Modern day Christian “Phariseesâ€

[Cornelius]

b

Having problems interpreting simple passages, I see.

"Her" is the harlot,

Exactly ! :yes

To expand : Since all denominations have truth and error, all denominations can be divided into two:

1)Truth
2) Error

Truth = Christ

error= antichrist or Harlot.

A Harlot receives the seed of many men, whereas the Bride is a virgin and will receive only the seed of her husband. The Bible tells us that the Word is the seed.

We see then that logically its not just "preaching Christ" that makes the church the Bride (truth) but its would be the freedom of error (Harlot) . As most denominations are full of the doctrines of men (Harlot) we can conclude that we must ask God to help us to "come out" not just physically and thereby only succeeding in going back into another error (Harlot) but also spiritually so that we can enter into truth alone, by His grace.

That step is only possible by faith . Faith that God is indeed capable to call His own out . The word church also means: The called out ones. In these, the last days, we are not only called out of the world, but also called to come out of the Harlot religions and be separated.

 

[francisdesales]

Four times, the priest uses the word "HE", not "I". In the last line, the priest quotes Jesus. He doesn't say, "I broke the bread... and said..." Also, the priest is addressing God here: "He took bread and gave you thanks". If the last line is a quote, it makes perfect sense... the priest is speaking to God using 3rd person to recount the events of the Last Supper (and the "you" in the last line refers the the Disciples at the table). Otherwise the whole tense switches for the last line only, and the priest goes from speaking TO God to speaking FOR God.

That happens in Scriptures countless times. There is a narrative, and then, the first person singular speaks. This is not confusing at all. Plays and theater utterly rely on narratives interrupted by a speaker speaking for himself...

For the record, I'm not saying that women should be priests. I'm only arguing against some of your reasoning. However, as someone who served as an altar boy for a pastor that turned out to have raped two boys (friends of mine) repeatedly for years without anyone knowing... and another priest was borderline inappropriate towards the grade school girls... I'm sickened by the much higher degree of sexual depravity of priests than of pastors who can marry.

Naturally, the Catholic priests who sodomized teen boys has gotten much more press than the typical Protestant pastor in Podunk Idaho that has sexual relationships with someone other than his wife. Don't be fooled, satan is active throughout the followers of Christ, not just Catholic priests. Being the Catholic Church was at the pinnacle of morale defense and behavior, it would seem obvious that the press would direct their view to bringing that sacred cow down and focus on this, to the degrees that there have been numerous witch hunts and false accusations against priests, who were abandoned by their bishops, presumed guilty before a trial. easy money brings out the lawyers...

What Catholic is not sickened by this? But this does not change one iota of the truth that the Church teaches regarding what has been taught for 2000 years. Believe in what Christ has done and accept that priests are men and a few are terrible "alternate Christs"

Explain, please. Why are you Catholic, again?

I explained why in my last post. I was baptized Catholic, and later in life sought out other perspectives so I could make my own decision. I went to a Presbyterian college and married a Protestant, but in the end, we decided that the Catholic Church was right for our family, despite some things that don't sit well with me.

Thanks for sharing that. I am always interested in people's journey to faith. Trust in the Spirit of God, not the human priests. Your faith will be stronger and not subject to disappointment when priests put on a pedestal fail.

The "homosexual metaphor" is one made by many orthodox theologians

Orthodox theologians through the years also said that your sins could be forgiven by paying money, and that you need to earn your way into Heaven by doing good works, and other things that go against the Bible. I happen to like the Catholic church that is repenting of the errors of its old ways (whether it be indulgences or "salvation by works") and looking for brotherhood with all Christianity, not the one that adopts a form of orthodox legalism.

I think you have read a few too many Protestant pamplets that give partial truths... I was taking my material from an official document written by a wonderfully holy man, who, in his capacity as the servant of the servants of Christ, has spoken that the Church has no such power to ordain women. Other theologians have built upon that rock.

One bad teacher is not the Catholic Church's official stance, by the way. When we look to see "what does the Church teach", we should go to more official devices, esp in this day of the internet. Catechisms (Trent's, if you prefer), oficial encyclicals, Counciliar documents, etc. Not what Father Billy says... I often find they are lacking in some of the more nuanced teachings of our faith.

Nuns, too. I went to a Catholic school, as well. Looking back, there were some good nuns, but others, whew, where was the love for Christ? Again, brother, look to the teachings of the Church, not the individual acts of one person - many of whom may be cast out into the night instead of being allowed to feast at the Wedding Banquet. Place your faith in God and His promise to watch over the Church.

Saint John Chrysostom wrote that the path to hell is paved with the skulls of bishops, or something to that effect. Unfortunately, there will be wolves who slip into the fold and attempt to lead some astray or are indifferent about the sheep and do not feed them...

