True Christians

[francisdesales]

I could quote scripture all day and IF you choose to ignore it there is NO point.

You could quote scripture, but none of it would say that the leaders are to submit to the flock...

When I ask you to back up your claim, I mean "show me where it says or implies that the flock holds authority over the leader - where the leader is to be submissive in its decisions with the flock". Matthew 18 clearly is one example where you are wrong. Your interpretations are incorrect, making your theological opinions based upon it incorrect.

I know what you offered, and it is wrong. I am sorry if that offends you, but do you really think you are going to lecture me and then expect me to accept your "chastisement" without any Scripture backing?

Go back to the drawing board.

I can offer scripture, (MANY), that state that MANY had GONE out from the TRUTH THEN to form their OWN religious governments,,,,,THEN, at the time of the apostles. But IF you had been a MEMBER of one of these EVEN THEN, you would argue just as you are now in defense of what you CHOSE to believe.

This is an entirely different subject. They are not related.

Of course those who go out and form their own "church" are going to think that they are doing "God's will". If I was a member of one of these protesting groups, certainly, I would think that they were correct. And yet, only ONE group can claim to have been formed by the Apostles, and future protesters were merely derivatives of the original. History points to this as fact.

The words that I have quoted offer that NOT A SINGLE PIECE of the Body is ANY MORE IMPORTANT than any other. That SOME may WELL THINK that they are, but without EACH the Body is NOT A BODY.

I didn't say that the leaders were "more important". Try to stay with me here. I said that their charism, gift, job, is to preach and guide the flock. They don't answer to the flock, but to God! Does that make them more important in the greater scheme of things? Not necessarily.

What you have 'bought into' is a belief that there IS an ALL IMPORTANT HEAD and this Head is NOT Christ but a MAN. And it seems to be ALL important that you 'push' this belief upon each topic of every conversation.

What you have bought into, without Scriptural support, is that the flock commands the leaders what to do. That is something that Adam would say, I suppose...

I HAVE offered scripture over and over that plainly shows that there is but ONE Head of Christ's Chruch and that is CHRIST ALONE.

I never said anything different. The leaders of the Church are merely the "head servants" while the "master" is away. Surely, you have heard this parable of Jesus??? Surely, you have read the Scriptures that point out that Jesus told the Apostles that HE was sending THEM. And those who reject them were rejecting HIM!

Now you have offered NOTHING so far as scripture except PERSONAL interpretation as it has been TAUGHT to you.

Gag... :roll:

I have nothing further to add. Anyone can see who is offering Scripture and who is offering opinions based on their worldly view of how things should be in the Church... That's too bad you can't see that through your desire to preach to me without refering to the Scriptures or Traditions of the Apostles.

Regards

 

[Pogo]

Someone posting above made this statement...

But, all Catholics are Christians.

The more I think about this, the more questions I have.

In my opinion, when one says that they are a Christian, I take them to mean that they have followed the examples and commands which Christ and the Apostles teach, as found in the scriptures.

This passage for example(in a Red Letter Edition Bible, is found in red ink)...

Mark 16 KJV
(16) He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Even if we allow that sprinkling is a valid baptism (which it is NOT), notice that BELIEF is key, and a mandatory step, that HAS to occur prior to one's immersion.

As I understand things, the vast majority of Catholics are baptized before they are able to believe, while they are infants, with absolutely zero scriptural support for this practice.

Sooo...I am hesitant to award the title Christian to ALL Catholic's.

God bless us all,

Pogo

 

[Imagican]

fran,

I do NOT believe that I have ONCE offered that the 'Church Leaders' were to be subsevient to the FLOCK as you have indicated i have.

What I have offered is that there are MANY denominations that would place the leaders in a position of authority that was NEVER offered in scripture PERIOD. That scripture dictates that those that would be GREATEST within The Body would BE those that SERVED their brothers and sisters the MOST.

I have YET to read of or in scripture that the LEADERS are to be reverenced in ANY different manner THAN the flock. We ARE all EQUAL in The Body. Other than those that SERVE their brothers and sisters the MOST being of MORE in the image of Christ than those that serve least.

You would offer an altering of my words in order to avoid the POINT.

And when confronted on this issue, you simply state that you have 'nothing else to offer' on this subject.

I will state again, I HAVE offered scripture, (as you asked), to offer clarity to MY posts. But I have asked YOU to offer scripture that would support YOUR statements offered in refute, yet now you have nothing more to offer concerning the conversation. So be it.

True Christians ARE those that follow Christ in Word and DEED. Those that submit to the will of the Holy Spirit and what is MOST distinctive of the TRUE Christian is that they KNOW Love. Are ABLE to overcome their WILL for the sake of their brothers and sisters. Allowing God's will to 'be done'.

And we are to KNOW our brothers and sisters in Christ from the FRUIT that they bear. And that Fruit IS the offering of love both Godward FIRST and towards their brothers and sisters SECOND. And that pertains to ALL their brothers and sisters on this PLANET. NOT JUST the one's that belive as they do.

No amount a ritual or pomp is able to distinguish the Christian from any other of this world. For we can clearly SEE that ALL the religions of this planet have their OWN rituals and pagentry. This MAY well BE something that is ABLE to appease THEIR gods. But The God is MORE concerned with the LOVE that we are able to offer Him and our neighbors than ANY ritual that we could perform. Whether that be Baptism, the eating in Christ's name, or the gathering that so many are SO confused about. What God's WISH for us to be THAT which we were created in the IMAGE OF. What is GOD? What IS that image? LOVE. PERIOD.

