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

[OzSpen]

Your welcome. Thank you for responding and your apology. Some on this site have a problem with apologizing.

For me that leads to a question (in my own little head) that you may be able to help me answer:

There are lot's of things that various Christian Churches practice that are not in the NT! Does that make their Doctrine or interpretation of Scripture wrong?

For me to answer the doctrine question I always fall back to my first love; History! (early church father writings)

Tom,

Even though there may be practices (church buildings, crosses, holy water, incense, etc) that are not stated in the NT, my understanding is that the primary way to know if doctrine of Scripture is right or wrong is to check the church's or denomination's 'Statement of Faith'. Does this Statement of Faith agree with Scripture? To me, that's the only test that matters. This is where a discussion with the elders of the church about questions you have about the Statement is necessary.

Going to the early church fathers (ECF) for help will probably get you into more trouble than enough because there is so much divergence of opinion in the ECF. There are those who accept baptismal regeneration (e.g. Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Ambrose) and those who do not. See the article, 'Baptism and Salvation', which gives the names of the ECF who supported and disbelieved the teaching on baptismal regeneration. Then there was the teaching of Tertullian who was a Montanist, an early Pentecostal (see New International Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements), which was a view not supported by most of the ECF.

That's why I would not use the ECF as a way to check out doctrine. Instead, I would use Scripture as the primary source and only use the ECF to check how they interpreted the doctrine. For me it's 'Scripture alone' as the standard for any doctrine, but I understand Scripture needs to be interpreted as it is written in a foreign culture in another language to my own.

I also enjoy history, but it is not infallible. Scripture is infallible in the original documents. See 'The History of the Doctrine of Inspiration From the Ancient Church Through the Reformation' (James Sawyer) for an examination from history of what the early church taught about Scripture.

Oz

 

[tom55]

Tom,

Even though there may be practices (church buildings, crosses, holy water, incense, etc) that are not stated in the NT, my understanding is that the primary way to know if doctrine of Scripture is right or wrong is to check the church's or denomination's 'Statement of Faith'. Does this Statement of Faith agree with Scripture? To me, that's the only test that matters. This is where a discussion with the elders of the church about questions you have about the Statement is necessary.

Going to the early church fathers (ECF) for help will probably get you into more trouble than enough because there is so much divergence of opinion in the ECF. There are those who accept baptismal regeneration (e.g. Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Ambrose) and those who do not. See the article, 'Baptism and Salvation', which gives the names of the ECF who supported and disbelieved the teaching on baptismal regeneration. Then there was the teaching of Tertullian who was a Montanist, an early Pentecostal (see New International Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements), which was a view not supported by most of the ECF.

That's why I would not use the ECF as a way to check out doctrine. Instead, I would use Scripture as the primary source and only use the ECF to check how they interpreted the doctrine. For me it's 'Scripture alone' as the standard for any doctrine, but I understand Scripture needs to be interpreted as it is written in a foreign culture in another language to my own.

I also enjoy history, but it is not infallible. Scripture is infallible in the original documents. See 'The History of the Doctrine of Inspiration From the Ancient Church Through the Reformation' (James Sawyer) for an examination from history of what the early church taught about Scripture.

Oz

I read the links you provided. The History of the Doctrine of Inspiration From the Ancient Church Through the Reformation was interesting. I noticed how the writer wrote approximately 1300 words total when citing Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origin, Augustine, Cyprian and the North African Church (8 people).

They then wrote approximately 1300 words total when citing Luther and Calvin (2 people). To me this shows an obvious bias. I look for these inconsistences and biases when reading what people write about church history, doctrine, early church fathers etc. They seem to easily find everything that supports their bias when quoting pre-reformation theologians (church fathers etc.) and then make post reformation theologians seem like the enlightened ones! Truly dishonest and sad.

I suspect if I were to ask Dr. Google I could find a similar writing that contradicts what you provided and they would more than likely be written by Orthodox or Catholics. It is then up to me to look at both articles and decide who makes the best or most logical argument based on Scripture.

I think we agree (as do all experts in Christianity) that the early church fathers did not agree on EVERYTHING but most all of them agreed when it came to the issue of what we as Christians had to do OR believe to be saved (Baptism, Transubstantiation, works, faith etc.). The early church fathers, along with other historical writings, pretty much answered every doctrinal question we could ever come up with.

The other link you provided, Baptism and Salvation, listed three early church fathers who did not come right out and support baptismal regeneration. I have a book about the Early Church Fathers that list 15 who support it in their writings.

