In 'answer' to A Christian

[dadof10]

I will offer again: Whether it be the CC that leads or the Bible that one follows through, (or not), the Spirit, one's salvation will NOT be determined by EITHER. One's salvation is an issue that revolves around the circumcision of one's heart that can ONLY take place by one accepting Christ into their HEARTS. NOTHING 'outside' is able to 'save' one's soul. Whether this be a 'church', a 'priest', a book or WHATEVER.

O.K. You are not talking about sola-scriptura, and I am not talking about salvation. I will not mention SS again if you will address the question of how God's will is revealed to us. As far as I can tell from your last post, you believe that it (divine revelation) is given directly to the believer when he accepts Christ into his heart. Is this correct?

From the perspective that you have offered, one that is unable to 'join' the CC is LOST.

That is the exact opposite of what I "offered". You gave me a hypothetical case concerning someone who was completely unable to interact with anyone, had never heard of God, and only had a Bible. You asked if you could be saved, and I wrote "In answer to your direct question: Yes, you could be saved."

Also, notice when asked a direct question, I gave a direct answer.

All I can do is study the history of the CC and make a determination as to HOW CLOSELY these followed the example offered by MY Savior, Jesus Christ.

Do you also study the history of the "spirit-filled born-again Christians" both during and after the reformation and see how they live up to the teachings of Christ?

Any mention of the TRUTH concerning it's history is immediately attacked and accuses of being 'made up', or conforming to 'some other source' of information.

I didn't attack or accuse you. It's simply irrelevant to the truth of a church's teaching whether certain church members sin or not. What matters is how God transmits revelation to us.

Could you please directly answer both the questions above, and the hypothetical question posed by me in the last two posts? So you don't have to scroll...

Suppose one person "accepts Jesus as Lord and savior", prays for the Holy Spirits guidance, reads Scripture and comes to the conclusion that a person can never lose his salvation. Suppose another person also honestly does all of the above and comes to the conclusion that we CAN lose our salvation. Which "Holy Spirit" guided "born-again" believer is right? And why?

Thanks.

 

[A-Christian]

MEC will only dodge your questions I'm afraid.

 

[dadof10]

MEC will only dodge your questions I'm afraid.

I hope not, A. I'm just trying to understand exactly where he's coming from.

 

[Imagican]

dad,

My answers will be bolded,

I will offer again: Whether it be the CC that leads or the Bible that one follows through, (or not), the Spirit, one's salvation will NOT be determined by EITHER. One's salvation is an issue that revolves around the circumcision of one's heart that can ONLY take place by one accepting Christ into their HEARTS. NOTHING 'outside' is able to 'save' one's soul. Whether this be a 'church', a 'priest', a book or WHATEVER.

O.K. You are not talking about sola-scriptura, and I am not talking about salvation. I will not mention SS again if you will address the question of how God's will is revealed to us. As far as I can tell from your last post, you believe that it (divine revelation) is given directly to the believer when he accepts Christ into his heart. Is this correct?

Not necessarily. Divine revelation CAN come BEFORE one accepts Christ. That is is UP TO GOD. But I believe that one USUALLY begins to 'understand' WHAT Christ came to offer WHEN they accept Him into their hearts. This understanding can increase or remain static depending upon the degree to which one is 'able' to BE conformed.

But to offer a more DIRECT answer to your question; Yes, divine revelation CAN be given directly to the believer.

From the perspective that you have offered, one that is unable to 'join' the CC is LOST.

That is the exact opposite of what I "offered". You gave me a hypothetical case concerning someone who was completely unable to interact with anyone, had never heard of God, and only had a Bible. You asked if you could be saved, and I wrote "In answer to your direct question: Yes, you could be saved."

Then I propose that you do NOT follow the dictates of the Catholic Church. Or, perhaps I am 'unaware' of WHAT you consider the CC to BE. For a 'church' to 'believe and teach' that IT has the authority to 'ex-communicate' one for their 'differing beliefs', it MUST teach that ALL beliefs that differ from it's OWN SEPARATE ALL others from the TRUTH. And this IS what the CC has taught since it became organized. Smoke and mirrors do NOT alter the truth. Only offering an illusion of being 'something else'.

