The Catholic Church and Authority

[Mungo]

There are some differences between (Roman) Catholics and (Eastern) Orthodox over interpretation of scriptures. There are many differences between Catholics (and Orthodox) and most Protestants. There are many differences between the multitudinous Protestant denominations and church groups.

Who is right?
It all boils down to authority.
Who has the authority to make definitive interpretations of scriptures?
Who has the authority to pronounce which doctrines are true?

Let’s say someone says a particular passage should be interpreted metaphorically. Someone else says it should be interpreted literally. A third person says it has to be interpreted in the light of bible passage X. A fourth person says it should be interpreted in the light of a different passage Y. A fifth person says it is not relevant to the current situation however it is interpreted. A sixth person…….and so on!

Who is right? Whose interpretation do you go along with? Perhaps you come up with your own.

Whatever you do you will be right because the Holy Spirit is leading you personally into all truth (1Jn 2:27).
Right?

Except the others all believe the Holy Spirit is leading them personally into all truth!

Welcome to Protestantism!

Let’s try another scenario.
For 1500 years Christians throughout the world have interpreted a particular passage from one of Paul’s letters as meaning ABC. The some guy – let’s call him Luther - studies scripture and decides it has been interpreted wrongly and means XYZ, and teaches a doctrine based on his interpretation. Now just suppose that Paul himself appears and says “Actually Luther, you are wrong. It does mean ABC”. Who do you believe – Paul or Luther?

Well Paul obviously – he wrote it. But suppose the apostle Peter came along instead and says – “Luther is wrong, Paul meant ABC and Luther’s doctrine is wrong.” Who do you believe? Still Peter - he was an apostle. He was taught by Christ and was given authority by Christ. Luther was not.

But suppose neither Paul not Peter turned up, but Timothy instead. And Timothy says – “Luther is wrong, Paul meant ABC and Luther’s doctrine is wrong.” Who do you believe? Timothy has been taught personally by Paul. Paul has laid hands on him and appointed him to be a minister of Christ Jesus and an overseer in Ephesus; instructed him to pass on to other faithful people the teaching that Paul has given him. Of course I would trust Timothy. He was given teaching and authority by Paul. Luther was not.

That’s how we know what the correct interpretation of scripture is. That’s how we know what true doctrines are. We get them from the apostles because they were given true doctrines by Christ and the authority to teach them by Christ. And they passed them on to faithful people who would pass them on in their turn (2Tim 2:1-2).
We don’t get them from personal opinions of those who have not been given such authority.

It all boils down to authority!

Let’s simplify it another way.

Group 1 proposes a doctrine based on a literal interpretation of scripture.

Group 2 proposes a different doctrine based on a metaphorical interpretation of scripture.

You have three choices.

1. You decide that no-one has any authority and their interpretations are just opinions. In that case there is no absolute truth. But then why study the Bible if all you get are conflicting opinions? You might think there is absolute truth but in fact all you have are differing opinions.

2. You decide that one group is right because you think their interpretation is the most “biblical”. But all you have done is decide that your personal opinion trumps the others. Who gave you the authority to decide which is “biblical”, which is right or wrong? Does a particular group seem ‘right’ to you? But that doesn’t mean it is right. You are not infallible.

3. You look to see where there is a group that God has given the authority to interpret scripture definitively and teach true doctrine.
Such a group must go back to the apostles because they were given the teaching and authority by Christ.
Such a group must have been passed on true doctrine from the apostles and the authority to interpret scripture correctly.
Is there one? Or did Christ abandon his Church to fall into error, despite his promise that the gates of hell would not prevail against it?
No of course not.
There must be such a group, a church - and there is one.

Welcome to the Catholic Church!

Jesus said:
"If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.” (Mt 15:17-18)

Jesus’ words only make sense if there is a visible Church with authority over its members; a Church that was founded by Christ himself, not by any man 15+ centuries later.

Of course, you may decide that the Holy Spirit is infallibly telling you that Mt 15:16-17 doesn’t really mean what it appears to mean….

I maintain that there is only one Church that can be traced back to the apostles and contains all the authority that Christ gave it. And that is the Catholic Church. The Orthodox Church is close but it doesn’t accept the authority of the Pope as the successor of Peter.

The Catholic Church has the four scriptural marks of the Church Christ founded, as described by Paul and proclaimed in the Nicene Creed – one, holy, catholic and apostolic.

