Secure Eternal Salvation

[Marymog]

The church is catholic in that it is universal. but the Catholic Church (formal) was not the first church! Teh first church was all Jewish! Paul did not go into gentile lands (outside of Tarsus) until his first mission trip in 46-47 AD, the gentile wing of the church was in its infancy through the first century.

2nd
If The Catholic Church is not "the church established" by Christ then which church is?

 

[Marymog]

Not the church but the Scriptures and sound doctrine used by the church! But the church saved is not a sect or denomination, but individuals in every sect, this is the true church.

Who or what entity enforced or spoke out for or practiced that "sound doctrine" from Scripture?

 

[Marymog]

Wrong! churches were under enormous persecution then. but your own words show that teh church was not in unity because they disagreed as to what was scripture.

You seem to forget that the letters were handwritten and to had to be copied and sent to other cities. This was a very lengthy process and the early church did not have a group of scribes.

That is true Ronald. Christianity was under enormous persecution in the first 3 century's of it's existence. However, the Church was in unity with its teaching on the important matters. As you have pointed out there were bishops (elders) appointed to each major metropolitan area. All those bishops received the same sound doctrine which was handed down to them thru the generations. That is why when the first major council was held under Constantine there was no arguing about the important matters that were being taught (Real Presence, Jesus is God, Baptism necessary etc). The churches were not...in general... in unity as to which books were considered Scripture. Being in unity in teaching and being in unity are which books were Scripture are two different matters and trying to equate the two is wrong.

Nope, I did not forget that the letters were handwritten and had to be copied and sent to other cities. Do you think that when they appointed a bishop to oversee a City they didn't send them to that City until they had all of Scripture in their hand? No, of course not. That is why Paul said in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

You seem to forget that 2 Thessalonians wasn't written until 51AD which is almost 20 years after the death of Christ. So 20 years after Christ Paul was still talking about the gospel being taught by word of mouth. The teaching by word of mouth was just as reliable as the written word.

 

[Marymog]

Some did, most did not! when the church went gentile it became more and more popular for the church lost the siginificance of which bread and which cup from the seder were used by Jesus!

It was not formalized by the RCC until Pope InnocentIII in 1250

The first writing we have is Ignatius of Antioch c. 110. By this time many parts of the church did not even know these were part of the Passover Seder meal.

Thanks Ronald,

Where is your evidence that some churches held the teaching of the Real Presence, but MOST did not? I have never read or heard that theory

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Where does Scripture say that the "early church had no overseer of multiple churches"?

Because it doesn't mention the office of overseer of churches, but overseer of a local church! Paul established the churches and oversaw their growth. Titus maybe could have filled the office of a modern RCC bishop as he was commanded to appoint elders in the local towns where churches were established and gave him the criteria for a man to be eligible. But there was no liturgical cycle nor did the local pastors answer to a "bishop".

There is simply no instructions for this at all.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Thanks Ronald.

Where in Scripture does it say that when Peter got to Rome there was at least one bishop? I can't find that in Scripture.

What we today call a bishop is what is described in Scripture as an overseer or elder. What is the purpose of a bishop if not "higher in order than local priests (pastors)"? What have you been taught about Ephesians 4:11? Would you rank any of them (apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers) as being "higher in order" over the other?

Where in Scripture does it say that a local pastor is an Elder and a Bishop and a Sheperd? I'm not saying it's not there....I just can't find it right now. In general I guess a local pastor is all three but where does Scripture say that....

Curious Mary

A good place to start is the pastoral epistles of Timothy and Titus. Then the greetings and epilogues of many of Paul's letters give all three titles to the local elders.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Thanks Ronald,

Where is your evidence that some churches held the teaching of the Real Presence, but MOST did not? I have never read or heard that theory

The Scriptures themselves. Teh bread and wine from the passover seder were symbols, like all other parts of the meal that meant something.

Teh bread was the middles of three unleavened loaves in a trifold napkin. It had to be unleavened, striped and pierced, this is the bread Jesus took. Half was eaten, the other half put back until later. I hope you see all the symbolism here. Jesus HImself said that when we eat the bread and drink the wine we do show the death of Jesus until He comes.

The cup was the third of four cups of wine drank at the Passover. It was called the cup of redemption. Jewish believers never accepted a real presence. It wasn't until the Jewish influence was gone and the church became "gentileized" that the concept of transubstantiation came to be as shown by the 2nd century first mention of it.

