I don't deny that either but God's authority is higher than that of the Church which consists of infallible people.
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
- Status
Don't be dull. Blind people whose eyes are opened are no longer blind, eh?
Are you delusional? I am not your slave. If you were genuinely interested, you would have read the entire post.
The above is also for @CovenantPromise ...
It is correct of course and you gave a good example re the pastor.
A priest is not just a title...it's a real office of God.
When a priest baptizes a baby, that baby gets baptized even if the priest is in mortal sin.
Ditto for any sacrament. If he performs a wedding,,,the couple is really married in God's definition of marriage.
The priest in a CC may sin...
but the CC remains pure.
Marymog
Well-Known Member
- Mar 7, 2017
- 11,395
- 1,671
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
This is a serious charge against me. Did Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. serve Jesus? Is there something wrong with the scriptures I gave you? You have the last line, I will not discuss the matter any further.
If the media do not report on sexual misconduct, obviously no one will think badly of the guilty. Take the case of Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. FBI data that were recently made public show him to be a hard-drinking, bed-hopping adulterer who cheated on his wife with 40-45 other women. He also watched a pastor friend of his rape a woman and laughed about it while he did so. But thanks to the near total media blackout on this story, King’s glowing reputation remains intact.
Yet he delivered his world famous sermon "I Have a Dream", which IMO is inspired. According to you, King cannot serve Christ. But in the eyes of the world he can, in his state of mortal sin, because he is not a Catholic priest.
Did Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. serve Jesus? Don't bother replying if you refuse to answer the question. I think we are done here.
Last edited:
Marymog
Well-Known Member
- Mar 7, 2017
- 11,395
- 1,671
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
Don't hold your breath. You should know me better than this by now. When I see I made a mistake, I say so as fast as possible.
ScottA
Well-Known Member
- Feb 24, 2011
- 11,741
- 5,593
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
Certainly the Reformation has contributed to the woes of the times, but that would just be a symptom. The actual cause came by anti-Christ forces present during the first century AD.It was foretold.....Oh what the Reformation has brought us.....
If I fill in the missing pieces in accordance with the whole word of God unto all truth, I am not speaking for myself.It was foretold.....Oh what the Reformation has brought us.....
According to the denomination of Scott, along with 40,000 conflicting denominations. He is a true Protestant.
Scott, You’re trying to set the Bible against the Church, which is typical Protestant methodology, and ultra-unbiblical. The Bible never does that. I’ve already given the example of the Jerusalem Council, which plainly shows the infallibility of the Church.
The Bible repeatedly teaches that the Church is indefectible; therefore, the hypothetical of rejecting the (one true, historic) Church, as supposedly going against the Bible, is impossible according to the Bible. It is not a situation that would ever come up, because of God’s promised protection.
What the Bible says is to reject those who cause divisions, which is the very essence of the onset of Protestantism: schism, sectarianism, and division. It is Protestantism that departed from the historic Church, which is indefectible and infallible (see also 1 Tim 3:15). (and Scott-ism departs from Protestantism)
I gave several passages showing that Paul was under Church authority, in various ways. Of course, all authority ultimately comes from God (Paul was called before he was born: Gal 1:15). It is the pitting of the ultimate source against the secondary, human source (the Church) which is the problem in your approach and that of Protestantism in general. You guys don’t like human, institutional authority and don’t have enough faith to believe that God can and does preserve it, so you try to undermine it by fallacious arguments, as presently.
No doubt you aren’t even aware that you are doing it. To do this is automatic in Protestantism; it’s like breathing. It’s like the fish that doesn’t know it’s in water. It all comes from the rejection of the infallibility of the Church (which is one thing that sola Scriptura always entails).
In Galatians 1-2 Paul is referring to his initial conversion. But even then God made sure there was someone else around, to urge him to get baptized (Ananias: Acts 22:12-16). He received the revelation initially and then sought to have it confirmed by Church authority (Gal 2:1-2); then his authority was accepted or verified by James, Peter, and John (Gal 2:9). So we see that the Bible doesn’t pit the divine call directly from God, against Church authority, as you do. You do it because it is Protestant man-made tradition to do so; period, and because the Protestant has to always undermine the authority of the Church, and the Catholic Church, in order to bolster his own anti-system, that was set up against the historic Church in the first place.