Also, notice when asked a direct question, I gave a direct answer.

And please note as well, when asked a direct question, I do my BEST to offer a direct answer. Your offering above indicates that you would lead others to believe that I am somehow EVASIVE when offering replies to direct questions. I may not always respond IMMEDIATELY, for I am not ALWAYS availible online. But if you ask a 'direct question', I WILL NOT evade it, like so many are prone to do, but answer it REGARDLESS of the NATURE of the question. I do NOT have a 'secret' understanding. Nor is it MEANT to be 'hidden', but SHARED with any and all willing to listen.

[quote:d37ad]All I can do is study the history of the CC and make a determination as to HOW CLOSELY these followed the example offered by MY Savior, Jesus Christ.

Do you also study the history of the "spirit-filled born-again Christians" both during and after the reformation and see how they live up to the teachings of Christ?

I have read writtings of ancient writers. ALL? Certainly not. And words do NOT offer indications of HOW one LIVES. For I am a perfect example of one that UNDERSTANDS MUCH MORE than I am able to bear.

dad, I have found that reading what 'others' have to offer, so far as 'definition' is concerned, can usually cause more confusion than clarity. EACH of us is 'given' according to grace. And each of us has OUR OWN 'place' in the body. YOU cannot 'teach me' where MY PLACE is anymore than I could teach YOU where YOUR place IS. With this in mind, I shy away from MOST that is written concerning others OPINIONS. Religion means LITTLE to me. And what MOST would offer is 'their FORM' of religion. Don't NEED it, DON'T want it.

And please don't start with the 'one man show' approach. Attempting to discredit one's understanding for refusal to accept what 'other MEN' would teach them is contradictory to what the Word has to offer. For there is not a man on this planet that can DETERMINE what God is able to DO. And not a man on this planet is able to determine the annointing given to another. The vessel is nigh able to determine it's OWN shape but is given this by it's 'creator'.

Any mention of the TRUTH concerning it's history is immediately attacked and accused of being 'made up', or conforming to 'some other source' of information.

I didn't attack or accuse you. It's simply irrelevant to the truth of a church's teaching whether certain church members sin or not. What matters is how God transmits revelation to us.

This is ONLY true so long as the TRUTH existed to START with. And THEN, only if the 'sins of the individual' to which you refer DO NOT influence the TEACHINGS. For we are ALL aware that it is OFTEN very easy for one to focus on 'others sins' while ignoring our own. And that, given the opportunity, many would alter the perceptions of The Word in order to 'hide' from their own failings.

Could you please directly answer both the questions above, and the hypothetical question posed by me in the last two posts? So you don't have to scroll...

Suppose one person "accepts Jesus as Lord and savior", prays for the Holy Spirits guidance, reads Scripture and comes to the conclusion that a person can never lose his salvation. Suppose another person also honestly does all of the above and comes to the conclusion that we CAN lose our salvation. Which "Holy Spirit" guided "born-again" believer is right? And why?

I have answered this question on a NUMBER of occasions. You have simply refused to accept what I have offered AS an answer. Let's try again:

Some people are led by The Spirit and some are led by 'other spirits'. If one's 'beginning' is flawed, (their understanding), then it would be difficult to come to a 'complete' understanding WITHOUT 'changing' what was MISCONCIEVED to begin with. I'm not going over OSAS 'again'. I do NOT believe this 'concept' and can plainly show that it is falicious. So, it is difficult to 'believe' that one that is 'askew' in their 'beliefs' concerning God and His Son could POSSIBLY be led BY The Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is NOT some occillating set of ideas that can be 'either one way or another'. The Spirit is The Spirit of God offered through Christ. It CANNOT contradict itself. There is ONLY ONE TRUTH. And in this respect there is NO 'grey' area that so many seem so 'quick' to offer and accept.

