Church

[epostle1]

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.

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 you guys 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"?

 

[bbyrd009]

because a purely invisible church can't bind or loose anything. That's why you are forced to change the meaning, or change the subject, or switch to unrelated verses.

ha don't kid yourself--the only one you can kid, ok--i directly addressed that, and you ignored it of course.

 

[bbyrd009]

the Church could stray and have to be rejected, but the Bible rules that out.

you might wanna get with BoL, he is arguing that the vine in Christ can be rotten

 

[bbyrd009]

We simply have more faith than you guys do.

ya, and a bigger dog lol

It’s a supernatural gift.

chutzpah is a gift? ok.

 

[ScottA]

15 He said to them, ‘But who do you say that I am?’ 16 Simon Peter answered, ‘You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.’ 17 And Jesus answered him, ‘Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.’

You just don't get it. Most Protestants (or non Protestants) don't get it either, because a purely invisible church can't bind or loose anything. That's why you are forced to change the meaning, or change the subject, or switch to unrelated verses.

These keys represent the spiritual authority and jurisdiction of the physical Church that is echoed in the Kingdom of Heaven.
spiritual/physical. both/and. not "either/or", which is false dichotomous thinking.

"That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." - You have your lot, accordingly.

"One thing is needed"...and you have not chosen it. Obviously, you do not know what you are missing, or what might have been.

 

[bbyrd009]

We

We

We

We

We

ha what i wanna know is, who is this "we" that everyone so glibly speaks for?

 

[VictoryinJesus]

Why can't it be both?

Ask Him. He will show you why. Do you really want to know though? My husband said it a truth that is really difficult to accept. And it is. Because it is the opposite of what the flesh wants which is to hold onto this world.

 

[ScottA]

Jesus took the path of the flesh when He gave Keys to Peter? There you go again, "...whatsoever you bind on earth" spiritualizing earth and everything else, obfuscating the words of Jesus with "spirit of God" as if that's supposed to make a point.

Again, you are mistaken. Those passages can be read two different ways:

1. You say that Jesus was speaking "of" Peter.
2. But the passages should be read as "to" Peter, but "of" the spirit and power of God...the [R]ock of ages, not Peter the [r]ock.

You have been caught in the confusion. Bad choice.

 

[ScottA]

Why don't you make a list of the gloried up Church Fathers, or at least name two.

Perhaps you can help me. I don't know their names...but they're the ones in the fancy robes and hats.

 

[ScottA]

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 you guys 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"?

You give men way too much credit on both sides of your conflict between the catholics and the protestants. God alone has providence over His word.

It is not the church that is fallible, but wolves in sheep's clothing.

But settling on that side of the Jordan does not separate you any more that Judah is separate from Israel.

 

[epostle1]

"That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." - You have your lot, accordingly.

"One thing is needed"...and you have not chosen it. Obviously, you do not know what you are missing, or what might have been.

We are talking about the Keys of the Kingdom, and the power to bind and loose that Jesus gave to Peter. Not baptism.

Ask Him. He will show you why. Do you really want to know though? My husband said it a truth that is really difficult to accept. And it is. Because it is the opposite of what the flesh wants which is to hold onto this world.

What the flesh wants has nothing to do with a physical/spiritual church and nothing to do with a physical/spiritual Incarnation.

Again, you are mistaken. Those passages can be read two different ways:

1. You say that Jesus was speaking "of" Peter.
2. But the passages should be read as "to" Peter, but "of" the spirit and power of God...the [R]ock of ages, not Peter the [r]ock.

You have been caught in the confusion. Bad choice.

It's both. Spiritualizing Peter and everything else is not biblical.

Perhaps you can help me. I don't know their names...but they're the ones in the fancy robes and hats.

If you don't know any of the Early Church Fathers names then you have no business saying they were gloried up. You are forced to dispense with the ECF because none of them were (non) Protestants. You have no history before the 16th century so you ignore what is there or write up inventions. If its vestments you are referring to, purple symbolizes repentance, and red honors the blood of Christ and the Christian martyrs. Honoring the blood Christ is offensive to people who don't (or refuse to) understand the meaning of "fancy robes". If your offended by honoring the blood of Jesus by "fancy robes" then you've gone over the top. You don't like them because they are physical objects. What a poverty...

It is appropriate for Catholic clerics to wear purple and scarlet, if for no other reason because they have been liturgical colors of the true religion since ancient Israel. Lev. 14:4, 6, 49–52; Num. 19:6; Ex. 28:4–8, 15, 33, 39:1–8, 24, 29. Baptists also wear vestments, but mere choir gowns. You don't insult Baptists.

You give men way too much credit on both sides of your conflict between the catholics and the protestants. God alone has providence over His word.

It is not the church that is fallible, but wolves in sheep's clothing.

Yes, you are anti-church, and anti-institutional. You make that very clear. All you can see are the bad guys, and blind to the numerous saints of outstanding holiness throughout the centuries.

But settling on that side of the Jordan does not separate you any more that Judah is separate from Israel.

We follow the model of the Jerusalem Council, whereas you guys reject that or ignore it, because it doesn’t fit in with the man-made tradition of Protestantism and a supposedly non-infallible Church.

Jesus said that the unity of Christians would be objective evidence to the world that He had been sent by God (John 17:20-23). How can the world see an invisible "unity" that exists only in the hearts of believers?