Eph 2:19-22
So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, [catholic]
built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, [apostolic]
in whom the whole structure is joined together [one]
and grows into a holy temple in the Lord; in whom you also are built into it for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit. [holy]

 

[StanJ]

There are some differences between (Roman) Catholics and (Eastern) Orthodox over interpretation of scriptures. There are many differences between Catholics (and Orthodox) and most Protestants. There are many differences between the multitudinous Protestant denominations and church groups.

Who is right?
It all boils down to authority.
Who has the authority to make definitive interpretations of scriptures?
Who has the authority to pronounce which doctrines are true?

Let’s say someone says a particular passage should be interpreted metaphorically. Someone else says it should be interpreted literally. A third person says it has to be interpreted in the light of bible passage X. A fourth person says it should be interpreted in the light of a different passage Y. A fifth person says it is not relevant to the current situation however it is interpreted. A sixth person…….and so on!

Who is right? Whose interpretation do you go along with? Perhaps you come up with your own.

Whatever you do you will be right because the Holy Spirit is leading you personally into all truth (1Jn 2:27).
Right?

Except the others all believe the Holy Spirit is leading them personally into all truth!

Welcome to Protestantism!

Let’s try another scenario.
For 1500 years Christians throughout the world have interpreted a particular passage from one of Paul’s letters as meaning ABC. The some guy – let’s call him Luther - studies scripture and decides it has been interpreted wrongly and means XYZ, and teaches a doctrine based on his interpretation. Now just suppose that Paul himself appears and says “Actually Luther, you are wrong. It does mean ABC”. Who do you believe – Paul or Luther?

Well Paul obviously – he wrote it. But suppose the apostle Peter came along instead and says – “Luther is wrong, Paul meant ABC and Luther’s doctrine is wrong.” Who do you believe? Still Peter - he was an apostle. He was taught by Christ and was given authority by Christ. Luther was not.

But suppose neither Paul not Peter turned up, but Timothy instead. And Timothy says – “Luther is wrong, Paul meant ABC and Luther’s doctrine is wrong.” Who do you believe? Timothy has been taught personally by Paul. Paul has laid hands on him and appointed him to be a minister of Christ Jesus and an overseer in Ephesus; instructed him to pass on to other faithful people the teaching that Paul has given him. Of course I would trust Timothy. He was given teaching and authority by Paul. Luther was not.

That’s how we know what the correct interpretation of scripture is. That’s how we know what true doctrines are. We get them from the apostles because they were given true doctrines by Christ and the authority to teach them by Christ. And they passed them on to faithful people who would pass them on in their turn (2Tim 2:1-2).
We don’t get them from personal opinions of those who have not been given such authority.

It all boils down to authority!

Let’s simplify it another way.

Group 1 proposes a doctrine based on a literal interpretation of scripture.

Group 2 proposes a different doctrine based on a metaphorical interpretation of scripture.

You have three choices.

1. You decide that no-one has any authority and their interpretations are just opinions. In that case there is no absolute truth. But then why study the Bible if all you get are conflicting opinions? You might think there is absolute truth but in fact all you have are differing opinions.

2. You decide that one group is right because you think their interpretation is the most “biblical”. But all you have done is decide that your personal opinion trumps the others. Who gave you the authority to decide which is “biblical”, which is right or wrong? Does a particular group seem ‘right’ to you? But that doesn’t mean it is right. You are not infallible.

3. You look to see where there is a group that God has given the authority to interpret scripture definitively and teach true doctrine.
Such a group must go back to the apostles because they were given the teaching and authority by Christ.
Such a group must have been passed on true doctrine from the apostles and the authority to interpret scripture correctly.
Is there one? Or did Christ abandon his Church to fall into error, despite his promise that the gates of hell would not prevail against it?
No of course not.
There must be such a group, a church - and there is one.

Welcome to the Catholic Church!

Jesus said:
"If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.” (Mt 15:17-18)

Jesus’ words only make sense if there is a visible Church with authority over its members; a Church that was founded by Christ himself, not by any man 15+ centuries later.

Of course, you may decide that the Holy Spirit is infallibly telling you that Mt 15:16-17 doesn’t really mean what it appears to mean….