Thanks.[/quote:d37ad]

If these answers are not clear enough point out the part or parts that you are unable to discern and I will offer whatever I am able to make them clearer.

dad,

I ONLY know what has been offered to ME. I travel where The Spirit LEADS. Whether that be in my daily walk or in study. I have NO 'hidden agenda', or desire to 'attack' the CC any more, or any LESS than any other organization that would take AWAY from what we have been offered. I find it utterly bizaar that ANYONE that has read The Word would choose to ignore ALL that it has to offer concerning LAW. How we have been freed from the bounds of the law through a VERY HIGH price. And HOW could one CHOOSE to 'go back' and create a "NEW SET" of laws and THINK that these are any 'better' than those offered 'in the beginning'.

Each denomination has created it's OWN 'new set of laws'. Insisting that it's followers adhere to these as IF they were 'commandments'. This is NOT The Church of Christ. This is 'man-made' religion at it's FINEST example. And it simply dumbfounds me to witness that there are STILL people that would travel this route and expect it to produce ANYTHING other than 'self will'. Itching ears that wish for NOTHING other than to hear that which soothes the carnal minds and souls of those that are UNABLE to bear that which COULD set them FREE.

MEC

 

[A-Christian]

MEC my friend,

I'm not even sure why any of us keep responding to your post. You say you are guided by the Spirit but don't even belong to a group that comes together for worship. Is that true or did I just miss that post. Are you a lone wolf?


Peace

 

[Imagican]

A,

The ONLY visible sign of The Church is the LOVE, that those that are a 'part' of, are able to offer God and their neighbors. For the Church is NOT an 'institution'. It is a Spiritual identity that those share who have CHRIST IN THEIR HEARTS.

One NEEDING the security of an 'organization' made by men are certainly going to find it DIFFICULT to build a 'personal relationship' with God. For they will be MORE concerned with the 'pleasing' of the INSTITUTION than in that which matters MOST.

If it's a 'lone wolf' that you would portray me to be in the eyes of others so be it. But it's ONLY the organization that you follow and an attempt to honor IT that would bring about such a 'belief' to START with.

I am NOT alone. I have The Son and through Him, the Father. And that is ENOUGH for me. I TRY to love my neighbor AS myself and through this am able, (when able), to please my Father. I am a 'part' of the Body REGARDLESS of 'man-made' institutions. And no amount of inuendo is able to change this.

All I attempt to do is to allow OTHERS to see that this IS possible. We are ALL capable of HAVING a loving relationship with OUR Father REGARDLESS of what 'men' may offer to the contrary.

And this conception of the CC is PERFECT evidence of it's failure. Did it START in the correct manner? I can't say. But it's obvious that even if it did, it took some VERY wrong turns in it's travel down the SAME path that EVERY organized institution HAS since the beginning of God's attempts at a relationship with mankind. For the CC has NO monopoly on God. God IS the monopoly on righteousness and truth and simply STATING that one is the 'protector' or 'procuror' of such is simply 'fooling themselves' into a 'false belief system'.

I neither protect nor procure, I simply offer testimony to the TRUTH that IS obtainable through Christ. And the ONLY way that this is possible for ANY is through the strength of the faith that is offered from above.

Personal interpretation? Only stated thus for it differs than that which has been taught to many. And HOW MANY things do we have PLAIN evidence of that the CC has taught that have been PROVEN to be 'wrong'? The list is gargantuan. And, with this FACT in mind, what would lead ANYONE to believe that they have gotten ANYTHING 'right'?

I perpetuate a belief in NOTHING other than God and His Son. I do NOT endorse the CC any more or any less than I do the Protestant Church. For there is ONLY ONE CHURCH that matters and it is NOT contained within the walls or minds of man or his institutions.

We were FREED folks. At a VERY dear price. And I revel in that freedom and thank God daily for being so loving and gracious to offer such a precious gift. Return to the bonds that were placed upon mankind from ancient times? Not hardly. Return to a 'system' fraught with error and the devices of men? Not me. I choose to trust in God and what He has to offer and NOT that which can only lead to a 'following of something else'.

