Catholic Church or Bible, Which Came First?

but what's one to conclude? Why is that important?

As a Catholic convert, I care about the history of the early Church and the bible.

Many protestants, which included me until recently, believe that the bible is the only foundation of the Christian Church. While it is still the most important book in Christianity, it must be viewed in the context of history and traditions that predate it.

The Church founded by the apostles and early Christians is the Catholic Church. The worship practices used in the Catholic(and Orthodox) churches were established by the apostles based on Christ's teachings.

Ignoring these traditions is ignoring the fullness of Christ's instructions.

The conclusion for me is this: The most complete and authoritative Christian teachings are found in the Catholic and Orthodox Churches.

Who has supreme authority in the Christian religion? The Church, or Christ? This I think is where Catholics err. They put the "Church" at the head of it all. This is what led to the selling of indulgences and several other abuses of power.

The Catholic Church is not necessarilly bad, but I think Catholics need to pay special attention to not putting the organization above its head, namely Christ.

As such, as long as you acknowledge the Trinity, Christ as your savior and none else, Scripture as devinely inspired you can call yourself a Christian (this is a brief list, but the biggies). Most other issues we can argue over fairly. But Christ, in the Bible, says we are to put Him before EVERYTHING else, including the church and popes etc.

"Many protestants, which included me until recently, believe that the bible is the only foundation of the Christian Church. While it is still the most important book in Christianity, it must be viewed in the context of history and traditions that predate it." OK. Fine, I have no trouble with this quote. I just ask you not ignore what is written in the Bible and look at it all from a fair perspective-- tradition, while useful, is not always good or accurate.

"The conclusion for me is this: The most complete and authoritative Christian teachings are found in the Catholic and Orthodox Churches."

OK. No problem. Just be careful to put Christ first, and not the church and its tradition. I am happy you found a home there, but remember who the head of even that church is...

Christ.

As I write these, it occurred to me that as long as you are indeed a Christian, before a Catholic (by putting Christ first), we are still brothers and sisters in Christ.

As such, to let our own pride in our own beleifs does nothing but hurt the religion we both love. We are free to have disagreements, this is fine and probably good, but as long as we agree Christ is God's son, and equal in every way; as long as we believe in the Holy Spirit; as long as we believe Christ died and rose to save you and I and all of humanity, and that scripture is the inerrant word of God, we are first together in Christ, and we should not let anything get in the way of that...

Remember, however, that Christ called the Church the body of Christ.

He gave the apostles the authority to teach in his name.

Your quote:

I just ask you not ignore what is written in the Bible and look at it all from a fair perspective-- tradition, while useful, is not always good or accurate.



The bible was written by men. It is interpreted by men. The Holy Spirit can guide us to the truth in scripture, but how are we to judge when this has occurred? The early Christians didn't use the bible for teaching or worship. Early Traditions were handed down directly to the apostles by Christ. Clearly traditions and teachings can be corrupted. However, the liturgy is a method of limiting if not completely eliminating these corruptions.


Your Quote:

As I write these, it occurred to me that as long as you are indeed a Christian, before a Catholic (by putting Christ first), we are still brothers and sisters in Christ.

As such, to let our own pride in our own beleifs does nothing but hurt the religion we both love. We are free to have disagreements, this is fine and probably good, but as long as we agree Christ is God's son, and equal in every way; as long as we believe in the Holy Spirit; as long as we believe Christ died and rose to save you and I and all of humanity, and that scripture is the inerrant word of God, we are first together in Christ, and we should not let anything get in the way of that...



We are 100% in Agreement.


Given that spirit, I think it is vital that we seek the truth, debate in an open and honest way, and challenge eachother to gain a greater knowledge of God's will.

I believe it is God's will for Christians to worship in unity. My belief is that the Catholic Church most accurately represents the Church Christ envisioned as his body. If I find otherwise, then I will seek that path.

I don't believe Christ's goal was for there to be schizms in his body.

Thanks for your posts. I welcome more!

When you say the scripture is the inerrant word of God, I must disagree.

Scripture was written by men seeking to follow God.

Scripture was not written by God.

God can use scripture and it is our most detailed account of Christ's life, but there is no evidence that Christ ever predicted an inerrant New Testament to follow.

He promised the holy spirit, and he gave us some methods of worship.

He taught the apostles how to worship and live. They and their followers wrote down many of these things to the best of their ability.

how are we to discern what is and what is not flawd?

How can we be sure what is right and what is not? Can we be sure any of it is correct, and what then is the point of believing it all at that point?

As to tradition: it can be good, but can be easily abused. For example-- indulgences.

That doesn't mean it is flawed but that it is an interpretation of the truth. We all must interpret what is written, which is why there are THOUSANDS of Christian Churches outside of the Catholic Faith.

Here is a good example of how the early Christians settled disputes:

Acts 15
The Council at Jerusalem
1Some men came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the brothers: "Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved." 2This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question. 3The church sent them on their way, and as they traveled through Phoenicia and Samaria, they told how the Gentiles had been converted. This news made all the brothers very glad. 4When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and elders, to whom they reported everything God had done through them.
5Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, "The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses."

6The apostles and elders met to consider this question. 7After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: "Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. 8God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. 9He made no distinction between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. 10Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear? 11No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are."



Jesus Chose Peter to lead the Church, and he helped establish the hierarchy that is the Catholic Church today.

I'm not sure that quote, by Peter, really supports your thesis.

Its great that he was chosen to lead the church, if you want to say that. He was chosen to be the rock and was told 3 times by Christ to feed his sheep, but there's really no evidence to suggest the Church was to go through him, even if Christ chose him to lead the early efforts.

And, for the sake of argument if I grant for a moment Peter did begin/lead the church as its first pope, he even grants that it is by the grace of Jesus that all are saved. He is saying it is by Jesus we are saved, and not by the church.

You can say Christ is the church, and you could be correct, but the church is not Christ. The church is our creation, so that we may worship Him.

But scriptures are either 100% accurate, or not accurate at all. And the script from Acts does nothing to either support or dispute that claim. And yes, it must be iterpreted. But that is where man comes in, it is not in the word itself. The word itself is perfect; our interpretation may not be.

Many use this issue to discredit all of Christianity: which Bible is correct? I'm sure you've heard it and considered it yourself. Which Bible is correct is the wrong question. The best Bible is found using the earliest texts we have in their original language. Any translation will come up with differences, but keep in mind the scrutiny the Bibles we have today have gone through. They are pretty darn consistent and accurate. And also remember each translation uses a different technique to translate: for example, some try word for word and others capture ideas. With that, the best way to study and get the best picture of the true intent is to look at more than one translation.

That's a bit of a distraction, but we still must be careful and make our interpretations with much study and prayer. But we cannot mistake our faulty interpretation with what is actually true words. I still maintain the Bible is the perfect, unerring word of God himself, written by men, but by men writing exactly what God revealed to them.

And do pay attention to verse 11 in Acts 15... It is by God's grace, His forgiveness, His mercy, and those alone that we are saved. Peter only mentions that grace here, doesn't he?

:::And, for the sake of argument if I grant for a moment Peter did begin/lead the church as its first pope, he even grants that it is by the grace of Jesus that all are saved. He is saying it is by Jesus we are saved, and not by the church.
:::

Why point out the obvious?

:::But scriptures are either 100% accurate, or not accurate at all. And the script from Acts does nothing to either support or dispute that claim. And yes, it must be iterpreted. But that is where man comes in, it is not in the word itself. The word itself is perfect; our interpretation may not be.:::

False.

Scripture was written by MEN of God, inspired by God and full of good will. That doesn't make scripture 100% accurate. What is scripture? Who decided? The Catholic Church chose the current New Testament. If you believe that scripture is 100% accurate, then you must believe that the Catholic Church is the hand of God. Is that your point? I doubt it!

:::It is by God's grace, His forgiveness, His mercy, and those alone that we are saved.:::

What Jesus actually said:

Matthew 13
40"As the weeds are pulled up and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of the age. 41The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil. 42They will throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. 43Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears, let him hear.
Matthew 16
For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father's glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what he has done.

Romans 2
6God "will give to each person according to what he has done."[a] 7To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. 8But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. 9There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; 10but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. 11For God does not show favoritism.

1 Corinthians 5
Expel the Immoral Brother!
1It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that does not occur even among pagans: A man has his father's wife. 2And you are proud! Shouldn't you rather have been filled with grief and have put out of your fellowship the man who did this? 3Even though I am not physically present, I am with you in spirit. And I have already passed judgment on the one who did this, just as if I were present. 4When you are assembled in the name of our Lord Jesus and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present, 5hand this man over to Satan, so that the sinful nature[a] may be destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of the Lord.

Hebrews 10

26If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, 27but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God. 28Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29How much more severely do you think a man deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God under foot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace? 30For we know him who said, "It is mine to avenge; I will repay,"[d] and again, "The Lord will judge his people."[e] 31It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

The notion of instant and irrevocable salvation: Once reborn as a "son of God," one can never become unborn, even if one returns to sin. He may be "chastised," but he always remains God's son - just as an earthly son remains the offspring of his earthly father. Scripture, however, is replete with warnings that one may fall from grace and lose his salvation altogether (1 Cor. 9:27; 10:12; 1 Tim. 1:19; Heb. 6:4-6; 12:15). The New Testament therefore contains no such thing as "eternal security" ("Once saved, always saved").

these folks are actually Christians, who do these bad things.

See, this is where the fruite of works comes into play: Christians are shown by their actions. As such, if they continue to sin, outwardly and proudly, and they continue to break God's will, they likely are not Christian. But to assume that works get us into heaven is to put the cart before the horse, so to speak. Works only lead to prid, if we base any salvation on that.

The rewards in heaven are something we cannot understand to be sure, and they will be based on our works and what we have done, but the rewards of heaven does not mean access to heaven. Even the lowest level of heaven will be beyond our greates imagination. Access to heaven is based on one act and one act only: our faith in Christ, anything beyond that is gravy.

And didn't you say that the Church is Christ? And it takes beleiving in the Church to be saved by Christ? Or did I misunderstand? If so, please clarify...

As to Peter saying he was the chosen by Christ, if you notive in the text, it says he wa chosen to lead the missions to the Gentiles, ie the non-Jews. Who is to lead the Jews? Peter's assertian as leader, from this text, does not really support any thesis on him having "direct access to God."

Grace or works? If its obvious, there must be an answer. Which are we SAVED by?

Your comment:

Christians are shown by their actions.

Do you believe that or not?


Does Satan believe in Jesus?


What makes you a Christian? What you believe or what you do?

But they are not saved by them. There is a distinction.

Believing in and having faith in are also not the same thing.

Those issues have been addressed before. Did you not catch our response (here and at Aurora's)?

I think it good that you have embraced Catholicism with such vigor. But I wonder if you fully understand the dogma you are embracing. I have no problem with Catholics except where they go into areas that border, for lack of a better word, heresy.

Saying scripture is flawed in and of itself opens the door to so much criticism to our faith, that of Christianity. If it is flawed, of which there is no evidence to suggest it is, then we can't trust a single word of it. This is a big issue, because how can we ever stand on a book that cannot be trusted?

Catholics are wonderful Christians, but some of their tradition goes beyond what Christ ever instructed, or the Bible ever instructed. Peter, your first pope, said that we are saved by Christ's grace alone in the very verse you quoted to support your clai mfor the heirarchy. And if you look at the context in which he was speaking, he was saying folks don't have to be circumsized to be saved. That is a work, and Peter says that it is only in Christ's grace we are saved!

You want a heirarchy, have it, but to best understand the intent of the text, you must look at it in context. You can't isolate verses that prove a point, only to prove that point. Slavery was justified with that technique. So were a great many injustices out there.

I have gone astray, but rest assured I am pleased you have come to Christ through the Catholic Church. I only encourage you to fully examine the text and be sure you fully understand it all. You say I have ignored reailities of the texts... I have met your challenge with one of my own. Check out the context.

::::Saying scripture is flawed in and of itself opens the door to so much criticism to our faith, that of Christianity.::::


I merely pointed out the REALITY that scripture is written by men. These words must be studied and interpreted to find the meaning God intends us to comprehend.

The Church, which was established by Christ and the apostles, predates the new Testament.

Accepting reality in no way to criticism of our faith.

:::but some of their tradition goes beyond what Christ ever instructed, or the Bible ever instructed.::::

Pure speculation. The Church Christ founded is the Catholic Church. The Traditions of the apostles are the instructions of Christ.

You ignore many of these instructions.


You say I have ignored reailities of the texts... I have met your challenge with one of my own. Check out the context.::::\
\

That is not a challenge, it is an evasion. You must be specific. Cite an example where I have made a point that is out of context.

Good luck!

:::Believing in and having faith in are also not the same thing. ::::



Please explain the difference.

As a specific example to check out the context...

More to come...

I believe that George Washington existed.

I have faith the Christ will save me based on that faith.

Believing is an intellectual acknowledgement. Faith is putting hope in something.

To start, if we cannot trust what is in one part of the Bible, how can we be sure any of it is true?

Written by men, yes, but with the inspiration of God. God wrote the Bible through men, and as such, it is perfect. If it is not perfect, then God is not perfect. Why would he inspire an inperfect book?

Where'd the name come from by the way? I like it...

But I am curious, if I asked you to recreate my arguments, could you? Would you?

I want to ensure we are on the same page and are not talking past each other.

Not to be insulting, but I find your arguments unconvincing.

I was once an evangelical protestant who disdained Catholicism.

Nothing you have posted is new to me.

Protestants ignore scripture that doesn't fit with their dogma. I know, I once ignored uncomfortable verses or did backflips to explain them away.

More importantly, I ignored the true history of the early church.

There is much evidence in scripture and elsewhere about the structure and methodology of the early Church. This early church was comprised of those who lived with Jesus on earth! Think about it. We should not dismiss early traditions. After all, Jesus picked the apostles for a reason. He called Peter the rock upon which he would build his church for a reason. The early apostles established a hierarchy for a reason. I believe that reason was to PRESERVE the truth of Christ's teachings. In addition, I believe that Jesus wants Christians to be united in our faith. That is why I am adamant about spreading the knowledge I have gained about the early church and the origins of the bible.

Nope.

And likewise, I find your arguments unconvincing and a distraction from God's intentions.

Fair enough that we disagree, but if you look at scripture for all its worth, you'll find something very different...

So be it.

But I think you confuse works with actions that follow after we give our faith to Christ. See, the faith must come before the works. Works mean nothing without the faith.

And quite frankly, I also think you confuse the role of the church and put too much stock in it. See, our focus should be on Christ. You say the Church is an extension of Christ. Be careful with that. I have no problem with folks believing that this may be the case, however I think many people put the Church equal with or above our Savior. This is problematic.

Throughout Scripture, we are told to put Christ first, not the Church. If you'd like to say Peter was an extension of Christ and so on down the line with each successive pope, so be it. But remember, they are NOT Christ. Christ may have chosen Peter to lead the disciples, but there is no evidence to show He chose him to be anything more than that.

Relying on Church tradition also has its faults. For example, saying the rosary does what for you? All the "milestones" like baptism or communion? Are those necessary to be saved? How can they be? These are things developed by man that are used as outward signs of salvation. They are not necessary for salvation, though may be useful in keeping us in check. But I want to emphasize they are not necessary for salvation.

As Aurora asked, how could the thief on the cross be saved if he did not have a chance to do any works? Was Christ lying to the man? How then could we be sure He's not lying to us now? Was He crazy? If He was, what's the point? Works come from faith, yes. But they are not of themselves evidence of it.

You may not buy these arguments, fair enough, but I ask you to be careful in how you apply what the Church teaches you. There's not necessarilly anything wrong in its dogma, but it application runs a fine line...

:::::But I think you confuse works with actions that follow after we give our faith to Christ. See, the faith must come before the works. Works mean nothing without the faith.::::

I agree. They go together. We must follow Christ's teachings as a demonstration of our faith.

::::And quite frankly, I also think you confuse the role of the church and put too much stock in it. See, our focus should be on Christ.::::\\

Jesus recognized human weakness. He established the Church and methods of worship to help us follow him. We need help. Jesus told Peter to feed his sheep. I know of very few Christians who remain strong in their faith that do not attend Church.(I can't actually think of any!)

::::Relying on Church tradition also has its faults. For example, saying the rosary does what for you? All the "milestones" like baptism or communion? Are those necessary to be saved? How can they be?::::\\\

The traditions of the church, like the rosary and confession, help us maintain our focus on Christ. It is easy to let this world dominate our thinking.

::::As Aurora asked, how could the thief on the cross be saved if he did not have a chance to do any works?::::\\

He repented, which is all that Christ demands. However, our faith can die. True faith bears fruit, as Jesus clearly stated.

The Church helps keep us true to our faith.

Is it not possible to focus too much on the rosary or going to church weekly? Again, I have no problems with the rosary or praying to saints per se.

But I urge caution when doing so. Those can become crutches and substitutes for Christ. They, in other words, become idols. They are certainly not necessary for salvation.

And as to Biblical evidence for them, there is none. You do rely solely on tradition for that, which is fine. I think it unnecessary, but we can disagree on that. That's a preference issue.

We cannot lose our salvation. If it is true and genuine, we keep it.

::::But...
Is it not possible to focus too much on the rosary or going to church weekly?
:::::

I doubt it. I don't pray the rosary very often, but I don't know anyone who does who is anything but a devout follower of Christ.

As to Church attendance, I think it is vital for maintaining our focus on Christ. It is so easy to get caught up in this world.

:::Those can become crutches and substitutes for Christ. ::::

Rubbish. Please cite ONE real world example.


::::And as to Biblical evidence for them, there is none. ::::

Neither is there evidence for singing Amazing Grace, but that doesn't change the reality that it can bring us closer to God.

:::We cannot lose our salvation. If it is true and genuine, we keep it::::

Ignore this scripture at your own peril!

Hebrews 10

26If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, 27but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God. 28Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29How much more severely do you think a man deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God under foot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace? 30For we know him who said, "It is mine to avenge; I will repay,"[d] and again, "The Lord will judge his people."[e] 31It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

Matthew 13
40"As the weeds are pulled up and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of the age. 41The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil. 42They will throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. 43Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears, let him hear.
Matthew 16
For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father's glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what he has done.