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

To expand : Since all denominations have truth and error, all denominations can be divided into two:

1)Truth
2) Error

Truth = Christ

error= antichrist or Harlot.

You are twisting things in your "black and white" world. Even in Scriptures, there was never a time of perfection. Why does Paul write all of those epistles??? to correct errors. Is Paul for one second saying "come out of her" as a result? Ridiculous.

Nowhere does the Bible speak about an apostate church or denominations that one must remove themselves from. You are twisting the context to suit your own theology. And considering that you are a denomination, you would be calling for yourself to come out of your own denomination, by your logic.

The "harlot" is not refering to any Christian organization, but those entities in society that pull us from God. Things that tempt us to pursue wealth, power, lust, envy and other such sins of the whore. Remember the OT? There was no call to remove oneself from the believing community, but to RETURN to God - stop following evil ways. This is a matter of reading Psalm 1 or the Didache, the ways of the world vs the ways of God.

"Come out of her" CANNOT refer to a Christian organization that teaches Christ is Risen, etc...

We see then that logically its not just "preaching Christ" that makes the church the Bride (truth) but its would be the freedom of error (Harlot) .

Truth is not dependent upon the hearer. As such, your judgment is invalid. If the Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth, and Christ promised that it would not be overcome, then you must REMAIN within this foundation, this Temple of the Holy Spirit. For those who destroy that Church, God will destroy (1 Cor 3:17)

As most denominations are full of the doctrines of men (Harlot)

Nowhere does the Bible call the Harlot "error" or even insinuate that this is the weapon of the harlot. The harlot relies on false teaching, true enough, but simply being wrong is not the gist of the problem. The problem goes back to Adam and Eve. It is pride and desiring to live without the influence of God in our lives, not being right vs being wrong...

Nowhere does the Bible say that God calls ANYONE out of the Church...

 

[VertigoAge]

Naturally, the Catholic priests who sodomized teen boys has gotten much more press than the typical Protestant pastor in Podunk Idaho that has sexual relationships with someone other than his wife. Don't be fooled, satan is active throughout the followers of Christ, not just Catholic priests.

This may be true, but we can't help but be shaped by our own experience. The only rapist that I've ever known (or even met) was a priest, and it was young boys. The only adult man to be "a little too interested" in my sister when she was in grade school was a different priest. And the only remaining nun at my Catholic school (principal) was so angry, mean, and unfair that my parents pulled me out after 7th grade. I heard later that the school had to let her go because there were legitimate questions of her sanity. Of course I'm not saying that all Catholic Priests, Sisters, and Brothers are like this. But my own limited experience would indicate that a vow of chastity either attracts more depraved people, or it makes innate depravity worse.

I think you have read a few too many Protestant pamplets that give partial truths...

I don't read divisive Protestant propaganda pamphlets. In fact, a lot of my knowledge of the church's past came from the Catholic church and religious education. I also live in the North East, where there is a large Catholic majority, so if anything, the bias around me should be the other way.

Again, brother, look to the teachings of the Church, not the individual acts of one person - many of whom may be cast out into the night instead of being allowed to feast at the Wedding Banquet. Place your faith in God and His promise to watch over the Church.

I do agree with you there... bad seeds can poison anything good. God does watch over the church, but He does allow some wrongness to creep in. It is our jobs to make sure that we don't accept it. Don't think I"m only supporting "progressive" change here. If the Catholic church were to release another "joint statement" changing it's stance on sexual immorality or abortion to match the times, I would stand against it whether it was official Canon or not.

 

[francisdesales]

Of course I'm not saying that all Catholic Priests, Sisters, and Brothers are like this. But my own limited experience would indicate that a vow of chastity either attracts more depraved people, or it makes innate depravity worse.

Your basing your entire experience of the gift of celibacy in the priesthood on a few bad people. And that's all you knew, a few people. You are automatically presuming that there is a proportionale number of bad celibate people within the Church comparible to the numbers you experienced as a kid, while my experiences were the opposite, regarding sexual predators. I knew a lot of nuns and priests and don't recall any of them "hitting" on us, at least as far as i knew.

Sex, in my opinion, is one of the greatest gifts God has given men and women. We both know that even heterosexual sex within a marriage can become depraved. Any gift from God can be twisted into sin. It doesn't follow that vows of chastity attracts more depraved people because of your very limited experience.

I don't read divisive Protestant propaganda pamphlets. In fact, a lot of my knowledge of the church's past came from the Catholic church and religious education. I also live in the North East, where there is a large Catholic majority, so if anything, the bias around me should be the other way.

