Anti-Catholic?

[ZeroTX]

At what point were you born again? When did you become a believer? If possible include your testimony. Thanks.[/size]

Solo,

I wrote a relatively spotty and condensed version in an earlier post in this thread, as far as my more recent life events and struggles and processes. The term "born again" is rather nebulous since we probably have a very different idea of what really means. It is a recently-developed terminology that is really absent from the early Church except in the sense that we are indeed reborn through baptism. If that is where you would like me to direct my answer, I was baptized at age 9, (1984 if you like math problems, heh). I was baptized in a Baptist church in Clute, Texas, by my father... an ordained Baptist pastor (he's also ordained Congregational Methodist, but that's neither here nor there). That baptism, using a proper trinitarian formula, is my one baptism. The Church has never believed in re-baptizing, and so long as it is done in the proper formula (In the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit), then it is a valid baptism according to Christ....

So... I guess at that point I was re-born by the baptismal waters and the process, as done according to Christ's teaching.

I am not sure when I would say I became a believer, as such. I grew up in a Christian family and went to church from birth onward... My parents took me to Sunday school, sang in contemporary Christian music groups (it was the late 70's, that was very in-style), and my dad was going to a Baptist college (East Texas Baptist University) and was seeking ordination to at some point become a pastor. I was read bible stories as a small child, prayed every night with my mom when being tucked in to bed, etc. When did I become a believer? I suppose it was something I was taught to be true my whole life.

When did I really know and feel the presence of Christ?... Probably as an adolescent. I went to summer camp (Congregational Methodist, Hilltop Camp in east Texas), and during our worship, singing and prayer, I remember really FEELING Christ for the first time, in words, in song and in the tears of those giving testimonies of how Christ changed their lives. I also remember the most vividly feeling the powerful, powerful presence of God at a large youth conference in Houston at 2nd Baptist. It was a Dawson McAllister conference (for those who are from my era), and I went with my church youth group. There were times of group prayer and worship there that drove right to the heart. The Holy Spirit was palpable in the air... it's something difficult to describe.

However, the most vivid and incredible memory that I have about realizing the presence of Christ was at a young adults retreat a couple of years ago in the Austin area. In a small chapel with fewer than 25 people, with the doors of the chapel open, sunny, breezy day, with the sounds of the wind and nature behind us... a quiet, contemplative service... when the priest said the words of concecration... I saw it for the first time... the Holy Spirit coming down with those words and making that seemingly simple bread into Christ's Body. It's impossible to explain. I was very much protestant, very much Baptist that day. It was frightening to my sensibilities, but I felt it as if Christ had His arm around my shoulders and was whispering to me to look at the truth right in front of me....

So... well, yes, trying to convert my girlfriend was a big thing that brought me into my study and conversion process. But... if God hadn't put me there that day, in that uncomfortable position at a Catholic retreat (as the only evangelical protestant, I might add!), I might never have seen it, known it, believed it. There are moments and times in life when you witness with your own eyes the Glory and the Truth of God. ... God gives us these gifts, and I have had the pleasure of receiving such gifts several times from my adolescence until now. Each of those times, I am reminded of God's great gift, His great mercy and His great Love for us... at those times, all doubt is wiped out... and you know truth. You know God.

Again, I apologize for the spottiness of my response. I do hope to one day compile these thoughts into a well-organized writing.

God bless,

Michael

 

[Poke]

Hello ZeroTX. I'm anti-Catholic. You should understand that. But, I don't think that Catholics are necessarily not Christians any more than Baptists, or even Mormons, are not Christian.

Then, I decided, well, I do agree that the Catholic Church was the original Church

What about the Eastern Orthodox Church? If you know your history, don't they have at least as much legitimacy as the Roman church? For that matter, Protestantism traces it's roots through the Catholic church.

but I came to understand that the fact that the Church will NOT have the gates of hell prevail against it...

"And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter [small rock], and upon this rock [big rock] I will build my church; and the gates of hell [grave] shall not prevail against it."

I think Jesus wasn't saying that the Church was to be built on Peter, but on Himself. I think Jesus was contrasting the size of the rocks, so to speak. Peter wouldn't have to rely on his own strength, but on the strength of Christ.

Jesus is the foundation of the church and he didn't say "upon this peter [small rock] I will build my church."

"Gates of the grave shall not prevail." That's just a promise of an afterlife, ala "death, where is your sting." It's Jesus, not Peter, who takes away this sting. I don't see it as having any connection with what you seem to be implying.

Only a Catholic can stuff himself with fish and insist he is fasting and is not eating meat. I can't abide by such silliness which comes from human institutions. This is what separates protestant churches from the Catholic Church and from cults: Scripture only. I'm never in the position of trying to reconcile the conflicting teachings of two different authorities, or debating if a non-biblical church teaching is of God.

 

[francisdesales]

I don't think that Catholics are necessarily not Christians any more than Baptists, or even Mormons, are not Christian.

What is your definition of a Christian? And where is that in the Bible?

And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter [small rock], and upon this rock [big rock] I will build my church; and the gates of hell [grave] shall not prevail against it."

That is not what the Greek says. It does not use "lithos" in either portion of that sentence. The same Greek word "petros" and its derivative is used. The proof is that it is Simon who is called "Kephas" in John and in Galatians and in Acts, not Jesus.

Jesus is the foundation of the church and he didn't say "upon this peter [small rock] I will build my church."

Jesus is NOT the foundation AND architect of the Church in Matthew 16. He is the builder, the architect, and He builds it upon a Rock, Simon.

"Gates of the grave shall not prevail." That's just a promise of an afterlife, ala "death, where is your sting."

Nice try, but it isn't the context of the verses. Jesus is saying that His Church shall never fail, nothing about the afterlife!

Only a Catholic can stuff himself with fish and insist he is fasting and is not eating meat. I can't abide by such silliness which comes from human institutions.

For 2000 years, the Catholic Church has listened to such rigorism. First, Protestants complain that Catholics believe that we must do good works to enter Heaven. Then, they complain that we don't do them well enough...

Really, it doesn't seem that the Church can do anything right in your eyes...

Rather than focusing on those Catholics who are poor representatives of virtue and practice, perhaps you should look for people who are actually practicing their faith and ask THEM what the purpose of fasting is and how it effects their spiritual life. If I walked into your particular community and picked out the worst person, would that be an accurate manner of determining how the rest of you practice your faith?

This is what separates protestant churches from the Catholic Church and from cults: Scripture only

Ah, yes. Bible alone. Nowhere found in the bible, a tradition of man that moves people away from the Word of God. Yes, it is one of the things that separates Catholics from you. While you continue to hate Christians (or those who MIGHT be Christians), you should go and read 1 John and see what it says about such attitudes. If you hate those whom you see, how do you say you love That which you do not see?

Regards

 

[Poke]

What is your definition of a Christian? And where is that in the Bible?

I allow for some Mormons to be Christians, in spite of the Mormon Church.

A Christian is anyone who loves God. That doesn't require technical accuracy in your theology. I think Jesus as much as said this when he talks about loving God over everything else, and when he told certain jews that that they are sons of Satan because their rejection of Him means that they reject (do not love) God.

And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter [small rock], and upon this rock [big rock] I will build my church; and the gates of hell [grave] shall not prevail against it."

That is not what the Greek says. It does not use "lithos" in either portion of that sentence. The same Greek word "petros" and its derivative is used. The proof is that it is Simon who is called "Kephas" in John and in Galatians and in Acts, not Jesus.

According to the Greek Lexican, Peter = petros = rock or stone. Rock (in this verse) = petros = rock, cliff or ledge. Kephas = stone. Jesus didn't use the word kephas, and even if he did, "stone" does not seem to be as substantial as "rock, cliff or ledge". A mere rock is still includes what you can pick up in your hand. But, a cliff is a practically unmovable rock.

Jesus is NOT the foundation AND architect of the Church in Matthew 16. He is the builder, the architect, and He builds it upon a Rock, Simon.

Jesus is called the cornerstone.

Other than this passage, how would you establish that Peter was the leader of the early church? What about Paul?

Nice try, but it isn't the context of the verses. Jesus is saying that His Church shall never fail, nothing about the afterlife!

Let me agree to your interpretation. So? There was an early church, a church that I say still exists, even in the expression of Baptists, Presbyterians, etc., a church that will continue to exist.

Rather than focusing on those Catholics who are poor representatives of virtue and practice, perhaps you should look for people who are actually practicing their faith and ask THEM what the purpose of fasting is and how it effects their spiritual life. If I walked into your particular community and picked out the worst person, would that be an accurate manner of determining how the rest of you practice your faith?

It became official that fish is not meat. This isn't a case of the worst person trying to get his protein fix in the face of a meat ban. It's a case of a human institution creating a nonsense rule and equating it with the word of God. I don't equate anything my denomination says with the word of God. I'm not Catholic because I don't believe any man speaks for God (at least not since Bible times). I think the Bible is sufficient, and sticking to it avoids mistaking the word of man for the word of God.

Ah, yes. Bible alone. Nowhere found in the bible, a tradition of man that moves people away from the Word of God. Yes, it is one of the things that separates Catholics from you. While you continue to hate Christians (or those who MIGHT be Christians), you should go and read 1 John and see what it says about such attitudes. If you hate those whom you see, how do you say you love That which you do not see?

How do I not see Christians? Because I don't accept the Roman Catholic Church as the one true church, but merely see it as a human institution? And, that means I hate Christians? I accept any Catholic who loves God as my brother.

 

[francisdesales]

I allow for some Mormons to be Christians, in spite of the Mormon Church.

A Christian is anyone who loves God.

YOU allow it? And where is "anyone who loves God is a Christian" in the Bible? If the Bible is your SOLE source of theological beliefs, kindly point to me where the Scriptures use this as the rule that determines who a Christian is?

Jesus didn't use the word kephas, and even if he did, "stone" does not seem to be as substantial as "rock, cliff or ledge". A mere rock is still includes what you can pick up in your hand. But, a cliff is a practically unmovable rock.

Jesus DOES use the word Kephas, rather than petros, because Jesus spoke in Aramaic, not in Greek! In John 1, Jesus calls Peter "Kephas", as does the rest of Scriptures. Greek writers used Petros because it means big rock. Also, take into consideration the background WHERE Jesus was speaking during Mat 16 - Caesari Phillipi was the site of a HUGE cliff with a pagan temple at the top. Jesus was comparing the Church HE was building with THAT "rock", contrasting Peter to it. Are you saying that the Church Jesus was building was built on a little stone, while the pagan church was built on a huge rock???

Jesus is called the cornerstone.

Other than this passage, how would you establish that Peter was the leader of the early church? What about Paul? Jesus is called the cornerstone.

Jesus was not called the cornerstone in that passage. Different authors can mix metaphors.

Peter was the obvious leader of the Church. This is clear not only from Scriptures, but also from the first Christian writers after the Scriptures were penned. NO ONE wrote that Paul was the leader of the Church.

There was an early church, a church that I say still exists

And is found in the Roman Catholic Church. Read the early Church Fathers and determine what THEY believed and how THEY interpreted the Scriptures. You will find an amazing continuity between them and Rome today. The Mass, the Real Presence in the Eucharist, prayers with the dead saints, Mary's role in salvation, and Apostolic Tradition.

It's a case of a human institution creating a nonsense rule and equating it with the word of God. I don't equate anything my denomination says with the word of God. I'm not Catholic because I don't believe any man speaks for God (at least not since Bible times).

Then why do you believe that the Bible is the Word of God? If man does NOT speak for God, WHY did the first Christians believe that Paul was giving THEM the Word of God? Since when did men STOP speaking for God? Where does the Scriptures tell us this? Sounds like a lot of artificial rules that contradict themselves.

Because I don't accept the Roman Catholic Church as the one true church, but merely see it as a human institution? And, that means I hate Christians?

There is a difference between disagreeing with another's point of view and calling yourself "anti-Catholic". The prefix "anti" is not expressive of a person who loves their neighbor.

Regards

 

[LittleNipper]

What I see is that JESUS asked HIS disciples, saying, "Whom do MEN say that I the SON of man am? (found in Matthew 16:13)

Proceeding in verse 14

And they said, Some John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.

HE saith unto THEM, "But whom say YE that I AM? And Simon Peter answered and said, "Thou art the CHRIST, the SON of the LIVING GOD."

And then JESUS answered and said unto him, "Blessed art thou, SIMON BARJONA: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my FATHER which is in heaven.

I believe THIS is what JESUS was driving at. The revelation from GOD is/was that JESUS is/was the CHRIST. It is through and upon that FACT concerning that reality and that revelation (which comes directly from GOD through the HOLY SPIRIT) that becomes the platform that the CHURCH of CHRIST is built upon. Peter certainly is going to play a part in the establishment of CHRIST's CHURCH, but Peter is NOT the focus of either the establishment or it's foundation. It is the understanding of who JESUS really is and what CHRIST is about to do that brings about the CHURCH.

 

[francisdesales]

I believe THIS is what JESUS was driving at. The revelation from GOD is/was that JESUS is/was the CHRIST. It is through and upon that FACT concerning that reality and that revelation (which comes directly from GOD through the HOLY SPIRIT) that becomes the platform that the CHURCH of CHRIST is built upon. Peter certainly is going to play a part in the establishment of CHRIST's CHURCH, but Peter is NOT the focus of either the establishment or it's foundation. It is the understanding of who JESUS really is and what CHRIST is about to do that brings about the CHURCH.

That is only a partial truth. Certainly, the Church Fathers have interpreted these verses to mean that the Church is built upon the faith of its adherents (Pope John Paul 2 said this, as well), BUT NONE OF THEM say that it ONLY means that. The Church is built upon a visible thing and the Scriptures respond by calling Simon "Kephas". It is quite obvious that the first Christians realized that Jesus was changing Simon's name to "ROCK". While Peter is NOT the focus of the Church, he and his predecessors are representative of the unity of the entire Church. As the chief visible shepherd, he has been charged with caring for Christ's entire flock.

Regards

 

[LittleNipper]

I believe THIS is what JESUS was driving at. The revelation from GOD is/was that JESUS is/was the CHRIST. It is through and upon that FACT concerning that reality and that revelation (which comes directly from GOD through the HOLY SPIRIT) that becomes the platform that the CHURCH of CHRIST is built upon. Peter certainly is going to play a part in the establishment of CHRIST's CHURCH, but Peter is NOT the focus of either the establishment or it's foundation. It is the understanding of who JESUS really is and what CHRIST is about to do that brings about the CHURCH.

That is only a partial truth. Certainly, the Church Fathers have interpreted these verses to mean that the Church is built upon the faith of its adherents (Pope John Paul 2 said this, as well), BUT NONE OF THEM say that it ONLY means that. The Church is built upon a visible thing and the Scriptures respond by calling Simon "Kephas". It is quite obvious that the first Christians realized that Jesus was changing Simon's name to "ROCK". While Peter is NOT the focus of the Church, he and his predecessors are representative of the unity of the entire Church. As the chief visible shepherd, he has been charged with caring for Christ's entire flock.

Regards

But I do not believe that Peter was the chief visible shepherd.

I Corinthians1:11-13

For it has been declared unto me (Paul speaking) of you, my brethern, by them of Chloe, that there are contentions among you (lack of unity). Now this I say, that EVERY ONE of you saith, I am of PAUL; and I am of APOLLOS; and I am of CEPHAS (Peter); and I am of CHRIST.

Is CHRIST DIVIDED? Was Paul crucified for you or were you baptized in the name of Paul?