Romans 2
6God "will give to each person according to what he has done."[a] 7To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. 8But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. 9There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; 10but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. 11For God does not show favoritism.

Praying to a saint, rather than through him/her.

And yes, they can become a crutch. It is a fine line, to be sure, but it exists. Look at it this way: one focuse in

And as to your scripures, I have no problem with them, except to say that this does not prove your point. Sure, we must live out our faith, but faith must come first. And once we do that, then the works will come. Works will not save us. Faith is the integral part.

And I am not sure what you mean by the Amazing Grace part...

Matthew 7:15-26 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)
Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society



A Tree and Its Fruit
15"Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.
21"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' 23Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'

The Wise and Foolish Builders
24"Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. 25The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock. 26But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand.

Matthew 13:18-26 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)
Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society



18"Listen then to what the parable of the sower means: 19When anyone hears the message about the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what was sown in his heart. This is the seed sown along the path. 20The one who received the seed that fell on rocky places is the man who hears the word and at once receives it with joy. 21But since he has no root, he lasts only a short time. When trouble or persecution comes because of the word, he quickly falls away. 22The one who received the seed that fell among the thorns is the man who hears the word, but the worries of this life and the deceitfulness of wealth choke it, making it unfruitful. 23But the one who received the seed that fell on good soil is the man who hears the word and understands it. He produces a crop, yielding a hundred, sixty or thirty times what was sown."

answered th question, and I doubt you did a Bible search for the word faith. There are too many to put in here.

The question, by the way, is how are we saved, ultimately. You are right, works show our faith. But you miss this: our faith comes first. Works alone mean nothing. Our faith is the key ingredient, because without it, the works are for our pride only. And that is exactly what Christ wanted us to avoid.

See, we are to be like children, and children blindly follow their parents. They love them no matter what. This is what is required, and yes, works should follow, but we must start with that childlike love and faith.

What acts or works are required?

Is it praying to a rosary?
Is it going to church?
Is it feeding the homeless?
Is it working at a foodbank?
Is it serving as clergy?
Is it going out and spread the word?
Is confessing our sins to a priest?
Or is just to God OK?
Is it giving money to the Church?

What defines the appropriate works we are to do to be saved, if that is the case? Better yet, who?

If we ignore Christ's teaching and continue to live in sin, then we have no right to expect salvation.

The rituals of the Church as handed down by Jesus and the Apostles are DESIGNED to keep our focus on God and doing his will.

It's simple.

Why can't you get it?

But the question is this: where in scripture does it tell us to pray to a rosary?

And what about all the other works? Where are they found in scripture?

Please do not tell me the apostles said so. If they are followintg Christ, the evidence would be in scriputre, the Bible. I know of no place where Jesus said, "though shlat use a rosary to pray."

Go to church.

That doesn't mean that it is a bad idea.

Your point is meaningless.

Christ established some basic principles and laid down some guidelines for the apostles.

Many of these are recorded in scripture, ie. the Lord's Prayer and Communion.

Others were not written down, but handed down through word of mouth teaching.

Humans are weak and need help to do the right thing.

Jesus gave the apostles tools for teaching and for leading us toward a more perfect life.

He also established a hierarchy to help us preserve his teachings.

You choose to ignore these things and rely on a narrow interpretation of words written decades after Christ left the earth.

You rely on dogma and ignore many truths.

Interesting quote, as I do not see them as dogma. Rather, by definition, your conclusions are based dogma, tradition, and beliefs ingrain the the organization.

My point is absolutely necessary here, as without Christ giving SPECIFIC things for us to do, except to believe in Him, no amount of work can save us.

The point stands.

While I appreciate the debate, I do not want to get too far divided on this, so I am offering an end to the discussion. As I have said numerous times, I have no problem with needing works to keep ones faith. As such, if you feel it neccesary, please do what you feel is necessary. I do not think this is an item to divide over, as long as Christ is the center of our beliefs. So, as a brother in Christ, let us move forward.

Virginia Daddy, you did an excellent job discussing a divisive issue. And, you are right and it is unfortunate that BadCandie can't see it -- works follow faith, they are a fruit of salvation, not a means to it.

By the way, BC, I tried to get a copy of the book you recommended by our local B&N doesn't have it, so I'll have to order it. Again, don't expect it to change my opinion. While I was searching for the book you recommended, I ran across several books by Catholics trying to make the case of Catholism. They all pretty much based their arguments on RC tradition "supported" by a handful of Biblical verses taken out of context. Unless this book is exceptional and more Biblically based, it won't convince someone who actually knows their Bible.

And, as I have said before, your knowledge of church history is an RC revisionist knowledge. The truth is available for the study, but you won't find it in a Catholic library. Good luck to you!

As a former protestant, your attacks ring hollow.

I've provided multiple scripture readings in context that you just ignore.

Anything that doesn't fit your dogma doesn't count. It would be funny if it weren't so important.

The truth is not an abstract concept.

There is one truth.

Did Jesus establish a church through the apostles?

What was the nature and history of that church?

What did Jesus leave us as instructions for worship and grace?

The truth is clear.

I have been where you are, and it is not a Godless place.

However, when your journey is over, you will know the truth.

The truth is a beautiful discovery, and God wants you to perceive it!

Study history. Study the scripture. Don't fight against the Holy Spirit!

I have spent the last 30 years studying Scripture and following the Holy Spirit. At various times I've had cult members tell me that the Bible plainly shows their doctrines is correct, but whenever I've looked up the Scripture and read it in context with the larger Bible, I've found that they were either misinterpreting the Scripture or outright lying about what it said.

I believe you sincerely think your dogma is the correct way to interpret the Bible and as long as you keep looking at verses out of their larger context, you will continue to believe that. Being sincere doesn't make you correct. The Roman Catholic Church has spent centuries convincing folks like you that the "Church" is the only one who can correctly interpret scripture and that if tradition disagrees with the Bible its because we laymen are too stupid and uneducated to know what it says. However, I have two friends who have spent their lifetimes studying the New Testament. One of them was even part of the interpretation team for the Holman Christian Standard Bible. In their combined 60 years of study, they've not found the traditions of infant baptism, transubstantiation or a good many other RC traditions. When presented with the tortured theology of Catholics with regard to certain Scriptures, they look at the Greek and shake their heads because it just doesn't say that. Sorry, but being sincere just doesn't mean you're correct. Sincerely deceived is still deceived.

You post:

I believe you sincerely think your dogma is the correct way to interpret the Bible and as long as you keep looking at verses out of their larger context, you will continue to believe that.

and yet, you have yet to post a single verse that I've posted out of context.

Please do so, or stop making this empty claim.

You claim that you are a pope, capable of interpreting the true meaning of the bible. Why are there thousands of different protestant denominations all claiming the same thing? You realize that they all have different dogmas which they claim are the truth.


Jesus established on church. He gave his apostles the power to forgive sins. He gave Peter the keys to the Kingdom.


Please review the following with an open mind and heart.

This is a detailed scriptural analysis of the legitimacy of the papacy. It won't fit on this site.

http://www.catholic-pages.com/pope/hahn.asp

You visited my blog with some interesting verses, so I decided to give them a closer look. Thought you might actually like to read John Chapter 6 and learn the context of the passage you took out of context.

I'm posting the entirety of Chapter 6 because it's all part of the whole. Jesus miraculously fed 5000 people who had followed Him out into the wilderness and were now hungry. The next day, the crowd followed Him. In verse 26, He chided them for pursuing another sign and wanting to get their physical bodies fed. They asked what they could do to perform the works of God (verse 28) and "Jesus replied, “This is the work of God: that you believe in the One He has sent.” (verse 29). They asked for another sign and alluded to the manna in the desert. Jesus told them that Moses didn't give the Hebrews the manna, God did. They demanded that Jesus give it to them. It was at that point that Jesus explained verse 29 by saying "I am the bread of life...."

By taking it out of context, you make the verse say what you want it to say, but when read within the context, it is part of an ongoing discussion that harkens back to an earlier verse. You do God's work by believing in the One He sent. The crowd wanted Jesus to give them physical bread. Jesus wanted to fill their souls with Himself. Jesus was not referring to literal bread anymore than later in the verse He was advocating cannibalism. He was saying His audience should accept Him as Savior and let Him fill their whole beings. They sought physical food. Jesus wanted to give spiritual sustenance.

Please read and understand:

John Chapter 6
"After this, Jesus crossed the Sea of Galilee (or Tiberias).
2 And a huge crowd was following Him because they saw the signs that He was performing on the sick.
3 So Jesus went up a mountain and sat down there with His disciples.
4 Now the • Passover, a Jewish festival, was near.
5 Therefore, when Jesus looked up and noticed a huge crowd coming toward Him, He asked Philip, “Where will we buy bread so these people can eat?”
6 He asked this to test him, for He Himself knew what He was going to do.
7 Philip answered, “Two hundred • denarii worth of bread wouldn’t be enough for each of them to have a little.”
8 One of His disciples, Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother, said to Him,
9 “There’s a boy here who has five barley loaves and two fish—but what are they for so many?”
10 Then Jesus said, “Have the people sit down.” There was plenty of grass in that place, so they sat down. The men numbered about 5,000.
11 Then Jesus took the loaves, and after giving thanks He distributed them to those who were seated—so also with the fish, as much as they wanted.
12 When they were full, He told His disciples, “Collect the leftovers so that nothing is wasted.”
13 So they collected them and filled 12 baskets with the pieces from the five barley loaves that were left over by those who had eaten.
14 When the people saw the sign He had done, they said, “This really is the Prophet(Dt 18:15) who was to come into the world!”
15 Therefore, when Jesus knew that they were about to come and take Him by force to make Him king, He withdrew again(A previous withdrawal is mentioned in Mk 6:31–32, an event that occurred just before the feeding of the 5,000. to the mountain by Himself).

The Fifth Sign: Walking on Water
16 When evening came, His disciples went down to the sea,
17 got into a boat, and started across the sea to Capernaum. Darkness had already set in, but Jesus had not yet come to them.
18 Then a high wind arose, and the sea began to churn.
19 After they had rowed about three or four miles,they saw Jesus walking on the sea. He was coming near the boat, and they were afraid.
20 But He said to them, “It is I. (Literal translation - I am.) Don’t be afraid!”
21 Then they were willing to take Him on board, and at once the boat was at the shore where they were heading.

The Bread of Life
22 The next day, the crowd that had stayed on the other side of the sea knew there had been only one boatinto which His disciples had entered They also knew that Jesus had not boarded the boat with His disciples, but that His disciples had gone off alone.
23 Some boats from Tiberias came near the place where they ate the bread after the Lord gave thanks.
24 When the crowd saw that neither Jesus nor His disciples were there, they got into the boats and went to Capernaum looking for Jesus.
25 When they found Him on the other side of the sea, they said to Him, “• Rabbi, when did You get here?”
26 Jesus answered, “• I assure you: You are looking for Me, not because you saw the signs, but because you ate the loaves and were filled.
27 Don’t work for the food that perishes but for the food that lasts for eternal life, which the • Son of Man will give you, because God the Father has set His seal of approval on Him.”
28 “What can we do to perform the works of God?” they asked.
29 Jesus replied, “This is the work of God: that you believe in the One He has sent.”
30 “What sign then are You going to do so we may see and believe You?” they asked. “What are You going to perform?
31 Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, just as it is written: He gave them bread from heaven to eat.” (Bread miraculously provided by God for the Israelites Ex 16:4; Ps 78:24).
32 Jesus said to them, “I assure you: Moses didn’t give you the bread from heaven, but My Father gives you the real bread from heaven.
33 For the bread of God is the One who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”
34 Then they said, “Sir, give us this bread always!”
35 “I am the bread of life,” Jesus told them. “No one who comes to Me will ever be hungry, and no one who believes in Me will ever be thirsty again.
36 But as I told you, you’ve seen Me,and yet you do not believe.
37 Everyone the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will never cast out.
38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do My will, but the will of Him who sent Me.
39 This is the will of Him who sent Me: that I should lose none of those He has given Me but should raise them up on the last day.
40 For this is the will of My Father: that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”
41 Therefore the Jews started complaining about Him, because He said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven.”
42 They were saying, “Isn’t this Jesus the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can He now say, ‘I have come down from heaven’?”
43 Jesus answered them, “Stop complaining among yourselves.
44 No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws (brings, or leads; see the use of this Gk verb in Jn 12:32; 21:6; Ac 16:19; Jms 2:6.)him, and I will raise him up on the last day.
45 It is written in the Prophets: And they will all be taught by God. (Isaiah 54:13) Everyone who has listened to and learned from the Father comes to Me—
46 not that anyone has seen the Father except the One who is from God. He has seen the Father.
47 “I assure you: Anyone who believes in Me has eternal life.
48 I am the bread of life.
49 Your fathers ate the manna (Ex 16:12–36) in the wilderness, and they died.
50 This is the bread that comes down from heaven so that anyone may eat of it and not die.
51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread he will live forever. The bread that I will give for the life of the world is My flesh.”
52 At that, the Jews argued among themselves, “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?”
53 So Jesus said to them, “I assure you: Unless you eat the flesh of the • Son of Man and drink His blood, you do not have life in yourselves.
54 Anyone who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day,
55 because My flesh is real food and My blood is real drink.
56 The one who eats My flesh and drinks My blood lives in Me, and I in him.
57 Just as the living Father sent Me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on Me will live because of Me.
58 This is the bread that came down from heaven; it is not like the manna your fathers ate—and they died. The one who eats this bread will live forever.”
59 He said these things while teaching in the • synagogue in Capernaum.

Many Disciples Desert Jesus
60 Therefore, when many of His disciples heard this, they said, “This teaching is hard! Who can accept it?”
61 Jesus, knowing in Himself that His disciples were complaining about this, asked them, “Does this offend you?
62 Then what if you were to observe the Son of Man ascending to where He was before?
63 The Spirit is the One who gives life. The flesh doesn’t help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.
64 But there are some among you who don’t believe.” (For Jesus knew from the beginning those who would not believe and the one who would betray Him.)
65 He said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to Me unless it is granted to him by the Father.”
66 From that moment many of His disciples turned back and no longer accompanied Him.
67 Therefore Jesus said to the Twelve, “You don’t want to go away too, do you?”
68 Simon Peter answered, “Lord, who will we go to? You have the words of eternal life.
69 We have come to believe and know that You are the Holy One of God!” (literally, Messiah), the Son of the Living God
70 Jesus replied to them, “Didn’t I choose you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is the Devil!” (Jn 13:2,27)
71 He was referring to Judas, Simon Iscariot’s son, one of the Twelve, because he was going to betray Him."

The gospel is not based on one verse taken out of context. It is based on the whole of what Jesus said. Context means everything.

That changes nothing.

How does the meaning of the words of Christ change with your addition?

Given your logic, any quoting of the bible is out of context unless you post the entire thing!

Your interpretation differs from that of Paul and the early Christians who took Jesus at his word.

It makes all the difference in the world that you took the passage out of context. Jesus was not giving instructions on the Mass here. He was speaking to people who wanted manna from heaven and He told them they wouldn't be getting it. He had come for a specific reason and it wasn't to perform miracles. He was going to die for our sins and be resurrected, breaking the chains of death. His listeners certainly understood the reference to the Passover -- where the Judas goat took the sins of Israel for a year. They decided to focus on the false assertion of cannibalism because it kept them from actually addressing what Jesus was saying, which is that He would be final sacrifice for our sins -- that He would become the eternal Judas goat. You want to keep it as instructions in a ritual whereby the bread becomes the actual flesh of Jesus and the wine becomes the actual blood of Jesus, but that's not what He was teaching. "I am the bread -- " is just one of many of Jesus' AM I statements. Most of the time, somebody started to gather stones to kill Him and this was no exception. If you read not much further in the gospel, you'll find the Pharisees and temple officials conspiring to kill Him for His comments on the bread.

BC, you can't just pick and choose passages at random and consider them to make your case. The Bible must actually teach what you believe. You can't just ignore what you don't like and declare yourself the winner when somebody points out the portions you were ignoring. Show us from Scripture where the bread and wine become the actually body and blood of Jesus. Don't read back into the Scripture what you want it to say. Read what the Scripture itself says and accept it. You don't get to choose your own personal theology. It must be based on what God has taught us in the Bible.

You state:

((It makes all the difference in the world that you took the passage out of context. Jesus was not giving instructions on the Mass here.))

According to whom? The apostles? The Church established by Jesus? No, just you. You have made yourself a pope and you claim to have the infallible interpretation of scripture.


(((BC, you can't just pick and choose passages at random and consider them to make your case.)))


But you can!! Amazing.

I prefer to follow the Church that Jesus founded on earth.

(((You don't get to choose your own personal theology. It must be based on what God has taught us in the Bible.)))

And yet, that's exactly what you do! You ignore the scriptures that make it clear that Jesus established a Church to help his sheep. You arrogantly claim to know how to interpret the scripture. You are right that I don't get to choose, the Holy Spirit chooses through the Church that Jesus established.

Jesus wanted us to be unified. Today, we have thousands of protestants(rebels!) claiming that THEY know the true interpretation of the scripture. This is what Jesus avoided by establishing one true Church.

The problem of protestants is that they are prideful and arrogant. They don't want to accept the teachings of the Church that they find objectionable. That is why protestant Churches are continuously splitting, it is an ongoing rebellion against authority.

Its been awhile. Hope all is well.

If I may, I'd like to offer some thoughts here:

"You ignore the scriptures that make it clear that Jesus established a Church to help his sheep. You arrogantly claim to know how to interpret the scripture. You are right that I don't get to choose, the Holy Spirit chooses through the Church that Jesus established."

Where does the Bible say we are not to interpret scripture? Where does it say the RC has the only authority to do so?

"More Arrogant evasions
As a former protestant, your attacks ring hollow.

I've provided multiple scripture readings in context that you just ignore.

Anything that doesn't fit your dogma doesn't count. It would be funny if it weren't so important.

The truth is not an abstract concept.

There is one truth.

Did Jesus establish a church through the apostles?

What was the nature and history of that church?

What did Jesus leave us as instructions for worship and grace?

