Church

[ScottA]

i agree with you, but we have to consider what it is we expect someone who picks up a gun to enforce the world's agenda to do, though? Will we go to slave owners to discuss the morality of slave ownership? Can we go to bankers with "no one needs money to survive?" Iow what do you expect satan to say, when you discuss Scripture with him? Can any light be gained in this way? I dunno, myself; maybe, as All are deceived, but nonetheless You will know them by their fruit.

Uah...you mean like the practical stuff? Yes, and I would agree with that too. But this catholic argument stands on more than what is practical in the physical world...they boast authority over heaven on earth, hypocritically after choosing against the spirit of God in the kingdom.

 

[bbyrd009]

But this catholic argument stands on more than what is practical in the physical world...they boast authority over heaven on earth, hypocritically after choosing against the spirit of God in the kingdom.

well this is why we are cautioned not to mix cultures imo


When you dance with the devil, the devil doesn't change; the devil changes you

 

[epostle1]

My response is based on a simple realization and acknowledgement that he is against God whom is spirit, and speaks against His spirit, whenever the spiritual path is brought up.

What part of "we do not deny that the Church is also a spiritual-invisible reality" do you not understand?

 

[epostle1]

Uah...you mean like the practical stuff? Yes, and I would agree with that too. But this catholic argument stands on more than what is practical in the physical world...they boast authority over heaven on earth, hypocritically after choosing against the spirit of God in the kingdom.

"For it hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us, to lay no further burden upon you than these necessary things" (Acts 15:28)

This quote, taken from the letter sent from the Council to the churches, demonstrates that the bishops gathered in council believe their judgment to also be that of the Holy Ghost - "it has seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us" - the judgment of the Apostles is the judgment of the Holy Spirit. If the Church were understood as a loose, invisible confederation of local churches, they could never make this striking claim of authority, let alone claim, with the authority of God, to tell other Christians what are "necessary things." If the Church is an invisible coalition of disparate Christian communions, the claims of the fathers at Jerusalem would be extraordinarily pompous and presumptuous.

 

[ScottA]

What part of "we do not deny that the Church is also a spiritual-invisible reality" do you not understand?

The contrary original choice part. Which makes such a claim hallow and secondary...or worse.

 

[epostle1]

"I appeal to you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no dissensions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment" (1 Cor. 1:10).

This does not speak to the visible structure of the Church as such, but it is helpful in demonstrating the unity of the Church which presupposes an institutional character. The Protestant notion of a loose confederation of communities who "agree on essentials", where there is "unity in disunity", is incompatible with Paul's teaching that Christians be united in one mind and one judgment, a unity which, as we have seen from John 17, our Lord says is nothing other than the unity of the Trinity. That kind of unity in judgment presupposes a single institutional framework. Yes, the Church is one Body with many members and diverse gifts, but Paul never says they are to have diverse beliefs or diverse judgments.

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).

This is why we reject any form of Protestantism, because all fail the test of allegiance to God’s Word in Holy Scripture, and the historical pedigree that the fathers always taught was necessary. Every heretic in the history of the world thumbed their nose at the institutional Church and went by Scripture alone. It is the heretical worldview to do so, precisely because they know they can’t prove that their views were passed down through history in an unbroken succession.

Therefore, heresies and Protestantism either had to play games with history in order to pretend that it fits with their views, or ignore it altogether.

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.
The Visible Church
Dialogue with a Calvinist: Was Paul a "Lone Ranger"?

 

[epostle1]

The contrary original choice part. Which makes such a claim hallow and secondary...or worse.

Sccott, you can't make intelligent comments on any of my posts so you resort to cheap anti-Catholic shots. Forum sadism...now there is a concept.

 

[ScottA]

"For it hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us, to lay no further burden upon you than these necessary things" (Acts 15:28)

This quote, taken from the letter sent from the Council to the churches, demonstrates that the bishops gathered in council believe their judgment to also be that of the Holy Ghost - "it has seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us" - the judgment of the Apostles is the judgment of the Holy Spirit. If the Church were understood as a loose, invisible confederation of local churches, they could never make this striking claim of authority, let alone claim, with the authority of God, to tell other Christians what are "necessary things." If the Church is an invisible coalition of disparate Christian communions, the claims of the fathers at Jerusalem would be extraordinarily pompous and presumptuous.