Hebrews 13:17 says, "Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you."

What is the expiration date of this verse?

 

[VictoryinJesus]

What the flesh wants has nothing to do with a physical/spiritual church

The flesh has everything to do with the physical/spiritual church. Don't you see all the attributes of the flesh being displayed in churches. Anger. Strife. Debates. Superiority. Power. Arrogance. The division. Sin. It is the very thing; desires of the flesh that destroy. What do you think drives the whole "God wants to make you a millionaire" and scripture is read purely for gratification of the flesh. We can hear what we want to hear in scripture. Why can't it be both? Because we can't love and hold tight to this world and also love God. It is either or. He wants it all. The world is a harlot. Nothing in her will ever satisfy. This is obvious. Yet, mankind will waste every moment and breath attempting to prove he can obtain something lasting out of the temporal.

The Spiritual church (His body) is infallible and stands strong. The gates of hell will not prevail against it.

It's obvious we don't agree. May God bless you kepha31.

 

[ScottA]

It's both. Spiritualizing Peter and everything else is not biblical.

This is the heart of your position and all that needs to be addressed - it is the one thing you have valued least:

God is spirit. But you have chosen otherwise, that which is passing away, and continually speak against the increase of the spirit and the decrease of the flesh. Enjoy it will it lasts, you have but a little while.

 

[bbyrd009]

The world is a harlot.

funny you say this; there is a Catholic saying; "the church is my mother, and she is a whore."

although i might have to apologize labelling it Catholic, as i am not really sure the relationship of...whomever said that first to the RCC at the point it was said. Which i used to be able to google, but now is obscured.

 

[bbyrd009]

This is the heart of your position and all that needs to be addressed - it is the one thing you have valued least:

God is spirit. But you have chosen otherwise, that which is passing away, and continually speak against the increase of the spirit and the decrease of the flesh. Enjoy it will it lasts, you have but a little while.

imo we should recognize that God does not judge us all with the same yardstick, and kepha is forgiven just like Adam and Eve were. But i agree, as i see no judgement in this

 

[epostle1]

This is the heart of your position and all that needs to be addressed - it is the one thing you have valued least:

God is spirit. But you have chosen otherwise, that which is passing away, and continually speak against the increase of the spirit and the decrease of the flesh. Enjoy it will it lasts, you have but a little while.

For the third time: we do not deny that the Church is also a spiritual-invisible reality, nor do we assert that salvation is strictly predicated only of those who are formally part of the physical Church structure - although we confess such an arrangement to be normative. In emphasizing the physical-institutional aspect of the Church, we do not mean to deny the invisible. Rather, as Christ Himself was both God and man, divine and human, so the Church, too, is a kind of incarnation, divine and supernatural while also physical and institutional. The Visible Church

"The apostles and elders met to consider this question...When they finished, James spoke up...'It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood" (Acts 15:1-20).

The calling of the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 presupposes the Apostles viewed the Church as a singular institution with physical, discernible boundaries that were recognizable. Otherwise, how could they come to any uniform decision on points of doctrine or discipline that were binding? The Church does not just meet to share opinions, but to come to an authoritative decision, which they do by sending a letter "telling" the Gentiles what disciplines they are to observe. It does not seem to be possible in the minds of the Apostles that, if the Gentiles did not like this judgment, that they could go find another local church who would offer a different opinion. This is no opinion, but an authoritative judgment followed up with an authoritative directive. Such actions are incomprehensible unless there is some sort of visible Church represented by a single, authoritative hierarchy which makes judgments on its behalf.

 

[ScottA]

imo we should recognize that God does not judge us all with the same yardstick, and kepha is forgiven just like Adam and Eve were. But i agree, as i see no judgement in this

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.

 

[bbyrd009]

You don't insult Baptists.

if you are offended, then you will be offended, i guess. I don't see any insults in his posts.

 

[bbyrd009]

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.

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.

 

[ScottA]

For the third time: we do not deny that the Church is also a spiritual-invisible reality, nor do we assert that salvation is strictly predicated only of those who are formally part of the physical Church structure - although we confess such an arrangement to be normative. In emphasizing the physical-institutional aspect of the Church, we do not mean to deny the invisible. Rather, as Christ Himself was both God and man, divine and human, so the Church, too, is a kind of incarnation, divine and supernatural while also physical and institutional. The Visible Church

"The apostles and elders met to consider this question...When they finished, James spoke up...'It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood" (Acts 15:1-20).

The calling of the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 presupposes the Apostles viewed the Church as a singular institution with physical, discernible boundaries that were recognizable. Otherwise, how could they come to any uniform decision on points of doctrine or discipline that were binding? The Church does not just meet to share opinions, but to come to an authoritative decision, which they do by sending a letter "telling" the Gentiles what disciplines they are to observe. It does not seem to be possible in the minds of the Apostles that, if the Gentiles did not like this judgment, that they could go find another local church who would offer a different opinion. This is no opinion, but an authoritative judgment followed up with an authoritative directive. Such actions are incomprehensible unless there is some sort of visible Church represented by a single, authoritative hierarchy which makes judgments on its behalf.

Just as Jesus told Israel that Moses only let them put away their wives because of the hardness of their hearts, I am telling you that Christ only allowed the choice of the physical church...for the same reason. Nonetheless, when He offered a choice...the church chose poorly. And now you war against the brethren over doctrine based on the worst of choices.