The truth is clear.

I have been where you are, and it is not a Godless place.

However, when your journey is over, you will know the truth.

The truth is a beautiful discovery, and God wants you to perceive it!

Study history. Study the scripture. Don't fight against the Holy Spirit!"

Ever read anything about Mormonism?

Greetings:

((Where does the Bible say we are not to interpret scripture? Where does it say the RC has the only authority to do so?
))

Jesus prayed for unity for his church. Without a central source for interpreting scripture, unity is impossible. Jesus gave authority to the apostles to teach in his name, and primary among them is Peter, the rock upon whom Jesus founded his Church. Why do you suppose Jesus founded a church?

Here is Jesus praying for his apostles:

John

Jesus Prays for His Disciples
6"I have revealed you to those whom you gave me out of the world. They were yours; you gave them to me and they have obeyed your word. 7Now they know that everything you have given me comes from you. 8For I gave them the words you gave me and they accepted them. They knew with certainty that I came from you, and they believed that you sent me. 9I pray for them. I am not praying for the world, but for those you have given me, for they are yours. 10All I have is yours, and all you have is mine. And glory has come to me through them. 11I will remain in the world no longer, but they are still in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name—the name you gave me—so that they may be one as we are one. 12While I was with them, I protected them and kept them safe by that name you gave me. None has been lost except the one doomed to destruction so that Scripture would be fulfilled. 13"I am coming to you now, but I say these things while I am still in the world, so that they may have the full measure of my joy within them. 14I have given them your word and the world has hated them, for they are not of the world any more than I am of the world. 15My prayer is not that you take them out of the world but that you protect them from the evil one. 16They are not of the world, even as I am not of it. 17Sanctify[b] them by the truth; your word is truth. 18As you sent me into the world, I have sent them into the world. 19For them I sanctify myself, that they too may be truly sanctified.



Without a central church there will be no Christian unity.

That's why there are mainline protestant denominations today condoning homosexual marriage, abortion, and divorce.

Paul illustrated what tradition is: "For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures. . . . Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed" (1 Cor. 15:3,11). The apostle praised those who followed Tradition: "I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you" (1 Cor. 11:2).

The first Christians "devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching" (Acts 2:42) long before there was a New Testament. From the very beginning, the fullness of Christian teaching was found in the Church as the living embodiment of Christ, not in a book. The teaching Church, with its oral, apostolic tradition, was authoritative. Paul himself gives a quotation from Jesus that was handed down orally to him: "It is more blessed to give than to receive" (Acts 20:35).

the same from your passage.

Sure, Christ was wishing well for his apostles, but I do not think this is enough to say that only the Roman Catholic Church is sufficient.

You also bring up how certain denominations allow certain things (which I think are horrible to allow and certainly are extra-Biblical). There are many denominations, but there are also numerous versions of Catholic traditions. There is even an Eastern Orthodox Church, which arguably is closer to the original than what is in Rome now. And historically, you cannot deny many abuses or doctrine or of power. This takes some steam out of the argument you present. And this is also why many Christians, myself included, put our stock in the Bible only.

The trouble comes, whether Catholic or not, when we (anyone) tries to put meaning into the Bible rather than take it out of the Bible. Those churches who allow homosexuality, certain Methodist churches and the Anglicans, do so with justifications they put into the Bible.

As to the idea of the followers following the teaching of the apostles, well, certainly. But the letters we currently have in the canon were widely spread. And there is also no reason to think what is in those letters is any different from what was taught.

))Sure, Christ was wishing well for his apostles, but I do not think this is enough to say that only the Roman Catholic Church is sufficient.
))

I didn't say that. My belief, however, as a former protestant who IS born again, and as a follower of Christ who wants to find his will for my life, is that the fullness of truth is found in the Catholic Church.

The Catholic Church teaches, and I believe, that Christ will not reject those who seek him, regardless of their methodology.

((There is even an Eastern Orthodox Church, which arguably is closer to the original than what is in Rome now.))

Let's see your argument if you really believe this. I'll grant that the Orthodox Church is closer to the true teaching of Christ than protestant faiths.




(((There are many denominations, but there are also numerous versions of Catholic traditions. )))


There is only ONE Catholic faith. There are no diversions from the faith. There are different emphases, but not different beliefs.


((And historically, you cannot deny many abuses or doctrine or of power. This takes some steam out of the argument you present.))

Humans sin. That takes nothing away from Catholic Doctrine. The questions MUST be: Did Jesus establish a Church on earth. Did Jesus establish a hierarchy and method of succession for his Church. Is this Church the LARGEST Church on earth and is it the Church most responsible for spreading the truth that is Jesus Christ?



(((As to the idea of the followers following the teaching of the apostles, well, certainly. But the letters we currently have in the canon were widely spread. And there is also no reason to think what is in those letters is any different from what was taught.)))

The Catholic Church believes ALL of the bible, not some, as protestants do. In addition, we accept that much of the early traditions were oral, not written.

In fact, what we now take as scripture was oral tradition for years. The Catholic Church compiled and selected what is today called the new testament!


Here's the question for you:

Did Christ want his followers to be unified, and if so, is this unity possible if all individuals get to interpret the bible in whatever way they deem to be proper?

Well, I am sure he did. But he also wanted them to love him first, if you remember Christ's commands in John.

The Eastern Church historically is indeed arguably closer to the early church's teachings. Do you know your history on that? You do know there used to be but one Catholic Church, right? And that Rome and Constantinple split, right?

The different emphasis the different Catholic churches is really quite comparable to the differences in most protestant churches. The abuses the Catholic Church has committed are indeed the abuses of men, as are the crazy ideas some protestant churches have today. So this line of argument is not fruitful to the debate.

As to this line here: "The questions MUST be: Did Jesus establish a Church on earth. Did Jesus establish a hierarchy and method of succession for his Church. Is this Church the LARGEST Church on earth and is it the Church most responsible for spreading the truth that is Jesus Christ?"

1) Did Jesus establish a church? Yes, but we must define what that is. What did it mean when he left keys to heaven and established the rock under Peter? Could keys be Christ himself, and could Peter have been the one to take charge, of course. Does this, with finallity, give credence for the authority of the RCC? No.

2) Did Jesus establish a hierarchy? Not in what is the canon. If you think it there, please show me.

3) Is the Catholic Church the largest? This doesn't mean anything at all. Mormonism is among the fastest growing religions, does that make it true?

How many kids do you have, by the way?



you post:

(((Did Christ want his followers united?
Well, I am sure he did. But he also wanted them to love him first, if you remember Christ's commands in John.
))))

I'm sure you will agree with me that there is nothing mutually exclusive there!


(((The Eastern Church historically is indeed arguably closer to the early church's teachings. Do you know your history on that?)))

Yes, I do. I am still waiting for you to give me an example. I disagree with your conclusion. Other than acknowledging the pope as the Vicar of Christ, the doctrines are almost identical.

Biblical Support for the Papacy


From Matthew 16:

And Jesus answered him, 'Blessed are you Simon Bar-Jonah for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven, and I tell you, you are Peter and on this Rock, I will build my Church and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven and whatever you bind on earth will have been bound in heaven and whatever you loose on earth will have been loosed in heaven.'"

Why did Jesus use this terminology? Did he just make it up on the spot?

No. He was quoting scripture:



He is borrowing a phrase from Isaiah 22. He's quoting a verse in the Old Testament that was extremely well known. Let's go back to Isaiah 22 and see what Jesus was doing when He entrusted to Peter the keys of the kingdom.


In verse 19 it says, "I will thrust you from your office and you will be cast down from your station and on that day I will call my servant Eliakim, the son of Hilkiah, and I will clothe him with your robe and will bind your girdle on him and will commit your authority to his hand, and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the House of Judah; and I will place on his shoulder the key of the House of David."

Now the House of David is a dynastic reference. The House of David is the Davidic kingdom, the Davidic dynasty. We know this because David has been dead for hundreds of years when this is happening in Isaiah 22, "I will give you the key of the House of David. He shall open and none shall shut, and he shall shut and none shall open. He will become a throne of honor to his father's house." Look at all of the symbols of dynastic authority that are being given to this individual. First of all, an office. Second, a robe. Third, a throne and fourth, keys, the key of the House of David, these royal keys.

What is going on here? I'll just summarize it in rather simple terms. Hezekiah was at the time, the king over Israel. He was the son of David, hundreds of years after David had died. He was in the line of David and also he was ruler over the House of David. Now all kings in the ancient world had, as kings and queens have these days, cabinet officers, a cabinet of royal ministers. Hezekiah, as King, was unhappy with his Prime Minister before Shebna. So he was expelled, but when he was expelled, he left an office vacant. Not only did you have dynastic succession for the king, but you also have a dynastic office for the Prime Minister. When Shebna is expelled, there is an empty office that needs to be filled and that's why Eliakim is called to fill it.

Now, Eliakim is a minister in the cabinet, but now he is being granted the Prime Minister's position. How do we know? Because he is given what the other ministers do not have, the keys of the kingdom, the key to the House of David. That symbolized dynastic authority entrusted to the Prime Minister and dynastic succession. Why? Because it's the key of David; it's the House of David.

Jesus understood exactly what he was saying when he gave Peter the keys to the kingdom, and so did the other disciples.

More on Peter's primacy:

There is ample evidence in the New Testament that Peter was first in authority among the apostles. Whenever they were named, Peter headed the list (Matt. 10:1-4, Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:14-16, Acts 1:13); sometimes the apostles were referred to as "Peter and those who were with him" (Luke 9:32). Peter was the one who generally spoke for the apostles (Matt. 18:21, Mark 8:29, Luke 12:41, John 6:68-69), and he figured in many of the most dramatic scenes (Matt. 14:28-32, Matt. 17:24-27, Mark 10:23-28). On Pentecost it was Peter who first preached to the crowds (Acts 2:14-40), and he worked the first healing in the Church age (Acts 3:6-7). It is Peter’s faith that will strengthen his brethren (Luke 22:32) and Peter is given Christ’s flock to shepherd (John 21:17). An angel was sent to announce the resurrection to Peter (Mark 16:7), and the risen Christ first appeared to Peter (Luke 24:34). He headed the meeting that elected Matthias to replace Judas (Acts 1:13-26), and he received the first converts (Acts 2:41). He inflicted the first punishment (Acts 5:1-11), and excommunicated the first heretic (Acts 8:18-23). He led the first council in Jerusalem (Acts 15), and announced the first dogmatic decision (Acts 15:7-11). It was to Peter that the revelation came that Gentiles were to be baptized and accepted as Christians (Acts 10:46-48).


Not also, with regard to Apostolic succession, with the loss of Judas, the apostles did not carry on with just 11, they REPLACED him. This was not even debated, it was announced by Peter and it was understood that of course they were to choose another disciple.



Best Regards,

We've discussed much of the above at Aurora's, and I won't beat a dead horse here. But I do want to say, again, how I admire your dedication to the Lord. We are indeed free to disagree, and as long as we love Christ above all else and know he alone saved us, we are brothers.

And thanks for asking about my children. I have two sons, ages 25 mos and 10 mos. We have our hands full, but they are wonderful indeed!

I'll just use one of your references, Acts 15 posted below (redacted because of 2000 word limit.)

I would note that the apostles and elders met then Peter (Simeon) speaks, then Paul and Barnabas speak, then finally JAMES gives the determination. Now please explain to me how Peter is the leader from this passage when it is James that makes the decision for the group of apostles and elders?

Acts 15:6 Both the apostles and the elders met together to deliberate about this matter.

15:7 After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, “Brothers, you know that some time ago God chose me to preach to the Gentiles so they would hear the message of the gospel and believe...15:11 On the contrary, we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they are.”

15:12 The whole group kept quiet and listened to Barnabas and Paul while they explained all the miraculous signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them.

15:13 After they stopped speaking, James replied, “Brothers, listen to me. 15:14 Simeon has explained how God first concerned himself to select from among the Gentiles a people for his name. 15:15 The words of the prophets agree with this, as it is written,...15:19 “Therefore I conclude that we should not cause extra difficulty for those among the Gentiles who are turning to God, 15:20 but that we should write them a letter telling them...

It is clear that Peter made the decision with regard to gentile circumcision. He made the declaration AFTER there had been much debate.

Paul and Barnabas had moved on to other business, ie. explaining how their ministry was going and the wonderful things God was doing.

James merely summarizes what Peter had declared, even to the point of referencing Peter's explanation.

Questions:

Which Disciple did Jesus call the Rock upon which he would build his Church?

Which Disciple Did the others concede as leader?

Which Disciple did the early Church Recognize as the leader of the Church?

Which disciple did the angel mention by name when announcing Christ's resurrection?

Why do you think you know better than Jesus, the Disciples, and the Early Church?

Q: Which Disciple did Jesus call the Rock upon which he would build his Church?

A: Peter of course. What I find incredulous is that you take a foundation and turn it into something else. This reference to the Rock echoes the cornerstone principle found in the OT. All buildings had a cornerstone as foundation upon which the facility was based and built. This cornerstone was used for alignment, for reference, for a base course, etc. It ensures the building is correct. IOW it is the foundation of the building not the leader. It also does not turn over it's position to another before, during, or after the construction. That is where the RCC gets it wrong, instead of following Peter's foundation, they assume that they can take over his position.

Q: Which Disciple Did the others concede as leader?
Q: Which Disciple did the early Church Recognize as the leader of the Church?

A: James. Whenever there were important issues to be resolved, the elders and disciples returned to Jerusalem church which was under the leadership of James. As an example, let's take your assertion that Peter was the leader. Even Peter was corrected, not only by Yeshua but also by the disciples including the least of them, Paul. The refusal to accept that correction by your brothers in Christ is a big problem within the RCC and the Pope.

Q: Which disciple did the angel mention by name when announcing Christ's resurrection?
A: Peter. Who received Christ's first appearance? Who received Christ's first appearance to the disciples?
Q: Why do you think you know better than Jesus, the Disciples, and the Early Church?
A: I don't. I however use what our Lord has provided to us, his Scriptures and the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Why do you think you know better than Jesus, the Disciples, and the Early Church? Where do the early church fathers refer to a papacy? Where do the early church fathers refer to themselves as Pope? That concept came much later without biblical or apostolic approval. That is just one misconception in the RCC doctrine that opposes the apostolic concept of elders meeting to discuss. Peter is not the leader, Christ is the leader! Everyone else is a servant to Christ!

Please see the scriptural analysis of of Peter's primacy and the documentation that demonstrates the orgin of Jesus's use of Keys to the Kingdom with regard to Peter. This is position that requires a successor. The keys to the kingdom give authority to bind and unbind, ie. to make binding decisions.

((A: James. Whenever there were important issues to be resolved, the elders and disciples returned to Jerusalem church which was under the leadership of James. As an example, let's take your assertion that Peter was the leader. Even Peter was corrected, not only by Yeshua but also by the disciples including the least of them, Paul. The refusal to accept that correction by your brothers in Christ is a big problem within the RCC and the Pope.))

Popes are often criticized by priests and laymen in the Church. This is nothing new. Popes are humans and therefor sinful and prone to error. It is only when pronouncing on matters of doctrine that we believe the Holy Spirit guides the pope.

Please see the article leading my blog. It is much too detailed to post here.

((Why do you think you know better than Jesus, the Disciples, and the Early Church?))

I believe what they believed. You don't.


(((Where do the early church fathers refer to a papacy? Where do the early church fathers refer to themselves as Pope?)))

Tertullian



"[T]his is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: like the church of the Smyrneans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John, like the church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter" (Demurrer Against the Heretics 32:2 [A.D. 200]).


"Victor . . . was the thirteenth bishop of Rome from Peter" (The Little Labyrinth [A.D. 211], in Eusebius, Church History 5:28:3).

Cyprian of Carthage



"The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. ... ’ [Matt. 16:18]. On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. . . . If someone [today] does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; first edition [A.D. 251]).

Tertullian DIRECTLY addresses you in the second paragraph!




Tertullian



"Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called ‘the rock on which the Church would be built’ [Matt. 16:18] with the power of ‘loosing and binding in heaven and on earth’ [Matt. 16:19]?" (Demurrer Against the Heretics 22 [A.D. 200]).

"[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. . . . What kind of man are you, subverting and changing what was the manifest intent of the Lord when he conferred this personally upon Peter? Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys" (Modesty 21:9–10 [A.D. 220]).

and your usage.

A man who has been called the first Protestant, as the first Christian writer of impeccable orthodoxy to enunciate the unpalatable truth, that the church was not a conclave of bishops, but the people of the Holy Spirit.

A man whom the church did not recognised as a Saint, despite his orthodoxy, and his works were all marked as condemned in the 6th Century Decretum Gelasianum (Gelasian Decree) de recipiendis et non recipiendis libris, which appears to be a Decree issued by Pope Gelasius I (492-496AD) in 494.

Interesting take on Tertullian. Perhaps Tertullian is again speaking about the RCC as he did about heresy in the early church.

You quote whom?

Do you claim that he changed his position at some point?

If so, prove it.

papal and church writings from many different centuries when it seems to fit your assumptions. How about the decree issued by Pope Gelasius in 494.

Again Tertullian wrote much about the heresy in the church including "that the church was not a conclave of bishops, but the people of the Holy Spirit." That is in direct conflict with your claim of the Pope and bishops being biblical.

The Church is the body of Christ. This is the teaching of the Church!

The question is, how should this body be organized?

Did Jesus and the apostles give us any guidance in the matter?

Of course they did. You ignore most of it, apparently.

Jesus gave us a leader and a succession of teachers to help his body grow and prosper, which it has!

Tertullian believed in the papacy as biblical. You have yet to demonstrate otherwise. It is well known that sinners and heretics have occasionally been bishops. There is nothign wrong with pointing that out. However, thanks to the leading of the Holy Spirit and the structure established by Christ, the Church is the largest in the world.

The Catholic Church is growing rapidly in America, both through hispanic immigration and conversions.

Why?

Letter of Pope Gelasius to Emperor Anastasius on the superiority of the spiritual over temporal power: The pope's view of the natural superiority of the spiriitual over the temporal power finds a clear expression the following remarkable letter of Gelasius I (494).