We believe in faith that the Church is infallible and indefectible, based on many biblical indications. It is theoretically possible (speaking in terms of philosophy or epistemology) that the Church could stray and have to be rejected, but the Bible rules that out. We believe in faith that it has not and will not.
Protestants don’t have enough faith to believe that God could preserve an infallible Church, even though they can muster up even more faith than that, which is required to believe in an infallible Bible written by a bunch of sinners and hypocrites.
We simply have more faith than you guys do. It’s a supernatural gift. We believe that the authoritative Church is also a key part of God’s plan to save the souls of men. We follow the model of the Jerusalem Council, whereas non-denoms like Scott reject that or ignore it, because it doesn’t fit in with the man-made tradition of Protestantism and a supposedly non-infallible Church.
Dialogue with a Calvinist: Was Paul a "Lone Ranger"?The Bible repeatedly teaches that the Church is indefectible; therefore, the hypothetical of rejecting the (one true, historic) Church, as supposedly going against the Bible, is impossible according to the Bible. It is not a situation that would ever come up, because of God’s promised protection.
What the Bible says is to reject those who cause divisions, which is the very essence of the onset of Protestantism: schism, sectarianism, and division. It is Protestantism that departed from the historic Church, which is indefectible and infallible (see also 1 Tim 3:15). (and Scott-ism departs from Protestantism)
I gave several passages showing that Paul was under Church authority, in various ways. Of course, all authority ultimately comes from God (Paul was called before he was born: Gal 1:15). It is the pitting of the ultimate source against the secondary, human source (the Church) which is the problem in your approach and that of Protestantism in general. You guys don’t like human, institutional authority and don’t have enough faith to believe that God can and does preserve it, so you try to undermine it by fallacious arguments, as presently.
No doubt you aren’t even aware that you are doing it. To do this is automatic in Protestantism; it’s like breathing. It’s like the fish that doesn’t know it’s in water. It all comes from the rejection of the infallibility of the Church (which is one thing that sola Scriptura always entails).
In Galatians 1-2 Paul is referring to his initial conversion. But even then God made sure there was someone else around, to urge him to get baptized (Ananias: Acts 22:12-16). He received the revelation initially and then sought to have it confirmed by Church authority (Gal 2:1-2); then his authority was accepted or verified by James, Peter, and John (Gal 2:9). So we see that the Bible doesn’t pit the divine call directly from God, against Church authority, as you do. You do it because it is Protestant man-made tradition to do so; period, and because the Protestant has to always undermine the authority of the Church, and the Catholic Church, in order to bolster his own anti-system, that was set up against the historic Church in the first place.
We believe in faith that the Church is infallible and indefectible, based on many biblical indications. It is theoretically possible (speaking in terms of philosophy or epistemology) that the Church could stray and have to be rejected, but the Bible rules that out. We believe in faith that it has not and will not.
Protestants don’t have enough faith to believe that God could preserve an infallible Church, even though they can muster up even more faith than that, which is required to believe in an infallible Bible written by a bunch of sinners and hypocrites.
We simply have more faith than you guys do. It’s a supernatural gift. We believe that the authoritative Church is also a key part of God’s plan to save the souls of men. We follow the model of the Jerusalem Council, whereas non-denoms like Scott reject that or ignore it, because it doesn’t fit in with the man-made tradition of Protestantism and a supposedly non-infallible Church.
And you are making the false assumption that the Catholic Church is "the Church". That is completely false.
In fact, the Catholic Church can rightly be called "the Anti-Church" since it rejects salvation by grace through faith PLUS NOTHING. Not to mention a whole raft of false doctrines which are never acknowledge by Catholic apologists.