Keep in mind also, just because someone is silent on an issue doesn't mean they don't support it. For instance, Clement of Rome. It may have been common knowledge or belief during his time that Baptism Saves you therefore he would not feel a need to write it abut it our defend it. One thing Clement did write was, " How can we hope to enter into the royal residence of God unless we keep our baptism holy and undefiled?"

So I ask: How can a baptism be unholy or defiled if it is just a symbol?

History is infallible. If it happened, it happened. Some men just like to twist it to their advantage. Just like they do scripture.

 

[tom55]

Oz, You never answered this post!

Since you and I disagree on this issue shouldn't we do as Scripture (Matthew 18:17) says to settle our differences? I believe your Salvation is in jeopardy if you don't accept the truth of scripture that I have given you.

Which Church do you choose to settle our differences?

I look forward to your response.

 

[Phoneman777]

thanks 4 telling me what i believe, as you anticatholics always do. You are so presumptuous

you have no clue where i am at spiritually... would take 2 bible sized book to explain and even then you would resist...

Friend, in Catholicism exists the "Imprimatur - the official seal affixed to any Catholic document to signify "absolutely no heresy contained herein".

Now since there are countless Catholic documents bearing the Imprimatur that make such outrageous, blasphemous claims as that the pope is "God on Earth", and the "Mediator" through which alone we obtain salvation, if one fails to believe and accept all teachings found in such documents, Catholicism regards that individual as not Catholic, but a "heretic" like me. So, which are you?

 

[tom55]

Friend, in Catholicism exists the "Imprimatur - the official seal affixed to any Catholic document to signify "absolutely no heresy contained herein".

Now since there are countless Catholic documents bearing the Imprimatur that make such outrageous, blasphemous claims as that the pope is "God on Earth", and the "Mediator" through which alone we obtain salvation, if one fails to believe and accept all teachings found in such documents, Catholicism regards that individual as not Catholic, but a "heretic" like me. So, which are you?

I love history and have really started getting into Christian history over the last several years.

Where did you read about "Imprimatur - the official seal affixed to any Catholic document to signify "absolutely no heresy contained herein"? I have never heard of it defined that way before. http://www.britannica.com/topic/imprimatur

I have never read that the Pope claims to be "God on Earth" or the Mediator through which alone we obtain salvation. Could you provide me with the title of the book or a link to the web site you found that in?

I am kind of curious how ScaliaFan will respond.

Respectfully....Curious Tom55

 

[OzSpen]

I read the links you provided. The History of the Doctrine of Inspiration From the Ancient Church Through the Reformation was interesting. I noticed how the writer wrote approximately 1300 words total when citing Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origin, Augustine, Cyprian and the North African Church (8 people).

They then wrote approximately 1300 words total when citing Luther and Calvin (2 people). To me this shows an obvious bias. I look for these inconsistences and biases when reading what people write about church history, doctrine, early church fathers etc. They seem to easily find everything that supports their bias when quoting pre-reformation theologians (church fathers etc.) and then make post reformation theologians seem like the enlightened ones! Truly dishonest and sad.

I suspect if I were to ask Dr. Google I could find a similar writing that contradicts what you provided and they would more than likely be written by Orthodox or Catholics. It is then up to me to look at both articles and decide who makes the best or most logical argument based on Scripture.

I think we agree (as do all experts in Christianity) that the early church fathers did not agree on EVERYTHING but most all of them agreed when it came to the issue of what we as Christians had to do OR believe to be saved (Baptism, Transubstantiation, works, faith etc.). The early church fathers, along with other historical writings, pretty much answered every doctrinal question we could ever come up with.

The other link you provided, Baptism and Salvation, listed three early church fathers who did not come right out and support baptismal regeneration. I have a book about the Early Church Fathers that list 15 who support it in their writings.

Keep in mind also, just because someone is silent on an issue doesn't mean they don't support it. For instance, Clement of Rome. It may have been common knowledge or belief during his time that Baptism Saves you therefore he would not feel a need to write it abut it our defend it. One thing Clement did write was, " How can we hope to enter into the royal residence of God unless we keep our baptism holy and undefiled?"

So I ask: How can a baptism be unholy or defiled if it is just a symbol?

History is infallible. If it happened, it happened. Some men just like to twist it to their advantage. Just like they do scripture.