There are two powers, august Emperor, by which this world is chiefly ruled, namely, the sacred authority of the priests and the royal power. Of these that of the priests is the more weighty, since they have to render an account for even the kings of men in the divine judgment. You are also aware, dear son, that while you are permitted honorably to rule over human kind, yet in things divine you bow your head humbly before the leaders of the clergy and await from their hands the means of your salvation. In the reception and proper disposition of the heavenly mysteries you recognize that you should be subordinate rather than superior to the religious order, and that in these matters you depend on their judgment rather than wish to force them to follow your will.

If the ministers of religion, recognizing the supremacy granted you from heaven in matters affecting the public order, obey your laws, lest otherwise they might obstruct the course of secular affairs by irrelevant considerations, with what readiness should you not yield them obedience to whom is assigned the dispensing of the sacred mysteries of religion. Accordingly, just as there is no slight danger in the case of the priests if they refrain from speaking when the service of the divinity requires, so there is no little risk for those who disdain - which God forbid -when they should obey. And if it is fitting that the hearts of the faithful should submit to all priests in general who properly administer divine affairs, how much the more is obedience due to the bishop of that see which the Most High ordained to be above ,ill others, and which is consequently dutifully honored by the devotion of the whole Church.

you should know your RCC writings better: THE 'DECRETUM GELASIANUM DE LIBRIS RECIPIENDIS ET NON RECIPIENDIS'

Initial heading: HERE BEGINS THE COUNCIL OF ROME UNDER POPE DAMASUS "ON EXPLAINING THE FAITH"...

Section 3 starts with: HERE BEGINS THE DECRETAL 'ON BOOKS TO BE RECEIVED AND NOT TO BE RECEIVED' WHICH WAS WRITTEN BY POPE GELASIUS AND SEVENTY MOST ERUDITE BISHOPS AT THE APOSTOLIC SEAT IN THE CITY OF ROME...

Section 5 which continues the listings with: The remaining writings which have been compiled or been recognised by heretics or schismatics the Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church does not in any way receive; of these we have thought it right to cite below a few which have been handed down and which are to be avoided by catholics:...

Amongst this list we find: the works of Tertullian.

The fact that Tertullian had some beliefs that were unacceptable to the Church doesn't invalidate his other beliefs.

In fact, it makes his support for the papacy all the more powerful.

What's your problem?

I know exactly what it is. Your pride keeps you from accepting the Church founded by Christ.

You lean on your own understanding.

You disregard the words of Christ that conflict with your own personal dogma.

Your own papal seat is in conflict with the bible!

Not a good problem to have! I hope you eventually yield to the truth being revealed to you by the Holy Spirit.

Pope Gelasius and seventy most erudite bishops...
Pope Damasus confirms the listing of books NOT TO BE RECEIVED.

Not just this part opposes scripture of Tertullian's work but ALL WORKS of Tertullian are not to be received. Now, in opposition to these papal decrees, you wish to hunt and peck amongst Tertullian's work to try and justify your position.

The problem with your assumption is that it is an assumption being made not what is written. Tertullian wrote that Peter ordained Clement while Irenaeus and Eusebius write that Peter ordained Linus; so again the unbroken chain that you are trying to form is not, a single line, but instead an outspreading of many "church fathers" that were ordained by Peter. Not to mention the many others "ordained" by the other 11 Apostles.

Finally, while the line to the seat in Rome is held by someone ordained by Peter, I see no mention of Pope, papacy, etc. That is an assumption and one that can be used for many cities and men that were ordained by Peter.

I am yielding to the truth from the Holy Spirit. There is much that I don't like about this truth from the Holy Spirit because I know I am not deserving of God's grace. Yet, Yeshua HaMoshiach (Jesus the Messiah) has provide the means of salvation for which I could never deserve. It is not man's doctrines nor man's methods of expression that provides God's grace. It is FAITH in YESHUA (Jesus) not belief, not baptism, not last rites, not marriage, not any man-made ceremony but FAITH.

What I have been shown is that the RCC suffers from the same problem (setting your mind on man's interest instead of God's interests) for which Peter received a severe rebuke from our Lord.

Mark 8:33 But after turning and looking at his disciples, he rebuked Peter and said, “Get behind me, Satan. You are not setting your mind on God’s interests, but on man’s.”

((bc
Pope Gelasius and seventy most erudite bishops...
Pope Damasus confirms the listing of books NOT TO BE RECEIVED.
)))

Tertullian became a Montanist and was into some strange stuff. Your point? The fact that he shared many of the Church's teachings doesn't exempt him from error. I'm sure if you research his Montanist views you'll agree that they should not be received.

It simply means father.

The name is irrelevant. The role is what is key.

Jesus assigned to Peter the role of leading his church on earth so that the doctrine could be protected. He promised Peter the protection of the Holy Spirit and that the gates of Hell would not prevail against his church.

It doesn't matter where the leader of the Church resides. More trivia that non catholics trumpet.

You ignore scripture that is VERY clear.

Why?

I don't know why you insist on distorting the words of scripture.

Truth:

Matt 6:14-15, "For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father also will forgive you; but if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses."

James 2:20, "Do you want to be shown, you foolish fellow, that faith apart from works is barren?"

Matt 6:14-15, "For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father also will forgive you; but if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses."

James 2:24, "You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone."

John 15:4-6,10, "Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in me. I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in me, and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit. If a man does not abide in me, he is cast forth as a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire and burned...If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love..."

Another distinctive lesson for Peter about leading the Church:

Luke 12

40You also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him."
41Peter asked, "Lord, are you telling this parable to us, or to everyone?"

42The Lord answered, "Who then is the faithful and wise manager, whom the master puts in charge of his servants to give them their food allowance at the proper time? 43It will be good for that servant whom the master finds doing so when he returns. 44I tell you the truth, he will put him in charge of all his possessions.

You twist the Scriptures to meet your agenda which is no different than those churches that twist the Scriptures to support gay marriage.

Take just one of your references above: Luke 12:41 You change what is written into Peter alone, however Peter's own words give the context by saying "US or EVERYONE" not me. This shows very clearly that Peter is asking a question while Jesus is speaking to a crowd and the disciples. CONTEXT!!!

I am curious how you every made it through a seminary program. Even the most liberal of seminaries does not twist the Scriptures like you continue to perform in your posts.

I twist nothing.

I never said I was in a seminary program, not that it's relevant.

The point I was making is that the apostles have a unique task. ie. the priesthood.

You have yet to acknowledge the error of the belief in salvation by faith alone, the clear directions of Jesus with regard to Peter's status as prime minister of his Church.

You have nothing to stand on but your own fallible interpretation of a few select bible verses.

Not very secure!

You twist much. You used the Luke passage as showing that Peter was the leader, which it does not show. That is twisting the Scriptures.

I agree the apostles have a unique task, emphasis on unique. You now want to change that unique task. Instead of apostolic, you want that unique task to be granted to only one line of "apostolic procession". Our Lord provided 12 lines of procession and Peter provided more than one line of procession. The early church showed these various lines by calling themselves Apostolic and Catholic Church of ________. They also held each other accountable for errors in their understanding what Christ taught, which was transmitted by the apostles performing their unique task.

Their is no error in salvation by faith alone. It is only through faith that the Holy Spirit may enter and guide the believer. Once the Holy Spirit has entered then their is no choice but to follow God's will which results in the works mentioned in James and identified as justification. So if a person does not follow God's will then there will be no external works which means there faith is dead.

You talk of Peter having priority over the other disciples as justification for your papal line of procession yet you cannot see that without faith there is no justification acceptable to God. For it is only by God's grace, granted through his Son, that any justification by man is possible. The only way to receive God's grace is through faith in Jesus which is called salvation.

41Peter asked, "Lord, are you telling this parable to us, or to everyone?"

42The Lord answered, "Who then is the faithful and wise manager, whom the master puts in charge of his servants to give them their food allowance at the proper time? 43It will be good for that servant whom the master finds doing so when he returns. 44I tell you the truth, he will put him in charge of all his possessions.



Who do you think is represented by the wise manager in this parable?


If not Peter, who?

Flame's gospel is irrelevant.

Catholics believe all the bible. You don't.

It's really that simple:


James 2:20, "Do you want to be shown, you foolish fellow, that faith apart from works is barren?"

James 2:24, "You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone."


1 Ptr 1:17, "And if you invoke as Father Him Who judges each one impartially according to his deeds, conduct yourselves with fear throughout the time of your exile."


1 Ptr 3:10-11, "He that would love life and see good days, let him keep his tongue from evil and his lips from speaking guile; let him turn away from evil and do right."

Romans 2:6-7, "For He will render to every man according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, He will give eternal life."

1 John 3:17, "...he who does the will of God abides for ever."

Matthew 7:21, "Not every one who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father Who is in heaven."

1 John 3:17, "If any one has the world's goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God's love abide in him?"

James 2:15-17, "If a brother or sister is ill-clad and in lack of daily food, and one of you says to them, 'Go in peace, be warmed and filled,' without giving them the things needed for the body, what does it profit? So faith, by itself, if it has no works, is dead."

1 Tim 5:8, "If any one does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his own family, he has disowned the faith and is worse than an unbeliever."

Matt 6:14-15, "For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father also will forgive you; but if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses."

Do you even know what the word "gospel" means? It is not my gospel, it is the Gospel of our Lord, Jesus the Messiah. It is also not the works righteousness gospel of the RCC.

Try 1 Cor 4:6 I have applied these things to myself and Apollos because of you, brothers and sisters, so that through us you may learn “not to go beyond what is written,” so that none of you will be puffed up in favor of the one against the other.

Good words for you BC. You are so puffed up that you cannot see the manipulation of scripture to fit the Apostolic and Catholic Church of Rome's claim to leadership. That my friend is not biblical. If you wanted straight biblical then you would go with counsels in Jerusalem. It is also very non-biblical to claim that Rome is the leader because of Peter dying there while not addressing which church was first started by Peter, others ordained by Peter, etc.

It's that simple.

When James says that we are not saved by faith alone, I believe it.

You, on the other hand, must manipulate scripture to fit your beliefs.

When Jesus gave Peter the keys to the kingdom, when he said we must eat his flesh and drink his blood, when he gave the apostles the authority to forgive sins or to choose NOT to forgive sins, when he said that we must pick up our cross and follow him, I believe him.

You don't.

Again taking Scripture out of context. Try reading it in context within the discussion on praying.

6:5 “Whenever you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, because they love to pray while standing in synagogues and on street corners so that people can see them. Truly I say to you, they have their reward.
6:6 But whenever you pray, go into your room, close the door, and pray to your Father in secret. And your Father, who sees in secret, will reward you.
6:7 When you pray, do not babble repetitiously like the Gentiles, because they think that by their many words they will be heard.
6:8 Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.
6:9 So pray this way: Our Father in heaven, may your name be honored,
6:10 may your kingdom come, may your will be done on earth as it is in heaven.
6:11 Give us today our daily bread,
6:12 and forgive us our debts, as we ourselves have forgiven our debtors.
6:13 And do not lead us into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one.
6:14 “For if you forgive others their sins, your heavenly Father will also forgive you.
6:15 But if you do not forgive others, your Father will not forgive you your sins.

to why Peter's "legacy" (for lack of a better term) resides in the Apostolic and Catholic Church in Rome. It appears that you fail to see the difference between accepting Rome and accepting Christ. It also appears that you fail to see there is no biblical basis for Rome alone as leader when the early church (based in different cities) held each other accountable for the correct, apostolic, and catholic teachings. Finally it appears that you fail to see that rejecting Rome as final authority is not rejecting Christ, nor Peter (or the other apostles), nor the Scriptures. It is simply rejecting the dogma of the Apostolic and Catholic Church in Rome.

I feel sad that you are so upset with my rejection of the Roman dogma. I feel even worse that your being upset leads to denigrating remarks. Because of the non-expressive nature of blogs, it is possible to inject personal offenses into what others have written. In any case, I offer my forgiveness for your offensive, personal remarks toward me and ask that you forgive me for any offense that you deem I made toward you.

change the meaning?

The role of Peter and the popes has nothing to do with a particular city. The pope was not always at Rome.

Scripture is clear that Jesus gave Peter primacy and a unique role.

Scripture is clear that the apostles understood this role.

You ignored this question:

It's that simple.

When James says that we are not saved by faith alone, I believe it.

You, on the other hand, must manipulate scripture to fit your beliefs.

When Jesus gave Peter the keys to the kingdom, when he said we must eat his flesh and drink his blood, when he gave the apostles the authority to forgive sins or to choose NOT to forgive sins, when he said that we must pick up our cross and follow him, I believe him.

You don't.


Why do you reject scripture?





What is your true motivation?

Simple really. You use the quote to prove the primacy of Peter. When taken in context, the quote is not about Peter, it is about prayer, and specifically what we call "The Lord's Prayer".

That is rejecting Scripture and twisting it to fit your dogma.

I answered your question.

I also answered about James. You change the meaning of what is written to fit your dogma. Their is a big difference between SALVATION and JUSTIFICATION. I have also written about those differences. However, if you want to continue with the liberal theology method of changing the meaning of words to fit your preferred dogma, then so be it. I refuse to accept your new-age meanings for Scripture.

Finally, it appears that you are more concerned with pushing your agenda then with seeking the truth. This has resulted in your childish attempts at insulting me insteading of having an actual discussion. I pray our Lord forgives you as I have forgiven your insulting behavior. May God Bless!

The quote you referenced is not related to Peter's primacy, but to the fact that we will also be judged by our actions.

Read it again:

6:14 “For if you forgive others their sins, your heavenly Father will also forgive you.
6:15 But if you do not forgive others, your Father will not forgive you your sins.


I repeat. How does your extended quote change the meaning of the verses above?

There is nothing you can post from the bible that Catholics don't believe. We believe all of the bible.


However, I can provide many quotes from the Bible that you will ignore or explain away.

You wrote:

((Their is a big difference between SALVATION and JUSTIFICATION.))

Which is James referring to? Can you answer James' question?

James 2:14, "What does it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has faith but has not works? Can his faith save him?"

How about Jesus? What does he mean by entering the Kingdom of Heaven? Do we have salvation if we are not permitted to enter the Kingdom of heaven?

Matthew 7:21, "Not every one who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father Who is in heaven."


Is a person who is WORSE than an unbeliever saved?

1 Tim 5:8, "If any one does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his own family, he has disowned the faith and is worse than an unbeliever."




I look forward to your responses.

We're not ignoring or explaining away your out-of-context quotes. We're putting them in their context. I can prove just about anything by taking a verse here, a verse there from the Bible and stringing them together to make my point, but when I focus on larger passages -- as Flame has done -- I am forced to look at the REAL meaning, what was actually written or spoken, rather than what I want it say.

Believe me, there are things I'd like the Bible to say that it doesn't, but I don't get to tell God who He is. He tells me and my obligation is to obey.

I'm afraid you think God should fit your design rather than you adapting to His design. That's sad!

I will make one final attempt to answer the questions. Should be here by Sunday afternoon.

Please explain why the scripture doesn't mean what it says, but it does mean what YOU say.

This should be interesting!

Example:

One quote in the paper says "the military in Iraq shot 20 civilians today."

Person 1 assumes "20 women and children".

Person 2 assumes "20 terrorists".

Now without context of the surrounding story, we cannot know which person is right. However if the surrounding sentences and paragraphs are describing an armed encounter with Al-Quaeda supporters and 20 of them were killed by Marines, then we have the answer because of the CONTEXT.

Can you answer James' question?

James 2:14, "What does it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has faith but has not works? Can his faith save him?"

How about Jesus? What does he mean by entering the Kingdom of Heaven? Do we have salvation if we are not permitted to enter the Kingdom of heaven?

Matthew 7:21, "Not every one who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father Who is in heaven."


Is a person who is WORSE than an unbeliever saved?

1 Tim 5:8, "If any one does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his own family, he has disowned the faith and is worse than an unbeliever."


Please place these verses in proper context.



I look forward to your responses.

May the Holy Spirit be with us as we discuss this issue of work. I am using the NET Bible for my biblical quotations and Crown Financial Ministries’ Biblical Financial Studies for a guideline. Please join me in further discussions on my blog First Accept In The Heart about how God has provided guidance for us in dealing with the blessings that he has bestowed on us.
We need to keep in mind that James was a Jew, living in Judea, understanding the Scriptures from the Jewish teachings, and writing primarily to Jewish converts. Their understanding of work would be based on the Scriptures, in this context, not our 21st century context. Work is a God given gift and expected of everyone who is obedient to God. We are blessed to receive God’s Grace for we are all undeserving and cannot earn it through dead works. It is only through the faithfulness and obedience of Jesus Christ to God that we receive salvation. Our faith in Jesus allows the entering of the Holy Spirit by which we receive the guidance in faithfulness and obedience. This obedience leads us to work in God’s name and to his honor. The Scriptures has this to say: “For by grace you are saved through faith, and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God; it is not from works, so that no one can boast. For we are his workmanship, having been created in Christ Jesus for good works that God prepared beforehand so we may do them. (Ephesians 2:8-10).

This is a natural progression that is given to us from God. We first come to faith in Christ and receive the Holy Spirit which is a foundational issue for the new brother or sister. They should be taught the concept of obedience to God and other more mature issues like their work being an obedient response to God’s Grace. We learn this in Scripture also: “Therefore we must progress beyond the elementary instructions about Christ and move on to maturity, not laying this foundation again: repentance from dead works and faith in God, teaching about baptisms, laying on of hands, resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment.” (Hebrews 6:1-2)…”For the ground that has soaked up the rain that frequently falls on it and yields useful vegetation for those who tend it receives a blessing from God. But if it produces thorns and thistles, it is useless and about to be cursed; its fate is to be burned. But in your case, dear friends, even though we speak like this, we are convinced of better things relating to salvation. For God is not unjust so as to forget your work and the love you have demonstrated for his name, in having served and continuing to serve the saints. But we passionately want each of you to demonstrate the same eagerness for the fulfillment of your hope until the end, so that you may not be sluggish, but imitators of those who through faith and perseverance inherit the promises. (Hebrews 6:7-11). I have left out verses 3-6 because that includes a complex theological discussion which does not affect the general discussion of work.