As I said of Jesus' clarification to Israel regarding Moses only letting them put away their wives because of the hardness of their hearts...this just confirms the Holy Spirit's insistence on the early church suffering under the church fathers poor choice.

But whether then or now, to claim that the spirit of God would have been incapable of guiding Christ's church...is indeed extraordinarily pompous and presumptuous.

But that is because you do not see that the church is not physical, but rather spirit, just as God is spirit. This is what was meant by Christ when He spoke against the religious leaders of His time, saying they should have "entered in." And therefore, the early church fathers were no better...and your error will be accounted to them.

 

[bbyrd009]

Sccott, you can't make intelligent comments on any of my posts so you resort to cheap anti-Catholic shots. Forum sadism...now there is a concept.

ya, you're not a jerk at all, right. So is denial, btw. "cheap anti-Catholic shots" = "i'm getting creamed here, and i don't have enough sense to see that no one is witnessing for me, because i am wrong"

 

[ScottA]

Sccott, you can't make intelligent comments on any of my posts so you resort to cheap anti-Catholic shots. Forum sadism...now there is a concept.

You jump in the fight between catholics and protestants...and when I tell you the exact place where the problem started - you choose to ignore it.

I am not surprised. That has been the problem from the start.

Thank you for confirming your allegiance to the root cause.

 

[BreadOfLife]

But that is because you do not see that the church is not physical, but rather spirit, just as God is spirit. This is what was meant by Christ when He spoke against the religious leaders of His time, saying they should have "entered in." And therefore, the early church fathers were no better...and your error will be accounted to them.

Wrong.
The Church is Body and Spirit.

Jesus said emphatically:
Matt. 5:13-16
“You are the salt of the earth. But if salt loses its taste, with what can it be seasoned? It is no longer good for anything but to be thrown out and trampled underfoot.
You are the light of the world. A city set on a mountain cannot be hidden.
Nor do they light a lamp and then put it under a bushel basket; it is set on a lampstand, where it gives light to all in the house.
Just so, your light must shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your heavenly Father.

Our good deeds can only be seen through our physical appearance.
Jesus ascended to Heaven in a physical glorified Body. Our glorified bodies will be joined with our souls in Heaven at the Resurrection on the last day (1 Cor. 15:52).

 

[ScottA]

Wrong.
The Church is Body and Spirit.

Jesus said emphatically:
Matt. 5:13-16
“You are the salt of the earth. But if salt loses its taste, with what can it be seasoned? It is no longer good for anything but to be thrown out and trampled underfoot.
You are the light of the world. A city set on a mountain cannot be hidden.
Nor do they light a lamp and then put it under a bushel basket; it is set on a lampstand, where it gives light to all in the house.
Just so, your light must shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your heavenly Father.

Our good deeds can only be seen through our physical appearance.
Jesus ascended to Heaven in a physical glorified Body. Our glorified bodies will be joined with our souls in Heaven at the Resurrection on the last day (1 Cor. 15:52).

I don't know why I even try with you...

So...let me get this straight...based on your "physical glorified body" claim, you believe that one who is born again of the spirit of God...is born again "physical" - that the spirit gives birth to flesh?

...You need to turn in your keys. Oh, that's right, you didn't want or get any keys. Never mind.

 

[bbyrd009]

Wrong.

lol, perfect

 

[amadeus]

I agree. What the catholics did was very human - which we are all guilty of in some way.

In fact...that is not what I would blame the catholics for at all. I simply blame them for being haughty about choosing the lesser choice.

That's called: hypocrisy.

Do we know of any organized Christian church that has not moved in the same direction as the Catholics did? Someone came of her, but usually [always?] the new group that often started on a good pathway found itself very close to the old mother church. Do we not meet people today who attend no physical assembly because they have so often found it to be more of the same-o same-o? Undoubtedly some may have found exceptions, but usually [always?] they are temporary exceptions that once given a death or two among the older more serious believers end up in another boat going the same mistaken direction.

 

[BreadOfLife]

I don't know why I even try with you...

So...let me get this straight...based on your "physical glorified body" claim, you believe that one who is born again of the spirit of God...is born again "physical" - that the spirit gives birth to flesh?

...You need to turn in your keys. Oh, that's right, you didn't want or get any keys. Never mind.

