1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Featured The myth of grace-only & easy-believism shattered forever

Discussion in 'Christian Theology Forum' started by Zachary, Jan 6, 2020.

  1. RogerDC

    RogerDC Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,107
    Likes Received:
    168
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    Australia
    What do you think Eph 1:22-23 means, when it says the Church is the “fullness” of Christ?

    Paul consulted the Church’s leaders (then located in Jerusalem) to settle doctrinal matters (Acts 15:2-3) and to verify the correctness of his preaching (Galatians 2:2). Do you do the same thing? If so, which Church do you consult? If not, why not?
     
    Last edited: Feb 24, 2020
  2. RogerDC

    RogerDC Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,107
    Likes Received:
    168
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    Australia
    That’s right - only the Church’s bishops are entrusted and empowered to provide the correct interpretation of Scripture. This not only ensures that the faithful receive the correct teaching, it ensures unity, which is a sign of the true Church. The chaotic disunity that results from individual interpretations of Scripture cannot possibly be the work or the will of God, since God is not the author of “confusion” (1Cor 14:33).
    Jesus is the Good Shepherd who works through his Church to lead and protect his flock from false teaching. Eph 4:4-16 says Christ has provided the gift of the CHURCH (v.11) to “equip the saints … until we all attain the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood … so that we may no longer be children, tossed back and forth and carried along by every wind of doctrine.”
    There is no mention of Scripture in that entire passage, let alone any suggestion of relying on one’s own interpretation of Scripture.
     
  3. RogerDC

    RogerDC Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,107
    Likes Received:
    168
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    Australia
    1John 5:16 states that there are “deadly” sins. A “deadly” sin is presumably a sin that is so serious that it can lead to spiritual death and endanger one’s hope of salvation. So a “deadly” sin can mean the difference between going to Heaven or ending up in Hell, yet the NT doesn’t explain what these “deadly” sins are. If you rely simply on Scripture, you have no way of knowing what “deadly” sins are, so disciples of Sola Scriptura are like blind men wandering around in a mine field, hoping they don’t step on something “deadly”. How do you know you are not committing a “deadly” sin (or two), if you have no idea what they are?

    Catholics know what “deadly” sins are, because their Church teaches them what the Scriptures fail to.
     
  4. RogerDC

    RogerDC Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,107
    Likes Received:
    168
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    Australia
    God inspired fallible men to write the infallible words of Scriptures. In exactly the same way, God inspires the fallible Pope to make infallible statements and decisions with respect to what the Church must teach.
     
  5. RogerDC

    RogerDC Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,107
    Likes Received:
    168
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    Australia
    What are “their exact doctrines”? There are many different opinions on what “their exact doctrines” are. Which doctrines are correct?
    Whatever that means …
    Hilarious. Which Scripture says, “Thou shalt not give the Church a name”? Will you go to Hell if you give the Church a name?

    If you call your Church, “The Church with No Name”, wouldn’t that still be a name?
    What is the name of your church?
     
  6. RogerDC

    RogerDC Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,107
    Likes Received:
    168
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    Australia
    Since all non-Catholic Christians base their beliefs on an official Catholic document - to wit: The canon of the New Testament - it would seem that all non-Catholic Christians are at least part-Catholic.
     
  7. RogerDC

    RogerDC Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,107
    Likes Received:
    168
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    Australia
    Beware of false shepherds and false teachers.
     
  8. Truther

    Truther Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    5,122
    Likes Received:
    684
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    Melt down Roger.
    The church of Acts is everyone’s plumb line.
    You are either part of it or not.
    You are not part of it Roger.
    You are part of a former Holy Roman Empire that splintered into multitudes of nationalities around the world as an ecclesiastical super power.
    It has absolutely nothing to do with the Acts Church, but you like it, so whatever floats your boat
     
  9. Truther

    Truther Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    5,122
    Likes Received:
    684
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    Fallible Pope makes infallible statements?

    Oxymoron
     
  10. Truther

    Truther Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    5,122
    Likes Received:
    684
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    I consult the Acts church.
    I need no other church.
    Thousands of them today to pick from, but only one true Church, found in Acts.
    Your church has absolutely nothing to do with Acts, neither it’s doctrines nor it’s experience.
    It is a man contrived butchery of Christianity.
     
  11. Illuminator

    Illuminator Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    752
    Likes Received:
    297
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    Canada
    Independent Evangelical churches follow the Baptist Successionist idea that the early church was de-centralized. They like to imagine that the early Christians met in their homes for Bible study and prayer, and that in this pure form they existed independently of any central authority. It is easy to imagine that long ago in the ancient world transportation and communication was rare and difficult and that no form of centralized church authority could have existed even if it was desirable.