MEC

 

[A-Christian]

Return to a 'system' fraught with error and the devices of men? Not me. I choose to trust in God and what He has to offer and NOT that which can only lead to a 'following of something else'.

Not true MEC. You are no different than that which you detest. As I stated to you in an ealier message:

I'm not sure why you think Christ would institute an invisible Church and leave humankind to bounce off of each other like rubber balls in some sort of scriptural chaos.

Your views of the Catholic Church are skewed because you don't understand it, probably because of the self imposed blinders that you wear. It's good to know that at least you regognize that the early Church was Catholic, but you error by also implying that the gates of hell prevailed against it. When you bad mouth the Catholic Church, you speak against he that instituted it.

You should re-read the first sentence of this message. You my friend, in your personal so called "spirit led" self, may be just another rubber ball bouncing around, ricocheting off all the other self interpreters of the book of the Catholic Church.

Peace (I sincerely hope you find it, I really do)

 

[Imagican]

A,

To the Catholic the distinction of Church and sect presents no difficulty. For him, any Christian denomination which has set itself up independently of his own Church is a sect. According to Catholic teaching any Christians who, banded together refuse to accept the entire doctrine or to acknowledge the supreme authority of the Catholic Church, constitute merely a religious party under human unauthorized leadership. The Catholic Church alone is that universal society instituted by Jesus Christ which has a rightful claim to the allegiance of all men, although in fact, this allegiance is withheld by many because of ignorance and the abuse of free-will. She is the sole custodian of the complete teaching of Jesus Christ which must be accepted in its entirety by all mankind. Her members do not constitute a sect nor will they consent to be known as such, because they do not belong to a party called into existence by a human leader, or to a school of thought sworn to the dictates of a mortal master. They form part of a Church which embraces all space and in a certain sense both time and eternity, since it is militant, suffering, and triumphant. This claim that the Catholic religion is the only genuine form of Christianity may startle some by its exclusiveness. But the truth is necessarily exclusive; it must exclude error just as necessarily as light is incompatible with darkness. As all non-Catholic denominations reject some truth or truths taught by Christ, or repudiate the authority instituted by him in his Church, they have in some essential point sacrificed his doctrine to human learning or his authority to self-constituted leadership. That the Church should refuse to acknowledge such religious societies as organizations, like herself, of Divine origin and authority is the only logical course open to her. No fair-minded person will be offended at this if it be remembered that faithfulness to its Divine mission enforces this uncompromising attitude on the ecclesiastical authority. It is but a practical assertion of the principle that Divinely revealed truth cannot and must not be sacrificed to human objection and speculation. But while the Church condemns the errors of non-Catholics, she teaches the practice of justice and charity towards their persons, repudiates the use of violence and compulsion to effect their conversion and is ever ready to welcome back into the fold persons who have strayed from the path of truth.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13674a.htm

Perhaps I am the one confused, perhaps not. Is this statement above CORRECT A? I believe that it was taken from a Catholic website. The link is above.

Let's see if we can discern WHY you believe as you DO:

I ask here, for so often those of the Protestant persuasion have been 'misled' by some of the posters here on the 123 forums, do you agree with the statement offered above? Are these words in line with YOUR 'belief'?

And I point out to ANY that may read this: The Catholic Church believes that NO ONE is ABLE to find Salvation OUTSIDE of IT'S teachings. PERIOD. Like the muslims that claim Islam teaches LOVE, so too does the Catholic Church 'say' that they are brothers and sisters with the Protestants YET, in truth, the statement that I have copied above speaks PURELY of their TRUE 'beliefs.

Whether one believes or doesn't believe what is stated above, it PURELY offers the UNDERSTANDING of those that DO that NO ONE outside of the ONE TRUE CHURCH, in this case, the CATHOLIC CHURCH, can POSSIBLY have a 'righteous relationship with God'. That through any means short of force or violence, (now days), they are to make attempts at the 'conversion' of others BACK into their Faith. Welcoming THEM with open arms.

So A, I don't believe that it is I that have a misunderstanding of the CC. And when I use this term I'm refering to the ROMAN Catholic Church. I know little about the Eastern Orthodox. But I believe that most of what I have learned of the CC is the Roman CC. So, if I miss the R, just put it in there for me.

