The Catholic Church gets put down a lot, but it was all that could help

[OzSpen]

the first church God established was w/ the Jews. Then Jesus fulfilled the Jewish law and prophecies and there was the Catholic Church first headed by St Peter

then the arch heretic aka human Luther broke w/ the Church b/c he wasn't cut out to be a priestbut would listen to anyone, then entered religious life anyway only to find he wasn't cut out for it and instead of just getting out, he divided Christ's Church

Did that church early church include the teachings of Pelagius (ca 360-418) and did he divide the church of the 3rd-4th century? How about Marcion, bishop of Sinope, in the 2nd century? What did he do to devastate the church?

Ever heard of Arianism and its teachings?

Take a read of 'Heresy in the Early Church: Christian History Timeline'.

You need a more comprehensive understanding of heretical teachings and leaders in the early church. Your view seems to be somewhat myopic.

Oz

 

[StanJ]

well, if i am such a dimwit, maybe you should try to convert someone else to your fake church. Any church not in union with Christ's ONE Church is very... uh... fake

Bet you didn't even read the scriptures either huh?

 

[tom55]

I'm glad you agree that it is not necessary to obtain the mediation of the pope or his subordinates, and that we can approach the throne of God ourselves in order to obtain grace.

I agree it is not necessary to have their mediation, however, they can be mediators just like you and I.

I am simply disagreeing with YOUR belief there is ONE mediator between God and man in the context YOU are putting it. And I backed up that statement with evidence from scripture.

You ONLY cited 1 Timothy 2:5, which refers to Jesus as the "one mediator,". This passage is not isolated and in full context (1 Timothy 2:1-7) it shows that you are in fact WRONG because you choose too cherry pick verses to support what YOU believe. In full context it shows that we are all mediators HOWEVER He is the primary mediator. We don't NEED other mediators for salvation but there can be other mediators who offer supplications, prayers etc.

I could also partially quote scripture, like you did, and make it look like Paul was only a persecutor of Christians (Acts 8:3) and he admitted it when he said, 'because I persecuted the church of God'; but that would be dishonest. A little honesty and research by you would show that the Roman Catholic Church does believe that Jesus is the one and only (first or primary) mediator. Here is what I cut and pasted from the Vatican website which links to the Catechism of the Catholic Church; (480) Jesus Christ is true God and true man, in the unity of his divine person; for this reason he is the one and only mediator between God and men.


Respectfully......Tom55

 

[tom55]

Did that church early church include the teachings of Pelagius (ca 360-418) and did he divide the church of the 3rd-4th century? How about Marcion, bishop of Sinope, in the 2nd century? What did he do to devastate the church?

Ever heard of Arianism and its teachings?

Take a read of 'Heresy in the Early Church: Christian History Timeline'.

You need a more comprehensive understanding of heretical teachings and leaders in the early church. Your view seems to be somewhat myopic.

Oz

Pelegius, Marcion and Arius were all considered, as you rightly point out, heretics. Someone had the authority to declare them heretics. What organization declared them heretics? Whatever organization declared them heretics or their teachings heretical must have had authority from God. The men (leaders) of the Church declared Pelegius, Marcion and Arius heretics. Jesus said, "If he will not listen to them (2-3 members of The Church), then speak of it to the Church; and if he will not even listen to the Church, then count him all one with the heathen and the publican". So there is a Church, with authority, that is the pillar and foundation of the truth that can call someone a heretic and their teachings heretical.

So what Church today has that authority?

No need for ScaliaFan to answer that question since we already know his answer.

 

[OzSpen]

Pelegius, Marcion and Arius were all considered, as you rightly point out, heretics. Someone had the authority to declare them heretics. What organization declared them heretics? Whatever organization declared them heretics or their teachings heretical must have had authority from God. The men (leaders) of the Church declared Pelegius, Marcion and Arius heretics. Jesus said, "If he will not listen to them (2-3 members of The Church), then speak of it to the Church; and if he will not even listen to the Church, then count him all one with the heathen and the publican". So there is a Church, with authority, that is the pillar and foundation of the truth that can call someone a heretic and their teachings heretical.

So what Church today has that authority?

No need for ScaliaFan to answer that question since we already know his answer.

That's the role of any local church or denomination that has a statement of faith based on Scripture.

The court of appeal is Scripture as 2 Tim 3:16-17 (NIV) confirms: 'All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work'.

That is the role of elders to make sure the Scriptures are the standard of Christian doctrine in any church.

Oz

 

[ScaliaFan]

Did that church early church include the teachings of Pelagius (ca 360-418) and did he divide the church of the 3rd-4th century? How about Marcion, bishop of Sinope, in the 2nd century? What did he do to devastate the church?

