Passover vs Eucharist

[RogerDC]

Mat 18:20 Whenever two or three of you come together in my name, I am there with you.

His church meets in a home, a cafe, a field, on the beach, in the office, in school, an airport, a prison, a hospital, a ship, in fact anywhere where two or three are gathered together in the name of Jesus because he has promised to be there with us.

That doesn’t help identify the Church. You’re saying that if two or three Baptists come together in Jesus’ name, that is the Church;
if two or three Catholics come together in Jesus’ name, that is the Church;
if two or three Lutherans come together in Jesus’ name, that is the Church;
if two or three SDAs come together in Jesus’ name, that is the Church;
if two or three evangelicals come together in Jesus’ name, that is the Church;
if two or three Anglicans come together in Jesus’ name, that is the Church;
if two or three Presbyterians come together, that is the Church.

But that can’t be right, because 1Tim 3:15 says the Church is the “pillar and foundation of the TRUTH”, so the Church teaches only ONE truth - ie, ONE set of doctrines. Baptists, Catholics, Lutherans, SDAs, evangelicals, Anglicans and Presbyterians all teach DIFFERENT DOCTRINES, so they can’t all be the Church, because different doctrines can't possibly be the "truth". According to 1Tim 3:15, the Church teaches ONE truth, not different “truths”.

Your definition of “the Church” is nothing at all like the Church described in Acts. For example, Paul certainly did not consider that any “two or three” Christians gathered in Jesus’ name to be “the Church”. Did he go to any “two or three” Christians gathered in Jesus’ name to have his preaching approved (Gal 2:1-2) and to settle doctrinal matters (Acts 15:2-3)? No, he went to the recognized leaders of the Church in Jerusalem.

And it was not just any “two or three” Christians gathered in Jesus’ name who decided doctrinal matters, such as the matter of circumcision in Acts 15. It was the recognized leaders of the Church in Jerusalem who decided what doctrine was to be.

Furthermore, Jesus did not give “the keys of the kingdom of God” to just any “two or three” gathered in his name - Jesus gave the “keys” to one man, Peter, the first leader of the Church.

You can’t tell me where the Church described in Acts is to be found today - it must exist, because Jesus promised that his Church will never be destroyed - Matt 16:18.

 

[justbyfaith]

The Bible is a big book.

If an SDA, a Baptist, and a Presbyterian come together in the name of Jesus; and are worshiping Him, they are the church; they are unified in the singular doctrine of what saves a man....found in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 and in John 3:16.

What unifies the body of Christ together is the blood of Jesus.

Some doctrines are entirely peripheral in nature and are not essential to salvation.

If someone does not have unity on the essentials, they are not saved.

(If someone does not have unity on the non-essentials, they are of a different denomination. God has chosen to produce a variety concerning worship style and other things in order to draw in people of different dispositions.)

But if anyone is saved through the blood of the Lamb (i.e. born again) they are a member of the church; and where two or more of these meet together, that is an assembly of the church.

 

[marksman]

That doesn’t help identify the Church. You’re saying that if two or three Baptists come together in Jesus’ name, that is the Church;
if two or three Catholics come together in Jesus’ name, that is the Church;
if two or three Lutherans come together in Jesus’ name, that is the Church;
if two or three SDAs come together in Jesus’ name, that is the Church;
if two or three evangelicals come together in Jesus’ name, that is the Church;
if two or three Anglicans come together in Jesus’ name, that is the Church;
if two or three Presbyterians come together, that is the Church.

But that can’t be right, because 1Tim 3:15 says the Church is the “pillar and foundation of the TRUTH”, so the Church teaches only ONE truth - ie, ONE set of doctrines. Baptists, Catholics, Lutherans, SDAs, evangelicals, Anglicans and Presbyterians all teach DIFFERENT DOCTRINES, so they can’t all be the Church, because different doctrines can't possibly be the "truth". According to 1Tim 3:15, the Church teaches ONE truth, not different “truths”.

Your definition of “the Church” is nothing at all like the Church described in Acts. For example, Paul certainly did not consider that any “two or three” Christians gathered in Jesus’ name to be “the Church”. Did he go to any “two or three” Christians gathered in Jesus’ name to have his preaching approved (Gal 2:1-2) and to settle doctrinal matters (Acts 15:2-3)? No, he went to the recognized leaders of the Church in Jerusalem.

And it was not just any “two or three” Christians gathered in Jesus’ name who decided doctrinal matters, such as the matter of circumcision in Acts 15. It was the recognized leaders of the Church in Jerusalem who decided what doctrine was to be.

Furthermore, Jesus did not give “the keys of the kingdom of God” to just any “two or three” gathered in his name - Jesus gave the “keys” to one man, Peter, the first leader of the Church.

You can’t tell me where the Church described in Acts is to be found today - it must exist, because Jesus promised that his Church will never be destroyed - Matt 16:18.

Still playing ping pong I see. My understanding of the church is different from yours so let's leave it at that.

 

[marksman]

What a poor argument. The Catholic Churches in Rome, Paris, London, New York, Sydney, Jerusalem and Mexico City are exactly the same doctrinally are all under the authority of the Pope.

I never said they weren't.

 

[marksman]

If you're not willing to engage other posters in a debate, what are you doing here? You seem to have nothing to say.

