There is only one true church

[RedFan]

I’ve given you some of the strongest proof text for Sacred Tradition (Matt. 16:19; 18:18, Luke 10:16, John 16:12-15) and you refuse to see it.

I see it plainly! I have said ONLY that Second Thessalonians should not be included as a proof text. You included it. I called you out on that.

Please let this be the last time I have to say that I agree with the importance of apostolic tradition. You and I are on the same page there. Where we differ is with a SINGLE ONE of your arguments for it. You included 2 Thess. 2:15. I say that that one is just incredibly stupid as a proposed proof text. That's all. Nothing more am I saying. NOTHING.

Look at it this way. If you say that "The sky is blue" because:

1. Blue light has a shorter wave length than other colors and so is more easily scattered; and
2. Most people cut their toe nails regularly.

I would agree on #1 and tell you that you are wrong on #2. Toe nail cutting has NOTHING to do with the color of the sky. 2 Thess. 2:15 has NOTHING to do with the validity of apostolic tradition.

 

[PinSeeker]

Gee - what Church off today does that sound like?

The church I go to, certainly. And any other Gospel-preaching church out there, those that preach Him and Him crucified, and worship in Spirit and truth.

So, if Paul didn’t put Sacred Tradition on even par with Scripture in 2 Thess. 2:15 – what did he mean here?

Right, the difference of opinion (as I said) between us, BOL, is what is meant by "traditions" there.

You can only dance around this issue for so long before you finally have to address it . . .

No "dancing"... I have been very clear. Again, the issue is the Gospel. What Paul is saying there is actually in the same vein as what he writes to the Galatians in Galatians 1:6-9 regarding them "...deserting Him Who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel..."

I absolutely DO. I do because I trust in God..

Okay, good.

...and His Church...

Hmmm, yes, I know... <smile>

...to whom He gave supreme earthly Authority to speak for Him on earth

Disagree, of course. We can ~ and certainly should ~ reiterate, many times over, the Word He has given us, both to each other (corporately) and amongst ourselves (individually, both to ourselves and to others).

The SAME Church, to whom He guaranteed the Holy Spirit’s guidance to ALL Truth (John 16:12-15).

Christ's Church (synonymously God's Israel), at any point in time consisting of God's elect, who worship in Spirit and truth, which is still growing (being built), even to this day, yes.

But the Word of God is presented through His Church.

All visible churches should preach and proclaim the Word, yes. And we members of Christ's yet invisible church are to proclaim it individually, yes, to make disciples of all nations, as Jesus commissioned us to do, even to the ends of the earth. This is how God is building His Church, as faith comes by hearing.

His Church is His mouthpiece on earth.

God needs no "mouthpiece." But He does give us the great privilege and joy of participating in, and being used by God to spread His Gospel for, the building of Christ's Church.

As for small “c” catholic – the title of the Church has been the “Catholic Church” since the first century.

<chuckles> Well, as long as we're both of the understanding that it's universal, and not exclusive to any one group of any kind ~ except exclusive to God's elect, those called by God and born again of the Spirit... and in that sense invisible, as we don't know who all has been or will be born again of the Spirit ~ then we're good. <smile> But... that's not your understanding...

All Scripture IS about Jesus – directly or indirectly. But - YOU keep saying that it is DIRECTLY about Jesus.

YES, that's CORRECT. I certainly DO. <smile> But I'm not sure this is such a point of contention. <chuckle>

As for my choice of text formatting – this usually comes up when my opponent is at a loss . . .

Hmm, a couple of problems here... First, that you see some folks on here as "opponents" seems to me a problem... And second, just because someone disagrees with someone else doesn't mean he or she is "at a loss." <smile> If you think I am, I... don't care. <smile>

Interesting how you keep dancing around 2 Thess. 2:15.

Interesting how you think that... See above. I just prefer to stay out of the Catholic "dance" on that... <smile>

I can certainly understand how uncomfortable that passage can make a Protestant feel . . . .