Ever heard of Arianism and its teachings?

Take a read of 'Heresy in the Early Church: Christian History Timeline'.

You need a more comprehensive understanding of heretical teachings and leaders in the early church. Your view seems to be somewhat myopic.

Oz

the heretics b4 Luther never seriously divided the Church as he did

and of course Luther didn't absolutely divide the Church.. b/c Jesus said " I will build My Church and the [very] gates of Hell will not prevail against it" (mt 16:`18). So really, although Luther did much damage, he has NOT utterly wasted the Church. No human can do that, and neither can Satan (gates of Hell)

But still, he did a lot of damage. The biggest damage is that noncatholics refuse to listen to the "talking points" of Catholics.. and dismiss something it would be well not to dismiss... The Catholic Church offers "things" the noncatholic churches do not.. cannot

yet most noncatholics shut their ears to this kind of thing, to their own detriment. Jesus said it is very hard to get to heaven... and so, it behooves us all to.. obey His every command, whether we u/stand it or not..

Catholics do not u/stand certain things either.. such as (I for one) dont u/stand why we have to "forgive" heinous evil done against us... but a good Christian tries to do so just the same

 

[ScaliaFan]

That's the role of any local church or denomination that has a statement of faith based on Scripture.

The court of appeal is Scripture as 2 Tim 3:16-17 (NIV) confirms: 'All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work'.

That is the role of elders to make sure the Scriptures are the standard of Christian doctrine in any church.

Oz

"useful" does not elide into: absolutely perfect and all-sufficient

meaning that Scirpture is not in and of itself all we Christians need for salvation. Even the demons believe and tremble, as it says in James 2:14

 

[StanJ]

"useful" does not elide into: absolutely perfect and all-sufficient

meaning that Scirpture is not in and of itself all we Christians need for salvation. Even the demons believe and tremble, as it says in James 2:14

We only need Jesus for salvation, which is what Peter taught in Acts. Scripture doesn't save us, it informs us of who it is that saves us, just as John 20:30-31 states.

 

[OzSpen]

the heretics b4 Luther never seriously divided the Church as he did

and of course Luther didn't absolutely divide the Church.. b/c Jesus said " I will build My Church and the [very] gates of Hell will not prevail against it" (mt 16:`18). So really, although Luther did much damage, he has NOT utterly wasted the Church. No human can do that, and neither can Satan (gates of Hell)

But still, he did a lot of damage. The biggest damage is that noncatholics refuse to listen to the "talking points" of Catholics.. and dismiss something it would be well not to dismiss... The Catholic Church offers "things" the noncatholic churches do not.. cannot

yet most noncatholics shut their ears to this kind of thing, to their own detriment. Jesus said it is very hard to get to heaven... and so, it behooves us all to.. obey His every command, whether we u/stand it or not..

Catholics do not u/stand certain things either.. such as (I for one) dont u/stand why we have to "forgive" heinous evil done against us... but a good Christian tries to do so just the same

I suggest you do some more study of historical theology to discern that:

1. When St Augustine challenged Pelagius on original sin, he was dealing with a core Christian doctrine of original sin. To deny original sin devastated the church in Pelagius's day.
2. The division that Arianism caused concerning Christology was so serious that it took the Council of Nicea (AD 325) to refute Arius and proclaim orthodox Christianity. Arianism most certainly divided the church.
3. Your myopia is coming through.

The difference with Luther's 95 theses being nailed to the Wittenberg church door in 1517 was to protest what the church had done in moving away from orthodox, biblical Christianity, particularly as it applied to justification by faith. A return to biblical Christianity is seen as division only by those who were promoting other than what the Scriptures said regarding Christology.

However, the facts are that under Marcion, the content of the canon of Scripture was challenged. For Pelagius, the division was over the teaching on original sin, and for Arianism, the challenge was the doctrine of the nature of Christ.

You are pulling my leg when you don't want to deal with the teaching of these heretics. And we haven't dealt with the heresies of Sabellianism, Modalism and Monarchianism. Some also want to add Montanism.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

"useful" does not elide into: absolutely perfect and all-sufficient

meaning that Scirpture is not in and of itself all we Christians need for salvation. Even the demons believe and tremble, as it says in James 2:14

That's a red herring reply.

 

[ScaliaFan]

I suggest you do some more study of historical theology to discern that:

1. When St Augustine challenged Pelagius on original sin, he was dealing with a core Christian doctrine of original sin. To deny original sin devastated the church in Pelagius's day.
2. The division that Arianism caused concerning Christology was so serious that it took the Council of Nicea (AD 325) to refute Arius and proclaim orthodox Christianity. Arianism most certainly divided the church.
3. Your myopia is coming through.