The presence of a god in wine and bread goes back many many centuries before the birth of Christianity. It was a common practice in greece and rome and egypt as well as some of the nations that surrounded Israel many centuries B.C.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

That is true Ronald. Christianity was under enormous persecution in the first 3 century's of it's existence. However, the Church was in unity with its teaching on the important matters. As you have pointed out there were bishops (elders) appointed to each major metropolitan area. All those bishops received the same sound doctrine which was handed down to them thru the generations. That is why when the first major council was held under Constantine there was no arguing about the important matters that were being taught (Real Presence, Jesus is God, Baptism necessary etc). The churches were not...in general... in unity as to which books were considered Scripture. Being in unity in teaching and being in unity are which books were Scripture are two different matters and trying to equate the two is wrong.

Nope, I did not forget that the letters were handwritten and had to be copied and sent to other cities. Do you think that when they appointed a bishop to oversee a City they didn't send them to that City until they had all of Scripture in their hand? No, of course not. That is why Paul said in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

You seem to forget that 2 Thessalonians wasn't written until 51AD which is almost 20 years after the death of Christ. So 20 years after Christ Paul was still talking about the gospel being taught by word of mouth. The teaching by word of mouth was just as reliable as the written word.

I agree the churches were in near unity on the majors. Galatians shows there were some places where serious heresy was taking place. Yes word of mouth was teh most common way though letters were being passed around in proximate towns.

As for bishops, they were appointed from the people in the town. There were no bible colleges and there were no gangs following Paul or Peter being taught to prepare for leadership. elders were appointed from teh believers within the local church.

Also remember that as Paul was going out to the gentile lands, though the fundamentals of the faith were the same, the secondary beliefs and forms and style were vastly different than the Jewish part of the church. The battle in Galatia shows the enormous difference in worship be tween Jew and gentile.

 

[Behold]

A internet troll is a person who posts inflammatory, off-topic messages in an online community with the intent of provoking readers into displaying emotional responses or manipulating others' perception.

Your self description fits you perfectly, Marymog.

Now, notice below the leaders of the "cult of the Virgin".
You must be so proud.
-

 

[Marymog]

Your self description fits you perfectly, Marymog.

Now, notice below the leaders of the "cult of the Virgin".
You must be so proud.
-
View attachment 20634

What a beautiful picture Behold. Thanks for sharing it with all of us!

This is a picture of a man showing his love, honor and respect for the Mother of God. I wonder if showing love, honor and respect for the Mother of God is being Christ like? OH WAIT....it is!! Because Christ loved, honored and respected his mother. So that man is being Christ like. How beautiful.

OR, I wonder, I just wonder....If saying that people who show love, honor and respect for the Mother of God are in a "cult" (and I know you mean it in a bad way) is what Jesus would say to those who show love, honor and respect to His Mother.

How do you show love, honor and respect to the woman chosen by God to give birth to his Son? Your Saviour!

You are always welcome to join us ( @BreadOfLife @Illuminator and others I have forgotten on this forum) in honoring His mother. Or you can continue to insult those that honor His mother. Your choice....

Mary

 

[Marymog]

The Scriptures themselves. Teh bread and wine from the passover seder were symbols, like all other parts of the meal that meant something.

Hold on Ronald. You can't just say that Scripture shows that some churches held the teaching of the Real Presence, but MOST did not....and then not even quote one passage from Scripture that backs up your theory.

Soooooo, Where in Scripture does it say that that some churches held the teaching of the Real Presence, but MOST did not?

Back up what you believe with PROOF instead of opinion.

Patient Mary

 

[Marymog]

A good place to start is the pastoral epistles of Timothy and Titus. Then the greetings and epilogues of many of Paul's letters give all three titles to the local elders.

Help me out Ronald. I read Timothy and Titus and I could not find ANY passage that said "when Peter got to Rome there was at least one bishop". I must be overlooking it. Which passage(s) are they?

2nd time asking: What is the purpose of a bishop if not "higher in order than local priests (pastors)"? What have you been taught about Ephesians 4:11? Would you rank any of them (apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers) as being "higher in order" over the other?

 

[Marymog]

Because it doesn't mention the office of overseer of churches, but overseer of a local church! Paul established the churches and oversaw their growth. Titus maybe could have filled the office of a modern RCC bishop as he was commanded to appoint elders in the local towns where churches were established and gave him the criteria for a man to be eligible. But there was no liturgical cycle nor did the local pastors answer to a "bishop".

There is simply no instructions for this at all.

Thanks. I THINK I understand what you are saying.

Scripture lists specific local churches and specific men that were appointed to those churches (like Rome). Soooooo that all occurred before 100AD when Christianity was small in numbers. What about 2, 3 or even 400 years later when The Church was growing in numbers, and they began to build churches in small towns surrounding the big cities (like Rome) that had an overseer already appointed? Is it possible that the overseer of Rome took on the responsibility as overseer of those small town churches? The overseer would then be in charge of 3,4, 5 or more churches as Christianity grew? Is that possible?