I maintain that there is only one Church that can be traced back to the apostles and contains all the authority that Christ gave it. And that is the Catholic Church. The Orthodox Church is close but it doesn’t accept the authority of the Pope as the successor of Peter.

The Catholic Church has the four scriptural marks of the Church Christ founded, as described by Paul and proclaimed in the Nicene Creed – one, holy, catholic and apostolic.

Eph 2:19-22
So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, [catholic]
built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, [apostolic]
in whom the whole structure is joined together [one]
and grows into a holy temple in the Lord; in whom you also are built into it for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit. [holy]

Conveyed like a true inculcated Roman Catholic without any regard for fact. Paul teaches very clearly the overseers were the highest office in the church. The apostles were just sucks, Apostles and their Authority was not transferable. They were the impetus to get the church started, which they did. No where did Jesus ever imply or assert that there was to be one person responsible for his church other than himself. His written word tells us that he is the only mediator between God and man. The New Covenant is all about God writing his laws on an individual's heart and having rule in that individual's life. The written word was given us as our arbitrator. I'm afraid all the RCC did was usurp Jesus' Authority on Earth.

 

[Mungo]

Conveyed like a true inculcated Roman Catholic without any regard for fact. Paul teaches very clearly the overseers were the highest office in the church. The apostles were just sucks, Apostles and their Authority was not transferable. They were the impetus to get the church started, which they did. Know where did Jesus ever imply or assert that there was to be one person responsible for his church other than himself. His written word tells us that he is the only mediator between God and man. The New Covenant is all about God writing his laws on an individual's heart and having rule in that individual's life. The written word was given us as our arbitrator. I'm afraid all the RCC did was usurp Jesus' Authority on Earth.

There is a maxim "That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence"

Your opinions, without evidence to support them, are just that - your personal opinions.

I note also that you make no attempt to actually address the points I made.

 

[StanJ]

There is a maxim "That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence"

Your opinions, without evidence to support them, are just that - your personal opinions.

I note also that you make no attempt to actually address the points I made.

So then I guess this makes two posts of yours we can ignore?

 

[tom55]

Conveyed like a true inculcated Roman Catholic without any regard for fact. Paul teaches very clearly the overseers were the highest office in the church. The apostles were just sucks, Apostles and their Authority was not transferable. They were the impetus to get the church started, which they did. Know where did Jesus ever imply or assert that there was to be one person responsible for his church other than himself. His written word tells us that he is the only mediator between God and man. The New Covenant is all about God writing his laws on an individual's heart and having rule in that individual's life. The written word was given us as our arbitrator. I'm afraid all the RCC did was usurp Jesus' Authority on Earth.

If Mungo is an " inculcated Roman Catholic without any regard for fact" then what does that make you or anyone else on this forum? Are you the only one who decides who has the facts??

"....Apostles and their Authority was not transferable."???

Jesus taught the Apostles the Truth. The Apostles then taught other men the Truth. Those men then taught other men the Truth. Those men then taught other men the Truth and so on and so on until we get to the year 2016. If anyone taught anything other than the Truth they were to be treated as a tax collector or pagan or heathen (choose your translation) and considered a heretic or the anti-Christ. So I ask you StanJ: When did that Truth stop being taught if it wasn't transferable as you articulated in your opinion?

Know (No) where did Jesus ever imply or assert that there was to be one person responsible for his church other than himself.

So when we have a disagreement over lets say baptism or the Eucharist we should call Jesus up and ask him who is right? Do you have his phone number??

 

[lforrest]

If Mungo is an " inculcated Roman Catholic without any regard for fact" then what does that make you or anyone else on this forum? Are you the only one who decides who has the facts??

"....Apostles and their Authority was not transferable."???

Jesus taught the Apostles the Truth. The Apostles then taught other men the Truth. Those men then taught other men the Truth. Those men then taught other men the Truth and so on and so on until we get to the year 2016. If anyone taught anything other than the Truth they were to be treated as a tax collector or pagan or heathen (choose your translation) and considered a heretic or the anti-Christ. So I ask you StanJ: When did that Truth stop being taught if it wasn't transferable as you articulated in your opinion?

Know (No) where did Jesus ever imply or assert that there was to be one person responsible for his church other than himself.

So when we have a disagreement over lets say baptism or the Eucharist we should call Jesus up and ask him who is right? Do you have his phone number??

He's at his dad's house right now. He invited me over to his place for dinner. I could ask him then, but I don't want to discuss work at the table. Let's just deal with it next week.

But seriously, you know there are saints that have prayed for years for clarification of certain scriptures. They eventually got an answer, guess you have to ask if it is worth the effort.

 

[tom55]

He's at his dad's house right now. He invited me over to his place for dinner. I could ask him then, but I don't want to discuss work at the table. Let's just deal with it next week.
But seriously, you know there are saints that have prayed for years for clarification of certain scriptures. They eventually got an answer, guess you have to ask if it is worth the effort.

If the rule in His house is the same as the rule in my house we don't answer the phone during dinner. So He probably won't answer the phone.

So lets say one saint prays for years and gets the answer that the baptism is symbolic and another saint prays for years and gets the answer it is required for salvation. Which saint do we Christians listen to??

(could you give me your definition of saint)

 

[lforrest]

If the rule in His house is the same as the rule in my house we don't answer the phone during dinner. So He probably won't answer the phone.

So lets say one saint prays for years and gets the answer that the baptism is symbolic and another saint prays for years and gets the answer it is required for salvation. Which saint do we Christians listen to??

(could you give me your definition of saint)

Well, good luck finding two people devoted enough to do that. I don't think it would happen.

In the example I'm thinking of, I can't remember where I saw it, but believe he was a Catholic Saint. He prayed a long time about something and was eventually visited by an angel, if I remember correctly. There was a painting of him standing outside a little house.

 

[StanJ]

If Mungo is an " inculcated Roman Catholic without any regard for fact" then what does that make you or anyone else on this forum? Are you the only one who decides who has the facts??

It's called consensus and majority opinion, which in the case of this forum, goes against Mungo and yourself and most other RC's. It's a matter of making your case through the word of God. That is the only responsibility I have, and from there it is the Holy Spirit that has to get through to you and unless you have the Holy Spirit he won't be able to do that. False teaching has been in the church since its very inception, and we are warned about it many times in scriptures. Anybody who teaches anything that goes against what the scriptures say is considered a false teacher and as such RCC has done much in the way of contributing to false teaching. If one does not have their own perspective other than what the RCC teaches, then they are considered inculcated. Rather than react, respond with refutation that is supportable in Scripture.

"....Apostles and their Authority was not transferable."???
Jesus taught the Apostles the Truth. The Apostles then taught other men the Truth. Those men then taught other men the Truth. Those men then taught other men the Truth and so on and so on until we get to the year 2016. If anyone taught anything other than the Truth they were to be treated as a tax collector or pagan or heathen (choose your translation) and considered a heretic or the anti-Christ. So I ask you StanJ: When did that Truth stop being taught if it wasn't transferable as you articulated in your opinion?

Teaching doesn't make one an apostle so trying to twist teaching into apostleship is not going to work. The key to who were accepted as Apostles was that they were all personally chosen by Jesus, with the sole exception of the one in Acts 1 that were chosen by the remaining Apostles and who in my opinion made a mistake. That of course is not the topic for this thread. There is no record other than the foregoing, of apostleship being transferred to a subsequent generation. He definitely never intended there to be a human Shepard when he was the shepherd and a human mediator when he was the one and only mediator. If you can't defend your point of view from the Bible then your point of view means nothing here.

[/i](No) where did Jesus ever imply or assert that there was to be one person responsible for his church other than himself.
So when we have a disagreement over lets say baptism or the Eucharist we should call Jesus up and ask him who is right? Do you have his phone number??

Being facetious only shows that you have no real argument for the points I made but human nature being as it is you decide to take the low road. All this confirms is if you don't have an answer from the RCC, then you have no idea how to respond. Another indication of inculcation.

 

[mjrhealth]

The Catholic Church has the four scriptural marks of the Church Christ founded, as described by Paul and proclaimed in the Nicene Creed – one, holy, catholic and apostolic.

It also has al the marks of satan

Joh_8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

The catholic church has no more authority than any other man. Jesus never gave it any authority its all mens false doctines.But as Jesus said, people love it that way.