The difference with Luther's 95 theses being nailed to the Wittenberg church door in 1517 was to protest what the church had done in moving away from orthodox, biblical Christianity, particularly as it applied to justification by faith. A return to biblical Christianity is seen as division only by those who were promoting other than what the Scriptures said regarding Christology.

However, the facts are that under Marcion, the content of the canon of Scripture was challenged. For Pelagius, the division was over the teaching on original sin, and for Arianism, the challenge was the doctrine of the nature of Christ.

You are pulling my leg when you don't want to deal with the teaching of these heretics. And we haven't dealt with the heresies of Sabellianism, Modalism and Monarchianism. Some also want to add Montanism.

Oz

God doesn't want me to study that kind of thing @ this time in my life. I have more pressing concerns. But thanks anyway

i have studied some history of the Church, but that is no longer my "thing" as it were... not God's thing 4 me

 

[OzSpen]

God doesn't want me to study that kind of thing @ this time in my life. I have more pressing concerns. But thanks anyway

i have studied some history of the Church, but that is no longer my "thing" as it were... not God's thing 4 me

It's too bad it is not your 'kind of thing' at this point of your life because it is causing you to have a massive blind spot when you don't know the horrendous divisions in the church - theological divisions - caused by unorthodox theology in the first 5 centuries of the church's existence.

What causes you to not be interested in pursuing this heresy in the early church at 'this time' in your life? What's preventing your study to find the truth about the history of the early church?

Oz

 

[ScaliaFan]

It's too bad it is not your 'kind of thing' at this point of your life because it is causing you to have a massive blind spot when you don't know the horrendous divisions in the church -
Oz

AND you wouldn't know anything about having a blind spot within yourself of course

 

[ScaliaFan]

It's too bad it is not your 'kind of thing' at this point of your life because it is causing you to have a massive blind spot when you don't know the horrendous divisions in the church - theological divisions - caused by unorthodox theology in the first 5 centuries of the church's existence.

What causes you to not be interested in pursuing this heresy in the early church at 'this time' in your life? What's preventing your study to find the truth about the history of the early church?

Oz

doing God's will?

guess u dont u/stand that?

"Unless you do the will of the Father, you will not enter Heaven"

 

[StanJ]

"Unless you do the will of the Father, you will not enter Heaven"

I'm afraid that is actually not in the Bible.

 

[OzSpen]

AND you wouldn't know anything about having a blind spot within yourself of course

An accusation without evidence would be thrown out of court. On a Christian forum like this, an accusation without evidence is just as poor a defense. Now step up to the plate and provide the evidence against me.

 

[OzSpen]

doing God's will?

guess u dont u/stand that?

"Unless you do the will of the Father, you will not enter Heaven"

That's a red herring!

 

[tom55]

That's the role of any local church or denomination that has a statement of faith based on Scripture.
The court of appeal is Scripture as 2 Tim 3:16-17 (NIV) confirms: 'All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work'.
That is the role of elders to make sure the Scriptures are the standard of Christian doctrine in any church.

Oz

What is a statement of faith based on Scripture? Who defines what that is?? Don't all churches have that AND think they are right in their interpretation of Scripture?

Once again, and we have been thru this before, what if my "local Church" disagrees with your "local Church" on "a statement of faith based on Scripture"? Who's "local Church" is right if All scripture is God-breathed...." ? Since it is God-breathed then there can be no error in it and it is infallible.

If scripture is infallible AND God breathed then either your local Church or my local Church is wrong in it's interpretation of Scripture.

Based on your logic no one church has the fullness of the truth. Based on your logic ALL churches probably teach a mixture of the truth. As YOUR beliefs change and your "local church" doesn't meet your needs based on YOUR beliefs you can just go to a different church? Kind of like being in a cafeteria. If you judge your "local church's" interpretation of the bible as being wrong then you will never be sure who has the truth; you or them?

Based on your "local church" logic this makes being a follower of Christ more about YOU than about Him.

 

[ScaliaFan]

I'm afraid that is actually not in the Bible.

it is too

shows what u know


Matthew 7:21-23
21 Not everyone who says to Me, "Lord, Lord," shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven.
22 Many will say to Me in that day, "Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?"
23 And then I will declare to them, "I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness."

 

[ScaliaFan]

That's a red herring!

"Unless you do the will of the Father, you will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven"



Matthew 7:21-23


21 Not everyone who says to Me, "Lord, Lord," shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven.
22 Many will say to Me in that day, "Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?"
23 And then I will declare to them, "I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness."