Do we have any Catholics here?

[Brakelite]

.
Some time ago, I was a big fan of a morning television show hosted by Regis
Philbin and Cathy Lee Gifford. Regis was a Catholic and Cathy was a Protestant.

Once in a while they would talk about religion and one morning John 3:14-15 came
up, which goes like this:

”Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so the Son of Man must be lifted
up, that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life."

If I remember correctly, someone had emailed the show requesting an explanation
of that passage. Well; neither Regis nor Cathy had a clue. I was aghast. There were
two of the most well-respected, well-loved, high profile Christians imaginable with a
golden opportunity to speak for Christ on national television and they dropped the ball.

The incident to which Christ referred is located at Num 21:5-9.

Long story short: Moses' people became weary of living in the desert and eating
manna all the time at every meal. But instead of courteously, and diplomatically,
petitioning their divine benefactor for tastier food and better accommodations, they
became hostile and confrontational.

In response to their insolence; God sent a swarm of deadly poisonous snakes
among them; which began striking people; and every strike was 100% fatal, no
exceptions. In no time at all, much people of Israel died. Then those not yet dead
got nervous and appealed to Moses for help. In reply; The Lord instructed Moses to
construct a replica of the beasts and hoist it up on a pole in plain view so that
everyone dying from snake bite could look to it for an antidote.

Now the key issue here is that the replica, lifted up, was the only God-given
remedy for the people's fatal condition-- not purity, not sacrifices and offerings, not
tithing, not church attendance, not missionary work, not sacraments, not holy days
of obligation, not the Sabbath, not charity, not good deeds, not good behavior, not
piety, not scapulars, not Bible study and Sunday school, not catechism or yeshiva,
not rosaries, not the Wailing Wall, not one's religion of choice, not self denial and/or
self control, not the so called golden rule, not vows of poverty and/or chastity, not
the Ten Commandments, not the Eucharist; no, none of that. The replica, lifted up,
was it; viz: it was all or nothing at all-- there were no exceptions and no other
options. Whoever failed to look to that replica for relief ended up dead.

As an allegory: Christ, lifted up on the cross to satisfy justice for the sins of the world,
is the only God-given option for protection from a fate worse than death.

FAQ: How does one go about availing themselves of Christ's crucifixion?

REPLY: The best way is to RSVP God and tell Him-- in your own words --that you've
thus far failed to satisfy His expectations, and you're pretty sure you never will.
Then simply tell Him you would like to take advantage of His son's crucifixion to
avoid the consequences.

They say silence is golden but in this case silence could be terminal; so get this
benefit locked in now, while it's on the table; and for Pete's sake don't take it for
granted that God will come around every so often to remind you 'cause He's not
obligated to do that and will quite possibly take it as a personal insult if you keep
ignoring His attempts to offer you His son.
_

If I can hazard a slight... Maybe not so slight... Correction to your understanding of the snake incident... Event. Israel had been constantly under the protection of God whilst on their travels in the wilderness. He fed them, no-one of them clothes wore out, their enemies couldn't touch them, not even curse them. They were healthy as they are good nutritious food, and had left the "flesh pots" of Egypt behind which had contributed so much to heart disease, blood disorders and cancers etc, as they do today. When the snakes came into camp, it wasn't so much I think that God sent them, but just stood back and allowed them entrance.

 

[mikepec]

I grew up as Catholic. Does that count?
I have engaged Catholics on another forum, who boast that their only reason for being there is to counter the lies told about them, to refute the wrong teachings of Protestantism regarding Catholicism. I have found that of the 5 or so Catholics I regularly engage with, 4 of them are particularly combative, are seriously well educated and knowledgeable in Catholic doctrine, dogma, and philosophy, have a serious understanding of the early church fathers, but, and is a big but, their knowledge is so far more advanced than your average Catholic, even of the priests I knew growing up into my 20s, that I believe they are actually trained in apologetics, and while each one is different, they have a different method of debate and argument, they all have in common means by which they use cunning and deception in order to destroy their opponent's arguments, and character. They are priests I believe, possibly Jesuits, trained to dismantle Protestantism everywhere they find it. I'm surprised they aren't already here, although I understand this is a new forum. They would certainly add to the colour and flavour of the discussions here, but as a poster here said before, they will certainly leverage the rules to shut down our view if our answers become too pointed and difficult to respond to.
They also often play the victim card, accusing protestants of hate speech, anti-Catholic bigotry, and lying, then complaining to the administrators that the thread has turned nasty and insulting, as a direct result of their own gaslighting, and demand the thread be closed.
Makes for an interesting vibe, but not one that can be tolerated for too long.

I suspect the difference you notice amongst the ability of som catholics to debate has a different origin.

It is those who were protestant or evangelical who returned to Rome generally because of the early fathers, and the study to answer the single question "where is authority when christians disagree on matters of substance using exactly the same verses to oppose each other. " Sadly in protestant world there is no authority and the result is sadly to schism and schism again which is why there are so many denminations post reformation.