It might seem that according to some believers at that time ---there were several "popes." Paul clearly brings the focus to the LORD JESUS CHRIST and seems to cast away such notions about a earthly head.....

 

[francisdesales]

But I do not believe that Peter was the chief visible shepherd.

I Corinthians1:11-13

For it has been declared unto me (Paul speaking) of you, my brethern, by them of Chloe, that there are contentions among you (lack of unity). Now this I say, that EVERY ONE of you saith, I am of PAUL; and I am of APOLLOS; and I am of CEPHAS (Peter); and I am of CHRIST.

Is CHRIST DIVIDED? Was Paul crucified for you or were you baptized in the name of Paul?

It might seem that according to some believers at that time ---there were several "popes." Paul clearly brings the focus to the LORD JESUS CHRIST and seems to cast away such notions about a earthly head.....

What does ANY of that have to do with Paul being the head of the Church??? Whew!

Look at 1 Cor 1 again and look at the order of the Apostles. It precedes from lowest to highest. Paul himself called himself the lowest of apostles. And Christ is the architect and founder of the Church. Thus, looking at the order, it is clear that Peter is before Paul in order of the visible heirarchy. Did Peter confer with Paul or Paul confer with Peter in Galatians? WHO did Christ tell to tend HIS flock in John's Gospel? Peter or Paul?

Regards

 

[LittleNipper]

But I do not believe that Peter was the chief visible shepherd.

I Corinthians1:11-13

For it has been declared unto me (Paul speaking) of you, my brethern, by them of Chloe, that there are contentions among you (lack of unity). Now this I say, that EVERY ONE of you saith, I am of PAUL; and I am of APOLLOS; and I am of CEPHAS (Peter); and I am of CHRIST.

Is CHRIST DIVIDED? Was Paul crucified for you or were you baptized in the name of Paul?

It might seem that according to some believers at that time ---there were several "popes." Paul clearly brings the focus to the LORD JESUS CHRIST and seems to cast away such notions about a earthly head.....

What does ANY of that have to do with Paul being the head of the Church??? Whew!

Look at 1 Cor 1 again and look at the order of the Apostles. It precedes from lowest to highest. Paul himself called himself the lowest of apostles. And Christ is the architect and founder of the Church. Thus, looking at the order, it is clear that Peter is before Paul in order of the visible heirarchy. Did Peter confer with Paul or Paul confer with Peter in Galatians? WHO did Christ tell to tend HIS flock in John's Gospel? Peter or Paul?

Regards

In John, the RISEN JESUS gaves Peter a hard pill to swallow. JESUS could sift the hearts of anyone (being GOD). Did HE not know that Peter would deny HIM THRICE earlier? Does CHRIST ask Peter three times if he loved HIM and what he wanted him to do (perhaps a not so gentle reminder). Then in verse 21, Peter asks CHRIST what will be Johns lot and JESUS gives Peter his comeuppance and in HIS way tells him that it isn't any of his business. It's all about CHRIST. That is the entire direction everything goes. It is not about Peter or Paul. The disciples all had their own personalities and no one was told who would sit on the righthand or left hand. Peter did his task and is now resting in the LORD in heaven Given that, there is no biblical proof that Peter was ever called either Bishop or Pope. And even--- even-----even if CHRIST was directing Peter to take charge in establishing the baby church, there is no logic or biblical pronouncement that establishes a line of popes or gives Peter the task of forming one. That is the simple fact of it.

 

[francisdesales]

In John, the RISEN JESUS gaves Peter a hard pill to swallow. JESUS could sift the hearts of anyone (being GOD). Did HE not know that Peter would deny HIM THRICE earlier? Does CHRIST ask Peter three times if he loved HIM and what he wanted him to do (perhaps a not so gentle reminder). Then in verse 21, Peter asks CHRIST what will be Johns lot and JESUS gives Peter his comeuppance and in HIS way tells him that it isn't any of his business. It's all about CHRIST. That is the entire direction everything goes. It is not about Peter or Paul.

Again, you take us on a wild goose chase that has nothing to do with whether Peter or Paul was the leader of the Church. You claim it was Paul. Yet, there is no evidence of that. The above verses from John is your effort to skip over the part where Jesus assigns to Peter the role of "FEEDER OF MY SHEEP". It is Peter who will lead Christ's flock. Not Paul. Not John. What follows is a non-sequitar.

Quite simply, Peter is told to feed Jesus lambs and sheep THREE TIMES, despite your efforts to ignore the obvious.

Peter did his task and is now resting in the LORD in heaven Given that, there is no biblical proof that Peter was ever called either Bishop or Pope.

Another attempt at muddling the waters by presenting an argument that has little bearing on what is at issue - was Peter the first leader of the Christian Church? There are MANY things that are "not in the Bible" that we KNOW are true from other historical sources. For example, the existence of England as part of the Roman Empire. The Bible never mentions England...But we know from other very reliable sources that state categorically that England was a settlement of Rome. Hadrian's Wall is a visible testimony to that. Do you argue that? No, you have no reason to doubt it. The same is true regarding Peter - except in this case, you have a vested interest in refuting the Catholic claims... We have plenty of evidence that suggests that he WAS the first leader of the Church, and we have visible evidence - the Vatican is founded on his tomb. There is also continuous references to the "Chair of Peter", a meaningless saying until you consider the "Chair of Moses" from the Gospel of Matthew was meant to be a seat of AUTHORITY...