Not true. Lot of liberals in the NE, I used to live there. Such thinking directs their views of religion and politics. It is not surprising that Catholics from the NE want a more democratic and liberal Church, forgeting that the Church is a divinely instituted organziation, not a political party or club. Thus, the woman priest issue is more prevalent there.

Again, brother, look to the teachings of the Church, not the individual acts of one person - many of whom may be cast out into the night instead of being allowed to feast at the Wedding Banquet. Place your faith in God and His promise to watch over the Church.

I do agree with you there... bad seeds can poison anything good. God does watch over the church, but He does allow some wrongness to creep in. It is our jobs to make sure that we don't accept it. Don't think I"m only supporting "progressive" change here. If the Catholic church were to release another "joint statement" changing it's stance on sexual immorality or abortion to match the times, I would stand against it whether it was official Canon or not.

I think the "wrongness" is human error that deviates from the teachings of the Church. Whether it is just ignorance or willfully wrong teaching. The problem with "we are not going to accept it" is difficult, because at what point are we becoming Protestant and what point is it the "sense of the Faithful"?

I think the Church saints got it right. Be humble and obey the Church, reform from within without disobedience. Any reform that leads to disobedience is not from God, nor is anything that overlooks humility.

Regards

 

[Cornelius]

Jesus came the first time to call His disciples out of the Harlot of His day. The religious system that ruled the Jews.

Today He is calling us out of the same.

The word "Harlot" is used in the Scriptures to point to religious systems that receive the 'seed" of many men. The Bible tells us that "seed"= words. thus :teaching or doctrines.


On the counter side, we find the "Virgin" -Bride , who will only receive the Word of God (with nothing added) . She will say, "Let it be to me according to they Word " and then she too will produce the Christ in her.He is the Fruit of the Seed.

Mat 1:23 Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, And they shall call his name Immanuel; which is, being interpreted, God with us. The Harlot also has a "son" . He is called the Son of perdition. He was formed according to the likeness of the words that his mother received.

Like Judas, the first son of perdition, this Son of Perdition, will also walk out of the midst of the disciples of today. He will "fall away" from the true church, which is the Virgin.The virgin church of today agrees with Mary and she also says: Luk 1:38 And Mary said, Behold, the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her. Whereas the Harlot church says: "Let it be to me according to the Word and the words and traditions of men"

We should come out of all denominations so that we can hear the Lord "outside the camp"

We should leave the modern day Pharisees to themselves.

 

[VertigoAge]

Your basing your entire experience of the gift of celibacy in the priesthood on a few bad people. And that's all you knew, a few people.
...
Not true. Lot of liberals in the NE, I used to live there.

Interesting... my suggestion of a higher percentage of sexual misconduct from chaste clergy is false because my personal experience contributed. Yet your personal experience in the NE validates the liberalness of the area?

I think the "wrongness" is human error that deviates from the teachings of the Church. Whether it is just ignorance or willfully wrong teaching.

Agree and agree.... as long as you define the "teachings of the Church" as what Jesus Himself gave to Peter and the disciples. All the rest of it had human intervention and could have some of that human error in it. The "official" teaching of the church have included some (at least minor) flaws at various times throughout history, and it would be quite prideful and dangerous of us to assume that it is now 100% perfect.

I think the Church saints got it right. Be humble and obey the Church, reform from within without disobedience. Any reform that leads to disobedience is not from God, nor is anything that overlooks humility.

I never condoned disobedience, and reform from within is exactly what I'm suggesting. If everyone remained strictly obedient and fixed to the old ways, the Catholic church would be a small, fringe group which would not be good for anyone. I'm not sure how old you are, but I'm curious to know how you felt about Vatican II at the time if you were old enough. Were you against allowing the Mass in English (as so many traditional Catholics were at the time)? Do you think that was the wrong move?

 

[Cornelius]

I think the Church saints got it right. Be humble and obey the Church, reform from within without disobedience. Any reform that leads to disobedience is not from God, nor is anything that overlooks humility.

Regards

I think "Be humble and obey God" would be better. What do you think ?
C

 

[VertigoAge]

Your basing your entire experience of the gift of celibacy in the priesthood on a few bad people. And that's all you knew, a few people. You are automatically presuming that there is a proportionale number of bad celibate people within the Church comparible to the numbers you experienced as a kid

And by the way... I wasn't saying that the proportion of sexual misconduct matches what I saw. As I said in the last post, I believe that the overall percentage is probably higher. If if you don't believe me, maybe you'll believe the Catholic church's own appointed review board? They call it a crisis. This is from an article on CatholicNews.com:

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/abuse/abuse20.htm

CNS spoke with several seminary experts in the days before and after the Feb. 27 issuance of a major report on the causes and context of the U.S. crisis in clergy sexual abuse of minors.