Tom,

There are several errors in what you have written here, in my understanding:

1. You claim there is 'obvious bias' in 1300 words quoted from 8 ECF (early church fathers) and 1300 words from 2 writers, Luther and Calvin. Has it ever crossed your mind that more material is available from Luther and Calvin than from the 8 ECF writers cited? That's the case. There could be bias, but that takes more investigation than what you have given here. I'm a researcher and what you have given here does not demonstrate that you have researched the topic to reach an accurate understanding of your conclusion, 'obvious bias', for the scholarship evidence I gave.

2. You wrote: 'when reading what people write about church history, doctrine, early church fathers etc. They seem to easily find everything that supports their bias when quoting pre-reformation theologians'. Could you be just as guilty as what you are claiming against others? Could you be only supporting material that supports your own bias? Your view seems rather fishy to me.

3. Again, you stated: 'I suspect if I were to ask Dr. Google I could find a similar writing that contradicts what you provided and they would more than likely be written by Orthodox or Catholics'. 'I SUSPECT' is a very poor approach to research. I will not respect or accept your view on an 'I suspect' basis.

4. Again from you: 'most all of them agreed when it came to the issue of what we as Christians had to do OR believe to be saved (Baptism, Transubstantiation, works, faith etc.)' And you provided not one example - not one. This is a statement not worthy of consideration when you trundle out your bias without evidence. You can speak about Orthodox and Catholic views but you did not give any examples to contradict my views.

5. The link I gave about baptismal regeneration in the ECF did provide evidence from the ECF in support of baptismal regeneration and evidence against baptismal regeneration by some ECF. Your bias is coming through.

6. You stated, 'Just because someone is silent on an issue doesn't mean they don't support it'. Arguing from silence is a useless exercise. You can't read the minds of an historical person who has only left us written material from which we draw his/her theology. Your view, 'Clement of Rome. It may have been common knowledge or belief during his time that Baptism Saves you', is a useless statement as it is not based on the facts from his writings.

7. You ask: 'How can a baptism be unholy or defiled if it is just a symbol?' I have never said anything that even approached the content of that question. It's a red herring.

8. 'History is infallible'. That's a fallible statement that has no basis in history. History is written by fallible human beings who may be inaccurate in what they write, just like you and me. History cannot provide a 100% accurate statement and assessment of an historical situation when it is made by fallible people.

You say, 'If it happened, it happened'. No, if it happened, we have a record of what somebody saw or heard and put it down in writing or made it available through oral tradition. It is filtered through fallible human assessment. Something doesn't just happen. History is interpreted. It involves more than facts. This is especially more challenging with those who want to promote a postmodern view of history such as historical Jesus scholar, John Dominic Crossan, who wrote: 'This, then, is my working definition of history: History is the past reconstructed interactively by the present through argued evidence in public discourse' (Crossan 1999:3).

These are some of the holes (biases) I see in what you have written.

I don't think you and I have enough common ground to continue this discussion.

Oz

Works consulted
Crossan, J D 1999. Historical Jesus as risen Lord, in Crossan, J D, Johnson, L T & Kelber, W H, The Jesus controversy : Perspectives in conflict, 1-47. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International.

 

[OzSpen]

Oz, You never answered this post!

I look forward to your response.

Which church? The one to which I belong, which has elders in the leadership team.

 

[Phoneman777]

I love history and have really started getting into Christian history over the last several years.

Where did you read about "Imprimatur - the official seal affixed to any Catholic document to signify "absolutely no heresy contained herein"? I have never heard of it defined that way before. http://www.britannica.com/topic/imprimatur

I have never read that the Pope claims to be "God on Earth" or the Mediator through which alone we obtain salvation. Could you provide me with the title of the book or a link to the web site you found that in?

I am kind of curious how ScaliaFan will respond.

Respectfully....Curious Tom55

Here is a list. Some official and others are quotes.
http://www.bogadocious.com/bogus/35.html

 

[ScaliaFan]

Tom,

When will you learn to deal with the question I raised instead of running off with questions as your tangent? My question was: 'Where in the NT are the sprinkling of holy water and burning of incense a Christian practice?' You have used a red herring fallacy AGAIN.

Not once in your reply did you attempt to address my question.

Oz

the noncatholics need to get over that thing about how everything we do and preache has to be found explicitly in the bible

If you live by that, you will have a very restricted life and you will be confused all the time. The Bible is the Word of God, but there is only, say 70% of it can be u/stood by just anyone. The rest is not easily u/stood.. and so we get all these misinterpretations and that in turn leads to DIVISIVENESS

that is NOT Christian.(and a lot of peple don't even u/stand that 70%...)