And even--- even-----even if CHRIST was directing Peter to take charge in establishing the baby church, there is no logic or biblical pronouncement that establishes a line of popes or gives Peter the task of forming one. That is the simple fact of it.

Do you agree that Christ meant for His Church to last for all time? If so, then it would be necessary to continue its existence in the human realm by some sort of Apostolic Succession. Another fact attested to by the first Christians. What is interesting is that NO ONE argues against this "usurping" of authority by the Church - as you would have it. Not one person writes that the Church is out of line by continuing its teaching and preaching role. Only protesters from 2000 years later who refuse to accept the Truth are at odds with the facts at hand.

If you don't believe me, read the first Christians' writings - all of them. Not just the ones that made it into the Bible. Read the first 100 years of writings to get an idea of what THEY believed. You will be offended, no doubt, that they were quite catholic.

Regards

 

[golfjack]

reply

Church Fathers, HMM. How does one know if these writers in the Early Church were right in what they teach? We only have the Word of God for proof of Doctrine. No man is higher than God.



May God bless, golfjack

 

[Solo]

At what point were you born again? When did you become a believer? If possible include your testimony. Thanks.[/size]

Solo,

I wrote a relatively spotty and condensed version in an earlier post in this thread, as far as my more recent life events and struggles and processes. The term "born again" is rather nebulous since we probably have a very different idea of what really means. It is a recently-developed terminology that is really absent from the early Church except in the sense that we are indeed reborn through baptism. If that is where you would like me to direct my answer, I was baptized at age 9, (1984 if you like math problems, heh). I was baptized in a Baptist church in Clute, Texas, by my father... an ordained Baptist pastor (he's also ordained Congregational Methodist, but that's neither here nor there). That baptism, using a proper trinitarian formula, is my one baptism. The Church has never believed in re-baptizing, and so long as it is done in the proper formula (In the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit), then it is a valid baptism according to Christ....

So... I guess at that point I was re-born by the baptismal waters and the process, as done according to Christ's teaching.

I am not sure when I would say I became a believer, as such. I grew up in a Christian family and went to church from birth onward... My parents took me to Sunday school, sang in contemporary Christian music groups (it was the late 70's, that was very in-style), and my dad was going to a Baptist college (East Texas Baptist University) and was seeking ordination to at some point become a pastor. I was read bible stories as a small child, prayed every night with my mom when being tucked in to bed, etc. When did I become a believer? I suppose it was something I was taught to be true my whole life.

When did I really know and feel the presence of Christ?... Probably as an adolescent. I went to summer camp (Congregational Methodist, Hilltop Camp in east Texas), and during our worship, singing and prayer, I remember really FEELING Christ for the first time, in words, in song and in the tears of those giving testimonies of how Christ changed their lives. I also remember the most vividly feeling the powerful, powerful presence of God at a large youth conference in Houston at 2nd Baptist. It was a Dawson McAllister conference (for those who are from my era), and I went with my church youth group. There were times of group prayer and worship there that drove right to the heart. The Holy Spirit was palpable in the air... it's something difficult to describe.

However, the most vivid and incredible memory that I have about realizing the presence of Christ was at a young adults retreat a couple of years ago in the Austin area. In a small chapel with fewer than 25 people, with the doors of the chapel open, sunny, breezy day, with the sounds of the wind and nature behind us... a quiet, contemplative service... when the priest said the words of concecration... I saw it for the first time... the Holy Spirit coming down with those words and making that seemingly simple bread into Christ's Body. It's impossible to explain. I was very much protestant, very much Baptist that day. It was frightening to my sensibilities, but I felt it as if Christ had His arm around my shoulders and was whispering to me to look at the truth right in front of me....

So... well, yes, trying to convert my girlfriend was a big thing that brought me into my study and conversion process. But... if God hadn't put me there that day, in that uncomfortable position at a Catholic retreat (as the only evangelical protestant, I might add!), I might never have seen it, known it, believed it. There are moments and times in life when you witness with your own eyes the Glory and the Truth of God. ... God gives us these gifts, and I have had the pleasure of receiving such gifts several times from my adolescence until now. Each of those times, I am reminded of God's great gift, His great mercy and His great Love for us... at those times, all doubt is wiped out... and you know truth. You know God.

Again, I apologize for the spottiness of my response. I do hope to one day compile these thoughts into a well-organized writing.

God bless,

Michael

So being a Roman Catholic brings one into a relationship with Jesus Christ, and all evangelical Christians are duped into thinking that believing Jesus Christ died for their sins and was crucified and resurrected from the dead, as revealed by the Holy Spirit; whereby the evangelical Christians are not really born again, born from above, saved.

From you new perspective, one cannot know whether one is saved or not, unless one aligns himself with the Roman Catholic Church?

Is your pastor father saved? Why or why not?

 

[ZeroTX]

So being a Roman Catholic brings one into a relationship with Jesus Christ, and all evangelical Christians are duped into thinking that believing Jesus Christ died for their sins and was crucified and resurrected from the dead, as revealed by the Holy Spirit; whereby the evangelical Christians are not really born again, born from above, saved.

From you new perspective, one cannot know whether one is saved or not, unless one aligns himself with the Roman Catholic Church?