 

[brakelite]

Before Christ, the priests of paganism and of an apostate Judaism, lorded it over their people and demanded all submit to their authority. They had become as it were, gods themselves in as much as they , according to them, and only they, held the keys to eternity. Jesus dismantled this system, establishing a priesthood that encompassed all men equally, making all men servants and equals in the sight of God, and reinstituting a direct relationship between God and man. He removed the thrones of these usurpers, and declared "ye have but one Master, even Christ, and all these are your brethren". And on one occasion when some of His disciples were arguing over who would have the greatest authority, Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them.
26 But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister;
27 And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant:
28 Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many. Matthew 20:25-28

Thus did Jesus establish His church, and this became the first of two great principles on which the church was founded, outside of which Christianity disappears and reverts to paganism. The second principle had to do with doctrine. Previously, within paganism and apostate Judaism, salvation was considered a reward for a good life. Man earned his right to heaven through his own efforts. A price was set and it was the priests who set it. Christ turned that on its head in declaring the love of the Father and proclaiming eternal life as a gift to be accepted through faith. So on these two great fundamental principles Christianity flourished, but as these principles were abused, so Christianity fell into apostasy. The moment the church proclaimed the priest as mediator, it removed Christ from His role as sole Mediator. The moment the church exalted works as a means to salvation, it removed Christ's role as Redeemer. And thus was set in motion a downward spiral from which Rome has never recovered. And lacking any true spiritual power to convert souls, it became reliant upon the temporal sword of pagan powers, "adulterating herself with the kings of the earth", and so added to her apostate state by removing another foundational principle of being a human being living under the aegis of a righteous God, religious liberty. Claiming authority over man's conscience, demanding submission to her and condemning and destroying all dissenters, she thus established herself as the true Antichrist, just as Paul warned: Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

So called Roman Catholic authority to interpret scripture...to set the price of redemption through observance of rites and ceremonies...to place itself as the role of mediator between God and man...is no authority at all, but a usurpation of power and authority which belongs solely and only to Jesus Christ. Rome has no authority except as anyone voluntarily surrenders to it....much in the same way an idol has no authority until one surrenders to it and bows down to it.
Jesus Christ is my Head. I repudiate and utterly reject any claim over me by the haughty arrogant Roman pontiff, and will never, until the day I die, stop protesting and proclaiming the truth of apostolic Christianity as opposed to the apostate degenerate pagan imposter and counterfeit faith of the church of Rome.

Note my lower signature....

 

[Mungo]

I find it interesting that our Protestants here are avoiding the issue of authority and how we can be sure of the truth. They have dived off into personal attacks, attacks on the Catholic Church, stories about saints praying for years - but nothing on authority, except that in their personal opinions nobody has any, or everybody has it. But that’s Protestantism. Everyone is entitled to make their own decision on what doctrines are true and false.

How then do we know the truth? Jesus said the truth would set us free (Jn 8:32) but if you cannot know the truth for sure then you are not set free. If six Protestants have six different views of a particular doctrine then which is right? Are any of them right? How can any one of them know for sure that they are right?

Do you really think that Jesus founded a Church, and then abandoned it to error and confusion? It’s Ecclesial Deism.

Deism is the belief that God created the world but then left it to run on its own, rather like a clockmaker winding up the clock he had made and just leaving it to run. The alternative, which (most) Christians believe is Theism which says that God created the world and also sustains it and intervenes in it.

Ecclesial Deism is the theory that Christ created a Church but then withdrew and left it to fall into apostasy and error. It is the belief that he would allow his Church to corrupt some essentials of the gospel and promote false doctrines.

Ecclesial Deism is believed by Protestants (even if they do not acknowledge it) and groups like Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses and others. They have to believe this because they were all founded in the last 500 years and therefore have to propose that the original Church fell into apostasy and that their particular founder (be it Martin Luther, John Calvin, John Darby, Joseph Smith, Charles Russell etc.) recovered the true version of the gospel at (or since) the Reformation. They cannot agree on exactly when this apostasy occurred, and indeed any date causes problems for them, especially a date before the end of the 4th century. This latter because that is when the Canon of the New Testament was finally defined and without a Church leadership capable of infallibly defining a correct canon of scripture, there is no way of knowing which books should be in the NT.

Ecclesial Deism regards the writings of the early father, and the councils of the Church with suspicion, or it cherry picks as to which of their doctrines are valid and which are not. Again this has the problem that if the Church leadership fell into apostasy there is no way of knowing which of the doctrines they defined are true (if any).