Now, PLEASE explain HOW one could 'believe' that the CC is the ONLY means of the TRUTH when history proves that MUCH of what they have taught in the past was ANYTHING but? They claim to be infalible yet have been falible for the extent of their existence. Showing over and over that they have even gone so far as to imprison those that REFUTED their 'false teachings' and even murdering them.

The book that you are so quick to point out coming from the CC A, took almost TWO thousand years for the CC to relinquish their UTTER control of. And then, only after the deaths of MANY that they MURDERED in order to KEEP this possession their OWN. What limited memory this organization seems to truly have. Do as I say NOT as I DO mentality is possible for ANY of us. And my ability to choose this path is NO less important than the CC's. So even if that's what you accuse, it's no different than I would be able to accuse in reverse.

But outside of this debate, what DOES matter is one conforming to the UNITY that IS in Christ. Regardless of the 'denominationism', what God wants MOST for us is to agree in HIM. In the LOVE that He has offered and eximplified through His Son. The rest of the debate is achedemic. No amount of philosophical 'mumbo jumbo' is going to offer ANYTHING of importance compared to this ONE THING: Love. And UNTIL an organization or individual is ABLE to come to this understanding, they have NO ability to offer ANYTHING of importance to ANYONE or God Himself.

So A, I'll be waiting for your response to the questions posted above.

MEC

 

[francisdesales]

I point out to ANY that may read this: The Catholic Church believes that NO ONE is ABLE to find Salvation OUTSIDE of IT'S teachings. PERIOD. Like the muslims that claim Islam teaches LOVE, so too does the Catholic Church 'say' that they are brothers and sisters with the Protestants YET, in truth, the statement that I have copied above speaks PURELY of their TRUE 'beliefs.

It is true that the Catholic Church believes that it possesses the fullness of truth, HOWEVER, it does not follow that all other religions teach ONLY error. Thus, other communities, such as our separated brother Protestants, possess MANY of the Catholic truths that were passed down, traditions of the Apostles, in which they continue to believe and teach to others. Lumen Gentium is quite clear on this. The Catechism says that Muslims can be saved - would this be possible if ONLY the Catholic Church possessed ALL the truth and NO ONE ELSE possessed ANY truth? We believe that all religions possess some truths - but that the fullness of truth that God has revealed to mankind can be found only in one place. This doesn't say that Protestants are hell-bound - since they are indeed united to that source of saving teachings, the teachings of the Apostles as given to their successors.

Most Protestants believe in the majority of the "Nicene Creed", a statement of our beliefs (though not all-inclusive). They can recite with us "we believe..." They are indeed reciting a Catholic rule of faith, following Catholic truths presented by pastors who indeed teach some Catholic truths as per the Catholic Bible (esp. the NT) ...

Whether one believes or doesn't believe what is stated above, it PURELY offers the UNDERSTANDING of those that DO that NO ONE outside of the ONE TRUE CHURCH, in this case, the CATHOLIC CHURCH, can POSSIBLY have a 'righteous relationship with God'. That through any means short of force or violence, (now days), they are to make attempts at the 'conversion' of others BACK into their Faith. Welcoming THEM with open arms.

The passage you state does not say that a person who is not Roman Catholic cannot have a relationship with God. When a person believes in Catholic beliefs, are they, in some manner, Catholic? Are they, in some manner, following what the Catholic Church teaches? Having a relationship of love with God was/is a Catholic teaching as passed down to us by the Apostles. Naturally, we would like to open our arms to you as you more fully enter into communion with us, especially in the Eucharist, which is THE sign of unity among us - it is God Himself! We want what God wants - that all men come to the knowledge of the truth. The fullness of that truth is found and taught by the Catholic Church. That is basically what your quote is saying.

Now, PLEASE explain HOW one could 'believe' that the CC is the ONLY means of the TRUTH when history proves that MUCH of what they have taught in the past was ANYTHING but? They claim to be infalible yet have been falible for the extent of their existence. Showing over and over that they have even gone so far as to imprison those that REFUTED their 'false teachings' and even murdering them.

