is of course patently untrue (and puts a limit on God's abilities). God chose to establish a church, but He is in no way dependent on the church. The church is the community of believers and God does not think that it is good that man is alone (Gen. 2:18). Who are you to say that it "would not have been possible" to God, who can raise children to Abraham (believers) out of stones (Matt. 3:9)?
 

jonathan_hili

Well-known member
Regardless of that being historically true or not, it is irrelevant to the point that I just made. God did not call Abraham through a church hierarchy. Abraham was called directly by God, believed in His promise, and was justified before God because of his faith (Gen. 15:6). Abraham also did not maintain his faith in God because of a hierarchical church guiding him, but because he walked with God. He even learned of the Gospel without being taught by any emissaries of a hierarchical church (Gal. 3:8). And the Bible uses his example as the prototype of faith as well as justification by faith.
That may very well be true for Abraham personally but what of all the other Israelites following him? I don't think you can use exceptions to base the life of faith on. To reiterate, we need the Church. Jesus established the Church because he knew it would be a means of grace for us as well as provide Christians with the orthodoxy and orthopraxy they need to live like him.
I do not belong to any denomination, so according to you, I am an "isolated individual" in this sense. This does not in any way prevent me from spreading the Gospel. I did not even learn to know the Gospel through any established denomination. God calls and maintains His children through His Spirit. You are implicitly claiming that God's salvific plan would have failed without a hierarchical church, which is of course patently untrue (and puts a limit on God's abilities). God chose to establish a church, but He is in no way dependent on the church. The church is the community of believers and God does not think that it is good that man is alone (Gen. 2:18). Who are you to say that it "would not have been possible" to God, who can raise children to Abraham (believers) out of stones (Matt. 3:9)?
What you say is true - you can spread the Gospel, etc. - but your life as a Christian is totally parasitic (meant in the sense of "living off") on the Church. Everything you take for granted as a Christian: the doctrines, texts, ways of praying, etc. all came to you through the Church.

I agree that God is not dependent on the Church. But we are. (Again, there may be exceptions but I'm speaking generally.)
 
Top