And sorry, but you noncatholics are FAR more divisive than most Catholics i have known. Most Catholics, if anything bend over backwards .. go way too far to get along with you all. I am one who doesn't do t hat, to speak of. Reason? because you are a hard headed group, i have found... very hardheaded, won't listen to a word a Catholic has to say... etc

 

[OzSpen]

the noncatholics need to get over that thing about how everything we do and preache has to be found explicitly in the bible

If you live by that, you will have a very restricted life and you will be confused all the time. The Bible is the Word of God, but there is only, say 70% of it can be u/stood by just anyone. The rest is not easily u/stood.. and so we get all these misinterpretations and that in turn leads to DIVISIVENESS

that is NOT Christian.(and a lot of peple don't even u/stand that 70%...)

And sorry, but you noncatholics are FAR more divisive than most Catholics i have known. Most Catholics, if anything bend over backwards .. go way too far to get along with you all. I am one who doesn't do t hat, to speak of. Reason? because you are a hard headed group, i have found... very hardheaded, won't listen to a word a Catholic has to say... etc

You blame the non-catholics for being divisive. But what was your argument here? A very divisive one by a catholic. So, it's not just the non-catholics who are divisive. The content of your post was self defeating.

 

[tom55]

Tom,

There are several errors in what you have written here, in my understanding:

1. You claim there is 'obvious bias' in 1300 words quoted from 8 ECF (early church fathers) and 1300 words from 2 writers, Luther and Calvin. Has it ever crossed your mind that more material is available from Luther and Calvin than from the 8 ECF writers cited? That's the case. There could be bias, but that takes more investigation than what you have given here. I'm a researcher and what you have given here does not demonstrate that you have researched the topic to reach an accurate understanding of your conclusion, 'obvious bias', for the scholarship evidence I gave.

2. You wrote: 'when reading what people write about church history, doctrine, early church fathers etc. They seem to easily find everything that supports their bias when quoting pre-reformation theologians'. Could you be just as guilty as what you are claiming against others? Could you be only supporting material that supports your own bias? Your view seems rather fishy to me.

3. Again, you stated: 'I suspect if I were to ask Dr. Google I could find a similar writing that contradicts what you provided and they would more than likely be written by Orthodox or Catholics'. 'I SUSPECT' is a very poor approach to research. I will not respect or accept your view on an 'I suspect' basis.

4. Again from you: 'most all of them agreed when it came to the issue of what we as Christians had to do OR believe to be saved (Baptism, Transubstantiation, works, faith etc.)' And you provided not one example - not one. This is a statement not worthy of consideration when you trundle out your bias without evidence. You can speak about Orthodox and Catholic views but you did not give any examples to contradict my views.

5. The link I gave about baptismal regeneration in the ECF did provide evidence from the ECF in support of baptismal regeneration and evidence against baptismal regeneration by some ECF. Your bias is coming through.

6. You stated, 'Just because someone is silent on an issue doesn't mean they don't support it'. Arguing from silence is a useless exercise. You can't read the minds of an historical person who has only left us written material from which we draw his/her theology. Your view, 'Clement of Rome. It may have been common knowledge or belief during his time that Baptism Saves you', is a useless statement as it is not based on the facts from his writings.

7. You ask: 'How can a baptism be unholy or defiled if it is just a symbol?' I have never said anything that even approached the content of that question. It's a red herring.

8. 'History is infallible'. That's a fallible statement that has no basis in history. History is written by fallible human beings who may be inaccurate in what they write, just like you and me. History cannot provide a 100% accurate statement and assessment of an historical situation when it is made by fallible people.

You say, 'If it happened, it happened'. No, if it happened, we have a record of what somebody saw or heard and put it down in writing or made it available through oral tradition. It is filtered through fallible human assessment. Something doesn't just happen. History is interpreted. It involves more than facts. This is especially more challenging with those who want to promote a postmodern view of history such as historical Jesus scholar, John Dominic Crossan, who wrote: 'This, then, is my working definition of history: History is the past reconstructed interactively by the present through argued evidence in public discourse' (Crossan 1999:3).

These are some of the holes (biases) I see in what you have written.

I don't think you and I have enough common ground to continue this discussion.