Is your pastor father saved? Why or why not?

A few difficulties here with your questions. Again, you are approaching questions, whether you realize it or not, with Evangelical views and terminology that we simply do not use in the same way, nor believe in the same way.

1) "..into a relationship with Jesus Christ..." Can you find for me, in Scripture, where it says that we should develop a "personal relationship with Jesus Christ" and that we must "Ask Jesus into our hearts" for salvation? I'm not disagreeing with the idea of this -- obviously we do have a relationship with Christ. He's our Savior, our God, whom we worship, praise and obey. However, the type of terminology and the way in which Evangelicals (me included not long ago) is in itself NOT in the Bible. Which seems odd for those who claim a Bible-only view of theology (again, me included not long ago).
2) "...all evangelical Christians are duped into thinking that believing Jesus Christ died for their sins and was crucified and resurrected from the dead, as revealed by the Holy Spirit..." This is just inflammatory language. Have you read the Nicene Creed? That's what we Catholics believe. You may recall that the Church agreed upon and wrote that at the Council of Nicea. Furthermore, the Catholic belief is that all Christians are part of the Body of Christ. Those who may not have come to a full understanding of the gospel or exist in disagreement are still connected, but in an incomplete way. As far as salvation, the Church nor any priest or clergy does not hold the authority to say who is or is not saved. That's God's call. What we can do as Christians is live our lives according to what we have been taught as moral and true and in the beliefs that we know to be true. I would assume that in some level, we all have some things wrong. After all, only one thing can be true. Truth is not relative, it is quite objective.
3) "...whereby the evangelical Christians are not really born again, born from above, saved..." Again, the Catholic Church, nor you, nor your pastor, nor any other human can decide who is to receive salvation in heaven. Christ has given us the gift, which we must accept (by confessing belief, confessing sin and being baptized). When we are baptized, we are born again. This is what Scripture says and this is what the Church -- as taught by Jesus Christ Himself personally -- has taught from the very beginning. It is only divergent churches, imperfectly connected to the Body of Christ, that have taught otherwise. We are indeed born again through baptism, but it is up to us to continue our commitment to Christ in the way we live and continue to confess to God our committed sins and to seek guidance in life from Christ.

Is that only possible in the Catholic Church? (again, I will say "Roman Catholic" is a later-invented term that is derogatory... it would be like me calling Pentecostals "Holy Rollers" on a Christian forum) Of course not, it is possible through any union with Christ. Through Him all things are possible. Is the connection and unity with Christ more complete in the Catholic Church? My belief is, yes. I turned my life upside down with this decision and it took me months of reading, praying and discerning. Is my father saved? I hope so. I know he believes in Christ and he believes in what he was taught with honesty and morality. However, only God knows our hearts and our actions.

God bless,

Michael

 

[ZeroTX]

Re: reply

Church Fathers, HMM. How does one know if these writers in the Early Church were right in what they teach? We only have the Word of God for proof of Doctrine. No man is higher than God.



May God bless, golfjack

Great, so the Church Fathers disagree with your theology, so now it's time to discredit them?

The real point of quoting the early Church Fathers is to show the divergence of today's Protestant theology with that of Christians who were only ONE or TWO generations away from hearing the words straight from Jesus Christ... and FYI (and this is really the point): Jesus said and taught a lot of things to his Apostles that were not written down in the Bible... So, thus, we trust that these early authority figures in the Church had a better idea of what Jesus himself said than does some pastor in Alabama who built a church from scratch with no other teaching source than Scripture. Scripture is, indeed, the greatest source of direct knowledge we have NOW days. However, it is NOT the greatest source of knowlege for the Early Church Fathers, who heard much more of Christ's teaching than we could ever imagine now days. So, we rely on what they say as good indicators and good ways of learning truth. Christ's truth.

-Michael

 

[francisdesales]

Re: reply

Church Fathers, HMM. How does one know if these writers in the Early Church were right in what they teach? We only have the Word of God for proof of Doctrine. No man is higher than God.

And how do we know that these same men put together the correct books that make up the Bible? Maybe they didn't put them all in there? Or maybe there are some that are not REALLY from God?

How do we know...

IF the early Church Fathers were incorrect on their theology, we certainly would have heard other "orthodox" writers discounting them, either at the time or later. What happened to this "orthodox" community? Did it blow away so quickly after Christ's resurrection and we were left with only a heretical Church? These same "heretics" who gladly walked into the teeth of lions for Christ?

You need to think that over, brother.

Regards

 

[LittleNipper]

In John, the RISEN JESUS gaves Peter a hard pill to swallow. JESUS could sift the hearts of anyone (being GOD). Did HE not know that Peter would deny HIM THRICE earlier? Does CHRIST ask Peter three times if he loved HIM and what he wanted him to do (perhaps a not so gentle reminder). Then in verse 21, Peter asks CHRIST what will be Johns lot and JESUS gives Peter his comeuppance and in HIS way tells him that it isn't any of his business. It's all about CHRIST. That is the entire direction everything goes. It is not about Peter or Paul.

Again, you take us on a wild goose chase that has nothing to do with whether Peter or Paul was the leader of the Church. You claim it was Paul. Yet, there is no evidence of that. The above verses from John is your effort to skip over the part where Jesus assigns to Peter the role of "FEEDER OF MY SHEEP". It is Peter who will lead Christ's flock. Not Paul. Not John. What follows is a non-sequitar.