I having nothing to say that you want to read. You are on a crusade to promote the catholic church. I am not.

 

[marksman]

Your questions were not directed at me. Why are you demanding that I answer questions that you never asked me?

So I'll try again:
Why did the Spirit send Paul to the Church leaders to have us his preaching approved?

By did Paul go to the Church leaders to settle a doctrinal dispute with Barnabas?

These are perfectly reasonable questions. If you don't know how to answer my questions, just say "I don't know."

Avoid the truth at all costs seem to be your argument.

 

[marksman]

Stop using simple logic to destroy childishly-stupid anti-Catholic arguments!

Of course, only the catholic church can prove anything. Where do I go to laugh?

 

[marksman]

You completely miss the point. The Bible contains history, but it is not a history book. It is IMPOSSIBLE to write early church history based on the Bible alone. Those who try make up their own history to fit their agenda, ignoring what Christians wrote in the first 3 centuries before the canon of the Bible had fully blossomed.

One thing at least is certain; whatever history teaches . . . at least the Christianity of history is not Protestantism. If ever there were a safe truth, it is this. And Protestantism . . . as a whole, feels it, and has felt it. This is shown in the determination . . . of dispensing with historical Christianity altogether, and of forming a Christianity from the Bible alone . . . To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant.
​

By John Henry Newman, an Anglican bishop and scholar, who set out to disprove Catholicism, and ended up converting based on the conviction of his findings.

Hallo, John Henry, hope you are having a nice day.

 

[RogerDC]

If an SDA, a Baptist, and a Presbyterian come together in the name of Jesus; and are worshiping Him, they are the church; they are unified in the singular doctrine of what saves a man....found in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 and in John 3:16.

… and many of them - the "faith alone" crowd - don't even the basics right. These "Christians" who deny that "a man is justified by works and not by faith alone" (James 2:24) and think their sins cannot prevent them from inheriting the kingdom of God.

If someone does not have unity on the essentials, they are not saved.

How would you know who is "saved"? Are you God?

Do Catholics have "the essentials"?

But if anyone is saved through the blood of the Lamb (i.e. born again) they are a member of the church

In that case, you don't know who the "church" is, because you cannot possibly know who is eternally saved.

and where two or more of these meet together, that is an assembly of the church.

Right … any nutty little "Christian" cult (like David Koresh's), the Jehovah's Witnesses, and the Catholic Church are all the "church"? I don't think so.

 

[RogerDC]

I never said they weren't.

This is what you said in post 625:
"The idea that a church was independent, local and congregational is rejected. No, it is not because the scriptures talk about the church at Corinth. The church at Rome. The church at Ephesus. The Church at Thyatira."

You seemed to imply that since there were Churches in different lands, this means they were independent of each other and not under the control of one central authority.

 

[RogerDC]

Avoid the truth at all costs seem to be your argument.

What do you mean by "Avoid the truth at all costs"?

 

[RogerDC]

Avoid the truth at all costs seem to be your argument.

You won't answer my question re Paul, so it seem it is you who avoiding the truth.

Why are you here if you're unwilling to engage other posters in a discussion?

 

[marksman]

You won't answer my question re Paul, so it seem it is you who avoiding the truth.

Why are you here if you're unwilling to engage other posters in a discussion?

You don't want a discussion. You want a fight. I can tell by your aggressive language. So count me out.

 

[justbyfaith]

Do Catholics have "the essentials"?

Some do. I believe that the Catholic Church is historically Thyatira in Revelation 2 and 3.

That particular church had a doctrine of salvation by works. But Jesus says to that church, "as many as have not this doctrine, and have not known the depths of satan, as they speak, I will put upon you no other burden."

So, I would conclude from that that there are some in the Catholic Church who do not abide by the doctrine of salvation by works. And they are better off for it.

Right … any nutty little "Christian" cult (like David Koresh's), the Jehovah's Witnesses, and the Catholic Church are all the "church"? I don't think so.

Did I say that adherents of David Koresh, Jehovah's Witnesses, or even Catholics, necessarily have faith in the shed blood of Jesus Christ alone to save them? I have doubts as to whether any of the three can even in any sense have a proper view on this subject.

 

[RogerDC]

You don't want a discussion. You want a fight. I can tell by your aggressive language. So count me out.

You don't want to discuss ANYTHING. So why are you here? All you do in whine and whinge; you have nothing constructive to say.

 

[justbyfaith]

Are you a man or a mouse?

He is a gentleman.

 

[Illuminator]

THIS THREAD SHOULD BE CLOSED.

 

[marksman]

You don't want to discuss ANYTHING. So why are you here? All you do in whine and whinge; you have nothing constructive to say.

You don't want a discussion. You want a fight. I can tell by your aggressive language. So count me out. Your last post confirmed this.

 

[RogerDC]

I believe that the Catholic Church is historically Thyatira in Revelation 2 and 3.

That particular church had a doctrine of salvation by works. But Jesus says to that church, "as many as have not this doctrine, and have not known the depths of satan, as they speak, I will put upon you no other burden."

Hilarious.

Why do say the Thyatira Church "had a doctrine of soacatation by works"?

 

[justbyfaith]

Hilarious.

Why do say the Thyatira Church "had a doctrine of soacatation by works"?

What is "soacatation"?