Oz

Works consulted
Crossan, J D 1999. Historical Jesus as risen Lord, in Crossan, J D, Johnson, L T & Kelber, W H, The Jesus controversy : Perspectives in conflict, 1-47. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International.

Rebuttal to Point 1: " ....more material is available from Luther and Calvin than from the 8 ECF writers cited?" It's hard for me to take you serious when you make a comment like that.

"There could be bias...." COULD BE BIAS!! It's hard for me to take you serious when you make a comment like that.

"I'm a researcher and what you have given here does not demonstrate that you have researched the topic to reach an accurate understanding of your conclusion, 'obvious bias', for the scholarship evidence I gave." You may recall our previous disagreement on the Catacombs of Priscilla and the Orant depicted inside and the discussion of women as preachers or church leaders. I showed you how at that time how NO, NONE, ZERO legitimate scholar agreed with your point of view on the Orant and how Scripture and ALL legitimate scholars disagree with you on women leaders in churches. YOU used biased information to support your belief on both issues instead of seeking the truth. I am not sure how you can call yourself a researcher and accuse me of bias when YOU have shown your obvious bias on that issue and now this issue.

Point 2: No, I am not supporting material that supports my own bias! I have read what is written by Early Church Fathers, researched early church practices and beliefs, compared both to Scripture with a sprinkle of logic thrown in and come to an educated logical decision. On the other hand you quote protestant theologians that have an obvious bias which in turn shows your bias. YOU choose to take the side of protestant writers 1500 years after the death of our Lord. I choose to read the writings of men who walked and talked with the Apostles and were living within the first several hundred years after our Lord. Who is more reliable? Men who walked with the Apostles, who then passed that knowledge to other men who passed it to other men or men who lived 1500 years later that contradict the teachings of the ECF?

Point 3: Instead of using the words "I suspect" I should have used the words "I know". I know I could find similar writings that contradicts what you provided.

Point 4: I believe you already know the Orthodox and Catholic views therefore I did not give any examples to contradict your views. I already know you disagree with them so why repeat them?

Point 5: The link you gave about baptismal regeneration in the ECF did provide evidence from SOME of the ECF in support of baptismal regeneration. The evidence against baptismal regeneration is supported MOST ECF is greater and Scripture does not support it at all.

Point 6: If you were an honest researcher you would know that "Arguing from silence" is a common practice of researchers and theologians. If something is already known and practiced (2+2=4, baptismal regeneration) one doesn't have to write a letter to Christians that it is factual. Baptismal Regeneration was clearly believed by the early Christians so there was no need to write about it until a heretic started tickling the ears of believers and twisting scripture. (2 Timothy 4:3-4, 2 Peter 3: 16-17)

Point 7: Falling back on the red herring crutch AGAIN.

Point 8: Some people twist history to fit their agenda. Just like some people twist scripture to fit their agenda.

I agree with your statement: We don't have enough common ground to continue this discussion. I would like to add you have too much bias to continue this discussion.

 

[tom55]

Which church? The one to which I belong, which has elders in the leadership team.

I suspect, from your previous posts, the church you belong to is a "local church"? I would also suspect there are some other local churches in your town that disagree with your church and the elders of your church on baptismal regeneration?

How can you be sure your church and your elders are right about baptismal regeneration and the other churches wrong? Which of you has the authority to interpret scripture infallibly? Who is twisting it?

Is it your church or the other local churches in your town that Jesus built his church on so that the gates of hell will not prevail against it with the power to bind and loose? (Matthew 16)

Is it your church that has the pillar and foundation of truth and are you conducting yourselves in God’s household in proper manner as taught by scripture? Or is it the other church in your town that disagrees with you? (1 Timothy 3)

I guess you could now call me "curiousTom55"

 

[ScaliaFan]

Another example of the Dogma Catholicism rather than biblical Doctrine. The Bible teaches know where that Mary was sinless nor that she was born sinless. Gabriel said to Mary "you are highly favored", not you're sinless. He also said "do not be afraid for you have found favor with God". Favor is not synonymous with sinlessness. The Bible says "all men have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." The church Christ founded, was based on the confession of Peter recognizing Jesus as God and Messiah. Jesus said based on Peter's confession he would establish his church, which is exactly what he did. His church is not the RCC. His church is every person that has confessed him as Savior and obeys his written word. His church does NOT add to His written word and it definitely does not have any other mediator but Jesus Christ. As your church does all of this, then I would have to say that your church is not part of THE Church/Body of Christ. I'm sure there are very many Catholics that are Christians but they don't believe nor follow the teachings of the RCC.
It's time to choose, will you follow Jesus or follow the RCC?