Quite simply, Peter is told to feed Jesus lambs and sheep THREE TIMES, despite your efforts to ignore the obvious.

Peter did his task and is now resting in the LORD in heaven Given that, there is no biblical proof that Peter was ever called either Bishop or Pope.

Another attempt at muddling the waters by presenting an argument that has little bearing on what is at issue - was Peter the first leader of the Christian Church? There are MANY things that are "not in the Bible" that we KNOW are true from other historical sources. For example, the existence of England as part of the Roman Empire. The Bible never mentions England...But we know from other very reliable sources that state categorically that England was a settlement of Rome. Hadrian's Wall is a visible testimony to that. Do you argue that? No, you have no reason to doubt it. The same is true regarding Peter - except in this case, you have a vested interest in refuting the Catholic claims... We have plenty of evidence that suggests that he WAS the first leader of the Church, and we have visible evidence - the Vatican is founded on his tomb. There is also continuous references to the "Chair of Peter", a meaningless saying until you consider the "Chair of Moses" from the Gospel of Matthew was meant to be a seat of AUTHORITY...

And even--- even-----even if CHRIST was directing Peter to take charge in establishing the baby church, there is no logic or biblical pronouncement that establishes a line of popes or gives Peter the task of forming one. That is the simple fact of it.

Do you agree that Christ meant for His Church to last for all time? If so, then it would be necessary to continue its existence in the human realm by some sort of Apostolic Succession. Another fact attested to by the first Christians. What is interesting is that NO ONE argues against this "usurping" of authority by the Church - as you would have it. Not one person writes that the Church is out of line by continuing its teaching and preaching role. Only protesters from 2000 years later who refuse to accept the Truth are at odds with the facts at hand.

If you don't believe me, read the first Christians' writings - all of them. Not just the ones that made it into the Bible. Read the first 100 years of writings to get an idea of what THEY believed. You will be offended, no doubt, that they were quite catholic.

Regards

I'm not suggesting that Paul was the leader of the church. I believe that the Apostles were a group of men acting at the LEADING of the HOLY SPIRT. It is logical that one personality might come to dominate, but it really seems that all the Apostles were on a learning curve and that their first instruction was at the hand of JESUS. In reading the Scriptures, I simply do not arrive at a conclusion that Peter was placed in charge of CHRIST's CHURCH. All the Apostils were working to both rally, instruct, and warn at the HOLY SPIRIT's leading. As you say Peter is SIMPLY told to feed CHRIST's sheep three times-------so what------that does not make him any more then a fisher of men------as were the others. It is about CHRIST. It's about SALVATION. It's about the GOSPEL. Peter was an Apostle as were the rest, it takes man to make a mountain out of a molehill and assume power and authority where none was established.
If you notice, Moses kept his seat. Show me the lineage from Moses to the time of CHRIST. You will be hard pressed to maneuver through one linage, one office, one seat of authority. The reality is that GOD placed a wide variety of people from a variety of backgrounds to do a variety of tasks at various times from DIFFERENT vantage points. What one historically sees is that the Papacy is all about the power of a church rule and a church authority. It is when one sees Wyclif, Luther, even a King James, John Wesley, and Billy Graham, does one see the POWER of GOD to influence history to HIS ends and demonstrate HIS AUTHORITY AND POWER to bring revival and put the CHURCH back on the evangelical track.

 

[francisdesales]

I'm not suggesting that Paul was the leader of the church. I believe that the Apostles were a group of men acting at the LEADING of the HOLY SPIRT. It is logical that one personality might come to dominate, but it really seems that all the Apostles were on a learning curve and that their first instruction was at the hand of JESUS.

When one reads the entire NT, with leadership and authority in mind, one comes to the conclusion that the nacine Church grew in its understanding, developing from a community that would very shortly see the coming of our Lord in Glory to a community settling in for the long haul, careful to guard the deposit of teachings left by Christ to picked men. Compare the first 5 chapters of Acts to the Pastorals. There is a big difference between leadership and the roles of particular men in these two sections of Scriptures. This is because leadership developed as the Spirit guided the Church into a more permanent structure. This development very quickly became similar to what we have in episcopal churches. This is further brought out by the earliest Christian writings, for example, St. Ignatius of Antioch writing to other churches and St. Clement of Rome writing to Corinthians

In reading the Scriptures, I simply do not arrive at a conclusion that Peter was placed in charge of CHRIST's CHURCH.

You refuse to come to that conclusion because you do not wish to become Catholic. The Scriptures clearly point in several places that Peter is above the other Apostles. However, Jesus clearly tells His apostles that they will NOT lord it over others, like the Gentile leaders do. Thus, the leadership of the Church was not to be tyrannical, but rather, at the service of the Church. Paul mentions this in Eph 4:11-13, for example.

All the Apostils were working to both rally, instruct, and warn at the HOLY SPIRIT's leading. As you say Peter is SIMPLY told to feed CHRIST's sheep three times-------so what------that does not make him any more then a fisher of men------as were the others.