The report was prepared by the bishops' all-lay National Review Board, formed in 2002 to monitor the bishops' compliance with their new "Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People" and to help the bishops with independent assessments of the nature and scope and causes and context of the crisis.

The board sharply criticized seminary formation of the 1940s and '50s as too rigid and closed, with celibacy formation largely limited to spiritual and intellectual instruction and little attention given to the human dimensions of psychosexual development.

The news is not all bad though... unlike many Catholic apologists that want to turn a blind eye, at least many church leaders acknowledge it:

The board said that according to many of the bishops, priests and experts they interviewed, "these historical problems largely have been dealt with (in recent years) but much room for improvement remains."

The "problems" they are referring to are the failures in Seminary to help would-be Clergy to prepare. We should all hope and pray that these changes in the Seminary courses will help with this problem rather than pretending that it doesn't exist.

 

[francisdesales]

I think the Church saints got it right. Be humble and obey the Church, reform from within without disobedience. Any reform that leads to disobedience is not from God, nor is anything that overlooks humility.

I never condoned disobedience, and reform from within is exactly what I'm suggesting. If everyone remained strictly obedient and fixed to the old ways, the Catholic church would be a small, fringe group which would not be good for anyone. I'm not sure how old you are, but I'm curious to know how you felt about Vatican II at the time if you were old enough. Were you against allowing the Mass in English (as so many traditional Catholics were at the time)? Do you think that was the wrong move?

I am not condoning the "old ways", since the Church is not, either. That was the entire point of Vatican 2, to make the Church relavent to our lives. Too many people "pine for the old days", when the old days were not that great, it was more about "pray, obey, and pay", rather than love that was taught.

I think Vatican 2 was a good thing, although implementation was a problem. Too much changing caused some issues with people going in beyond the suggestions of Vatican. Such as the removal of ALL art and statues. Too much. I come from a conservative background where Polish was part of the language of the High Mass, after Vatican 2. We still used the communion rails, still had all of our statues and art while in the 1970's. I was fortunate that this conservative community insulated me from the massive changes that other parishes underwent.

At the end of the day, though, our relationship is with Christ, not what language or music is used. If it lifts the minds and hearts to God, I'm for it.

No, the move was not wrong, some just went overboard.

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

I think the Church saints got it right. Be humble and obey the Church, reform from within without disobedience. Any reform that leads to disobedience is not from God, nor is anything that overlooks humility.

Regards

I think "Be humble and obey God" would be better. What do you think ?
C

Cornelius,

In a perfect world, we would all know the difference between our own voice, the devil's and God's. Every time God spoke, we just listened and did not interject our own opinions. Or, when the devil speaks his half truths, that we would utterly reject it, even if it sounded good and easier.

Because life is not like that, we often don't understand or hear God's Word to us so easily, I find that obeying an unbiased entity in the service of all of us, the Church, can be beneficial in putting aside what I, ME, might want to do.

We are all too easily deluded to rely utterly on our own abilities to hear God. As such, God has given us a community to help us come to Him.

When I am obeying the Church in love, I am obeying God, and there is no doubt in my mind about that. When I follow what I think I hear from God in private prayer, it is not so certain.

Regards

 

[Cornelius]

I think the Church saints got it right. Be humble and obey the Church, reform from within without disobedience. Any reform that leads to disobedience is not from God, nor is anything that overlooks humility.

Regards

I think "Be humble and obey God" would be better. What do you think ?
C

Cornelius,

In a perfect world, we would all know the difference between our own voice, the devil's and God's. Every time God spoke, we just listened and did not interject our own opinions. Or, when the devil speaks his half truths, that we would utterly reject it, even if it sounded good and easier.

Because life is not like that, we often don't understand or hear God's Word to us so easily, I find that obeying an unbiased entity in the service of all of us, the Church, can be beneficial in putting aside what I, ME, might want to do.

We are all too easily deluded to rely utterly on our own abilities to hear God. As such, God has given us a community to help us come to Him.

When I am obeying the Church in love, I am obeying God, and there is no doubt in my mind about that. When I follow what I think I hear from God in private prayer, it is not so certain.

Regards

I cannot share your enthusiasm about the wisdom and trustworthiness of men. There is absolutely no Scriptural backing for saying that when we obey the teachings of a denomination, that we are obeying God. Your particular denomination only claims to be THE church. Anybody can claim things, and that does not make it so.

God's Word is not difficult to understand. Fishermen understood it, with no Bible college to help them. All
that a Christian needs to understand the Word is prayer. We need to knock, and it will be opened. We need to ask, and it shall be given. We need to seek and we shall find. The Holy Spirit leads Christians into all truth.