These catholcis know the apologetics because they have been both sides of the fence, they used protestant arguements themselves at one time so they understand them, and later they see through them.. THey have spent many years in the wilderness studying the writings of many who returned to catholicism and they understand the problems and falacies with much unsupportable reformation doctrine. Take sola scriptura at the heart of most disputes .

Cradle catholics by and large are not exposed to protestant doctrine so are not equipped to challenge it. They are also easy pickings for evangelical arguments which are shallow but convinving. Many cradle catholics know what they believe but not why they believe it, so whne challenaged they cannot defend it..

Catholics are rarely if ever the starters of arguments with protestants. They feel no need to do so. They defend what they believe against repeatedly hostile but frequently illinformed anti catholic posts.


Lets hope berean forum keeps it all good natured and civil! Unlike some any protestants we do not feel the compelling need to attack the doctrine of others who are free to believe what they will.

Catholics can learn a lot from the other traditions on matters of community, and evangelisation! Many are far better at it!
It is easy to forget we are on the same side in an increasingly hostile world against christians.

 

[civic]

I suspect the difference you notice amongst the ability of som catholics to debate has a different origin.

It is those who were protestant or evangelical who returned to Rome generally because of the early fathers, and the study to answer the single question "where is authority when christians disagree on matters of substance using exactly the same verses to oppose each other. " Sadly in protestant world there is no authority and the result is sadly to schism and schism again which is why there are so many denminations post reformation.

These catholcis know the apologetics because they have been both sides of the fence, they used protestant arguements themselves at one time so they understand them, and later they see through them.. THey have spent many years in the wilderness studying the writings of many who returned to catholicism and they understand the problems and falacies with much unsupportable reformation doctrine. Take sola scriptura at the heart of most disputes .

Cradle catholics by and large are not exposed to protestant doctrine so are not equipped to challenge it. They are also easy pickings for evangelical arguments which are shallow but convinving. Many cradle catholics know what they believe but not why they believe it, so whne challenaged they cannot defend it..

Catholics are rarely if ever the starters of arguments with protestants. They feel no need to do so. They defend what they believe against repeatedly hostile but frequently illinformed anti catholic posts.


Lets hope berean forum keeps it all good natured and civil! Unlike some any protestants we do not feel the compelling need to attack the doctrine of others who are free to believe what they will.

Catholics can learn a lot from the other traditions on matters of community, and evangelisation! Many are far better at it!
It is easy to forget we are on the same side in an increasingly hostile world against christians.

Protestants hold to several Creeds as Authoritative and Scripture.

 

[mikepec]

Protestants hold to several Creeds as Authoritative and Scripture.

Indeed. I was an Anglican, and creeds are there in the article 8
To me at least, believing the nicene creed is what marks Christian belief.

but the Anglican articles also demonstrates some of the problems of why we all disagree.
( many denominations have so called confessions or articles)

Questions
1/ if as the articles claim scripture is sufficient, why are the articles needed At all?
Why do all disagree on meaning Of scriptur? Anglicans couldnt even agree the nature of eucharist.
It is part of why I left.

2/ the nicene creed was a Council convening to resolve a doctrinal christological dispute between Arian bishops and others.
so if anglicans do not accept the authority of councils , or the power of the church to resolve disputes how can they accept the nicene creed

3/ if they do accept the authority of councils how can they reject other catholic council decisions Like
what is scripture? most important of all! the list is shortened by whose authority?

4/ articles are indeed tradition in the sense used in biblical meaning- they are faith handed down to anglicans, but that is an admission tradition is needed to Resolve ambiguity. to impose a meaning.That scripture isnt sufficient.


5/ But in the case of these articles they were written by cranmer, so truly mam made tradition. We knowwho wrote them and when.
Who other than Henry gave cranmer authority to make church decisions ? Thomas More clearly disagreed!

So we are back to the big question of the three legged stool of the word of God.

Scripture. Tradition. Authority.
lose any one and the stool falls over.

Anglicans didn’t remove the question of tradition or authority.
They replaced with their own decided by Cranmer,
which accepted some catholic teaching, overruled others.

indeed all have tradition - a lens through which they view scripture. The Baptist lens. The Lutheran lens. the Calvinist lens. Et. Etc.

 

[civic]

Indeed. I was an Anglican, and creeds are there in the article 8

but the articles also demonstrates some of the problems of why we disagree.

Questions
1/ if as the articles claim scripture is sufficient, why are the articles needed At all?
Why do all disagree on meaning Of scriptur? Anglicans couldnt even agree the nature of eucharist.
It is part of why I left.

2/ the nicene creed was a Council convening to resolve a doctrinal christological dispute between Arian bishops and others.
so if anglicans do not accept the authority of councils , or the power of the church to resolve disputes how can they accept the nicene creed

3/ if they do accept the authority of councils how can they reject other catholic council decisions Like
what is scripture? most important of all! the list is shortened by whose authority?