The Church's "infallibility" is very limited. It does not include political decisions, appointment of ecclesiastical rules, secular matters, nor does it have any ability to pick whether New England will defeat the New York Giants next week in the Super Bowl...

Secondly, it is a negative charism. This means that the Church is prevented from teaching error.

It might be helpful if you could relate which "false teachings" you have in mind. Perhaps you are correct - they were false or incorrect - but they may not have been subject to the "infallibility"gift related above.

The book that you are so quick to point out coming from the CC A, took almost TWO thousand years for the CC to relinquish their UTTER control of. And then, only after the deaths of MANY that they MURDERED in order to KEEP this possession their OWN.

What is "murder" to one person is "punishment" to another. Did not the Jews stone people for breaking the law? Did not a Jewish father have the right to have his obstinate son dragged to the edge of town and killed? Adulterous women? Blasphemers? Yes... Rather than judge people with OUR mindset, we should try to look into THEIR mindset and perhaps, we might understand that they THOUGHT they were doing the community a service by punishing a law breaker, executing God's will. Be careful on such accusations.

But outside of this debate, what DOES matter is one conforming to the UNITY that IS in Christ. Regardless of the 'denominationism', what God wants MOST for us is to agree in HIM.

Yes, and your quote above points that out - that the Truth is found FULLY ONLY in the Catholic Church. As such, we find it difficult to understand why you have not come home yet!

Yes, I know, you do not believe that the Catholic Church has the fullness of the Truth. But we do and are consistently applying that idea when speaking of evangelizing to our separated brothers and so forth. If you firmly believed that you had the fullness of the truth as given by God, wouldn't you desire to call people to the way of thinking that is in line with yours? Obviously, a rhetorical question, because that is what you indeed do.

No amount of philosophical 'mumbo jumbo' is going to offer ANYTHING of importance compared to this ONE THING: Love. And UNTIL an organization or individual is ABLE to come to this understanding, they have NO ability to offer ANYTHING of importance to ANYONE or God Himself.

Love is the greatest of these... 1 Corinthians 13. Yes indeed. We pray that our actions are done in love and in Christ.

Regards

 

[A-Christian]

Now, PLEASE explain HOW one could 'believe' that the CC is the ONLY means of the TRUTH when history proves that MUCH of what they have taught in the past was ANYTHING but? They claim to be infalible yet have been falible for the extent of their existence. Showing over and over that they have even gone so far as to imprison those that REFUTED their 'false teachings' and even murdering them.

See, there it is again MEC; more proof that you do not understand the Church. You need to look to the Church for what it means by infalible. Let me know when you have the Church's answer. Sometimes I wonder if perhaps you actually are aware of the Church's real positions but choose to be a heritic. It's hard to think that in this day and age, anyone could twist the Church's positions as much as you do. Pick up the Church's Cathechism and give it a read. All you do is spin and twist the Church and the Catholics on this board have no choice but to keep correcting you.

The book that you are so quick to point out coming from the CC A, took almost TWO thousand years for the CC to relinquish their UTTER control of.

Printing presses were not invented for almost that amount of time. C'mon MEC, be reasonable.
Also, are you saying that the NT was not a book of the Catholic Church?

But outside of this debate, what DOES matter is one conforming to the UNITY that IS in Christ. Regardless of the 'denominationism', what God wants MOST for us is to agree in HIM. In the LOVE that He has offered and eximplified through His Son. The rest of the debate is achedemic. No amount of philosophical 'mumbo jumbo' is going to offer ANYTHING of importance compared to this ONE THING: Love. And UNTIL an organization or individual is ABLE to come to this understanding, they have NO ability to offer ANYTHING of importance to ANYONE or God Himself.

Catholics are suppose to defend the Church that was instituted by Christ. And let me be clear about something: Catholics are not saying that other Christians are going to hell so STOP trying to lead others to those types of conclusions. Once again, read the book that spells out the Catholic faith: The Cathechism of the Catholic Church. Until you have read that book, you should be careful of the things you spew as you are personally guided by the Spirit in ALL that you do.