Yes , I know that you will say that people err. Yes they do: Its when they rely on institutions and men and traditions and doctrines of men. Its when they cannot submit to the Word alone. Its when they claim the leading of the Holy Spirit , when in fact its their ambition (draped in religion) that drives them. Its their lust for power over God's people, its their pomp and ceremony dressed up as Christianity.

 

[Cornelius]

I want to clarify that I am not against you personally. I think you are a rather nice person and you have a good knowledge of the Bible.

When one is standing outside and see what groups are doing to their followers, it hurts. It hurts to see my brothers and sisters being led astray . I can hear from which denomination some come , just by their posting ! That is not good.

So this is not a judgment on persons, but on systems that came through the ages and now nobody even dares to look at them critically. They have become sacred and untouchable in many eyes.I do not see them like that. I like history and haver read widely on the church (Catholic and Protestant ) Its not rocket-science to see that pride has been the major enemy in both legs of Christianity. Even the "great" names in the Protestant movement : most of them fell into sin at the end, because of pride. That is a powerful weapon the the hands of the enemy.

The other weapons used successfully has been lusting after riches and power. Here again the sheep has been fleeced successfully on both sides, but I must say the Protestant "super-preachers" have turned this into a fine art. Tithing (which is not in the New Testament) has been used to blackmail believers into giving to their hard earned money to these robbers of God 2Pe 2:3 And in covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose sentence now from of old lingereth not, and their destruction slumbereth not. Oh man, have they indeed made merchandise out of the people of God.Isa 56:11 Yea, the dogs are greedy, they can never have enough; and these are shepherds that cannot understand: they have all turned to their own way, each one to his gain, from every quarter.

Now, I know for a Catholic, what I am going to say would be unacceptable, (but that is because they have done their job perfectly in teaching the flock, what the flock needed to hear , so that the flock must stay within their fold) They used the verse where Jesus tells Peter "On this rock I will build my church" . We know that Jesus was talking about the statement that Peter made Mat 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. The true church is indeed built upon that statement. Mat 7:24 Every one therefore that heareth these words of mine , and doeth them, shall be likened unto a wise man, who built his house upon the rock:

But now Catholics believe God has built His church on a man called Peter. A whole doctrine has been created. A tradition formed around it. A following, a building , statues, books etc. All because the first time somebody looked at that verse and misunderstood it, he then went ahead and created a new doctrine around his misunderstanding. Nobody really seems to care that building on Peter does not really make any spiritual sense at all. (Although by now, they would have surely worked on that, just in case somebody did ask that question )

When presented with this verse : Psa 18:31 For who is God, save Jehovah? And who is a rock, besides our God, a true Catholic must answer : Peter But we can be sure, that this question has been dealt with in some book or text that is there to remove the question out of the mind of the faithful . Some Catechism , chapter xii, page 12873, sub chapter c, written by some "holy see" have laid to rest the restless who for one moment starting thinking for themselves.

So is it within the denominations. The pharisees have captured the people of God for themselves. Questioning them, has become in sin and an unthinkable act. They have reached a holy status that is above our questioning.

What surely started off as the church in the time of the apostles suffered something called "men". Men who were not suppose to lead her, started leading and error crept in over two thousand years. They will be accountable to God: Jer 10:21 For the shepherds are become brutish, and have not inquired of Jehovah: therefore they have not prospered, and all their flocks are scattered. Indeed they are.

 

[francisdesales]

I cannot share your enthusiasm about the wisdom and trustworthiness of men.

I think you missed my point, which indeed discounts my OWN wisdom and trustworthiness by itself. It is an act of humility and obedience, a Christ-like act, to put aside my own will and to concede to the Church, which I believe is led by the Spirit of God.

There is absolutely no Scriptural backing for saying that when we obey the teachings of a denomination, that we are obeying God.

??? There is plentiful Scriptural backing that says JUST this...

I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any [man] preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ. But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. Gal 1:6-11

Wasn't that ENTIRE POINT of the Apostolic teaching? That they taught the Word of God as spoken by THE Word??? That other teachings were false or incomplete? Paul and others over and over speak of this, remaining in the traditions taught, both orally and in written form - BECAUSE it was God's Word.

Isn't that why we consider the New Testament Sacred Scriptures in the first place???
And it wasn't just "any" denomination, but specific men who were considered apostles, sent by Christ or sent by the Apostles. Thus, the Judaizers and Gnostics and their teachings were considered teachings of men, rather than of God.

For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre; But a lover of hospitality, a lover of good men, sober, just, holy, temperate; Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers. there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision: Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake. One of themselves, [even] a prophet of their own, said, The Cretians [are] alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies. this witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith; Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth. Unto the pure all things [are] pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving [is] nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled. They profess that they know God; but in works they deny [him], being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate. Titus 1:7-16

Here is an example of the early church's recognition/claim that it held the truth, given by the Apostles, taught by Christ, and that others were teaching error. "they profess to know God" but don't. Take it to heart. Merely saying it doesn't make it so...