Even before sin entered the human race, God instituted work. “The Lord God took the man and placed him in the orchard in Eden to care for it and to maintain it.” (Genesis 2:15). The very first thing the Lord did with Adam was put him to work. Despite what many believe, work was initiated for our benefit in the sinless environment of the garden of Eden. Work is not a result of the curse!
After the fall, work was made more difficult. “But to Adam he said, Because you obeyed your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat from it,’ cursed is the ground thanks to you; in painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life. It will produce thorns and thistles for you, but you will eat the grain of the field. By the sweat of your brow you will eat food until you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you will return.” (Genesis 3:17-19).
Work is so important that God gives this command: “On six days you may labor, but on the seventh day you must rest; even at the time of plowing and of harvest you are to rest.” (Exodus 43:21) In the New Testament Paul is just as direct. “If anyone is not willing to work, neither should he eat.” (2 Thessalonians 3:10). Examine the verse carefully. It says, “If anyone is not willing to work.” It did not say, “If anyone cannot work.” This principle does not apply to those who are physically or mentally unable to work. It is for those who are able but choose not to work.
One of the primary purposes of work is to develop character. A job is not merely a task designed to earn money; it’s also intended to produce godly character in the life of the worker. According to Scripture there is dignity in all types of work and does not elevate any honest profession above another. David was a shepherd and a king. Luke was a doctor. Lydia was a retailer who sold purple fabric. Daniel was a government worker. Paul was a tentmaker. And, the Lord Jesus worked with his hands.

Scripture reveals we actually are serving the Lord in our work and not people. “Whatever you are doing, work at it with enthusiasm, as to the Lord and not for people, because you know that you will receive your inheritance from the Lord as the reward. Serve the Lord Christ.” (Colossians 3:23-24). Recognizing that we are really working for the Lord has profound implications.
Consider your attitude toward work. If you could see Jesus Christ as your boss, would you try to be more faithful in your job? The most important question you need to answer every day as you begin your work is this: “For whom do I work?” You work for Christ.
“Whatever you find to do with your hands, do it with all your might...” (Ecclesiastes 9:10). “…personal possessions are precious to the diligent. (Proverbs 12:27). In Scripture hard work and diligence are encouraged; laziness is condemned: “The one who is slack in his work is a brother to one who destroys.” (Proverbs 18:9)
Paul’s life was an example of hard work. “We did not eat anyone’s food without paying. Instead, in toil and drudgery we worked night and day in order not to burden any of you. It was not because we do not have that right, but to give ourselves as an example for you to imitate.” (2 Thessalonians 3:8-9). Your work should be at such a level that people will never equate laziness with God. Nothing less than hard work and the pursuit of excellence pleases the Lord. We are not required to be “super workers” who never make mistakes. Rather, the Lord expects us to do the best we possible can.

There is much more about the providence of God and our stewardship, however I will conclude here. When James is speaking about work, it is in context with the Jewish Scriptures. Those Scriptures say that one who is obedient to God will work hard and diligently so as to bring honor and glory to God. When taken in context with the coming of the Messiah, we find that our faith Jesus allows the Holy Spirit to enter and will result in obedience to God which can be seen through the good work which God prepared beforehand. One point that I will include after seeing bc's request, works without faith are dead and should a person claim that they have faith but are not obedient to God then that too is dead. That is the context of your references, that we are called to work in obedience to God and if we do not then we either never had faith or have fallen into apostasy, which is another discussion entirely. Remember that our faith is placed in Jesus Christ and it is only through his faithfullness and obedience to God that we receive our salvation.

James was a Jew, primarily teaching Jews, you say. And therefore.... His writing can be ignored??

Was this not also true of Jesus and the other disciples?

So, you admit you can't refute this scripture, but you can find a reason to ignore it.

You quote Ephesians:

“For by grace you are saved through faith, and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God


Amen. Catholics believe that 100%. However, faith is not the only work that is required, as we can clearly read in the scripture.

From your own reference:

having been created in Christ Jesus for good works that God prepared beforehand so we may do them. (Ephesians 2:8-10).


That we may do them! If you don't do them, says James, your faith is dead!

Jesus gave us a Church and sacraments to extend God's grace to us so that we can accomplish the good works that God prepared for us!!

You quote the following scripture:

((For God is not unjust so as to forget your work and the love you have demonstrated for his name, in having served and continuing to serve the saints. But we passionately want each of you to demonstrate the same eagerness for the fulfillment of your hope until the end, so that you may not be sluggish, but imitators of those who through faith and perseverance inherit the promises. ))


It appears you are coming to my side! I hope and pray that God is revealing his desire for you to come to the truth.

God will remember your WORK and LOVE! Through faith AND perserverance we will inherit the promises!

The goal of the Church and sacraments is to build faith and ASSURE perserverance. You cannot be a faithful Catholic without it!

Amen. I agree 100%. I don't see how it is relevant to this current discussion, however.

Again, we are in agreement here.

((Remember that our faith is placed in Jesus Christ and it is only through his faithfullness and obedience to God that we receive our salvation.))

I don't dispute that salvation comes from Christ, nor does any Catholic.

I do believe that we must work(ie. bear fruit, love, care for our families, etc.) to gain this gift by picking up our cross and following the one who SHOWED us the way to salvation.

Not only did he show us the way, he gave us a church and leaders to help us stay on the right road.

I don't deny that millions of protestants and orthodox Christians are following Christ in the way he intended.

However, I believe they are doing so without the fullness of Truth given to us by Christ to aid us in our Journey.

Jesus UNDERSTOOD human weakness. He KNOWS we need guidance and correction and a clear path. He gave us this path and guidance, but through pride, many have rejected it.


Don't reject the one apostolic and catholic church that is clearly alluded to in the apostles creed.

Jesus said "today you will be with Me in paradise."

Where were his works, BC? When did he have opportunity to do them? He was hanging on the cross because he'd been a bad man and he knew it. He admitted it to Jesus. All he did was turn to Jesus in faith. He had no opportunity for good works.

So, if works are required to save us, how do you explain that Jesus allowed this unrighteous man who had ONLY faith into heaven?

That is a work!

Please look to the scripture. It is very clear about what is required of us.

you write: "Jesus gave us a Church and sacraments to extend God's grace to us so that we can accomplish the good works that God prepared for us!!"

That is heresy my friend. You do not require the "sacraments" to extend God's Grace. You cannot even extend God's Grace, it is only through the faithfulness and obedience of Jesus to God that God offers his Grace.

No, I am not coming to your side. Notice that it is not salvation but justification (God is not so unjust) which again is a big difference. Work is a by product of faith in Christ, receiving the Spirit, and coming to obedience to God. It is not a checklist of things I have to do to get or keep my salvation, it is a response to the Grace that I receive.

((That is heresy my friend. You do not require the "sacraments" to extend God's Grace. You cannot even extend God's Grace, it is only through the faithfulness and obedience of Jesus to God that God offers his Grace.))

Through OBEDIANCE!

Jesus gave us the sacraments as tasks. This obediance confers grace and helps us remain faithful in our walk with Christ.

DO THIS in remembrance of me!!

If we don't partake in the sacrament of the Eucharist are we being obedient?

You insist that faith alone is not enough to save us, but all the thief did was express faith. So now you turn it around and say that repentence is a work. Which is it? Is my salvation experience good enough to save me or do I have to follow Roman Catholic rituals? Which is it? Either the thief was saved by his faith or he perished for lack of works. You can't have it both ways.

Ephesians 2:8-9 "For by grace (Rm 3:24; 6:14; 11:6; Gl 2:21; 2 Tm 1:9) you are saved through FAITH, (Rm 3:28; 5:1) and this is not from yourselves; it is God’s gift— NOT FROM WORKS, so that no one can boast."

Biblical truth will out. We are saved by faith apart from works, just as the thief.

((No, I am not coming to your side. Notice that it is not salvation but justification (God is not so unjust) which again is a big difference. ))

You still haven't explained the distinction you have created.

Again, which is being discussed below, salvation or justification?
James 2:14, "What does it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has faith but has not works? Can his faith save him?"

How about Jesus? What does he mean by entering the Kingdom of Heaven? Do we have salvation if we are not permitted to enter the Kingdom of heaven?

Matthew 7:21, "Not every one who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father Who is in heaven."


Is a person who is WORSE than an unbeliever saved?

1 Tim 5:8, "If any one does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his own family, he has disowned the faith and is worse than an unbeliever."


Salvation?

((You insist that faith alone is not enough to save us, but all the thief did was express faith. So now you turn it around and say that repentence is a work. Which is it? ))

What more could the thief do? He did all in his power to follow Christ. That is what Christ asks of us, to follow him and to be obediant to God's commandments.



(((Biblical truth will out. We are saved by faith apart from works, just as the thief.)))


Nowhere in the bible does it say we are saved by faith alone.

It does say that we are NOT saved by faith alone.a

Why do you ignore the words of the bible?


The Sacraments are God's gift to us to help us persevere in our walk with Christ.


Paul understands, you apparently don't:

Phillipians 3

10 I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, 11and so, somehow, to attain to the resurrection from the dead.


12 Not that I have already obtained all this, or have already been made perfect, but I press on to take hold of that for which Christ Jesus took hold of me. 13 Brothers, I do not consider myself yet to have taken hold of it.

Ephesians 4

11 It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, 12 to prepare God's people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up.

Jesus gave us tools, ie. Sacraments, to help us persevere.

you wrote: Is a person who is WORSE than an unbeliever saved? 1 Tim 5:8, "If any one does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his own family, he has disowned the faith and is worse than an unbeliever."

Again, I answered this and it relates the Hebrews 6. The reason that someone who has disowned the faith is worse than an unbeliever is because once disowned it is not possible to come again to repentance and faith while the unbeliever still has the offer of God's Grace.

Look, this is a doctrinal/dogma issue. You have to pick and choose amongst a few passages to justify your works salvation while over and over again we see passages and complete paragraphs that tell of salvation through faith in Jesus.
Finally, I would note that James starts with:
"1:2 My brothers and sisters, consider it nothing but joy when you fall into all sorts of trials,
1:3 because you know that the testing of your faith produces endurance.
1:4 And let endurance have its perfect effect, so that you will be perfect and complete, not deficient in anything.
1:5 But if anyone is deficient in wisdom, he should ask God, who gives to all generously and without reprimand, and it will be given to him.
1:6 But he must ask in faith without doubting, for the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea, blown and tossed around by the wind.
1:7 For that person must not suppose that he will receive anything from the Lord,
1:8 since he is a double-minded individual, unstable in all his ways.

He continues expressing both good and bad ways to respond to trials and how a follower of Christ responds in obedience to God.

It is responding to God through Jesus the Messiah not earning salvation.

((Again, I answered this and it relates the Hebrews 6. The reason that someone who has disowned the faith is worse than an unbeliever is because once disowned it is not possible to come again to repentance and faith while the unbeliever still has the offer of God's Grace.))

A person can have faith and then not gain salvation if they lose their faith!

What causes us to lose our faith? Unrepentant sin.

((You have to pick and choose amongst a few passages to justify your works salvation while over and over again we see passages and complete paragraphs that tell of salvation through faith in Jesus.
)))

Catholics believe all the bible and we KNOW that salvation comes through faith in Christ. We can also clearly see that our walk with Christ does not end with faith.

Jesus gave us wonderful gifts to help sustain our faithful walk with him. He gave us a church and beautiful sacraments to help our weakness.

Jesus established a Church for us.


Why would you reject such a gift?

Phillipians 3:20 But our citizenship is in heaven – and we also await a savior from there, the Lord Jesus Christ, 3:21 who will transform these humble bodies of ours into the likeness of his glorious body by means of that power by which he is able to subject all things to himself.

Our citizenship is in heaven and we are called to follow his instructions. Just like an ex-pat here in the world. I am an American therefore even though I may be living in Germany, I still follow US law. Same applies, our salvation through Jesus allows us to claim citizenship in Heaven however in obedience to God, we must follow his instructions.

Your Sacraments are portrayed as works righteousness that must be followed which is not biblical. Yes, they can be a very strong encouragement to those of the faith but they are not requirements for salvation. That is the difference, you require many "works" for salvation while the biblical witness does not. I also agree that we are part of the apostolic and catholic church (the bride) of our Lord Jesus the Messiah. I do not agree with the RCC claim to leadership because they do not meet the biblical witness from Jesus as to who will lead his church. And finally, if we are discussing the RCC claim to works being part of salvation then why are the false priests being protected instead of ex-communication as heretics? That is a poor work that does not bring glory and honor to God and therefore in your RCC salvation, they have grieved the Holy Spirit and are worse than unbelievers. Consistency in the RCC witness as servants of our Lord would do more to show leadership as stated by our Lord Jesus.

I would suggest that you do some study in the RCC dogma concerning Hebrews 6. What you are writing is not consistent with RCC dogma.

Are these not instructions?

Eucharist:

1 Cor 11:24-26
"This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me." In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me." For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes.
Lk 22:19
"This is my body, which will be given for you; do this in memory of me."

Baptism:

Mt 28:19
Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit,

Acts 2:37-38
Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and they asked Peter and the other apostles, "What are we to do, my brothers?" Peter (said) to them, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the holy Spirit."
Acts 10:44-47
While Peter was still speaking these things, the holy Spirit fell upon all who were listening to the word. The circumcised believers who had accompanied Peter were astounded that the gift of the holy Spirit should have been poured out on the Gentiles also, for they could hear them speaking in tongues and glorifying God. Then Peter responded, "Can anyone withhold the water for baptizing these people, who have received the holy Spirit even as we have?"

The fact that you don't understand the Church is clear.

It is just as clear that you don't understand the bible.

Jesus clearly stated that he had the authority to forgive sins.

Mk 2:10-12
"But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority to forgive sins on earth"-- he said to the paralytic, "I say to you, rise, pick up your mat, and go home." He rose, picked up his mat at once, and went away in the sight of everyone.

Jesus gave the same authority to Peter.

Mt 16:19
I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Jesus later gave the same authority to all the Apostles.

Mt 18:18
Amen, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
The Apostle John, an eyewitness, recorded more directly the words of Jesus giving the power to forgive sins to all the Apostles after the testimony of the Resurrection.

Jn 20:23
Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained.

I disagree with Roman Catholic dogma. For the Apostolic and Catholic Church in Rome is not the bride of Christ, it is only one part of the church.

As to RCC doctrine, I can see that you blindly follow the ways of man instead of the ways of God. Interesting concept that you have, RCC doctrine cannot be evaluated by anyone else but all other doctrine can be evaluated by the RCC. That my friend is not Scriptural nor is it in accordance with the teaching of Jesus. It is the same attitude that led the RCC to persecute people for translating the Scriptures and using a poor Latin translation of the Scriptures.

You pick and Choose those passages that fit your prideful manmade dogma.

You write:

((As to RCC doctrine, I can see that you blindly follow the ways of man instead of the ways of God.))

I have amply demonstrated that you IGNORE scripture and claim that James doesn't count because he is Jewish! How sad.

You ignore the clear instructions of Christ that we are to follow the teachings he gave us while on earth.

You ignore his clear instructions with regard to worship and prayer.

You ignore his clear statement that Peter is to lead his Church on earth and that this church will last forever.

Why? What is your true motivation. It is clearly not belief in the bible, which you ignore.


You are treading on a dangerous path.

Ignorance is one thing, willful defiance of the crystal clear words of scripture is another!

A couple of points from a humble observer:

1. This debate has been going on since Luther split from the RCC. When viewing the Bible alone, Protestant’s have an advantage. The New Testament was written largely as a supplement to the oral teaching the Christians had already received. (Acts through Revelations was written to Christian coverts or Gentiles and/or Jew’s pondering conversion as noted above).

2. The best way to know the “truth” is to determine what the first Christians believed. If they got it wrong, we don’t have much of a chance getting it right 2000 years later.

3. The first Christian churches were established by the Apostles and their disciples. The people converted based upon the Apostles’ oral teaching. Once a particular church was established in a city, the Apostles would write letters to that church addressing various issues and encouraging faith in the face of persecution. From these letters we can tell that the churches were organized bodies of believers with deacons ( Philippians 1:1; 1 Timothy 3:8-13), presbyters (1 Timothy 4:14) and a sacrament involving bread and wine (1 Corithians 11:20-33). We also know that the Apostles were constantly trying to keep the church unified in doctrine and belief (see just about every letter).

4. After the death of the Apostles, there were several authors known as the “early church fathers” who wrote letters to various churches. These persons claimed to be the successors of the Apostles. Often, these letters were written by, or addressed to, “Bishops.” Those writers described a very Catholic-style organization in the early church:

A. About 80 AD, St. Clement of Rome in his Letter to the Corinthians:
"Our Apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect knowledge, they appoint those who have already been mentioned, and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry. As for these, then, who were appointed by them, or who afterwards appointed by other illustrious men with the consent of the whole Church, and who have ministered to the flock of Christ without blame, humbly, peaceably and with dignity, and who have for many years received the commendations of all, we consider it unjust that they be removed from the ministry.”

B. About 110 AD, St. Ignatius of Antioch in his Letter to the Magnesians:
“Indeed, when you submit to the bishop as you would to Jesus Christ, it is clear to me that you are living not in the manner of men but as Jesus Christ, who died for us, that through faith in His death you might escape dying. It is necessary, therefore,--and such is your practice,--that you do nothing without the bishop, and that you be subject also to the presbytery, as to the Apostles of Jesus Christ our hope, in whom we shall be found, if we live in Him."

C. About 155 AD, St. Justin Martyr in Apologies:
“For we do not receive these as common bread and common drink; but just as Jesus Christ our Savior, having been made flesh by the word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have learned that the food over which thanks has been given by the prayer of the word which comes from him, by which are blood and flesh are nourished through a change, is the Flesh and Blood of the same incarnate Jesus.”

D. 180-199AD, Irenaeus of Lyones in Against Heresies:
“It is possible, then, for everyone in every Church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the Apostles which has been made known throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the Apostles, and their successors to our own times: men who neither knew nor taught anything like these heretics rave about.”