    The most straightforward reading of the Acts of the Apostles shows this to be untrue, and a further reading of early church documents shows this to be no more than a back-projected invention. In the Acts of the Apostles what we find is a church that is immediately centralized in Jerusalem. When Peter has his disturbing vision in which God directs him to admit the Gentiles to the Church, he references back at once to the apostolic leadership in Jerusalem.(Acts 11:2)

    The mission of the infant church was directed from Jerusalem, with Barnabas and Agabus being sent to Antioch (Acts 11:22,27) The Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) was convened to decide on the Gentile decision and a letter of instruction was sent to the new churches in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia. (Acts 15:23) We see Philip, John, Mark, Barnabas and Paul traveling to and from Jerusalem and providing a teaching and disciplinary link from the new churches back to the centralized church in Jerusalem.

    After the martyrdom of James the leadership shifts to Peter and Paul. The authority is not centered on Jerusalem, but through their epistles to the various churches, we see a centralized authority that is vested in Peter and Paul as apostles. This central authority was very soon focused on Rome, so that St Ignatius, a bishop of the church in Antioch would write to the Romans in the year 108 affirming that their church was the one that had the “superior place in love among the churches.’”

    Historian Eamon Duffy suggests that the earliest leadership in the Roman church may have been more conciliar than monarchical because in his letter to the Corinthians, Clement of Rome doesn’t write as the Bishop of Rome, but even if this is so Duffy confirms that the early church believed Clement was the fourth Bishop of Rome and read Clement’s letter as support for centralized Roman authority. He also concedes that by the time of Irenaeus in the mid second century the centralizing role of the Bishop of Rome was already well established. From then on, citation after citation from the apostolic Fathers can be compiled to show that the whole church from Gaul to North Africa and from Syria to Spain affirm the primacy of the Bishop of Rome as the successor of Peter and Paul.

    The acceptance of this centralized authority was a sign of belonging to the one true church so that St Jerome could write to Pope Damasus in the mid 300s, “I think it is my duty to consult the chair of Peter, and to turn to a church whose faith has been praised by Paul… My words are spoken to the successor of the fisherman, to the disciple of the cross. As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the church is built!”

    Was the Early Church Local and Congregational?

    We find no evidence of a network of independent, local churches ruled democratically by individual congregations. Instead, from the beginning we find the churches ruled by elders (bishops) So in the New Testament we find the apostles appointing elders in the churches. (Acts 14:23; Titus 1:5) The elders kept in touch with the apostles and with the elders of the other churches through travel and communication by epistle. (I Pt.1:1; 5:1) Anne Rice, the author of the Christ the Lord series of novels, points out how excellent and rapid the lines of communication and travel were in the Roman Empire.

    In the early church we do not find independent congregations meeting on their own and determining their own affairs by reading the Bible. We have to remember that in the first two centuries there was no Bible as such for the canon of the New Testament had not yet been decided. Instead, from the earliest time we find churches ruled by the bishops and clergy whose authenticity is validated by their succession from the apostles. So Clement of Rome writes, “Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be strife on the question of the bishop’s office. Therefore for this reason… they appointed the aforesaid persons and later made further provision that if they should fall asleep other tested men should succeed to their ministry.” Ignatius of Antioch in Syria writes letters to six different churches and instructs the Romans, “be submissive to the bishop and to one another as Jesus Christ was to the Father and the Apostles to Christ…that there may be unity.”

    This apostolic ministry was present in each city, but centralized in Rome. The idea of a church being independent, local and congregational is rejected. Thus, by the late second century Irenaeus writes, “Those who wish to see the truth can observe in every church the tradition of the Apostles made manifest in the whole world…therefore we refute those who hold unauthorized assemblies…by pointing to the greatest and oldest church, a church known to all men, which was founded and established at Rome by the most renowned Apostles Peter and Paul…for this Church has the position of leadership and authority, and therefore every church, that is, the faithful everywhere must needs agree with the church at Rome for in her the apostolic tradition has ever been preserved by the faithful from all parts of the world.”
    The Early Papacy - 2 - Fr. Dwight Longenecker

    When you "consult Acts", you distort it into a back-projected invention. A close examination of Acts reveals that Paul was always submissive to the Church.
     