Blessings folks,

MEC

 

[francisdesales]

In my opinion, when one says that they are a Christian, I take them to mean that they have followed the examples and commands which Christ and the Apostles teach, as found in the scriptures.

So a person is not Christian today when they sin, and tommorrow becomes a Christian again when they repent, and next week, again are not Christian because they had a fight with a brother, and so forth???

And WHO here is going to judge whether a person is "following the examples of Christ" enough???

Was the Prodigal Son still the son of the father when he was spending his father's money on "harlots"?

This attitude is amazingly like the elder son of the parable... According to your line of thinking, the son was no longer a son because he was not walking the walk.

A person is a Christian if they believe in the Gospel.

A person is a good or bad Christian at the moment depending upon whether their faith is working in love or not.

Mark 16 KJV
(16) He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Even if we allow that sprinkling is a valid baptism (which it is NOT), notice that BELIEF is key, and a mandatory step, that HAS to occur prior to one's immersion.

Well, thanks for your opinion on "sprinkling", although that is another topic...

So how shall we define belief? Even the devil "believes", my brother.

And now, you are changing the subject. You were asking about "who is a Christian", not "who is saved for heaven". Clearly, all people who profess faith in Christ do not REMAIN in Christ throughout their lives - some fall away. Scriptures clearly notes this.

As I understand things, the vast majority of Catholics are baptized before they are able to believe, while they are infants, with absolutely zero scriptural support for this practice.

Where is the Scriptural support that disapproves of this practice?

Sooo...I am hesitant to award the title Christian to ALL Catholic's.

Perhaps God will be more merciful than you, extending His grace to those outside of your denomination...

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

fran,

I do NOT believe that I have ONCE offered that the 'Church Leaders' were to be subsevient to the FLOCK as you have indicated i have.

You have. You have said over and over that church leaders are to be submissive to the flock. I have defined "submissive", given you examples, tried to help you interpret Scriptures properly, and have said over and over again that the flock does not command the leaders.

And now, after a half a dozen posts back and forth, you deny it all. :-?

I have said enough to you on this matter. If you don't mind, I'll ignore the rest of your "offerings". No doubt, they will deny everything said before and come up with new and improved "offerings"...

Regards

 

[Imagican]

fran,

I do NOT believe that I have ONCE offered that the 'Church Leaders' were to be subsevient to the FLOCK as you have indicated i have.

You have. You have said over and over that church leaders are to be submissive to the flock. I have defined "submissive", given you examples, tried to help you interpret Scriptures properly, and have said over and over again that the flock does not command the leaders.

And now, after a half a dozen posts back and forth, you deny it all. :-?

I have said enough to you on this matter. If you don't mind, I'll ignore the rest of your "offerings". No doubt, they will deny everything said before and come up with new and improved "offerings"...

Regards

fran,

I'll go back and read when I have the time but I BELIEVE what I offered over and over is that those that would be GREATEST, (leaders included), would be THOSE that SERVE the most. I GUESS you could interpret these words to MEAN subservient. But that is NOT how they were intended. One can CERTAINLY be a servant without being subservient. One does NOT need to BOW to the whims of those that they TEACH in order to SERVE.

All this was offered in reference to those denominations that would teach that the LEADERS are ABOVE the congregation. There is NOT a 'single gift' that is BEYOND all others. Each MEMBER of The Body IS as IMPORTANT as the OTHERS. God is NOT a respecter of MEN, PERIOD. So there is NONE that is greater than all others save His Son Jesus Christ, (which I do NOT believe pertains to this situation. For Christ was NOT ONLY man but the Son of God as well; the ONLY begotten).

So, I will offer this: If I DID actually state that the church leaders are to be SUBSERVIENT to the congregation, I did NOT mean this in an OVERALL or blanket statement. For the leader ARE to maintain the TRUTH regardless of the desires of those in the congregation. But there is NEVER offered where the LEADERS are meant to be 'as those of this world'; RULERS, or KINGS, or DICTATORS.

We have the words used by Paul as definition of WHAT a Bishop MUST BE fran. I did NOT write these words. But they are certainly there and as PLAIN as could be offered. NO DOUBT could be derived from the statements UNLESS on simply chose to IGNORE them.

Longsuffering, Patient, given to hospitality. These words are apparent in meaning. There is NO PRIDE offered in definition, there is the offering of NOT a lover of filthy lucre. And this ALONE offers MUCH insight into the discernment of WHO is a righteous LEADER and who is NOT. The HUSBAND of ONE wife and with OBEDIENT Children. And there is even THE REASON offered for such: HOW could one BE a righteous leader of the flock if he has NO experience leading HIS OWN FAMILY.

Now, I BELIEVE The Word. And in so believe MUST accept that if these criteria are NOT MET in the office of Bishop, then those claiming such WITHOUT abiding in the terms of this office are SELF made Bishops operating OUTSIDE of the bounds of the Spirit. OBVIOUSLY led by a 'different spirit'. For the Spirit is NOT ignorant as to it's own and God is NOT the author of confusion,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, If Paul offered these words through inspiration then we have NO CHOICE but to accept them or deny them. And IF one chooses to deny them, then THEY are obviously the ONES that are going AGAINST The Spirit.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Catholic Crusader]

Ok CC, you 'bit into this one'. Now I ask YOU to show ANY evidence that there was EVER meant to BE a 'prime minister' of Christ. Show me ONE tit of evidence that this was EVER offered through Gospel or epistle. Show me WHERE there is ANYTHING offered in 'religious government' concerning ANYONE above a Bishop.

I'll be waiting.......................................................................................................

MEC

Its all right here (as if you havent read it already):
viewtopic.php?p=377117#p377117