E. About 200AD, Tertullian:
“Moreover, if there be any bold enough to plant themselves in the midst of the apostolic age, so that they might seem to have been handed down by the Apostles because they were from the time of the Apostles, we can say to them: let them show the origins of their Churches, let them unroll the order of their bishops, running down in succession from the beginning, so that their first bishop shall have for author and predecessor some one of the Apostles or the apostolic men who continued steadfast with the Apostles. For this is the way the apostolic Churches transmit their lists: like the Church of the Symrnaeans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John; like the Church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter. In just this same way the other Churches display those whom they have as sprouts from the apostolic seed, having been established in the episcopate by the Apostles."

5. If you read the early church fathers, you will see that they also describe Catholic-style doctrines including: liturgical masses, infant baptism, and the Eucharist. Some of them disagree around the edges, but all in all they do paint a very Catholic picture of the early church.

6. I don’t think anyone is disputing the fact that the Catholic Church existed after the Council of Nicea. At that council, we see Bishops from several churches meeting to define matters of faith. Those bishops undoubtedly came from the same line of bishops referenced in the above quotes. Thus, the Catholic Church is the Church that arose from the Bishops who ran the Churches established by the Apostles.

My point is: Instead of debating the semantics of the Bible, try researching the foundations of the Christian Church. Trace the historical origins of faith alone, communion being a “symbol,” or the Church being an unorganized body of believers not subject to an authority figure (Apostle or Bishop). To do this we must leave our own traditions behind (yes, Protestants have their traditions too), forget what our parents and our favorite commentators told us, and look at the historical Church. Once you have an understanding of that Church, go back to the Bible and try to see where those doctrines came from. (I.e. its much easier to see the trinity in the Bible if you are told it exists before you read the Bible.)

I’m not a Catholic (yet), but I’d rather be scared by the Truth, then find comfort in a lie.

With all due respect, we're not debating the "semantics" of the Bible. We're debating whether the foundations of Christianity is faith in Jesus or membership in a religious hierachy. I would point out that there were dissenters among the early church fathers. Tertullian, for example, was very much against infant baptism, which makes sense since you won't find a single example of it in the Bible. Right there should tell you something about the gulf between the Bible and RCC tradition. They simply are not compatible.

Also what many the early church fathers describe as the hierarchy of "Catholic" church is not what is seen in the New Testament. The New Testament does not show any sign of an ultimate pope-like leader. The closest to it is Paul and Barnabas going before the Jerusalem elders and apostles for consideration on the Gentile issue and it is not Peter or any one apostle who makes the decision, but the apostles and elders TOGETHER who decide. At best, you could ascribe a decision to James' summation in Acts 15, but even that is stretching it. He was acting as moderator; he may have been speaking prophesy, but the decision was clearly the decision of the elders and apostles, not of any one person.

Word limit is annoying!

Clement of Rome did not anywhere dictate to the Corinthians in his letter. He persuaded, much as Paul persuaded in his letters. Again, that shows that Clement did not think himself the ultimate authority of all the churches, but merely an interested party. Later, there are numerous examples of Rome butting into the business of other churches and being told to "butt out". There was not universal acceptance of Rome as head of the "Catholic" Church until after Nicea and even then, some churches resisted.

In actuality, the RCC did not begin claiming Peter as the first pope seated at Rome until the 10th Century. It was one attempt to force the Eastern Church to bow to the dictates of Rome. It was among the many steps that lead to schism in the 11th Century. The Eastern Church did not have a tradition of a singular ultimate authority and refused to submit to one, especially if it was located in the Western Church.

If you go to my blog and look back several months, you'll see a lengthy discussion of the historical underpinnings of reformation. The RCC doesn't want the rest of the world to know about it because it shows their ulterior motives, but reformation was underway almost from the birth of the "Catholic" Church. True believers always objected to heresies like infant baptism on Biblical ground. Usually, they were killed by the RCC to shut them up.

While I agree that your point is legitimate, many protestants accept nothing if it is not in scripture.

For this reason, most of my points have been based on scripture.

Your summary, however, is very persuasive and valid.

What is your current faith?

((Tertullian, for example, was very much against infant baptism, which makes sense since you won't find a single example of it in the Bible. Right there should tell you something about the gulf between the Bible and RCC tradition. They simply are not compatible.
)))

When was circumcision performed?


Col 2

10 and you have been filled in him, who is the head of all rule and authority. 11 In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12 having been buried with him in baptism


More scripture:

"Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 19:14).

"Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them; and when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them to him, saying, 'Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God'" (Luke 18:15–16).

In the New Testament we read that Lydia was converted by Paul's preaching and that "She was baptized, with her household" (Acts 16:15). The Philippian jailer whom Paul and Silas had converted to the faith was baptized that night along with his household. We are told that "the same hour of the night . . . he was baptized, with all his family" (Acts 16:33). And in his greetings to the Corinthians, Paul recalled that, "I did baptize also the household of Stephanas" (1 Cor. 1:16).


Do you think there were no babies or children in these households?

I don't want to call you a liar, but I'm fairly certain we've been through this before:

An early witness to papal authority is the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians. This letter was written 96 A.D. in Rome by Pope Clement to restore order to the church in Corinth. Clement not only interferes with this church, but also apologizes for not acting sooner.

The blessed apostles, then having founded and built the Church , committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate...To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric...(etc.) In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the turth, have come down to us. [Against Heresies III, 3, 3]



He saith to him, "Feed my sheep". Why does He pass over the others and speak of the sheep to Peter? He was the chosen one of the Apostles, the mouth of the disciples, the head of the choir. For this reason Paul went up to see him rather than the others. And also to show him that he must have confidence now that his denial had been purged away. He entrusts him with the rule [prostasia] over the brethren. . . . If anyone should say "Why then was it James who received the See of Jerusalem?", I should reply that He made Peter the teacher not of that see but of the whole world.

St. John Chrysostom circa 400 AD

St. Irenaeus, writing between 175 and 190, not many years after his Roman sojourn, enumerates the series from Peter to Eleutherius.

Word limit is annoying

Is RCC tradition being read into Scripture. Are you unaware of the history? There was ongoing controversy over infant baptism and it was not practiced in most localities until the 3rd Century. The Didache clearly describes adult baptism, not infant baptism, for example. Infant baptism did not become universally accepted until about the 5th Centuries and there were always groups that disagreed with it from Nicea to the Reformation.

Jesus commanded His disciples "Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age" (Mat 28:18-20).

Notice that He told them to make disciples FIRST. They are baptized AFTER that has happened. Like works, baptism FOLLOWS salvation. It does not produce it!

Again, the Bible is our guide. You cannot legitimately read into it with RCC tradition and then claim you are Biblically based.

The household baptisms of the First Century clearly did not include infants, because they would have been done in running water -- usually a river. You want to talk logic, BC? Do you really think any loving mother would put her baby's face under water?

As all detailed examples of baptism include (capable) people making a faith decision, honest Bible scholars have concluded that infant baptism was not practiced by the early Church.

Because you believe in infant baptism, you read it into the accounts, but that's not genuine scholarship.

Infant baptism robs a child of the right to make their own faith decision. If I had a nickle for every Catholic I've met who thinks their baptism at one week is all that's necessary to secure their ticket on the rocket ride to heaven, I'd be rich. Salvation is by faith. Baptism is just getting wet it you don't have that and infants, because they are infants, can't have that.

The practice of infant baptism is not explicitly described in scripture. However, it is implicitly described and is in no way prohibited.


The doctrine of salvation by faith alone is not in the bible, yet you believe it. It is also not part of the early Church, or the current church.


You clearly don't understand infant baptism.

You wrote:

((Infant baptism robs a child of the right to make their own faith decision.))


An infant makes NO decisions regarding faith. Infant baptism is a decision of the parents and the Church.

Please read the teaching of the Church with regard to baptism before making further comments:

http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a1.htm

You wrote:

((There was ongoing controversy over infant baptism and it was not practiced in most localities until the 3rd Century. )))

Truth:

Origen

"The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine sacraments, knew there are in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit" (Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 248]).


Hippolytus



"Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them" (The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D. 215]).


Origen



"Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin. . . . In the Church, baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants. If there were nothing in infants which required the remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous" (Homilies on Leviticus 8:3 [A.D. 248]).


Cyprian of Carthage



"As to what pertains to the case of infants: You [Fidus] said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, that the old law of circumcision must be taken into consideration, and that you did not think that one should be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day after his birth. In our council it seemed to us far otherwise. No one agreed to the course which you thought should be taken. Rather, we all judge that the mercy and grace of God ought to be denied to no man born" (Letters 64:2 [A.D. 253]).

and all from the THIRD century. Seems you made aurora's point. But please continue to twist the writings like you did with Tertullian whose writings were not received by Roman Popes in the late 5th and early 6th century.

I appreciate your writings especially as they are much more eloquent. The discussion from my side is not whether there is an apostolic and catholic church but whether there is a defined (only one) leader and whether that leadership lays with the RCC. The Scriptures appear clear as to there being a conference (for lack of a better term) of the apostles and elders when deciding key issues which would be against the RCC (and it's Pope) being the only voice on issues in the apostolic and catholic church of Yeshua HaMoshiach (Jesus the Messiah). Even at Nicea, we see the elders and apostolic descendents meeting to determine issues.

Try reading, Flame:

Origen

"The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine sacraments, knew there are in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit" (Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 248]).


From the apostles!!

A.D 248 = 3rd century

Received from the apostles the TRADITION...

Again you don't read what is written instead you read into what is written and change it into mandatory obligations before salvation is bestowed by the church. Salvation does not come from the church, it comes from God through Jesus.

First off, I love this type of discussion. I’m a Christian, by that I mean I believe in the Bible, the Trinity, and that Jesus died for our sins, was resurrected, and through his sacrifice we are saved. (Thank you C.S. Lewis). Currently, I’m non-denominational. For the last few years I’ve been trying to find the “right” denomination, if any. I’m guided by the assumption that if God does have “right” one, I can discover it through reason and logic. (Especially with the information available today).

Right now, I’m leaning Catholic due to its historical underpinnings, but I’m put off by its darker history and some of its current doctrine. I defend it because I don’t like revisionist history or relativism. I’m glad to see that Aurora and Flame are not your typical Protestants. They understand that the Catholic Church (orthodox and roman) is the church that arose from the pre-Nicean Bishops.

I agree that the early church fathers had disagreements. For that reason, the individual fathers are a good historical read but not to be given the same weight as Scripture. Regardless, their first hand accounts are as close as we can get to understanding early Christian practices and beliefs.

I also agree that the very early Church’s emphasis on Apostolic succession was to trace a bishop back to an individual Apostle, instead of back to Peter himself. (You can see that in the quote from Tertullian I posted above.) Much like American States under the Articles of Confederation, the churches operated as individual units bound together by common interests. However, as time passes you see a greater emphasis on “the bishop of Rome” as a first among equals. Perhaps this is because he is “the rock,” or maybe this occurred because of Rome’s overall power and importance in the ancient world. I don’t know.

What is clear about the ECFs is that they placed more emphasis on Apostolic succession then they did on written Scripture. To weed out heresy, doctrine would be traced back through a series of bishops to a credible source (i.e. traced through Apostolic succession). If some emerging theory could not be seen as an extrapolation of things previously taught, then it was rejected. Thus, doctrine was allowed to develop and deepen, but not to contradict the tenants of the faith.

Aurora and Flame, you both believe that the doctrines discussed after the 100 AD cannot be true because they contradict clear Biblical teaching. You believe these doctrines crept into the church because the Biblical Books were not in wide circulation. You believe there must have been some type of “faith alone” underground movement because that’s the type of religion described in the Bible. We simply lack evidence of a faith alone movement because the organized church suppressed it.

That begs the question: Why weren’t these Biblical works destroyed or modified if the Orthodox church feared them so much? Why would an institution affirm these books if they so obviously contradicted it? After all, we are dealing with largely illiterate masses who could easily be manipulated to follow “non-biblical teaching.” Change a word here, add in a verse there, and its done.

My answer would be that the church did not think it was contradicting those books. It felt that its beliefs where an honest interpretation of what those books were trying to convey. Moreover, the early church did not see its duties as simply interpreting texts. It saw itself as the institution charged with protecting everything handed to it by the Apostles, which included written and oral instructions. Therefore, it valued tradition as much as text and endeavored to ensure that one did not contradict the other.

I guess the main question is: Who instituted the basic organizational structure of the early church? Were the individual Churches allowed to organize themselves as they wished, or did the Apostles preach on church organization as well as “the good news?”

It’s fairly clear that within 50 years of Jesus’s death you have individual churches organized in a fairly similar fashion (bishop at the head, presbyters helping the bishop, deacons helping the presbyters, and then the body of believers as a whole). While the New Testament letters address qualifications for these positions, they do not specifically proscribe the duties of the individual offices. Thus, the evidence points not only to evangelization and fellowship, but to extra-biblical statements by Apostles (i.e. tradition) on how churches should be set up.

Basically, my point is that the apostles did not just spread the good news. Every church they established included a Bishop, presbyters, and deacons. When a Bishop died, he was replaced with another. While the Apostles were around, they were consulted about problems that arose. After they died, problems were settled by examining the traditional beliefs of the church. If there was a big enough dispute, Bishops met and settled the matter. The Catholic Church (eastern and roman) can trace its origins to these bishops; everyone else cannot. Therefore, it’s no surprise that the eastern and roman churches believe virtually the same things, have the same sacraments, and celebrate a similar liturgy. (Main disagreement is over whether the Holy Spirt proceeds from the Father and the Son, and the authority of the Bishop of Rome versus the other Bishops).

The Reformers (Protestants) trace their lineage the same as the Catholic Church (eastern and roman) although they primarily protested against the Roman version.

More later if bc allows me to continue since what I write will be in opposition to RCC dogma.

You have my position wrong. I have a problem with the RCC position of picking and choosing amongst those writings when it suits their position while at other times they decide that those writings are heretical (i.e. Tertullian)and their decisions based upon their belief that the RCC and Pope is infallible in doctrinal issues. If they were infallible then why do they continually change what previous Popes have declared. That and they deny to apostolic descent of any other part of the church except RCC.

One comment:

((You believe there must have been some type of “faith alone” underground movement because that’s the type of religion described in the Bible. We simply lack evidence of a faith alone movement because the organized church suppressed it.
))

I don't believe the doctrine of salvation by faith alone is biblical.

Do you, or are you just making a larger point?

You are missing the point.

Here's what Aurora said:

((Are you unaware of the history? There was ongoing controversy over infant baptism and it was not practiced in most localities until the 3rd Century. ))

Here's what Origen said:

"The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine sacraments, knew there are in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit" (Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 248]).


If the Church received this tradition from the apostles, then clearly it was practiced by nearly every Christian from the 1st century.


I'll take his word over Aurora's.


No offense meant, Aurora!(In this particular case, although I reserve the right to offend you in the future!)

your own citations show the controversy.

you cite: Cyprian of Carthage

"As to what pertains to the case of infants: You [Fidus] said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, that the old law of circumcision must be taken into consideration, and that you did not think that one should be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day after his birth. In our council it seemed to us far otherwise. No one agreed to the course which you thought should be taken. Rather, we all judge that the mercy and grace of God ought to be denied to no man born" (Letters 64:2 [A.D. 253]).

Martin Luther was Roman Catholic and had no wish to leave that communion however he was ex-communicated. His lineage is traced the same as others from the RCC. He did have a problem with Erasmus and his humanist position which was very, very close to, if not actually, Pelagianism.

There is no controversy over the practice of infant baptism, only about when it should be performed.

In addition, Origen states that the practice originated with the apostles.

Aurora claimed that that practice itself was the controversy. I see no evidence for this claim.

The reformers trace their movement back to the first century, not through a succession of bishops, or through historical (extra-biblical) evidence, but through Biblical interpretation. Taking the Bible as the sole authority that could be trusted, the reformers slowly created their own church apart from the Catholic Church. The goal was to find what the early church “must have been,” not what the history said it was.

In the beginning, several of the reformers stuck with tradition regarding the Eucharist, the liturgy, etc. Some of them intended to “reform” the existing church, not displace it completely (hence, the name). However, once it was ok to throw some things out of tradition, it was ok to throw everything out. Thus, baptism as necessary changed to baptism as a sign, Eucharist moved from something supernatural to an act of pure remembrance, etc. Over time, everyone became free to interpret as they wished, resulting in numerous denominations believing all sorts of things, and eventually leading to people disregarding denominations altogether (hence, me).

There are various pre-reformation individuals throughout history who may have, at one time or another, held views similar to the reformers on particular issues. Prior to the reformation, however, there is no evidence of an early church holding to all the views of the reformers. Moreover, every organized block of believers who broke from the very early church held to doctrines that even the reformers would disagree with (Gnostic, trinity disputes, etc...). The churches that did get booted from the main church either came back into the fold or have been lost to history. If a church came back into the fold, the people went to mass, gave confession, and received the Eucharist. In other words, they became “Catholic.”

Essentially, the ideas that sparked the reformation existed because people were seeking to obtain salvation outside of an institution desperately in need of reform. The ideas were born of necessity, not out of long held historical beliefs. Tradition was something intangible, recorded in documents that could not be dated or in memories long past. In contrast, the Bible was real. It was a physical book that could be read and studied. Everyone agreed it was authentic, so it was the best place to “double check” tradition. It provided an out.

Unlike the reformers, Catholics emphasize Apostolic succession. The idea that special gifts are given to those in positions of authority in the Church, and those gifts can be traced back from person to person, all the way to the Apostles (typically given through “laying on of hands”). The Catholic Church (roman and orthodox) keep lists of Bishops for each Diocese. Each new Diocese was created by a Bishop from some other Diocese whose name was also recorded. For the most part, the Catholics can trace every Diocese back, through a succession of Bishops, to the very first Bishops who were appointed by the Apostles.

In fact, because the Catholics place so much emphasis on Apostolic Succession, the Roman church has always believed the Orthodox churches’ sacraments are valid. Likewise, the Orthodox churches have always believed that the Roman Church’s sacraments are valid. (Even though they excommunicated each others’ leaders). Both Churches believe that the Anglican Church’s sacraments are invalid because the Anglican Church has too much difficulty tracing its clergy to Bishops, and its Bishops back to the Apostles.