    RogerDC likes this.
  12. Illuminator

    Illuminator Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    752
    Likes Received:
    297
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    Canada
    It is incorrect to regard St. Paul as some kind of spiritual “lone ranger,” on his own with no particular ecclesiastical allegiance, since he was commissioned by Jesus Himself as an Apostle.
    • In his very conversion experience, Jesus informed Paul that he would be told what to do (Acts 9:6; cf. 9:17).
    • He went to see St. Peter in Jerusalem for fifteen days in order to be confirmed in his calling (Galatians 1:18),
    • and fourteen years later was commissioned by Peter, James, and John (Galatians 2:1-2, 9).
    • He was also sent out by the Church at Antioch (Acts 13:1-4), which was in contact with the Church at Jerusalem (Acts 11:19-27).
    • Later on, Paul reported back to Antioch (Acts 14:26-28).
    Acts 15:2 states: “. . . Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question.” The next verse refers to Paul and Barnabas “being sent on their way by the church.” Paul did what he was told to do by the Jerusalem Council (where he played no huge role), and Paul and Barnabas were sent off, or commissioned by the council (15:22-27), and shared its binding teachings in their missionary journeys: “. . . delivered to them for observance the decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem” (Acts 16:4).

    The Jerusalem Council certainly regarded its teachings as infallible, and guided by the Holy Spirit Himself. The records we have of it don’t even record much discussion about biblical prooftexts, and the main issue was circumcision (where there is a lot of Scripture to draw from). Paul accepted its authority and proclaimed its teachings (Acts 16:4).

    Furthermore, Paul appears to be passing on his office to Timothy (1 Tim 6:20; 2 Tim 1:6, 13-14; 2 Tim 4:1-6), and tells him to pass his office along, in turn (2 Tim 2:1-2) which would be another indication of apostolic succession in the Bible.

    The attempt to pretend that St. Paul was somehow on his own, disconnected to the institutional Church, has always failed, as unbiblical.
    Dialogue with a Calvinist: Was Paul a "Lone Ranger"?
     
    RogerDC likes this.
  13. Illuminator

    Illuminator Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    752
    Likes Received:
    297
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    Canada
    Acts 15:8 And God, who knows the human heart, testified to them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as he did to us;
    Acts 15: 28 For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to impose on you no further burden than these essentials.
    This is what infallibility means. To you, it is incomprehensible. So you reject that or ignore it, because it doesn't fit in with the man made Protestant tradition of a non-infallible church.
     
  14. Illuminator

    Illuminator Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    752
    Likes Received:
    297
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    Canada
    So what. That doesn't prove Satanists are RUNNING the Vatican. It's interesting that you accept one line from a late interview from Sr. Lucia, but reject the message of Fatima. You should find out what that message is, instead of fear mongering misrepresentations of Paul VI.
     
    RogerDC likes this.
  15. Truther

    Truther Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    5,122
    Likes Received:
    684
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    I only heard of God and His word as infallible.

    The rest of humanity are fallible.

    This is why we must repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of our sins and receive the baptism of the Holy Ghost.
     
  16. Truther

    Truther Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    5,122
    Likes Received:
    684
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    You just stripped Acts out of your life with your commentary.
    The Church started in Acts 2.
    The church was fully implemented in Acts 2.
    Your church was founded in the commentary of post-Acts.
    You just proved it.
    You are in a foreign church per the Apostles.
    No wonder you guys propped up statues to encourage yourselves.
     
  17. BreadOfLife

    BreadOfLife Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    15,643
    Likes Received:
    2,423
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    And as I proved to you before, Einstein - that's NOT what Jesus said . . .

    John 21:15-19
    When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “FEED MY LAMBS.”
    He then said to him a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “TEND MY SHEEP.”
    He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was distressed that he had said to him a third time, “Do you love me?” and he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” [Jesus] said to him, “FEED MY SHEEP.
    Amen, amen, I say to you, when you were younger, you used to dress yourself and go where you wanted; but when you grow old, you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go.”
    He said this signifying by what kind of death he would glorify God. And when he had said this, he said to him, “Follow me.”


    In case you didn't know - "feeding lambs" and "tending sheep" - that's the job of a shepherd . . .
     
  18. BreadOfLife

    BreadOfLife Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    15,643
    Likes Received:
    2,423
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    Ahhhhh, more of your patented ignorance.

    The Pope doesn't "make up new laws", Einstein.
    He defines what the church has always believed and taught.

    Didn't you ever teach your kids to do their homework?
    Maybe YOU should have taught them by example . . .
     
  19. BreadOfLife

    BreadOfLife Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    15,643
    Likes Received:
    2,423
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    OR, you wouldn't have to wait if you would simply do your homework on Jack Chick and his bizarre life and beliefs . . .
     
  20. BreadOfLife

    BreadOfLife Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    15,643
    Likes Received:
    2,423
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    Gee - and I thought you anti-Catholic geniuses stated that Jesus forbade us to call ANYONE a "Teacher" (Matt. 23:7).

    Ummmm, what happened to that??
     
    RogerDC likes this.
Loading...