We are born again spiritually - but we will be joined with our glorified physical bodies at the Resurrection.
Jesus ascended to Heaven in his glorified physical Body. He ate with His Apostles after His Resurrection. Spirits don't eat, nor do they have any need for food.

To reject this fact is to reject Christ Himself.
Good luck with that . . .

 

[ScottA]

Do we know of any organized Christian church that has not moved in the same direction as the Catholics did? Someone came of her, but usually [always?] the new group that often started on a good pathway found itself very close to the old mother church. Do we not meet people today who attend no physical assembly because they have so often found it to be more of the same-o same-o? Undoubtedly some may have found exceptions, but usually [always?] they are temporary exceptions that once given a death or two among the older more serious believers end up in another boat going the same mistaken direction.

Very true. All the proper guidance is there...Paul even went so far as to elude to being completely silent in church. Unfortunately, only those with ears to hear what the spirit says to the churches, heard it.

 

[ScottA]

We are born again spiritually - but we will be joined with our glorified physical bodies at the Resurrection.
Jesus ascended to Heaven in his glorified physical Body. He ate with His Apostles after His Resurrection. Spirits don't eat, nor do they have any need for food.

To reject this fact is to reject Christ Himself.
Good luck with that . . .

Not that again...

Child, are you still resorting to what is seen rather than what is unseen of God?

 

[bbyrd009]

Not that again...

Child, are you still resorting to what is seen rather than what is unseen of God?

ha, i guess the kingdom had better come by observation, or else God better look out for BoL!

 

[bbyrd009]

"The prototypical grandiose narcissist is characterized by arrogance, superiority, vanity, entitlement, exploitativeness, exhibitionism, and the incessant need for acclaim from others. Those scoring high on measures of self-esteem, however, tend to feel satisfied with themselves but do not necessarily see themselves as superior to others."
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/beautiful-minds/narcissism-and-self-esteem-are-very-different/

"While narcissism is positively correlated with self-esteem, the association is actually small."
" Narcissism, but not self-esteem, was also related to a drive for acquisition of disproportionate resources as well as greater relationship problems.
Narcissism was related to feeling central to one's social networks"
"Narcissism was also related to more frequent arguing and social comparisons than self-esteem. The opposite was true for self-esteem. Self-esteem was related to feeling close to others in one's social network, and perceiving others in one's social network as attractive, high status, high in leadership, intelligent, likeable, and kind."
"There were also clear differences in terms of psychopathology. Narcissism and self-esteem differed on 100% of the measures relating to internalizing psychopathology..."

dang, this stuff is fascinating, i'll be there til midnight i guess lol

 

[ScottA]

"I appeal to you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no dissensions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment" (1 Cor. 1:10).

This does not speak to the visible structure of the Church as such, but it is helpful in demonstrating the unity of the Church which presupposes an institutional character. The Protestant notion of a loose confederation of communities who "agree on essentials", where there is "unity in disunity", is incompatible with Paul's teaching that Christians be united in one mind and one judgment, a unity which, as we have seen from John 17, our Lord says is nothing other than the unity of the Trinity. That kind of unity in judgment presupposes a single institutional framework. Yes, the Church is one Body with many members and diverse gifts, but Paul never says they are to have diverse beliefs or diverse judgments.

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).

This is why we reject any form of Protestantism, because all fail the test of allegiance to God’s Word in Holy Scripture, and the historical pedigree that the fathers always taught was necessary. Every heretic in the history of the world thumbed their nose at the institutional Church and went by Scripture alone. It is the heretical worldview to do so, precisely because they know they can’t prove that their views were passed down through history in an unbroken succession.

Therefore, heresies and Protestantism either had to play games with history in order to pretend that it fits with their views, or ignore it altogether.

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.
The Visible Church
Dialogue with a Calvinist: Was Paul a "Lone Ranger"?

This is wrong from the first commentary sentence. Moreover, it insults the ability of God and His Holy Spirit to have complete control over all things by His great spiritual power.

No, the word of God is very clear that He is building up His Church as [spiritual] stones. That the churches should rather "hear what the spirit says to the churches." And if you heard correctly, to even "keep silent in church."

So, you who favor the flesh and the world first and the spirit of God last, fight against us who should be your brothers, because we seek first the kingdom of God. You have made this a war between the flesh and the spirit.