Perhaps you are overlooking this in Scriptures, but clearly, the Apostles felt they had a mandate to teach from God, would be led to teach all truth, spoke for God as ambassadors of Christ, and that those who taught otherwise were not to be heeded...

Thus, obedience to them was obedience to God...

He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me. Luke 10:16

Thus, when I hear and obey the teachings of the Apostles taught by the Church, I am hearing and obeying Jesus Christ, God.

Your particular denomination only claims to be THE church. Anybody can claim things, and that does not make it so.

The true Church established by Christ can be traced to the Catholic Church historically. NO other church can be. However, IT is not the wholeness and completeness of the Bride of Christ. It teaches the fullness of the faith, but others are mysteriously attached to her, even if they remain outside the visible walls.

God's Word is not difficult to understand. Fishermen understood it, with no Bible college to help them.

Yes, that helps to explain why there are so many different denominations...

All that a Christian needs to understand the Word is prayer. We need to knock, and it will be opened. We need to ask, and it shall be given. We need to seek and we shall find. The Holy Spirit leads Christians into all truth.

Understanding it for their particular lives, hearing God's Word and will for today, not to the depths of a theologian who claims to know more about God than God's Church and 2000 years of holy men living in the Spirit...

Yes , I know that you will say that people err. Yes they do: Its when they rely on institutions and men and traditions and doctrines of men.

Including the institution of themselves... You cannot avoid this. You are a man, and you are just as susceptible to making a mistake, more so, than any institution of men.

Its when they cannot submit to the Word alone. Its when they claim the leading of the Holy Spirit , when in fact its their ambition (draped in religion) that drives them.

[/quote]

I think you are a bit overboard here. There are many men who love God and are not driven by ambition in the slightest. Read the lives of the saints and their humble holiness. There is no ambition there whatsoever. You read a few stories about a few bad popes or experience some local pastor with an empire to carve and you automatically presume EVERYONE is like that???

Don't presume that God is powerless to move men to obey Him in love and humility.

Regards

 

[Cornelius]

??? There is plentiful Scriptural backing that says JUST this...

I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any [man] preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ. But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. Gal 1:6-11

Wasn't that ENTIRE POINT of the Apostolic teaching? That they taught the Word of God as spoken by THE Word??? That other teachings were false or incomplete? Paul and others over and over speak of this, remaining in the traditions taught, both orally and in written form - BECAUSE it was God's Word.

Problem is that men kept on adding and adding as if they indeed were allowed to add their own traditions. We are not allowed to move outside the Apostolic teaching and add to it.

I am not going to get into the errors of your denomination , firstly because we are not allowed to and secondly, I do not have enough time. Let's just say that they are more than many.

 

[Adullam]

I think the Church saints got it right. Be humble and obey the Church, reform from within without disobedience. Any reform that leads to disobedience is not from God, nor is anything that overlooks humility.

Regards

I think "Be humble and obey God" would be better. What do you think ?
C

Cornelius,

In a perfect world, we would all know the difference between our own voice, the devil's and God's. Every time God spoke, we just listened and did not interject our own opinions. Or, when the devil speaks his half truths, that we would utterly reject it, even if it sounded good and easier.

Because life is not like that, we often don't understand or hear God's Word to us so easily, I find that obeying an unbiased entity in the service of all of us, the Church, can be beneficial in putting aside what I, ME, might want to do.

We are all too easily deluded to rely utterly on our own abilities to hear God. As such, God has given us a community to help us come to Him.

When I am obeying the Church in love, I am obeying God, and there is no doubt in my mind about that. When I follow what I think I hear from God in private prayer, it is not so certain.

Regards

So we follow with certainty a church that isn't sure it is following God? Or, is there safety in numbers?

If a man cannot be led by the Holy Spirit, then he cannot be a son of God....so not a Christian. When men look to other men...that is politics. Politics are ruled by the existing principalities and powers. One who walks by the Spirit is being trained to displace such heavenly authority towards the right kind. The world needs Christ not religious organizations. We are to have authority...but unless we can hear from the Spirit, it becomes an enormous grey zone that is easily exploited by the enemy. You advocate grey zones as if these were the will of God...as if God left us orphaned to fend for ourselves They are not...and He did not leave us without light.

How did Ananias know where to find Paul and lay hands on him to receice his sight?

Who knocked Paul off his horse? Was he merely halucinating? Are his writings merely his own delusions taking shape?
How can a Christian eschew the control of the Holy Spirit in a man's life? Only unbelief can do this.