So I agree that both the reformers and the Catholics have claims to the early church. However, the Catholics have a historical argument, while the reformers have faith; faith that authentic “Biblical” Christianity existed in its entirety, but was left historically unrecorded outside of the Bible. Reformers can point to people who liked the Bible a lot, and others who were excommunicated for disagreeing with the church, but not to a group of people in the early church who held to all the beliefs they hold today.

On the other hand, being in control for so long has given the Catholic’s the opportunity to be the authors of their own history. So they undoubtedly preserved those ancient writings that helped, and tossed those that did not. We know they persecuted the heretics and burned their books, perhaps they did the same with evidence of the early church. But once again that begs the question of why they did not just burn/edit the Bible.

My beliefs can change. But right now this where I stand. The Catholics are the successors of the Bishops who ran the early church. Over time, they expanded on the oral and written testimony of the Apostles. They have always strived to ensure unity of doctrine, and have always believed that the new “Twist” was consistent with what was taught before. Key to this was the doctrine of Apostolic succession, and the idea that God would never let them lead the people astray (which lead to the idea of “infallible” teaching).

At any given point in Christian history (except the present) the Catholics represented the majority view of that time. Sometimes they disagreed amongst each other, but when they got together and held a council, the decision of that council was (or became) the majority view.

I believe that the depth of Catholic doctrine is realistic given the almost 2000 years the church has had to sit and think about things. But just because I can track to progression of doctrine, and that doctrine was developed by people who meant well, does not mean that it is true. Most Catholic ideas are extrapolation from principles taught by the Apostles, not directives from them.
These ideas can be beautiful, and thought provoking, but that does not mean that they are true.

Although, it all comes down to the authority question. If the Apostles appointed Bishops and told everyone to follow that Bishop when they were gone, then we have to follow those Bishops.

Sorry for the long comments. I just have some catching up to do. It seems I'm a little late to the party. :)

to the Apostolic and Catholic Church of Rome's "hijacking" of the catholic (universal) church with little regard for scripture except when it might assist in their claim. For even Peter was rebuked by the Messiah and later, after the resurrection, in need of the council of the apostles and elders to correct his path. Which shows that infallibility claimed by the RCC is not scriptural.

on Tertullian. Biff, BC likes to quote only parts of passages when that part supports his argument. Tertullian did not just use apostolic succession as a test for true churches, because he recognized that some churches that could produce records were still teaching heresy and that some newer churches that couldn't prove their apostolic inheritance were teaching apostolic doctrine. He said in Prescription on Heresies, Chapter 38 that true Christian churches MUST meet the second criteria (apostolic teaching), but were helped by meeting the first criteria.

I'll post it below to beat the word limit.

Tertullian wrote --
"Where diversity of doctrine is found, there, then, must the corruption both of the Scriptures and the expositions thereof be regarded as existing. On those whose purpose it was to teach differently, lay the necessity of differently arranging the instruments of doctrine. They could not possibly have effected their diversity of teaching in any other way than by having a difference in the means whereby they taught. As in their case, corruption in doctrine could not possibly have succeeded without a corruption also of its instruments, so to ourselves also integrity of doctrine could not have accrued, without integrity in those means by which doctrine is managed. Now, what is there in our Scriptures which is contrary to us? What of our own have we introduced, that we should have to take it away again, or else add to it, or alter it, in order to restore to its natural soundness anything which is contrary to it, and contained in the Scriptures? What we are ourselves, that also the Scriptures are (and have been) from the beginning. Of them we have our being, before there was any other way, before they were interpolated by you. Now, inasmuch as all interpolation must be believed to be a later process, for the express reason that it proceeds from rivalry which is never in any case previous to nor home-born with that which it emulates, it is as incredible to every man of sense that we should seem to have introduced any corrupt text into the Scriptures, existing, as we have been, from the very first, and being the first, as it is that they have not in fact introduced it who are both later in date and opposed (to the Scriptures).

Prescription Against Heresies, Chapter 38, Tertullian

You can look this up for yourself, Biff. I used the Early Christian Writings site.

Presc. Against Heresies Ch 38, Pt 2
One man perverts the Scriptures with his hand, another their meaning by his exposition. For although Valentinus seems to use the entire volume, he has none the less laid violent hands on the truth only with a more cunning mind and skill than Marcion. Marcion expressly and openly used the knife, not the pen, since he made such an excision of the Scriptures as suited his own subject-matter. Valentinus, however, abstained from such excision, because he did not invent Scriptures to square with his own subject-matter, but adapted his matter to the Scriptures; and yet he took away more, and added more, by removing the proper meaning of every particular word, and adding fantastic arrangements of things which have no real existence.

Against Heresies, Chapter 38, Part 2 (split becaue of post limit)

Tertullian Chapter 32, Part 1
“But if there be any (heresies) which are bold enough to plant themselves in the midst Of the apostolic age, that they may thereby seem to have been handed down by the apostles, because they existed in the time of the apostles, we can say: Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that [that first bishop of theirs] bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men,--a man, moreover, who continued stedfast with the apostles. For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter. In exactly the same way the other churches likewise exhibit (their several worthies), whom, as having been appointed to their episcopal places by apostles, they regard as transmitters of the apostolic seed. Let the heretics contrive something of the same kind. For after their blasphemy, what is there that is unlawful for them (to attempt)? But should they even effect the contrivance, they will not advance a step.

From Prescription Against Heresies, Chapter 32, Tertullian

This is an example of why context is so important!

Tertullian Chapter 32, Part 2
For their very doctrine, after comparison with that of the apostles, will declare, by its own diversity and contrariety, that it had for its author neither an apostle nor an apostolic man; because, as the apostles would never have taught things which were self-contradictory, so the apostolic men would not have inculcated teaching different from the apostles, unless they who received their instruction from the apostles went and preached in a contrary manner. To this test, therefore will they be submitted for proof by those churches, who, although they derive not their founder from apostles or apostolic men (as being of much later date, for they are in fact being founded daily), yet, since they agree in the same faith, they are accounted as not less apostolic because they are akin in doctrine. Then let all the heresies, when challenged to these two tests by our apostolic church, offer their proof of how they deem themselves to be apostolic. But in truth they neither are so, nor are they able to prove themselves to be what they are not. Nor are they admitted to peaceful relations and communion by such churches as are in any way connected with apostles, inasmuch as they are in no sense themselves apostolic because of their diversity as to the mysteries of the faith.”

From Prescription Against Heresies, Chapter 32, Tertullian

"God's approbation sends sure premonitory tokens before it; every "petition " may both deceive and be deceived. And so, according to the circumstances and disposition, and even age, of each individual, the delay of baptism is preferable; principally, however, in the case of little children…

Let them know how to "ask" for salvation, that you may seem (at least) to have given "to him that asketh." For no less cause must the unwedded also be deferred--in whom the ground of temptation is prepared, alike in such as never were wedded by means of their maturity, and in the widowed by means of their freedom--until they either marry, or else be more fully strengthened for continence. If any understand the weighty import of baptism, they will fear its reception more than its delay: sound faith is secure of salvation.

On Baptism, Tertullian, Chapter 18 (edited for post limits)

Delay baptism, particularly of small children and baptize only those who "know how to "ask" for salvation."

Sounds like believer's baptism to me.

If you want to learn more, please come visit me at God Is Not Silent. I don't pretend to know everything, but I think I've done a pretty good job of presenting the Gospel as it is written.

I applaud you're taking the time to find a church that is correct. I think you will never find one that is 100 percent correct, but I think there are a few that are in the 90 percentile. Unfortunately, I think if you do a serious investigation of the doctrines of the RCC and its history, you'll find that it doesn't score very highly on the Biblical accuracy scale.

Yes, I believe (and I think Flame agrees, mostly) the RCC started with some (not all) of the pre-Nicene bishops. There's an extensive discussion on how their errors developed on my blog. Suffice it to say that there was ongoing disagreements about issues like infant baptism and sacramental regeneration. The RCC, with the weight of the Roman Empire behind them, generally labeled anyone who disagreed with its policies a heretic and killed them or drove them into the wilderness. But the truth never really died out. Everytime somebody read the Bible for themselves, the controversy broke out and the RCC had to kill the dissenters/reformers to shut them up. It's an interesting history that brings into question the ulterior motives of this supposed "One True Church."

Check it out. Click on my screen name, but start at the beginning because I tried to lay groundwork before people like BC drew me into discussions of dogma.

First, I'm glad that we (humanity) started using periods more. All these comma's in the ECFs makes it a challenging read.

Second, I agree with his statements regarding heresy. He seems to have three sources of proof: The scripture, traditional interpretation of scripture, and the traditional interpretations you can trust are those taught by churches who can trace their bishops.

Third, I see how Tertullian supports bucking authority, or infant baptism, But I don't see how he supports modern Protestantism. Did he believe in "faith alone?" Did he go to an early liturgical service? Did he believe that certain sacraments (like baptism) were necessary? I don’t know.

Being a proponent of scripture is one thing, but that does not mean that his interpretations of scripture were in line with yours. After all, many protestant denominations believe a variety of things based on their own individual interpretations. That’s one guarantee with leaving the organized group, your opinion will differ with others.

((Tertullian did not just use apostolic succession as a test for true churches, because he recognized that some churches that could produce records were still teaching heresy and that some newer churches that couldn't prove their apostolic inheritance were teaching apostolic doctrine. )))

We've been through this before. In this regard he is no different than the Church. If a Bishop taught heresy he was removed from the Church. Tertullians position on this is identical to the Church's.


Where they differ is that the Church believes that the preservation of Apostolic succession is part of their mandate from the Apostles themselves.


Tertullian became a Montanist, and if you research their views you will agree with the Church that this group was outside of the faith.

((Tertullian did not just use apostolic succession as a test for true churches, because he recognized that some churches that could produce records were still teaching heresy and that some newer churches that couldn't prove their apostolic inheritance were teaching apostolic doctrine. )))

We've been through this before. In this regard he is no different than the Church. If a Bishop taught heresy he was removed from the Church. Tertullians position on this is identical to the Church's.


Where they differ is that the Church believes that the preservation of Apostolic succession is part of their mandate from the Apostles themselves.


Tertullian became a Montanist, and if you research their views you will agree with the Church that this group was outside of the faith.

As for infant baptism, the threshold question is whether others can do things for us that give us an advantage when it comes to salvation.

One example would be prayer. If someone is praying for your conversion (and you don't know it) does that prayer benefit you? I believe that it does. Does prayer always accomplish what we want it too? Of course not, but it helps. It might give us a tug in the right direction, which is what I believe “grace” is.

I think certain "works" can help with salvation by imparting grace, but they don't get you all the way there. Works are like being born into a wealthy family. You have tremendous opportunity, but you can still fail miserably. That’s why faith is the cornerstone of salvation, without it the building falls down.

Now, do I believe that God would send people to hell simply because they are unbaptized? No, I believe that limits God’s mercy. My father is my ultimate role model and he has never been baptized. But, I do believe that the Gospels show Baptism as more than a symbolic act, and I can see how the early church thought it imparted grace. I think that they took the theology a too far when they believed it essential to salvation.

I do understand, however, that God is God and I am not. Thus, he can set the rules of the game. If Baptism itself (not the faith that proceeded it) really does wash away the eternal consequences of original sin, then it must be done as soon as possible.

When it comes down to it, I believe that Jesus did not come to establish a system for salvation. He came to bring salvation itself. But my journey of faith could prove otherwise.

It seems your views are in line with Catholicism.

Are you Catholic?

I adjusted some of my settings and it changed my nickname to my email address.

Ultimately the "process" of salvation boils down to two verses -- Romans 10:9-10 -- believe in your heart that Jesus is Lord and confess this belief.

When we think anything else saves us, we're putting human effort ahead of Jesus' saving work on the cross. This is my issue with bad candie.

It's interesting how you use Tertullian as a supportive early church father when you think he'll support your dogma, but when somebody brings up the larger context (as I have repeatedly done), you suddenly remember that the RCC considers him a heretic.

I don't think any of us knows what the Montanists really believed. Having read Tertullian, I am skeptical that such a defender of the faith would lapse into heresy. Much more likely that Origen, with his reliance on Greek philosophy rather than Scripture, would fall into heresy (and in fact, you can read some heresy in his writings). Tertullian relied on Scripture much more heavily, so I suspect we've misplaced the true story of his joining with the Montanists in the intervening centuries.

This is another reason I base what I believe on the Bible rather than on the traditions of men. The Bible as we currently have it has been thoroughly checked against ancient sources and is inarguably trustworthy. Tradition doesn't have the same claim. Neither does the questionable pronouncements of modern day prophets (popes) throughout the centuries.

It wasn't me who suggested he was an early Protestant. Flame made the comment, but I haven't seen him offer any evidence of it. Flame and I are usually in agreement Scripturally, but I'm not enough of a student of Tertullian that I would make such a claim. Perhaps Flame is.

However, I would make this clear. Tertullian wasn't bucking authority. He was writing in the 2nd Century AD, before there was a Catholic Church. That organization developed gradually over a period of two and half centuries until Constantine made it the official religion of the Roman Empire at Nicea. There were always dissenters to the organization. Tertullian later seperated himself from the Catholics and joined with the Montanist group, which many consider to be heretics. Clearly what history records them as believing is, in my opinion, heretical, but the RCC has made claims for other "heretics" of more recent existence that have turned out to be false and maligning.

Example -- the RCC made claims for what the Waldenses believed in the 10th Century, but they left documents that show what they actually believed. The RCC slandered them because they didn't like their reliance of salvation by faith or their rejection of extra-Biblical doctrines like infant baptism and the papacy.

So when I look at ancient heretical groups, I always remember that what we know about their beliefs are pretty much only what their enemies said about them. In other words, we don't know anything about their beliefs.

Perhaps Tertullian joined with the Montanists because he recognized a pernicious heresy growing within the main body of Christianity and he found the Montanists to be more correct. His study of Scripture was first-rate for his day and age and he was a powerful apologist for the faith and defender against heresy. Seems unlikely he'd fall into heresy himself.

was based on his writings and disagreements with the Apostolic and Catholic church's direction/dogma compared to Protestant writings and disagreements with the Apostolic and Catholic Church of Rome's direction/dogma. When you compare/contrast, there are very similar, hence the reference to Tertullian being a protester (protestant). For that is where the name Protestant comes from, protesting against the RCC. Funny aside is that Luther would have been acceptable to the Orthodox church except that his main writings were not in Greek. RCC held tight to Latin while OC held tight to Greek.

((It's interesting how you use Tertullian as a supportive early church father when you think he'll support your dogma, but when somebody brings up the larger context (as I have repeatedly done), you suddenly remember that the RCC considers him a heretic.
))

Tertullian is useful because he can help us to learn what the prevailing views on various issues were at the time he was living.

This doesn't change the reality that he fell away from the Church as he embraced Montanism.

I don't see how these two points relate to any of our debates.

If so, please point out the relevance.

((Tertullian comment
was based on his writings and disagreements with the Apostolic and Catholic church's direction/dogma compared to Protestant writings and disagreements with the Apostolic and Catholic Church of Rome's direction/dogma. When you compare/contrast, there are very similar
))

Care to cite an example?

Commenting on Badcandie's post: The early followers of Christ were not Catholic - they were followers of Christ, believers in Jesus, etc. Thus, studying and going back to Jesus' teachings will cause us to arrive at a more purer relationship with Jesus than religious activities. Jesus hated traditions because it interfered with people accepting God's Word and His love. The early Christians had the apostles and their followers teaching the people directly and, yes, it was later that the first books (in New Testament) were written; they were written so people would have access to the teachings of Jesus and later the apostles. I am a former Catholic. The traditions of the church held me in legal bondage. It was the Word of God that freed me to love and serve God because I wanted to and not that I had to. if course, as a student of the Bible you should know that the Word, is Jesus.

Bible Vs. the Catholic Church is a ridiculous comparison.

Catholics believe all of the bible, including the instructions of Jesus on the formation of his Church.

He gave Peter the keys to the Kingdom.

He gave the apostles the power to forgive(or not to forgive!) sins.

He established sacraments, most prominently the Eucharist.


The teachings of Jesus were written down, compiled, and preserved by his Church.


The traditions of the Church are the traditions given to us by Jesus, and he told us that the gates of hell will not prevail against his Church.


Whose side are you on?

not the RCC church. Funny how you rail against the Bible and use tradition to supersede the biblical witness. The Bible was written by the Apostles and a few of the close disciples of the Apostles (traveling with them). That my friend does supersede the RCC tradition of the church.

That is also why the council of the various Apostolic and Catholic churches used as one of it's standards, the direct apostolic witness for writings acceptable in the Scriptures while denying the early church fathers in direct descent as being Scriptural. Can't have it both ways BC. Just as the apocrypha is good reading, so to the early church fathers, but neither supersede the Scriptures.

((Funny how you rail against the Bible and use tradition to supersede the biblical witness.))


For example?

Jesus's Church:

Peter was given the primacy in Matt 16:18, "AND I SAY TO THEE, THOU ART PETER, AND UPON THIS ROCK I WILL BUILD MY CHURCH."

Which Church gives Peter Primacy?

Which Church follows this command:

Christ told the apostles to follow his example: "As the Father has sent me, even so I send you" (John 20:21). Just as the apostles were to carry Christ’s message to the whole world, so they were to carry his forgiveness: "Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matt. 18:18).

Jesus told the apostles, "‘As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.’ And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained’" (John 20:21–23).

For 2,000 years the Catholic Church has carried out this mission, preaching the good news that Christ died for all men and that he wants all of us to be members of his universal family (Gal. 3:28).

Nowadays the Catholic Church is found in every country of the world and is still sending out missionaries to "make disciples of all nations" (Matt. 28:19).

1 Timothy 3:15 (King James Version)



15But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.


Early Church Structure

Jesus chose the apostles to be the earthly leaders of the Church. He gave them his own authority to teach and to govern—not as dictators, but as loving pastors and fathers. That is why Catholics call their spiritual leaders "father." In doing so we follow Paul’s example: "I became your father in Jesus Christ through the gospel" (1 Cor. 4:15).