ScottA
Well-Known Member
- Feb 24, 2011
- 11,741
- 5,593
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
Look, I am not going to entertain your rambling on.
But I will caution you that you have fallen into the same pattern and error of the religious Priests, Leaders, and Pharisees during Jesus' time. I am no more "putting the Bible against the Church", than Jesus put the Law and Commandments against the religious Leaders of that time. They were the problem, not Him; and now it is not the word of God (nor my warning) that is the problem, but again--it is the religious Leaders. History repeats itself. Things are not perfect--we all know that...and one is either a victim or a conspirator.
That was funny, I really mean it
.No hard feelings, it is all food for thought.
God Bless.
That is based on the parents and men and women's intention of heart. That is why God is the judge of ones heart. And what you said still does not detract from the fact that priest must be Holy . Jeremiah 17:10 "I the LORD search the mind and try the heart, to give to every man according to his ways, according to the fruit of his doings."
They are married because of their vow before God and God in them protects them from any defilement because of their sincere faith. But nothing , in the case of an unholy priest, is because of him. Rather it is because of the faith of the unaware lay person who sincerely believes in God. God will render to each according to his own heart . Just as the scriptures say. Now would you fault God for rendering to people according to their own works? Will you call Him a liar for doing that too?
He wipes the dung of their solemnities upon their faces not the people who do not know of their sins.
Did I say anything about an unaware lay person? Who was I speaking about? Boy some people are good at getting off base to avoid the real discussion.
2Timothy 4:2-4
Preach the Word
…2Preach the word; be prepared in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and encourage with every form of patient instruction. 3For the time will come when men will not tolerate sound doctrine, but with itching ears they will gather around themselves teachers to suit their own desires. 4So they will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.…
Ezekiel 22:26-27
26Her priests do violence to My law and profane My holy things. They make no distinction between the holy and the common, and they fail to distinguish between the clean and the unclean. They disregard My Sabbaths, so that I am profaned among them. 27Her officials within her are like wolves tearing their prey, shedding blood, and destroying lives for dishonest gain.…
Leviticus 21:6
They must be holy to their God and not profane the name of their God. For they present the offerings made by fire to the LORD, the food of their God. So they must be holy.
But I know there is a an even newer doctrine than the New Covenant and that doctrine says not so- a priest does not have to be holy.
I guess I am the only one here who sees a problem with this.
1 Corinthians 11:17In the following instructions I have no praise to offer, because your gatherings do more harm than good. 18First of all, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and in part I believe it. 19And indeed, there must be differences among you to show which of you are approved.…
Good verses there.
I just don't see however why a "religious person" actually needs to officiate.
In so many countries, couples have to go to the town hall first and have their official marriage paperwork ceremony; then at another venue maybe n the same day they might have as many prayers, as many photos and as much food, etc., as they like.
@CovenantPromise Hebrews 7.12 says the priesthood was changed. The Old Testament law system has been surpassed. What we now have is better than the law; Hebrews 7.19.
I believe that in the UK it is only the clergy of the C of E that can actually legally marry people without the presence of a registrar being required. In all other churches there has to be a registrar present for the signing or the couple have to have a civil ceremony as well as the church one. In my church a couple of the members chose to be registrars so that they could act in that capacity.
Yeah, what has changed is no more animal sacrifice, food Laws- eat or don't eat, be circumcised or not:
" I am a Jew among the Jews and Greek among the Greeks" Paul. BUT THE HOLINESS REQUIRED OF A PRIEST HAS NOT CHANGED. "I did not come to abolish the Law and the prophets but to fulfill". Christ is the Law and the prophets. If one says the priesthood in Christ can be corrupt you say Christ takes part in that corruption and accepts it. That would be to deny the reason for Christ coming to the world. That would be to deny His divinity, you would then call Christ corrupt.
That is the way it was for over a thousand years in Christianity. There was a time when people who wanted to get married inside a church couldn't but had to get married on the steps outside. I think it was the Council of Verona that declared marriage was a sacrament. A later council said a priest and two witnesses had to be present.
- Status
Similar threads