But that leaves no basis for the definition of any doctrines but one’s own personal choice of canon, and one’s own personal interpretation of that canon. Thus Protestantism is no better than Mormonism which uses the book or Mormon, or the SDAs who used the visions of Ellen White.

The only honest way out of this is to reject Ecclesial Deism and acknowledge that Christ did set up a Church, one Church; that he fulfilled his promises to remind it of all that he had taught (in the past), to guide it into all truth (in the future) and that the gates of hell would not prevail against it; that Jesus Christ remained with the Church he founded and has sustained it and guided it for 2,000 years, and continues to do so today.

 

[Deborah_]

I find it interesting that our Protestants here are avoiding the issue of authority and how we can be sure of the truth. They have dived off into personal attacks, attacks on the Catholic Church, stories about saints praying for years - but nothing on authority, except that in their personal opinions nobody has any, or everybody has it. But that’s Protestantism. Everyone is entitled to make their own decision on what doctrines are true and false.

How then do we know the truth? Jesus said the truth would set us free (Jn 8:32) but if you cannot know the truth for sure then you are not set free. If six Protestants have six different views of a particular doctrine then which is right? Are any of them right? How can any one of them know for sure that they are right?

Do you really think that Jesus founded a Church, and then abandoned it to error and confusion? It’s Ecclesial Deism.

Deism is the belief that God created the world but then left it to run on its own, rather like a clockmaker winding up the clock he had made and just leaving it to run. The alternative, which (most) Christians believe is Theism which says that God created the world and also sustains it and intervenes in it.

Ecclesial Deism is the theory that Christ created a Church but then withdrew and left it to fall into apostasy and error. It is the belief that he would allow his Church to corrupt some essentials of the gospel and promote false doctrines.

Is it really necessary to have 'correct' knowledge of all Christian doctrines in order to be saved? The demons know the exact truth, after all (James 219)! It is only necessary to be a disciple (follower) of Jesus to 'know the truth' (John 8:31,32).

As for "allowing the Church to fall into error", Scripture actually predicts this! (Acts 20:29,30) ​But Christ hasn't just left us to it; He has sent prophets to recall His Church to the truth. Unfortunately, if certain sections of the church won't listen....

It is over-easy to assume that Protestants have no regard for the teachings of the Fathers and of the Church councils. All mainstream Protestants adhere to the Nicean Creed, for example, as well as to the agreed NT canon (the JWs and Mormons are a different case). Luther and Calvin actually went back to the teachings of the early church; they weren't inventing any hideous new doctrines.

 

[mjrhealth]

How then do we know the truth?

Joh 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
Joh 16:14 He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.

But so few believe Him, prefer teh doctirces of men to the Truth that is in Christ Jesus,

1Jn_5:6 This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.
1Jn_5:8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

 

[tom55]

Well, good luck finding two people devoted enough to do that. I don't think it would happen.

In the example I'm thinking of, I can't remember where I saw it, but believe he was a Catholic Saint. He prayed a long time about something and was eventually visited by an angel, if I remember correctly. There was a painting of him standing outside a little house.

I don't understand your answers.

I will make my questions less wordy: If two saints pray about the same passage in scripture and they both end up with a different interpretation who has the correct interpretation?

Who is a saint?

 

[brakelite]

I don't understand your answers.

I will make my questions less wordy: If two saints pray about the same passage in scripture and they both end up with a different interpretation who has the correct interpretation?

Who is a saint?

Who cares what two other saints come up with. They both may be wrong. What is essential is you making up your own mind and coming to your own conclusion as to what is truth. Because when you meet your Maker face to face, you will not be able to explain your errors by saying, "that's what he told me".

 

[tom55]