How did the Holy Spirit speak to the assembly of elders at Antioch? Dogmatics? Semantics? Exagerations?

Synods of priests cannot do the impossible things we are called to do, yet a simple brother walking by the Spirit can do anything through Christ. The collective of they who follow the Spirit are the true church...along with they who are learning to obey and surrender to...the SPIRIT. These are being forged into Christ through a spiritual training regimen that no man can duplicate. This is biblical Christianity....anything else is a put-on and hypocritical.

It is common for those who remain unenlightened to weigh in on things they have never seen experienced nor understood. Unbelief is too common among church goers. Faith is as precious today as it ever was...even more rather. Shall we find faith here?

 

[Cornelius]

So we follow with certainty a church that isn't sure it is following God? Or, is there safety in numbers?

Exactly I said the same thing , some time ago. I sincerely think that , this is indeed one of the reason. People think: They are so many, they cannot be wrong.


But I think there are more "logical" reasonings too: "They are old, they must be right " and "Surely if they were wrong, somebody in the top structure would be aware of it and do something about it" . People get blinded by the vast display of wealth. "Surely God is blessing them? "

I am sure there are other people that realize that the masses are always wrong ?

 

[Cornelius]

Another reason found in Protestant and RCC is that people love to hand over the responsibility of their salvation into the hands of those they deem more qualified than themselves. That is why they listen to "the Church" because we think that God will not hold us responsible if we submit to what people tell us is His church. The possibility of this not being His church, is considered a heresy and so :impossible. That is why its so easy to serve the institution that is ultimately the One that you look to for your salvation.

 

[francisdesales]

I want to clarify that I am not against you personally. I think you are a rather nice person and you have a good knowledge of the Bible.

When one is standing outside and see what groups are doing to their followers, it hurts. It hurts to see my brothers and sisters being led astray . I can hear from which denomination some come , just by their posting ! That is not good.

Welcome to my world...

I believe most people here feel that they are trying to bring people closer to God via the teachings they have been given, for good or bad.

I have said already that you also have spoken many words of wisdom here. I still feel that way. On this, however, I think you are generalizing too much, thinking all institutions are of no value and oppose God. This has led you to error - whether to subliminally justify your own position or whatever.

So this is not a judgment on persons, but on systems that came through the ages and now nobody even dares to look at them critically.

the whole point of reform is to look at them critically. A woman of the 1300's questioned the Pope, for heaven's sake. Women of that era were not given any serious thought or attention in things religious, unless they were able to back it up with a holy life identified by their acts of love. Such was the case with Catherine of Siena, who questioned and criticized bishops and even the Pope on several issues. She could have very quickly been silenced by the Inquisition, if it wasn't for the fact that the Church recognizes true reform from God's Spirit working through a saint on earth.

Trust me, the Catholic Church is subject to critical thinking, this is why Councils are called into session!

The greatest reformers are the holy men and women who are indeed able to say "hold on a minute" FROM WITHIN. Leaving the confines of the Church and criticizing from outside will never be considered true reform because schism is not seen as an act led by God.

They have become sacred and untouchable in many eyes.I do not see them like that. I like history and haver read widely on the church (Catholic and Protestant ) Its not rocket-science to see that pride has been the major enemy in both legs of Christianity.

Oh, you are quite right there, my friend. But that's not the entire story of either "leg". Many good and holy men have led other men to Christ by their example and teachings. Look at the life of men like John Wesley or John Newman. Yes, there are many good examples, as well as poor examples of life within the Church. Institutions are not the "cause", though, it is pride - Cain needed no institution to act upon that pride.

Even the "great" names in the Protestant movement : most of them fell into sin at the end, because of pride. That is a powerful weapon the the hands of the enemy.

yes, pride is a tremendous weapon, and THE defense against pride is humility and obedience, ESPECIALLY when you feel you are right. The greatest and most holy reformers were those who people identified as humble and obedient WHILE calling for reform within the Church. That is why so much of our institution has gotten better over the years. Compare our situation between now and the 1700's, post Reformation. More power within the laity. Less clericalism. These came about because of the call of reform from within.

The other weapons used successfully has been lusting after riches and power.

Jesus said blessed are those poor in spirit. (Matthew's version). I've been taught, and have experienced this as correct, that being poor in spirit didn't mean being poor and without money, since the poor can be greedy and aspire to become rich by stepping upon whoever it takes to get ahead, while I know of "rich" people who are quite loving and giving of their goods, and are not attached to it.

People can lust after this money and power outside any institution, Cornelius. Even the powerless can be "rich in spirit", placing the almighty dollar as the goal and love of their lives.

Here again the sheep has been fleeced successfully on both sides, but I must say the Protestant "super-preachers" have turned this into a fine art.