Another example of the Dogma Catholicism rather than biblical Doctrine. The Bible teaches know where that Mary was sinless

then you need to forget about praying

because your prayer requests cannot be found in the Bible

no one ever hears from God save the Bible???

ok, well u are free to believe whatever u want

 

[Phoneman777]

"The Two Babylons" by Alexander Hislop proves unequivocally that Catholicism does not trace her roots to the primitive Christianity of 1st Century Palestine, but to the ancient Babylonian system of SUN WORSHIP.

The ancients worshiped DAGON, the "fish god", and would skin fish carcasses leaving the head and back (the back was sometimes
split lengthwise into two sections). The pope dons this "fish hat" along with the two draping sashes attached to it, along with the "Maltese crosses", which occult science says is what the priests of Horus (another of the many names of the Sun god) wear.

 

[brakelite]

It was not for no reason that the reformers pointed their collective fingers at Rome and named her Antichrist. Strongs concordance explain the meaning of 'antichrist'...instead of Christ...in the room of Christ. This is what the Roman Catholic Church has practiced since its inception. An example of this is thus:
In the OT there is the story of the ark of the covenant returning from the Philistines on a cart hauled by a pair of cows. After a couple of mishaps and mistakes by those who received it first, it ended up in the house of Obededom the Gittite. All of Israel would have been watching him to see what happened, and the Lord blessed his house, so after 3 months David fetched the ark in the prescribed manner with the Levites and priests, celebrating with joy its return.
So, what is this to do with the RCC? On the supposed site of Abinadabs house in Israel there now resides a convent and/or a church, the Sisters of St Joseph of the Apparition, the church of Our Lady of the Ark of the Covenant. Catholic tradition has it that the ark of the covenant of the OT prefigures Mary, who it is claimed is the NT ark of the covenant, having given birth to Jesus the embodiment of the law. It is believed that when John the revelator saw the ark of the covenant in heaven, he was seeing Mary.
In reality, what Rome has done has distorted truth to the point of extinction through its tradition. The ministry of Jesus as high priest in the heavenly sanctuary before the throne of His Father is obliterated by this false teaching. The Ark of the Covenant was a type of the throne of God. Catholic teaching therefore removes not just the throne and authority of that seat of Power, replacing it with Roman tradition, but also obliterates the law within and the government of the kingdom of God. Instead of Jesus the Son of God being our sole Mediator between God and man, Rome has usurped that role by placing Mary in His stead. Jesus is reduced in the Catholic mind to a baby at Christmas and a corpse at easter. His ministry as Mediator is trampled underfoot by those who claim to be sole arbiters of Biblical interpretation. This is the spirit of Antichrist indeed. The reformers knew what they were talking about.

 

[tom55]

It was not for no reason that the reformers pointed their collective fingers at Rome and named her Antichrist. Strongs concordance explain the meaning of 'antichrist'...instead of Christ...in the room of Christ. This is what the Roman Catholic Church has practiced since its inception. An example of this is thus:
In the OT there is the story of the ark of the covenant returning from the Philistines on a cart hauled by a pair of cows. After a couple of mishaps and mistakes by those who received it first, it ended up in the house of Obededom the Gittite. All of Israel would have been watching him to see what happened, and the Lord blessed his house, so after 3 months David fetched the ark in the prescribed manner with the Levites and priests, celebrating with joy its return.
So, what is this to do with the RCC? On the supposed site of Abinadabs house in Israel there now resides a convent and/or a church, the Sisters of St Joseph of the Apparition, the church of Our Lady of the Ark of the Covenant. Catholic tradition has it that the ark of the covenant of the OT prefigures Mary, who it is claimed is the NT ark of the covenant, having given birth to Jesus the embodiment of the law. It is believed that when John the revelator saw the ark of the covenant in heaven, he was seeing Mary.
In reality, what Rome has done has distorted truth to the point of extinction through its tradition. The ministry of Jesus as high priest in the heavenly sanctuary before the throne of His Father is obliterated by this false teaching. The Ark of the Covenant was a type of the throne of God. Catholic teaching therefore removes not just the throne and authority of that seat of Power, replacing it with Roman tradition, but also obliterates the law within and the government of the kingdom of God. Instead of Jesus the Son of God being our sole Mediator between God and man, Rome has usurped that role by placing Mary in His stead. Jesus is reduced in the Catholic mind to a baby at Christmas and a corpse at easter. His ministry as Mediator is trampled underfoot by those who claim to be sole arbiters of Biblical interpretation. This is the spirit of Antichrist indeed. The reformers knew what they were talking about.