It's called consensus and majority opinion, which in the case of this forum, goes against Mungo and yourself and most other RC's. It's a matter of making your case through the word of God. That is the only responsibility I have, and from there it is the Holy Spirit that has to get through to you and unless you have the Holy Spirit he won't be able to do that. False teaching has been in the church since its very inception, and we are warned about it many times in scriptures. Anybody who teaches anything that goes against what the scriptures say is considered a false teacher and as such RCC has done much in the way of contributing to false teaching. If one does not have their own perspective other than what the RCC teaches, then they are considered inculcated. Rather than react, respond with refutation that is supportable in Scripture.
Teaching doesn't make one an apostle so trying to twist teaching into apostleship is not going to work. The key to who were accepted as Apostles was that they were all personally chosen by Jesus, with the sole exception of the one in Acts 1 that were chosen by the remaining Apostles and who in my opinion made a mistake. That of course is not the topic for this thread. There is no record other than the foregoing, of apostleship being transferred to a subsequent generation. He definitely never intended there to be a human Shepard when he was the shepherd and a human mediator when he was the one and only mediator. If you can't defend your point of view from the Bible then your point of view means nothing here.
Being facetious only shows that you have no real argument for the points I made but human nature being as it is you decide to take the low road. All this confirms is if you don't have an answer from the RCC, then you have no idea how to respond. Another indication of inculcation.

If we are going by consensus or majority opinion in the world then what you as a Protestant Christian believe is loosing because there are more Catholics than Protestants. We as Christians loose world wide because there are more people who adhere to other faiths than to the Christian faith. I like how you put "on this forum". I guess you don't want to admit that your beliefs are not of the majority opinion or consensus in the real world? I read your answer as that you are admitting that you are an inoculated Protestant.

The apostles made a mistake? They must not have been divinely inspired?? But StanJ is since he noticed their mistake??? I can defend my belief and it is biblical: For you are Peter and on this rock I will build my Church. I haven't read anywhere in the bible where it says You are Charles Parham or Martin Luther and on this rock I will build my church.

There doesn't have to be a record. If I tell you the truth and you tell someone else and they tell someone else and they tell someone else for 2000 years it is impossible to keep a record of who told who. If anyone teaches anything different they are heretics. Your just being ridicules with your answer 'there is no record other than the apostleship being transferred to a subsequent generation'.

You are the one who said, "Know (No) where did Jesus ever imply or assert that there was to be one person responsible for his church other than himself".
How am I being facetious? According to YOU Jesus is the only one responsible for his church. If that is true then we need ask him only our questions about hard to understand scripture so that his church will only teach the truth. We can not accept an answer from ANY man including StanJ or the Pope based on your logic.

 

[tom55]

As for "allowing the Church to fall into error", Scripture actually predicts this! (Acts 20:29,30) ​But Christ hasn't just left us to it; He has sent prophets to recall His Church to the truth. Unfortunately, if certain sections of the church won't listen....

Jesus also said that the gates of hell will not prevail against his church which means the truth never left. So there is no reason to "recall His Church to the truth" because the truth never left us.

If it did can you tell me when you think it happened??

Also in Acts 20:29-30 it talks about savage wolves that will come in among us and will not spare the flock and from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them.

That just means that some will follow false prophets or teachers who distort the truth. That doesn't mean the truth left us. Some stayed in the truth, the true Church, and some were drawn away. So the Church did not fall into error; just some of its members.

 

[mjrhealth]

Jesus also said that the gates of hell will not prevail against his church which means the truth never left. So there is no reason to "recall His Church to the truth" because the truth never left us.

Yes He did , and He is not lying, howbeit your church, the church that men have built, that is an entirely different story.

 

[Deborah_]

Jesus also said that the gates of hell will not prevail against his church which means the truth never left. So there is no reason to "recall His Church to the truth" because the truth never left us.

If it did can you tell me when you think it happened??

Also in Acts 20:29-30 it talks about savage wolves that will come in among us and will not spare the flock and from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them.

That just means that some will follow false prophets or teachers who distort the truth. That doesn't mean the truth left us. Some stayed in the truth, the true Church, and some were drawn away. So the Church did not fall into error; just some of its members.

There is quite a jump between "the gates of Hell will not prevail against the Church" and "the truth will never leave the church." How do we know that is what Jesus means? Nowhere in the NT letters do the apostles seem to believe that the church is immune from falling into error!

As for false doctrines coming in, it happens everywhere, all the time. It happened during the first century (the Corinthian church contained some who didn't believe in the resurrection). There is no dramatic cut-off point that I'm aware of between the church of 'truth' and the church of 'untruth'. Nor is there any church or denomination that I know of that has lost all the truth.

Paul wrote to the Galatians, "Even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God's curse!" (Galatians 1:8) Which implies that we must be alert to the possibility of false doctrine even at the highest levels of the church. For anyone (not just Catholics) to claim that their church is somehow free from all possibility of error is, to my mind, dangerously naive.