I do agree that the Protestant sermons i've been to center on tithing and giving money. We rarely hear about money as part of the sermon, while the majority of the Mass is fixed, with money not mentioned. Only at the very end, announcements are said, "please give to "x" charity", "we need some more food to feed the poor of the community", etc.

Perhaps their is some good to making oaths of obedience, chastity and a life of poverty, a la Catholic brothers, sisters, and priests.

Tithing (which is not in the New Testament) has been used to blackmail believers into giving to their hard earned money to these robbers of God 2Pe 2:3 And in covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose sentence now from of old lingereth not, and their destruction slumbereth not. Oh man, have they indeed made merchandise out of the people of God.Isa 56:11 Yea, the dogs are greedy, they can never have enough; and these are shepherds that cannot understand: they have all turned to their own way, each one to his gain, from every quarter.

Paul does speak about being a happy giver to the Corinthians, I believe 1 Cor 9, and he does speak about a collection taken up for the "mother church" in Jerusalem. I know it is not central to what we read in the NT, but there is some discussion about almsgiving for the sake of the poor. It appears to be a major theme of James.

Now, I know for a Catholic, what I am going to say would be unacceptable, (but that is because they have done their job perfectly in teaching the flock, what the flock needed to hear , so that the flock must stay within their fold) They used the verse where Jesus tells Peter "On this rock I will build my church" . We know that Jesus was talking about the statement that Peter made Mat 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. The true church is indeed built upon that statement. Mat 7:24 Every one therefore that heareth these words of mine , and doeth them, shall be likened unto a wise man, who built his house upon the rock:

LOL, it is unacceptable because the interpretation is faulty. Simon is called "Cephas", meaning rock. Simon's statement is not called a rock, but he PERSONALLY is called "Rock".

Building upon a rock, in your other statement, is just a euphemism for being smart, since smart people don't build upon a sand bank, but upon rock. Thus, one is wise by doing the words of Christ. Different application of the use of "rock". In the former, Jesus is calling, NAMING someone a rock. Even Protestant commentators admit this is so - at least most of them.

But now Catholics believe God has built His church on a man called Peter. A whole doctrine has been created.

And accepted by the earliest church. If you are bothered by this, you'll have to wonder why the Spirit led men to teach this and men to believe it - those same men who wrote Sacred Scriptures and those same men who went to the lions for their faith in Christ.

A tradition formed around it. A following, a building , statues, books etc. All because the first time somebody looked at that verse and misunderstood it, he then went ahead and created a new doctrine around his misunderstanding. Nobody really seems to care that building on Peter does not really make any spiritual sense at all. (Although by now, they would have surely worked on that, just in case somebody did ask that question )

It makes plenty of sense to me. Peter is the rock that Christ built His Church upon, an affirmation to us on earth that Christ would ensure a visible authority would remain, a head servant (as per Jesus' parables).

When presented with this verse : Psa 18:31 For who is God, save Jehovah? And who is a rock, besides our God, a true Catholic must answer : Peter But we can be sure, that this question has been dealt with in some book or text that is there to remove the question out of the mind of the faithful . Some Catechism , chapter xii, page 12873, sub chapter c, written by some "holy see" have laid to rest the restless who for one moment starting thinking for themselves.

Abraham was also called "rock". In context, no one else can save, that is what is meant by rock in the Psalm. But rock is a metaphor, and doesn't always refer to God. remember, it was JESUS who gave Simon the name, and Paul calls Simon by this name. Apparently, the apostles called Simon "rock", Cephas, and Paul continued this tradition. Now, if these good men and women agreed to call Simon "rock", perhaps it is your pride that will not allow it now? Jesus told Peter to "feed my sheep". He continues to do so in the person of the Pope. I think you'd be hard pressed to deny that the Popes of the 20th century have been outstanding leaders of Christian men and women in their journeys towards Christ.


Regards

 

[Adullam]

A salesman once said...never underestimate the gullibility of the general public. This is a maxim that holds true for organized religion for the masses. The masses have always followed Jesus superficially. They are there one minute and gone the next. But the Church is a little flock. Human intervention cannot change this...it only adds to the problem. There is so much ignorance of the grace available to all. How men have strayed through unbelief. It is better to admit one's ignorance than to build castles in the clouds of our own imaginations and claim we know the truth.


Do Catholics know, for instance, that Rome elected curios (priests) and pontifex maximuses (popes) hundreds of years before the time of Christ? A new legend is introduced, new gods (or a god) to sacrifice to and pay lip service to...and the gods are propitiated!!!! Now we can get on with our own lives. Is it any wonder that shrewd observers see the religion as the opiate of the people? :verysad