Peace

 

[Imagican]

Fran,

I appreciate your candor. And I DON'T say this simply out of 'politeness'. I mean it.

For a minute there I was beginning to 'believe' that I AM a Catholic, (he he he).

I have stated before and will again: you would be surprised at the similarities in belief in MOST aspects.

If we 'look back' it is plain to see that the CC could have gone a number of 'different' ways than it did. There were MANY, (Bishops and priests), that had MANY 'different understandings' than those that 'won out'. And I believe that 'some' of these beliefs were MORE relevant than the course that the CC took.

My biggest objection and the ONE that makes it difficult to believe what the CC offers is the AMOUNT of your so called 'LOVE' that they were willing to IMPOSE upon those under their domination. This in CONTRAST to everything that Christ taught us.

The Jews WERE under The Law. They WERE subject to being stoned and all sorts of 'harsh punishment'. But Christ brought a NEW Covenant. One of FORGIVENESS and LOVE. One offered THORUGH example and NOT through a DEMAND of obedience. For to FORCE one's love is NOT love at all but obedience. And God wants what we WILLINGLY offer. Just as Christ WILLINGLY offered His life upon the cross, so too are we, (who claim to follow Him), expected to act accordingly. Following the EXAMPLE in ACTION as well as word.

'Trinity' is a 'concept' that was NOT universal in the ancient Church. There were MANY that died for Christ that did NOT believe in this 'idea' or 'conclusion' that "others" insisted they must. MANY were ousted from the Church for offering, (what I believe), concepts and understanding that were JUST as inspired as others CLAIMED theirs to be. It was mostly a matter of 'majority rules' and even at times, HE who had the MOST favor with the Emperor, at that particular time, that was able to SET in stone the doctrine that the CC now accepts as UNALTERABLE.

As a 'couple' of examples of the Church BEING wrong I will offer these:

Forbidding to wed. Calling a priest Father. Worshiping Mary.

I know that you will refute the validity of my claim here, but I have read the Word and it distinctly forbids each of these for The CHURCH, (Body of Christ). And they will forever NOW, (the CC), be unable to alter these teachings. For NOW all those that so choose are able to READ it for themselves. If the CC STILL had control over The Word, then I doubt that these would even be issues that one could EVEN 'deny', for they would still be using bits and pieces of scripture in an attempt to PROVE their adherance to The Word, while teaching contradiction.

These issues, and there have been many others. Martin Luther wouldn't even be KNOWN today had the church NOT been abusing it's power to 'teach' falsities'. And if they WEREN'T actually DOING SO, then he STILL would have received NO attention for what he exposed.

From what you have offered, (and I HAVE read the CC's 'statement of faith'), I would BE a Catholic. But when we start breaking it down into doctrine, we have MANY differences in understanding.

And Fran, I am ONLY able to understand that which I am ABLE. And since my understanding was NOT inspired by ME, I can only 'believe' that it has been offered through The Spirit. And I would VERY much 'like' for it to BE different. For if it were, then MUCH that I struggle with could be eliminated by simply 'believing what I 'wished' to believe.

And, in the end, neither the 'doctrine' that you believe or the one that I believe will make ONE iota if it does NOT bring us to the understanding that is ABLE to circumcise our hearts and offer the acceptance of Love that we have been instructed to GIVE.

I really didn't mean for this to 'turn into' a debate over our differences of doctrine. I was simply pointing out to A that his views of the 'church' that he claims to be a member of could ONLY be 'a part' of the Body, if that. And that The Spirit IS the guide to which ALL things are to be compared. Regardless of denominations or teachings of men, if NOT for The Spirit, we would have NO means to judge the truth of ANYTHING. So, my offering was that God, Christ and The Holy Spirit ARE enough to lead one to Salvation. Most will need to find the evidence and confidence THROUGH The Written Word, but God IS able to offer what He CHOOSES to offer regardless of US, or EVEN in 'contradiction' to US.

MEC