You are right. According to scripture the Catholic Church has been around since the Gospel of John was written. It says that "even now are there many antichrists" (1 John 2:18). For 2000 years the RCC (the antichrist) has been lying and denying that Jesus is the Christ! (1 John 2:22). For 2000 years the RCC (the antichrist) has taught that Jesus Christ did not come in the flesh. Scripture is proof that the RCC is the spirit of the antichrist and was already in the world 2000 years ago (1 John 4:3 and 2 John 1:7).

It is definably an organization dominated by “the spirit of antichrist,” having a man at its head, so that when he died another would take his place, and the antichristian system (Catholic system) would continue.

 

[tom55]

Enoch and Elijah will not die, for they have been translated, or given immortal bodies, friend. "Immortal" means "not subject to death".

While the Bible is silent on what future befell Mary, it is crystal clear that she was indeed a sinner in need of a Savior, because instead of proclaiming to Elizabeth "God YOUR Savior" in the Gospel of Luke, Mary condemns herself as a sinner by saying, "God MY Savior", in that she identifies herself with all others who are sinful and in need of a personal Savior, just as Paul says: "ALL have sinned and come short of the glory of God." Romans 3:23 KJV. The doctrine of "Immaculate Conception" and "Marian Assumption" are both non-existent in Scripture, and therefore should be abandoned.

So when the bible says ALL it really means ALL??

John 12:19 "All the world has gone after him!" See, the whole world went after him...except it didn't!!

Mt 3:5-6 "Then went out to Him Jerusalem, and ALL Judea, and ALL the region about the Jordan; And an order went out from caesar Augustus that ALL the world should be counted." Yup, Yup, Yup, All of Judea and all the region of Jordan and they counted All of the world.

Rom 11:26 "ALL Israel shall be saved." Truly prophetic....all of Israel was saved. Wasn't it?

Rom 15:14 "...you yourselves are full of love, filled with ALL knowledge..." That's me and you...Filled with knowledge all of us are!!

 

[brakelite]

So when the bible says ALL it really means ALL??

John 12:19 "All the world has gone after him!" See, the whole world went after him...except it didn't!!

Mt 3:5-6 "Then went out to Him Jerusalem, and ALL Judea, and ALL the region about the Jordan; And an order went out from caesar Augustus that ALL the world should be counted." Yup, Yup, Yup, All of Judea and all the region of Jordan and they counted All of the world.

Rom 11:26 "ALL Israel shall be saved." Truly prophetic....all of Israel was saved. Wasn't it?

Rom 15:14 "...you yourselves are full of love, filled with ALL knowledge..." That's me and you...Filled with knowledge all of us are!!

One could almost agree with you, except for the fact that Paul repeated the same thing several times....

9 What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;
10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
13 Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips:
14 Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness:
15 Their feet are swift to shed blood:
16 Destruction and misery are in their ways:
17 And the way of peace have they not known:
18 There is no fear of God before their eyes.
19 ¶ Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.

 

[tom55]

One could almost agree with you, except for the fact that Paul repeated the same thing several times....

9 What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;
10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
13 Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips:
14 Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness:
15 Their feet are swift to shed blood:
16 Destruction and misery are in their ways:
17 And the way of peace have they not known:
18 There is no fear of God before their eyes.
19 ¶ Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.

Soooo that means I was sinning as soon as I was born? Or was I not part of "all" when I was born? Do we count people with mental disorders as all?

I think I see what you are doing here. ALL means ALL when it meets your agenda. When it doesn't meet your agenda it doesn't mean what it says!! :blink:

 

[Barrd]

This is were I keep getting hung up or confused on my path forward.

WHO has the authority to reveal the truth and interpret scripture if scripture is the truth and God breathed?

Billy Graham? The Baptist? The RCC? The Methodist? The Orthodox Church? For the last several months I have been reading Christian History and I THINK it am really close to an answer!

Perhaps you didn't understand the New Covenant completely. Let's go over it again:

Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
Jer 31:32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
Jer 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
Jer 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

We no longer need someone to teach us about God, because He is as close to each one of us as our own heart, Tom.