LOL! If it makes a Catholic COMFORTABLE to think that passage makes any PROTESTANT UNCOMFORTABLE, then... Oh, wait. Yeah, I don't care. <smile>

Splitting this, because you seem to wander off into a completely different subject from here...

 

[PinSeeker]

...back into soteriological matters... Okay...

The Greek word used here in 1 Tim. 2:4 is τηελο – which is defined as:
1) to will, have in mind, intend
1a) to be resolved or determined, to purpose

God WILL the salvation of all.

Well, the Greek word used there is θέλει (root θέλω), which can mean ~ depending on the context of course ~ 'will,' 'wish,' or 'desire.' And in the context of Paul's words in that particular passage (1 Timothy 2:4), the best translation is 'desires'... because (a) it is in a very different context than, say, Romans 9:18, where Paul ~ regarding God's purpose of election ~ uses the same Greek word, saying God "has mercy on whomever He wills (θέλει), and He hardens whomever He wills (θέλει)."

Unfortunately - NOT all will cooperate . . .

Well, okay, but... <smile>... regarding God's purpose of election and God's having mercy/compassion, "it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, Who has mercy" (Romans 9:16), and "He has mercy on whomever He wills, and He hardens whomever He wills" (Romans 9:18).

Not, it wouldn’t – unless you’re a strict Calvinist.

I am an unapologetic five-point Calvinist, yes. He was right. <smile> Jacobus Arminius was wrong. <smile>

And, no – God never fails. It's MAN who fails God.

Ah, so God is unable to overcome man's failure... Well surely you would answer 'no' to that. If that were true, that "God is unable to overcome man's failure," then no one would be saved, and there would be no one ~ except God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit ~ in the New Heaven and New Earth. No one would have eternal life. But... thanks be to God, that's surely not the case. So no, with regard to "who, then, can be saved" ~ in the case of salvation ~ as Jesus says, "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible" (Matthew 19:25-26)... "What is impossible with man is possible with God" (Luke 18:27). Yes, man fails God ~ falls far, far short of His glory, as it were, but for His elect, God, in His mercy and compassion, overcomes that failure... in the person of Jesus and His work on the cross ~ and thereby imputes the righteousness of Christ... to those on whom according to His will He has mercy/compassion, His elect.

That’s pretty much what I meant.

Ah, well, you expressed it.. poorly... But hey, that's good. <smile> Probably wouldn't hurt you to say "I agree" every once in a while... <smile>

However, if you believe that grace is something we can’t resist or reject – I think you are at odds with Scripture.

It's really not that we "can't," BOL, it's really that we ~ His elect ~ won't... will not. Which I've said several times over... <smile>

God doesn’t drag anybody, kicking and screaming into Heaven against their will.

Agree. I've never said or insinuating anything remotely along those lines.

We have a free will

Yes, we do, but... <smile> But, regarding God's purpose of election and salvation, it depends not on man's will or work but on God, Who has mercy on whom He wills and hardens whom He will. These are not my words, BreadOfLife, but Paul's, in Romans 9. You will say that you agree with him, I'm sure, but you continue to contradict what he says there, as do all Arminians ~ whether they think they are Arminian in their understanding there or not.

Like any gift - it requires our cooperation . . .

Hmmm... If someone gives you a gift for Christmas, BOL, what are you required to do? <smile> You may feel obligated and/or compelled to do something in response, even then intensely, irresistably desirous of such a response ~ so much so that you will not do otherwise ~ and then act accordingly. But are you really required to do anything because that gift was given to you? <smile> And, is it then incumbent upon you to... do something... to keep it? <smile> No, and no. However, out of gratitude, at least, you will. Yes, out of gratitude, inevitably, you will. Right? <smile>

Grace and peace to you.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Not at all. I am saying only that when he wrote Second Thessalonians Paul didn't have in mind what -- years later -- Peter or James or John might write.

The HOLY SPIRIT is the author of Scripture. Paul, Peter, James and John were just the men who were inspired by the Holy Spirit to write it down.

The fact that YOU believe that the Holy Spirit inspired them to relay different “truth” them to r “changed” His mind speaks volumes about your lack of understanding . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

I see it plainly! I have said ONLY that Second Thessalonians should not be included as a proof text. You included it. I called you out on that.

It shouldn’t be included as proof text because it destroys your position??

Please let this be the last time I have to say that I agree with the importance of apostolic tradition. You and I are on the same page there. Where we differ is with a SINGLE ONE of your arguments for it. You included 2 Thess. 2:15. I say that that one is just incredibly stupid as a proposed proof text. That's all. Nothing more am I saying. NOTHING.

Look at it this way. If you say that "The sky is blue" because:

1. Blue light has a shorter wave length than other colors and so is more easily scattered; and
2. Most people cut their toe nails regularly.

I would agree on #1 and tell you that you are wrong on #2. Toe nail cutting has NOTHING to do with the color of the sky. 2 Thess. 2:15 has NOTHING to do with the validity of apostolic tradition.

Again – you only reject 2 Thess. 2:15 as proof of Sacred Tradition because it DESTROYS your position. Paul says plainly:
“… EITHER by and oral statement OR a written letter of ours.”

It doesn’t get ANY more explicit than that . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

...back into soteriological matters... Okay...


Well, the Greek word used there is θέλει (root θέλω), which can mean ~ depending on the context of course ~ 'will,' 'wish,' or 'desire.' And in the context of Paul's words in that particular passage (1 Timothy 2:4), the best translation is 'desires'... because (a) it is in a very different context than, say, Romans 9:18, where Paul ~ regarding God's purpose of election ~ uses the same Greek word, saying God "has mercy on whomever He wills (θέλει), and He hardens whomever He wills (θέλει)."

Well, okay, but... <smile>... regarding God's purpose of election and God's having mercy/compassion, "it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, Who has mercy" (Romans 9:16), and "He has mercy on whomever He wills, and He hardens whomever He wills" (Romans 9:18).

The context of Rom. 9:18 is election – not unconditional election.
God cannot make mistakes, so free will is a direct contradiction to unconditional election.

In 2 Pet. 3:9, we see that “… God does not wish for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.”
This is directly correlated to what Paul wrote in 2 Tim. 3-4. Only the Greek word used here (βουλομαι) is more explicit: desire

βουλομαι
Pronunciation: boo'-lom-ahee
Definition: 1) to will deliberately, have a purpose, be minded

This, along with Jesus’s own words in Matt. 25:31-46 and Matt. 6:14-15, shows that the context of 1 Tim. 2:3-4 is talking about what God WILLS, not simply what He “desires”.

I am an unapologetic five-point Calvinist, yes. He was right. <smile>

That certainly explains a lot . . .

Jacobus Arminius was wrong. <smile>

They were BOTH wrong . . .

Ah, so God is unable to overcome man's failure... Well surely you would answer 'no' to that. If that were true, that "God is unable to overcome man's failure," then no one would be saved, and there would be no one ~ except God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit ~ in the New Heaven and New Earth. No one would have eternal life. But... thanks be to God, that's surely not the case. So no, with regard to "who, then, can be saved" ~ in the case of salvation ~ as Jesus says, "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible" (Matthew 19:25-26)... "What is impossible with man is possible with God" (Luke 18:27). Yes, man fails God ~ falls far, far short of His glory, as it were, but for His elect, God, in His mercy and compassion, overcomes that failure...

No – God is not “incapable” if overcoming man’s failure. He allows us to either accept or reject His gift if grace.

Grace is NOT a gift if it is forced on us . . .

in the person of Jesus and His work on the cross ~ and thereby imputes the righteousness of Christ... to those on whom according to His will He has mercy/compassion, His elect.

Righteousness is not something that is imputed on us. God makes us righteous.

It's really not that we "can't," BOL, it's really that we ~ His elect ~ won't... will not. Which I've said several times over... <smile>

That's NOT what Scripture says . . .
(Matt. 7:19-23, Matt. 10:22, Matt. 24:13, Matt. 25:31–46, John 15:1-6, Rom. 11:22, 1 Cor. 4:4, 1 Cor. 9:27, 1 Cor. 10:12, 1 Tim. 4:1, 1 Tim. 4:16, 2 Tim. 2:12, Heb. 3:6, Heb. 3:12-14, Heb. 6:4-6, Heb. 10:26-27, 2 Pet. 2:20-21, 2 Pet. 3:17, 1 John 2:24, 1 John 5:13, Rev. 3:5, Rev. 22:19)

Agree. I've never said or insinuating anything remotely along those lines.

If you’re a Calvinist - your belief in Unconditional Election certainly alludes to it . . .

Yes, we do, but... <smile> But, regarding God's purpose of election and salvation, it depends not on man's will or work but on God, Who has mercy on whom He wills and hardens whom He will. These are not my words, BreadOfLife, but Paul's, in Romans 9. You will say that you agree with him, I'm sure, but you continue to contradict what he says there, as do all Arminians ~ whether they think they are Arminian in their understanding there or not.

Catholics are not Arminianists. They CAN’T be because Arminius came on the scene about 15 centuries AFTER the Catholic Church was established by the Apostles.

Hmmm... If someone gives you a gift for Christmas, BOL, what are you required to do? <smile> You may feel obligated and/or compelled to do something in response, even then intensely, irresistably desirous of such a response ~ so much so that you will not do otherwise ~ and then act accordingly. But are you really required to do anything because that gift was given to you? <smile> And, is it then incumbent upon you to... do something... to keep it? <smile> No, and no. However, out of gratitude, at least, you will. Yes, out of gratitude, inevitably, you will. Right? <smile>

Grace and peace to you.

We’re not required to take a gift – or even keep one after initially accepting it.

Divorce is a good example. You receive love and fidelity from your spouse – but later on decide to leave that covenant. Does this mean that you never loved them or were never married?

I understand how difficult is it for Protestants to see this, considering that the Protestant Revolt in the 16th century was borne from ecclesiastical divorce . . .

 

[RedFan]

The HOLY SPIRIT is the author of Scripture. Paul, Peter, James and John were just the men who were inspired by the Holy Spirit to write it down.

Did the Holy Spirit write both Matt. 8:5-13 and Luke 7:2-10?

Did the Holy Spirit write both Mark 6:8-9 and Matt. 10:10?

Did the Holy Spirit write both Mark 2:26 and 1 Samuel 21:1-6?

Did the Holy Spirit write both Matt. 8:5-13 and Luke 7:2-10?

Did the Holy Spirit write both Matt. 8:28 and Luke 8:27?

Did the Holy Spirit write both Mark 9:1-2 and Luke 9:28?

Did the Holy Spirit write both 1 Samuel 31:4 and 2 Samuel 21:12?

Did the Holy Spirit write both 1 Chronicles 2:13-15 and 1 Samuel 16:10-11?

Did the Holy Spirit write both 2 Kings 8:26 and 2 Chronicles 22:2?

Did the Holy Spirit write both Matt. 1:6 and Luke 3:31?

Did the Holy Spirit write both Matt. 28:9 and John 20:17?

 

[RedFan]

It shouldn’t be included as proof text because it destroys your position??

No. It shouldn't be included as proof text because it doesn't support the position that you and I both share. Don't you bother to read what I post?

 

[PinSeeker]

The context of Rom. 9:18 is election – not unconditional election. God cannot make mistakes, so free will is a direct contradiction to unconditional election.