Where in Scripture are the specific instructions on how to build a church from a few thousand members to 2 billion members?

Or are you saying since Scripture is silent on those specific instructions the men of The Church can't figure out a way to make it happen?

Mary

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Hold on Ronald. You can't just say that Scripture shows that some churches held the teaching of the Real Presence, but MOST did not....and then not even quote one passage from Scripture that backs up your theory.

Soooooo, Where in Scripture does it say that that some churches held the teaching of the Real Presence, but MOST did not?

Back up what you believe with PROOF instead of opinion.

Patient Mary

18 For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.

19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.

20 When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper.

21 For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken.

22 What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? what shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not.

23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:

24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.

25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.

26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.

27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.

Paul specifically shows the Lords supper is a supper. and we do it to show His death, not to eat His body.

Once again study the Passover seder and learn which bread jesus said was His body and which cup was His blood. and as no church had no need to write saying Jesus was not present in the supper, I cannot prove a negative!

YOu said they did! so it is up to you to prove the positive.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Help me out Ronald. I read Timothy and Titus and I could not find ANY passage that said "when Peter got to Rome there was at least one bishop". I must be overlooking it. Which passage(s) are they?

2nd time asking: What is the purpose of a bishop if not "higher in order than local priests (pastors)"? What have you been taught about Ephesians 4:11? Would you rank any of them (apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers) as being "higher in order" over the other?

Well given that bishop was just another name for elder, presbyter, pastor,shepherd, Yes there was an elder in Rome before Peter got there as there was a local assembly in Rome. Paul wrote to the church in Rome in 56-57,

And Peter wrote his epistle from the jewish group in Babylon c. 64-65 AD so that puts Peter in Babylon 7-9 years after Paul wrote his epistle to the Roman church.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Thanks. I THINK I understand what you are saying.

Scripture lists specific local churches and specific men that were appointed to those churches (like Rome). Soooooo that all occurred before 100AD when Christianity was small in numbers. What about 2, 3 or even 400 years later when The Church was growing in numbers, and they began to build churches in small towns surrounding the big cities (like Rome) that had an overseer already appointed? Is it possible that the overseer of Rome took on the responsibility as overseer of those small town churches? The overseer would then be in charge of 3,4, 5 or more churches as Christianity grew? Is that possible?

Where in Scripture are the specific instructions on how to build a church from a few thousand members to 2 billion members?

Or are you saying since Scripture is silent on those specific instructions the men of The Church can't figure out a way to make it happen?

Mary

Denominationalism is a man made construct and we see the damage it has caused to the name of Christ! But we know that the Apostles established churches. Paul established the gentile church and had no one single ruler over it. Now external Christendom may have 2 billion members, but the saved church has far fewer members.

 

[GodsGrace]

Thanks Ronald.

Where in Scripture does it say that when Peter got to Rome there was at least one bishop? I can't find that in Scripture.

What we today call a bishop is what is described in Scripture as an overseer or elder. What is the purpose of a bishop if not "higher in order than local priests (pastors)"? What have you been taught about Ephesians 4:11? Would you rank any of them (apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers) as being "higher in order" over the other?

Where in Scripture does it say that a local pastor is an Elder and a Bishop and a Sheperd? I'm not saying it's not there....I just can't find it right now. In general I guess a local pastor is all three but where does Scripture say that....

Curious Mary

Bishops were not only the head of elders, they were the head of an entire region or large city.

 

[GodsGrace]

Denominationalism is a man made construct and we see the damage it has caused to the name of Christ! But we know that the Apostles established churches. Paul established the gentile church and had no one single ruler over it. Now external Christendom may have 2 billion members, but the saved church has far fewer members.

Denominations came about after the reformation.

Before that, any teachings that did not agree with
The existing church were considered heresy.

The reason councils were held was to clarify teachings.

I'm not saying I agree with all doctrine of the CC as it is today, however in the beginning it was a pure church that wanted to carry forward the teachings of Jesus.

 

[GodsGrace]

Not the church but the Scriptures and sound doctrine used by the church! But the church saved is not a sect or denomination, but individuals in every sect, this is the true church.

Why not follow the standard so we know what you're speaking of?:

church,,,,,the establishment

Church,,,,the saved ones, or, as Carholics say, the communion of saints.

I so wish we all spoke the same language.

 

[GodsGrace]

Some did, most did not! when the church went gentile it became more and more popular for the church lost the siginificance of which bread and which cup from the seder were used by Jesus!

It was not formalized by the RCC until Pope InnocentIII in 1250

The first writing we have is Ignatius of Antioch c. 110. By this time many parts of the church did not even know these were part of the Passover Seder meal.

Could you please expound on the above??