The fact that Jesus tells Peter, and ONLY Peter to feed HIS (Jesus') flock is indicative of the role that Jesus had in mind for Peter. Jesus changed Simon's name, a very unusual thing in the Bible - look at the precedent He sets there. Jesus gives Peter ONLY authority by giving him the keys - understood as a "prime minister" in the absence of the Master. The Acts of the Apostles are about the two great apostles - Peter and Paul. The position of honor is given to Peter, as his story is told first. And it was to PETER whom Paul went to when he confered in Jerusalem. Not James or John. Or the Apostles as a group. Peter ONLY.

It is about CHRIST. It's about SALVATION. It's about the GOSPEL. Peter was an Apostle as were the rest, it takes man to make a mountain out of a molehill and assume power and authority where none was established.

Of course it's about Christ. When did I say it was about Peter or Paul? They are merely instruments through whom the Spirit operates within His Body, the Church. A body has all kinds of parts with different functions. Paul goes into a long discussion on this in 1 Corinthians. Not all parts of the Body are equal. And yet, even the "lower" parts are needed to complete the Body. As such, this talk about all parts being equal is ridiculous and un-Biblical. The Spirit has brought forward Apostles, preachers, teachers, and prophets - all with different roles. Even in the married life, the husband is placed above the wife in authority - while both are equal. Thus, Peter (or the Pope) is equal to everyone else, but plays a different role than the typical Christian - and this is God's will.

If you notice, Moses kept his seat. Show me the lineage from Moses to the time of CHRIST. You will be hard pressed to maneuver through one linage, one office, one seat of authority.

Moses kept his seat? Well, you are confusing the Old Covenant with the New. There is no longer Greek or Jew, man or woman, slave or free man. Whether one is circumcised or not is unimportant, but faith working through love. Thus, there is no more lineage that determines who will be a priest, as in the Levitical priesthood (which Aaron was the first). It is now strictly dependent upon whom God calls, as in Eph 4:11-13. It is the Spirit who determines who will be a Pope or a priest.

The reality is that GOD placed a wide variety of people from a variety of backgrounds to do a variety of tasks at various times from DIFFERENT vantage points. What one historically sees is that the Papacy is all about the power of a church rule and a church authority.

That's your opinion. The Papacy IS a sign of unity among the Church. Where do we find this in Protestantism? Nowhere. There is only divisiveness and individuality in Protestantism. The Papacy helps to unite Christianity in the visible world. The office is at the service of the People of God because WE can now KNOW what God teaches us. Protestantism does not. On key issues, Protestantism, having no unity, is at odds with itself. Is the Spirit divided? No. Thus, the Spirit is not in these communities. Individually, I have no doubt that the Spirit dwells among particular people who are Protestant. However, as a body, only in an Apostolic Church do we find the Spirit. Thus, authority has its uses in God's plan.

It is when one sees Wyclif, Luther, even a King James, John Wesley, and Billy Graham, does one see the POWER of GOD to influence history to HIS ends and demonstrate HIS AUTHORITY AND POWER to bring revival and put the CHURCH back on the evangelical track.

That may very well be true - the Church is ALWAYS undergoing reform. But their (those you name) insistence on heretical teachings is NOT from the Spirit. There is a BIG difference between pointing out the faults that creep into the institution and trying to change things while staying within AND a person who points out the faults of the Church and decides to start his own church with himself as the head... There is absolutely NO precedence in the Bible for men to break off from the People of God to start their own community. The OT destroys such people and the NT condemns such people. With consistency, the Church continues to condemn such people who willingly refuse to remain outside of the Truth.

Regards

 

[thessalonian]

In reading the Scriptures, I simply do not arrive at a conclusion that Peter was placed in charge of CHRIST's CHURCH. All the Apostils were working to both rally, instruct, and warn at the HOLY SPIRIT's leading.

Ya need to dig a little deeper. Peter is mentioned far more than any other of the 12 in the NT. 190 times to the next closest, John at about 29. Peter is always named first in lists of the Apostles even though Andrew was chosen first. Peter is the ONLY man other than Christ to walk on water. The first to heal a sick person after the resurrection, the one whom Christ paid his tax. Peter always speaks for the Apostles when questions are asked of the group (see matt 16:18, John 6 around 72, acts 2, 4 and a few others). He leads the replacement of Judas. There is much more of course. But there is no doudt in my mind Peter was intended by Christ to be the leader of the Apostles.

 

[LittleNipper]

The OT destroys such people and the NT condemns such people. With consistency, the Church continues to condemn such people who willingly refuse to remain outside of the Truth.

Regards

I believe you made an error here. Why would a church condemn "people who willingly refuse to remain outside of the Truth." If one refuses to remain outside of the Truth then one must be living the Truth...

JESUS also changed Saul's name to Paul and he was a strict learned well educated Jew. Did you never imagine that Paul and Peter talked simply because they became fast friends. Again, I see Vatican 2 in the 1960's and the two popes between Rome and France and the split with the Orthodox church as proof that "Catholicism" is no more secure then Protestantism. I will not even bring up the scandals that seem to be plaguing Rome and are seated in various policies that were unknown to either Judaism or the early church (but were well established in pagan culture). The Bible tells me that JESUS does remove candle stands both past and present (see Revelations) and HE has replaced monarchs both past and present. This does not mean that Hell has prevailed. It means that GOD has handed the torch to whomever HE chooses and the church continues as HE sees fit..... Again, it isn't about denominations, Christianity should be all about CHRIST.