Goodness gracious. :)

Yes, Romans 9 ~ really 9-11 ~ is about God's purpose of election. And one very specific point Paul makes about God's purpose of election is that it does not depend on man's willing or anything he/she may or may not do. He says, "it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy, " and regarding His mercy, Paul quotes Moses, who quotes God Himself as saying, "He has mercy on whomever He wills, and He hardens whomever He wills." God does this of His own free will and accord, BreadOfLife, not conditional on anything man (or woman, of course) wills or does. 'Free will' and 'unconditional election' are really disparate concepts. Of course God does not make mistakes, but free will has nothing to do with whether God's election is unconditional. Calvin's "point" of unconditional election is his refutation of Arminius's mistaken point that God elects based on forseen belief, that it only depends on God's will. It has absolutely nothing to do with man's (or woman's) will at all, much less any freedom of will or lack thereof of man (or woman). And it absolutely refuted the mistaken idea that man's will or acting a.) determines God's will regarding... again... His ~ His ~ purpose of election of any one individual unto His salvation, or b.) merits His mercy/grace.

Again, God's election must be unconditional, because no man (or woman) can meet the one condition He does set, which is to be absolutely righteous/perfect/sinless as He is.

In 2 Pet. 3:9, we see that “… God does not wish for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.”
This is directly correlated to what Paul wrote in 2 Tim. 3-4.

That's 1 Timothy 2:4. Yes, agreed; Paul and Peter in those two passages are writing about the very same principle. However, if we are to understand this in the way you are proposing or propagating, then we inevitably fall into universalism ~ that all will be saved ~ which is surely antithetical to Scripture.

They were BOTH wrong . . .

When two people are on opposite sides of a fence with regard to understanding something, the only possibilities are that one is right and the other is wrong or that both are wrong, for sure, but in the case of Calvin's versus Arminius's understanding of soteriology, there is no other alternative, so only the former ~ that one is right and the other wrong ~ is the only case possible.

No – God is not “incapable” if overcoming man’s failure.

Right; in saying "Ah, so God is unable to overcome man's failure," BOL, I was responding in a rhetorical manner to ~ stating an absurd inference, as it were, from ~ your previous statement that "It's man who fails God." (bolding and "yelling" omitted... :)) For those whom He elects ~ according to His purpose of election, His will ~ God always, completely, unfailingly overcomes man's inevitable failure. This does not in any way conflict with or negate or at all trample upon man's will. As I've said many, many times, for man, it's a matter of the heart, which drives the will.

He allows us to either accept or reject His gift if grace.

Sure, but His election... sorry, I'm going to bold and capitalize this, because you keep overlooking this... His election DOES NOT DEPEND ON OUR ACCEPTING OR REJECTING THIS GRACE OF SALVATION OR BEING BORN AGAIN OF THE SPIRIT. I underline "does not depend," here, BreadOfLife, because in that phrase, it implies an idea directly the opposite the notion that we don't freely choose or accept, but only that His election is not dependent upon our choosing or accepting.

Grace is NOT a gift if it is forced on us . . .

Agreed, It's given.

I love Lawrence Fishburne. He's great... :)

Righteousness is not something that is imputed on us. God makes us righteous.

These two sentences contradict each other, BreadOfLife. In His grace, because of the mercy He has on us as His elect, God gives us... clothes us in... credits us with... declares to us ~ thus imputing to us ~ the righteousness of Christ. Goodness gracious.

Another break, because from here you jump to a very different matter, which is a little strange, but you know, okay... :)

 

[PinSeeker]

Yeah so now you're jumping to the concept of perseverance... It's actually not so strange, because as I've said... and I'm going to quote J.I. Packer (as of July of 2020, just short of his 94th birthday, deceased; a great British pastor and theologian) here, because it cannot be stated any clearer or better than this:

"...the very act of setting out Calvinistic soteriology in the form of five distinct points (a number due, as we saw, merely to the fact that there were five Arminian points for the Synod of Dort to answer) tends to obscure the organic character of Calvinistic thought on this subject. For the five points, though separately stated, are really inseparable. They hang together; you cannot reject one without rejecting them all, at least in the sense in which the Synod meant them. For to Calvinism there is really only one point to be made in the field of soteriology: the point that God saves sinners. God—the Triune Jehovah, Father, Son and Spirit; three Persons working together in sovereign wisdom, power and love to achieve the salvation of a chosen people, the Father electing, the Son fulfilling the Father’s will by redeeming, the Spirit executing the purpose of Father and Son by renewing. Saves—does everything, first to last, that is involved in bringing man from death in sin to life in glory: plans, achieves and communicates redemption, calls and keeps, justifies, sanctifies, glorifies. Sinners—men as God finds them, guilty, vile, helpless, powerless, unable to lift a finger to do God’s will or better their spiritual lot. God saves sinners—and the force of this confession may not be weakened by disrupting the unity of the work of the Trinity, or by dividing the achievement of salvation between God and man and making the decisive part man’s own, or by soft pedaling the sinner’s inability so as to allow him to share the praise of his salvation with his Saviour. This is the one point of Calvinistic soteriology which the “five points” are concerned to establish and Arminianism in all its forms to deny: namely, that sinners do not save themselves in any sense at all, but that salvation, first and last, whole and entire, past, present and future, is of the Lord, to whom be glory for ever; amen."

Catholics are not Arminianists. They CAN’T be because Arminius came on the scene about 15 centuries AFTER the Catholic Church was established by the Apostles.

They understand Scripture ~ regarding soteriology ~ very, very similar to the way Arminius did... and, as I have said, very, very similar to Pelagius (354–418) centuries before... who, in that day, held to a soteriology directly opposite ~ in the same way as Arminius to Calvin ~ to Augustine of Hippo, As Solomon says in Ecclesiastes, there's nothing new under the sun...

We’re not required to take a gift – or even keep one after initially accepting it.

Don't make something of God into something of man, BreadOfLife. Regarding God's gift of salvation... well, what Paul and Peter say is very appropriate here:

"If God is for us, who can be against us? ... Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or danger, or sword? ... No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him Who loved us ... neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord" (Paul, Romans 8:31-39)​

​

"He (God) Who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ" (Paul, Philippians 1:6).​

​

"(God) has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for you, who by God’s power are being guarded through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time." (Peter, 1 Peter 1:3-5).​

Divorce is a good example. You receive love and fidelity from your spouse – but later on decide to leave that covenant. Does this mean that you never loved them or were never married?

Hmmm. Now, if I were to do this, BreadOfLife, would this not be a statement regarding my own faithfulness... or, well, actually, my lack thereof? <smile> But God is absolutely, perfectly faithful... <smile> ...and overcomes our lack thereof, keeping us in Christ, and thereby... well, see directly above.

I understand how difficult is it for Protestants to see this...

Well, Calvinists. <smile> I mean, we can see it, but realize how antithetical it would be or is, Scripturally speaking, to embrace it... <smile>

...the Protestant Revolt in the 16th century was borne from ecclesiastical divorce . . .

So goes the Catholic talking point and narrative... <smile> Other denominations "see" the same kind of thing... <smile>

Grace and peace to you.

 

[Marymog]

Did the Holy Spirit write both Matt. 8:5-13 and Luke 7:2-10?

Did the Holy Spirit write both Mark 6:8-9 and Matt. 10:10?

Did the Holy Spirit write both Mark 2:26 and 1 Samuel 21:1-6?

Did the Holy Spirit write both Matt. 8:5-13 and Luke 7:2-10?

Did the Holy Spirit write both Matt. 8:28 and Luke 8:27?

Did the Holy Spirit write both Mark 9:1-2 and Luke 9:28?

Did the Holy Spirit write both 1 Samuel 31:4 and 2 Samuel 21:12?

Did the Holy Spirit write both 1 Chronicles 2:13-15 and 1 Samuel 16:10-11?

Did the Holy Spirit write both 2 Kings 8:26 and 2 Chronicles 22:2?

Did the Holy Spirit write both Matt. 1:6 and Luke 3:31?

Did the Holy Spirit write both Matt. 28:9 and John 20:17?

What do you think?

Curious Mary

 

[RedFan]

What do you think?