The apostles, fulfilling Jesus’ will, ordained bishops, priests, and deacons and thus handed on their apostolic ministry to them—the fullest degree of ordination to the bishops, lesser degrees to the priests and deacons.



As John Henry Newman once wrote: "to deep into history is to cease to be protestant".

"The Roman Catholic hierarchy has always boldly stated that it is not dependent upon Scripture alone, but also accepts tradition as another pillar of truth -- and where a conflict exists, tradition receives the greater acceptance. Being its own arbiter of what is to be accepted as truth, it accepts no authority as being higher than itself."

Quotes can be used from many sources, this one happens to show how the RCC justifies its past behavior/actions.

for an explanation of how the RCC path from Peter is the only path from Peter. He ordained many throughout his ministry, both east and west. Remember that you used the law of first mention, yet those in the RCC line of ordination would be last mention.

Also waiting for an explanation of how the RCC is to be corrected for false doctrine since the Pope is infallible according to RCC doctrine yet Scripture shows us that even Peter was not infallible and in need of correction, not only from our Lord but also from the other apostles. Don't forget that first mention law that you are so fond of using.

Take a look at the RCC response provided by bc's favorite reference site. Interesting ideas.

Apologetics 101-16

Q: Why do Catholics call Mary the Queen of Heaven? Doesn't God rebuke the Israelites in the O.T. for worshipping a false goddess called the Queen of Heaven? Should we not refer to Mary with that title, therefore, since it is the title of a false goddess?

according to bc's reference site.

A. In Jeremiah 7:18, God is indeed upset with the Israelites for worshipping a false goddess called the "queen of heaven". However, just because God rebuked them for worshipping the false queen of heaven, doesn't mean that we cannot pay honor to the true Queen of Heaven...the Blessed Mother.

That type of thinking would lead you to believe that just because people worship a false god that they call "god," we, therefore, should not call the true God, by that same name...God...because that's the same title the idolaters use for their god! That is faulty logic and it makes no sense whatsoever.

Again, the fact that there is a false "queen of heaven", does not lead to the conclusion that we worship a false goddess when we call Mary the "Queen of Heaven." Just as the fact that there is a false "god", does not lead to the conclusion that we worship a false god when we call our Father in Heaven, God.

And there is a true Queen of Heaven, we see this quite clearly in Revelation 12:1, "And a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars..." Let's see. There's a woman...she's in Heaven...and she has a crown on her head. I could be wrong, but I don't think it's the maid! No! It is the true Queen of Heaven, Mary, the mother of the male child who is to rule the nations.

We do not worship Mary, we honor her, just as Jesus honors her. So, there is absolutely nothing wrong, from a scriptural point of view, in calling Mary the Queen of Heaven, and in honoring her just as Jesus honors her.

I know that's implausible, but let's just think wide. What if the Dutch bishop who believes "Allah is a beautiful name for God" becomes Pope?

This is the truly risky problem with saying that a single human being is the arbitrator for God. Because if that man is a nut -- well, infallible madmen have been in charge of the RCC in the past. It brought us the Inquisition.

Remember the Inquisition, when anybody who did not fall prostrate before the "truth" of the RCC could find themselves standing in a bonfire for something as simple as teaching their children the Lord's Prayer in English instead of Latin?

So, Bishop Tiny becomes Pope and we all get to call God Allah. Maybe his successor will start handing out burkas.

Oh, that's right, popes are only infallible if what they say makes sense.

The Bible always makes sense, but for some reason, the RCC doesn't think it's infallible if it disagrees with the past and present pronouncements of the popes.

Catholic Doctrine does not conflict with scripture.

((Still waiting
for an explanation of how the RCC path from Peter is the only path from Peter. He ordained many throughout his ministry, both east and west.
)))

So...! You agree that Peter has primacy and that there is such a thing as apostolic succession. That's progress.

If you can find another path from Peter other than the Catholic Church, please provide your evidenc.

Why do Catholics call Mary the Queen of Heaven?

From the Bible, we know that Mary is the mother of our Lord:

St. Elizabeth, filled with the Holy Spirit, would say to her younger cousin, “Most blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb. And how does this happen to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?” (Lk 1:43; RNAB).

Mary’s royal dignity as Queen Mother is also evident in Revelation 12, the heavenly vision of the “woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars” (Rev 12:1). The vision depicts the Woman as “Queen of Heaven” insofar as she is both a queenly and heavenly figure — the Woman wears a crown of twelve stars and appears in the sky, in heavenly glory — clothed with the sun and with the moon beneath her feet.

Furthermore, the Woman is a mother. According to v. 2, “she was with child and she cried out in her pangs of birth, in anguish for delivery.” Verses 5-6 state that the Woman “brought forth a male child, one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron, but her child was caught up to God and to his throne.” Verse 17 refers to “the rest of her offspring . . . those who keep the commandments of God and bear testimony to Jesus.”


So, the mother of the ruler of all nations wears a crown in heaven.


This is biblical.

Feel free to interpret in your own way. The Church founded by Christ, Mary's son, has its own interpretation.

Catholics don't worship Mary, but they do give veneration as one blessed by God with the greatest Honor among all humans: bringing God into human form.

Feel free to disparage this woman, but do so at your own risk!

Do you think he will even finish his career as a Catholic Bishop?

I believe the Holy Spirit is the ultimate authority in the hierarchy of the Church.

((The Bible always makes sense, but for some reason, the RCC doesn't think it's infallible if it disagrees with the past and present pronouncements of the popes.)))

Please find something in the Catechism of the Catholic Church which disagrees with the bible.

Good luck!

Mary as queen of heaven. There is only one ruler in Heaven and that is GOD. He has given authority to Jesus. The RCC not only gives veneration, the make her queen of Heaven which is not found anywhere in the Bible.

RCC as the only line of apostolic succession that counts and everyone else must bow down before a man (Pope) instead of God. That my friend is found nowhere in the Bible and neither is it to be found that apostolic succession is only from Peter.

Infallibility of the Pope. Proven through history that many Popes have been fallible and committed heinous crimes.

You continue to confuse the Apostolic and Catholic Church of Rome with the Church created by Jesus the Messiah. You are a part of the Apostolic and Catholic that is based in Rome. Shoot RCC even denies Messianic Jews (not to mention Orthodox which is apostolic descent, etc.) which is kinda funny considering there wouldn't be church were is not for Jews.

Revelations 12:5 So the woman gave birth to a son, a male child, who is going to rule over all the nations with an iron rod. Her child was suddenly caught up to God and to his throne,

12:6 and she FLED INTO THE WILDERNESS where a place had been prepared for her by God, so she could be taken care of for 1,260 days.

Didn't know the wilderness was called heaven. That is what happens when you pick and choose parts of Scripture to justify your worldly, power mad, imaginations.

So?

Is that the best you've got?

You don't understand Papal infallibility.

The Church insists that no Popes have ever given new revelation. Revelation has been, once and for all deposited by Christ through His Apostles and with the death of the last Apostle came the close of all public revelation. The Popes, in a sense are given the task of preserving and of transmitting, explaining and enforcing that revelation, but not giving new revelation.

Bible Christians insist that the Bible alone is our authority because the Bible is infallible.

Well, then, if God was capable of using thousands of sinners to infallibly communicate infallible truth so that the Church could see it as the truth, which is the Bread of Life, which is Christ himself and all the teachings, if God could do it with fallible sinners, like Peter and Paul and John and Matthew, couldn't He still do it? In other words, certainly God is capable; and if you look around at how the Church spreads throughout the world, and how the Church encounters all kinds of crazies down through the ages, do you suppose that Jesus would say, "Well, once I give the Church this infallible scripture, there really is no need anymore for infallible interpretations of scripture. The Church can hold together just with the infallible Bible."

Oh, really? In just 500 years, there are literally thousands and thousands of denominations that are becoming ever more numerous continuously because they only go with the Bible. It points to the fact that we need an infallible interpretation of this infallible book, don't we.

God gave us the papacy and the Church to provide a unified Church for all Christians

that justifies the slaughter of people by the RCC at the direction of the infallible Pope "preserving and of transmitting, explaining and enforcing that revelation".

You make it sound no different than Islamic fundamentalism.

I don't know what you are referring to so it is impossible to respond.



Some food for thought:


Mathew 10:34

Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.

" 49 I have come to cast fire upon the earth; and how I wish it were already kindled! 50 But I have a baptism* to undergo, and how distressed I am until it is accomplished! 51 Do you suppose that I came to grant peace on earth? I tell you, no, but rather division; 52 for from now on five members in one household will be divided, three against two and two against three. 53 They will be divided, father* against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law. (Luke 12:49-53)

First Crusade -- the pope tells the secular aristocracy that if they participate in the defense of the Holy Land they get an automatic ticket to heaven. Many of the Crusaders, history records, were good men simply trying to free former Christian areas from the invading Muslims, but others committed horrible atrocities in the mistaken belief that this was a "holy war".

Children's Crusade -- do I really need to say more?

The sale of indulgences is another example. Nothing can be found anywhere in the Bible supporting that someone can buy something that will give them a better chance to enter heaven (in fact, Simon's story indicates that is anathema). Yet, the RCC supported itself for centuries through the sale of indulgences.

The Inquisition - the pope demanded the torture and death of anyone who violated Catholic doctrine. Among thousands of atrocities, seven people were burned at the stake for teaching their children the Lord's Prayer in English.

Yeah, popes have been less than Christ-like throughout the centuries.

I use this one because my 14-year-old brought it up this weekend with her father and a friend, both former Catholics and they answered her from the Bible. I'll post my observations in a second post because of limits.

1579 All the ordained ministers of the Latin Church, with the exception of permanent deacons, are normally chosen from among men of faith who live a celibate life and who intend to remain celibate "for the sake of the kingdom of heaven."70 Called to consecrate themselves with undivided heart to the Lord and to "the affairs of the Lord,"71 they give themselves entirely to God and to men. Celibacy is a sign of this new life to the service of which the Church's minister is consecrated; accepted with a joyous heart celibacy radiantly proclaims the Reign of God.72

1580 In the Eastern Churches a different discipline has been in force for many centuries: while bishops are chosen solely from among celibates, married men can be ordained as deacons and priests. This practice has long been considered legitimate; these priests exercise a fruitful ministry within their communities.73 Moreover, priestly celibacy is held in great honor in the Eastern Churches and many priests have freely chosen it for the sake of the Kingdom of God. In the East as in the West a man who has already received the sacrament of Holy Orders can no longer marry.

My daughter pointed out that RCC priests seem to have a problem keeping their pants zipped around little kids. Where in the Bible is celibacy required for clergy?

"About the things you wrote: “It is good for a man not to touch a woman.” (Paul is referencing their question). But because of sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman should have her own husband. A husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise a wife to her husband." 1 Cor. 7:1-3 We're to marry and have sex with our spouse to avoid sexual immorality.

"I say to the unmarried and to widows: It is good for them if they remain as I am. But if they do not have self-control, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with desire." 1 Cor. 7:8-9

So where did the RCC get the idea that clergy should be celibate (with the obvious results)?

"About virgins: I have no command from the Lord, but I do give an opinion ...." 1 Cor. 7:25

Paul was stating an opinion and he was careful to say that, but the RCC has made it a basic tenet of their faith with horrible results.

Just one problem with the catechism. We've discussed baptism and Mary in the past on my blog. I'm not retreading that ground once more.

Your responses are vague accusations with no quotes, but I'll see if I can respond.

Regarding the crusades:

In 1094 or 1095, Alexios I Komnenos, the Byzantine emperor, sent to the pope, Urban II, and asked for aid from the west against the Seljuq Turks, who taken nearly all of Asia Minor from him. At the council of Clermont Urban addressed a great crowd and urged all to go to the aid of the Greeks and to recover Palestine from the rule of the Muslims.

Pope Urban II on the first Crusade:

Under Jesus Christ, our Leader, may you struggle for your Jerusalem, in Christian battleline, most invincible line, even more successfully than did the sons of Jacob of old - struggle, that you may assail and drive out the Turks, more execrable than the Jebusites, who are in this land, and may you deem it a beautiful thing to die for Christ in that city in which He died for us. But if it befall you to die this side of it, be sure that to have died on the way is of equal value, if Christ shall find you in His army. God pays with the same shilling, whether at the first or eleventh hour. You should shudder, brethren, you should shudder at raising a violent hand against Christians; it is less wicked to brandish your sword against Saracens. It is the only warfare that is righteous, for it is charity to risk your life for your brothers. That you may not be troubled about the concerns of tomorrow, know that those who fear God want nothing, nor those who cherish Him in truth. The possessions of the enemy, too, will be yours, since you will make spoil of their treasures and return victorious to your own; or empurpled with your own blood, you will have gained everlasting glory. For such a Commander you ought to fight, for One who lacks neither might nor wealth with which to reward you.


1 John 3:16

16This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers.

The Council of Trent forbade the selling of indulgences.

This practice was not consistent with the Church.

Regarding the Children's Crusade, you'll have to be more specific.

Much of what I find about it indicates that it was either fictional or greatly fictionalized.

I don't see this as relevant to Church doctrine or practices.

Catholic Priests are married to the Church.

From a practical viewpoint, it would be very difficult for a priest to minister to a parish of thousands of people effectively while performing the duties required of a husband and father.

However, the Church has some flexibility on this matter and catholic converts who are married have been ordained as priests. In addition, the Church accepts the apostolic succession of married orthodox priest:

From the Catechism:

1580 In the Eastern Churches a different discipline has been in force for many centuries: while bishops are chosen solely from among celibates, married men can be ordained as deacons and priests. This practice has long been considered legitimate; these priests exercise a fruitful ministry within their communities.[73] Moreover, priestly celibacy is held in great honor in the Eastern Churches and many priests have freely chosen it for the sake of the Kingdom of God. In the East as in the West a man who has already received the sacrament of Holy Orders can no longer marry.

How many have committed acts of sexual immorality or abuse?

A very tiny minority.

However, the few that have are front page news for the anti Christian media. I have no problem with the attention, but I do have a problem with your assumption that this is common. It is not common.

Finally, many attacks center on the tradition of priestly celibacy, in a spasm of trendy Catholic-bashing that reflects the basest sort of inconsistency. Gay activists and establishment opinion leaders unequivocally insist that homosexual identity is innate and inborn as blue eyes or left-handedness. These same enlightened thinkers then turn around and say that celibacy in the priesthood pushes prelates to pedophilia. If only priests were allowed to marry, the conventional wisdom declares, then they wouldn't even feel tempted to molest little boys.

This proposition contradicts basic liberal assumptions about gay identity: If a priest is congenitally gay due to factors utterly beyond his control, how could marriage ever re-wire his orientation? This might work only if the Church sanctioned same-sex marriage for its priests, a radical demand that few critics of celibacy dare to advance.

Gay activists repeatedly insist that pedophilia has no connection to homosexuality – that straight people are just as likely to abuse children as gay people. That contention flies in the face of statistics and experience: Consider the prominent public fascination with underage boys in gay pornography, and even in some of the ads in "mainstream" gay publications. Heterosexuals display no comparable obsession with little girls in their fantasies.

Moreover, nearly all victims of child-molesting priests turned out to be little boys, not little girls. If celibacy caused this problem, rather than homosexuality, why wouldn't straight priests laboring under the same sexual restrictions abuse girls at least as frequently as their colleagues ravished boys?

This uncomfortable question touches another illogical position of those who want to use this scandal as an excuse to attack a traditionalist church. The same people expressing the most strident condemnation of gay priests molesting young boys, also demand public pressure to force the Boy Scouts to embrace gay scout masters – insisting that such leaders present no danger to our sons.

As a non-Catholic, I feel confident that the Church will eventually clean house and deal with the problems of its clergy. But leftwing critics of the Church may never come to grips with the obvious internal contradictions in their own irrational ideas.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26955

BC, I understand that every organization will have "evil" try to enter and that is what the pedophiles posing as priests are, EVIL. My problem is not that there are these problems but the response of the American Bishops, all the way up to the Pope. Instead of combating the evil in its presence, they help and hide the evil. I find it very hard to believe, if the Pope really is the Vicar of Christ, that protecting and lying about this evil is what Christ would want of his church. What a waste of precious, God given resources. The time, talent, and money used to hide and fight for these false priests takes away from the real work of the church, which would include helping those children to come to faith in Jesus. Instead those children grew up denying the Messiah because the church allowed this abuse to continue.

2 Peter 2:19-21 Although these false teachers promise such people freedom, they themselves are enslaved to immorality. For whatever a person succumbs to, to that he is enslaved. For if after they have escaped the filthy things of the world through the rich knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they again get entangled in them and succumb to them, their last state has become worse for them than their first. For it would have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than, having known it, to turn back from the holy commandment that had been delivered to them.

Matthew 18:6-7 “But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a huge millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the open sea. Woe to the world because of stumbling blocks! It is necessary that stumbling blocks come, but woe to the person through whom they come.

Flame, I agree with your point to a certain extent. The American Bishops failed the Church. I don't think this necessarily reflects on the Pope or the worldwide Church.

Even so, it is important to understand the position of the Bishops and what they actually said and did.

Your comment:

(( I find it very hard to believe, if the Pope really is the Vicar of Christ, that protecting and lying about this evil is what Christ would want of his church.))

If you have evidence that the pope did such a thing, please present it.

Here's one point made by the Bishops council:

It would be easy to say simply that these are "bad" priests. Then the task at hand would be only to identify these "bad" priests and to get rid of them. Perhaps. . . but I think, as priests, we hesitate a bit with such simplistic solutions. Maybe it is true that all "bad" priests should be thrown out of ministry, but would children be safer with them out in society and unsupervised? One bishop told me that he felt it would be immoral for him to do so. He said, "Isn't it safer for our children if these men were treated, supervised and put into controlled ministries with no contact with children?" Some bishops have done this and they have been criticized. There are no simple solutions; our bishops know that.

Liberalism invaded many seminaries in the United States, and with it a decay of moral standards established by the Church. This decay is being purged.

The sins of a very small minority of priests have nothing to do with the validity of the Church.

I would suggest that the Scriptures state exactly what should be done.

Personally I believe that since the priest's activity was not learned through confession then the church should have reported the incident and turned the priest over to the authorities IOW US law.