Curious Mary

When I see gospel authors disagreeing -- for example, disagreement on whether the Last Supper was a Passover meal as the Synoptics say (Mark 14:12, Mark 14:16-17, Matthew 26:17, Matthew 26:19-20, Luke 22:7–9, Luke 22:13-14), or was eaten the day before Passover as John says (John 13:1, John 18:28, John 19:14) -- it doesn't trouble me at all. I expect theological truth from my Bible, not factual accuracy on minute historical details. And I am not scandalized by inaccuracies as to the latter. The better approach, in my opinion, is to focus on the inerrancy of the message of a given passage, rather than of the extraneous details with which the passage is adorned.

 

[Brakelite]

When Saul (St. Paul by his Hebrew name) was going around persecuting Christians, Jesus knocked him off his horse and asked him, "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute Me?" (Acts 9:4) Note that Jesus didn't ask him, "...why do you persecute My Church?" which he was doing, but "...why do you persecute Me?" Jesus identifies as one with His Church! Persecute Christ's Church by lying and untruths, and you're doing the same to Christ. Christ founded a visible Church with a visible heirarchy to run it, giving it His godly authority here on earth. It has existed the entire time since Christ and it accounts for the majority of Christians in all of Christianity.

Indeed, Christ established His church. For a while it was going well. Trusting in the power of the Holy Spirit, the church grew exponentially throughout the known world, preached the gospel of salvation which presented the blood of the Lamb as the only atoning medium for sin.
However. One section of Christ's church, that of Rome, as had bishops that chose civil authority as well a spiritual authority. And when they attained that civil authority and was able to exercise it freely in the 6th century, they began to use that authority to enforce religious doctrine through the power of secular governments and rulers. So from a good position of trust in the Spirit of Christ to convert souls to Him through preaching, they trusted in the princes and rulers of this world to establish the grow the church. This departure from faith in Christ and the unevaluated denial of the former relationship with Him, brought far reaching consequences to later generations. The teachings of the church changed. The leaders became authoritarian. Dissenters against the direction the church was heading were called "heretics" and were persecuted. The so called authority that Christ established to discipline members within the church was used to coerce those outside the church to join at the peril of their very lives. Over the centuries, entire communities were attacked, their livelihood destroyed, their lands stolen, their families divided, and theologians such as Augustine and later Aquinas built on these errors and justified them. Then later again we got the Jesuits. Who took things a step further and swore to defend the papacy and grow its influence and power at any cost. The Jesuits took on any role that offered an advantage to the papal church. In time they were thrown out of numerous countries for meddling in politics and causing civil crisis, even going to the extreme of assassination of rulers who opposed them. Yet they kept coming back. Well do protestant nations remember the millions who were murdered throughout Europe for choosing to worship in accordance to their conscience and their reading of scripture. Sadly, they've forgotten that even their immediate forefathers rightly feared any further allowances made on behalf of catholic expansion in the west. Today, we witness the pope, a Jesuit, addressing congress.
And irony of all ironies, we have a possible Jesuit on this site speaking on behalf of the harlot and using the writings of the harlot's daughters, who having now joined themselves once again to Mother and become themselves harlots, against those who choose to believe the Bible and the Bible only as the basis of true Christian faith and practise.

 

[Hobie]

I am not suggesting that we set aside A SINGLE THING in Scripture. I am saying that where Scripture is silent on a topic, oral tradition may be followed.

But this 'tradition' does set aside the truth in the Scriptures, just look at the Sabbath...

 

[Brakelite]

Ark of the Covenant, which carried symbols of God’s Law and power.

I wouldn't call the written law on tables of stone a mere symbol of God's Law and power. I would suggest strongly it is a written definition of it. A transcript even of God's character.
Making it merely a symbol however helps to explain the ease with which your church changed it, and boasts of it to this day.

The Lord’s day. The Christian Sunday replaced the Saturday sabbath of the Old Testament. The visible Church made this change.

One might ask, "on who's authority do you believe any man can change God's commandments"?

It's actually about assisting the Church.

Mmmm. Like the church employing armies to teach its version of the gospel and extend the church's power? The secular governments assisting the Church?

 

[RedFan]

But this 'tradition' does set aside the truth in the Scriptures, just look at the Sabbath...

You haven't understood me. I say again: Where Scripture is silent on a topic, oral tradition may be followed. In such a case, tradition cannot possibly set aside the truth in the Scriptures.

 

[Brakelite]

The Church of Christ IS the Catholic Church. There was no other Church for the first 1000 years of Christianity.

Oh please. There were Christian churches throughout Asia before they were even called Christian, let alone Catholic. Not to mention all the churches that the Roman church warred against over the ensuing centuries, including even the Gothic nation which was definitely Christian, but "Arian", supposedly, at least according to its enemy, Rome.

I do because I trust in God and His Church, to whom He gave supreme earthly Authority to speak for Him on earth and it would be ordained in Heaven

The only authority the papacy received and may legitimately lay claim to was that granted to her by the dragon...
“And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority. ”
Revelation 13:2 KJV

 

[David in NJ]

But this 'tradition' does set aside the truth in the Scriptures, just look at the Sabbath...

the sabbath was not "set aside" =
it was FULLfilled in MESSIAH for HE is our REST = 24/7

 

[Augustin56]

Oh please. There were Christian churches throughout Asia before they were even called Christian, let alone Catholic. Not to mention all the churches that the Roman church warred against over the ensuing centuries, including even the Gothic nation which was definitely Christian, but "Arian", supposedly, at least according to its enemy, Rome.

The only authority the papacy received and may legitimately lay claim to was that granted to her by the dragon...
“And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority. ”
Revelation 13:2 KJV

There were Christian churches throughout Asia, etc., and North Africa. They were ALL Catholic Churches, however. There was NO OTHER Church.

Using personal interpretation of Scripture to make it mean what you want it to mean to bash Christ's Church is a really bad idea. First of all, it goes against Scripture. 2 Peter 1:20 says "Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of Scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation"

The office of Pope was established by Jesus Christ in Matt. 16:18-19. Every first century Jew knew that the king always had a second-in-command, who ran the kingdom in the king's absence (away at war, visiting another kingdom, etc.) or when he was incapacitated (sick, injured, etc.). This second-in-command would rule in the king's place, and the king, upon his return, would uphold whatever the second-in-command had ruled. (See an example of this office in Isaiah 22:22.) This position of second-in-command was dynastic. If he died, then another was appointed in his place. In other words, it was an on-going position. (Like the Pope.) The symbol of the office of the second-in-command was a large (2-3 ft.) key or sometimes two keys, which he carried over his shoulder to let people know his authority. When Jesus gave Peter the "keys to the kingdom" He was establishing such a second-in-command position, because Jesus (Our King!), was going to ascend to heaven and He needed someone to run the Church here on earth until He returned.

One more thing to keep in mind... When Saul (St. Paul by his Hebrew name) was going around persecuting the Church, Jesus knocked him off his horse and asked him, "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute Me?" Note that Jesus didn't say, "...why do you persecute My Church?" which he was actually doing, but "...why do you persecute Me?" Jesus identifies as one with His Church! If you persecute Christ's Church, you persecute Christ! Christ's Church is the Catholic Church! There was NO OTHER Church for the first 1000 years of Christianity! Try learning a little history. You don't even have to look at Catholic authors. You can try, for example, the well-known Protestant Early Church historian, J.N.D. Kelly. Kelly admits that the Church was first and the only.

 

[RedFan]

Let me suggest that you guys are largely disputing semantics. Today the "Catholic Church" is distinguished from Protestant churches, and is rooted in the Papacy. In the first century, no Protestants (as opposed to some outliers who were deemed heretical) existed, and the Church was not rooted in the Papacy but, rather, in the apostles and their followers directly, and in Paul's disciples, with no obeisance to Peter or -- when he died in the mid-60s -- to Linus or to Clement or to whoever took up the bishopric in Rome (or in Antioch, or wherever else Peter may have traveled and installed a bishop).

What @Augustin56 calls "dynastic" in the office of the Pope, I don't see until much later. What @Brakelite calls "granted to her by the dragon," I don't see at all.