3/ articles are indeed tradition in the sense used in biblical meaning- they are faith handed down to anglicans, but that is an admission tradition is needed to Resolve ambiguity. to impose a meaning.That scripture isnt sufficient.


But in the case of these articles they were written by cranmer, so truly mam made tradition. We knowwho wrote them and when.
Who other than Henry gave cranmer authority to make church decisions ? Thomas More clearly disagreed!

So we are back to the big question of the three legged stool of the word of God.

Scripture. Tradition. Authority.
lose any one and the stool falls over.

Anglicans didn’t remove the question of tradition or authority.
They replaced with their own decided by Cranmer,
which accepted some catholic teaching, overruled others.

indeed all have tradition - a lens through which they view scripture. The Baptist lens. The Lutheran lens. the Calvinist lens. Et. Etc.

I can make the case like Jesus and Paul did that Scripture- the Word of God is our sole authority for truth. Nothing and No-one else is equal to Scripture and is in subjection to Scripture as the sole authority. Its why for me all of the creeds are secondary sources. And I can make the case the the Authority of the Apostles ended with John. There are no successors. This is where tradition went off course and abandoned the Biblical authority of Jesus and the Apostles. The church was built upon the foundation of the Apostles- those who saw the Risen Christ and the main criteria and who were hand picked by Jesus Himself. They wrote Scripture, they had all truth as promised by Jesus. They alone were His chosen vessels who were the foundation of the N.T. Church. That ended when John the last Apostle died.

hope this helps !!!

 

[mikepec]

I can make the case like Jesus and Paul did that Scripture- the Word of God is our sole authority for truth. Nothing and No-one else is equal to Scripture and is in subjection to Scripture as the sole authority. Its why for me all of the creeds are secondary sources. And I can make the case the the Authority of the Apostles ended with John. There are no successors. This is where tradition went off course and abandoned the Biblical authority of Jesus and the Apostles. The church was built upon the foundation of the Apostles- those who saw the Risen Christ and the main criteria and who were hand picked by Jesus Himself. They wrote Scripture, they had all truth as promised by Jesus. They alone were His chosen vessels who were the foundation of the N.T. Church. That ended when John the last Apostle died.

hope this helps !!!

You are welcome to what you believe.

The problem is not what scripture says,many of the disputes are about what scripture is ( what is the table of contents) and what scripture means. Starting with the same scripture protestants end in many different places. Polar opposites on much doctrine.

so who gets to decide what it means?
You?
Scripture says “ Lean not on your own understanding “ and listen to those who are “ sent” to preach?

We believe in sola dei verbum, but that’s bigger than scritpture not least because scripture says so.
The faith handed down, tradition was the only early truth. Councils decided what was scripture in part on The basis of what aligned with traditon. So cart and horse in reverse.
Scripture also refers to the power of the church to resolve disputes. to bind and loose which is why it is the “ pillar of truth”
it was because of that the creed was written.

 

[civic]

You are welcome to what you believe.

The problem is not what scripture says,many of the disputes are about what scripture is ( what is the table of contents) and what scripture means. Starting with the same scripture protestants end in many different places. Polar opposites on much doctrine.

so who gets to decide what it means?
You?
Scripture says “ Lean not on your own understanding “ and listen to those who are “ sent” to preach?

We believe in sola dei verbum, but that’s bigger than scritpture not least because scripture says so.
The faith handed down, tradition was the only early truth. Councils decided what was scripture in part on The basis of what aligned with traditon. So cart and horse in reverse.
Scripture also refers to the power of the church to resolve disputes. to bind and loose which is why it is the “ pillar of truth”
it was because of that the creed was written.

Not true as Peter declared all of Pauls writings/ letters were scripture. The Apostles knew they were writing Scripture that was on equality with the O.T.

Once again the binding/loosing was granted to the Apostles, not the church universal.

hope this helps !!!

 

[civic]

Also as a Christian I protest the protestant reformation. They got allot of things wrong. I say this as a former calvinist.

 

[mikepec]

Not true as Peter declared all of Pauls writings/ letters were scripture. The Apostles knew they were writing Scripture that was on equality with the O.T.

Once again the binding/loosing was granted to the Apostles, not the church universal.

hope this helps !!!

it is Paul telling you to “ stay true to tradition we taught you” and “ the pillar and foundation of truth is the church”

You think Jesuswould allow his church to go off the rails in one generation?

You have so far dodged the question on meaning.
Its clear what the disciples of John said John meant. They got it from John. He got it from Jesus.

So read ignatius to smyrneans.
The eucharist is of the real flesh valid only if presided by bishop in succession!!
How can that be without a succession?
If your eucharist is not of that form , it’s not the early church .

As a history lesson to prove it , a misunderatnsing on transubstantiationi iswhy romans thought Christian’s were cannibals! “ eating the flesh”

There are clear references to appointment of successors and that the office of “keys “ was a succession office.
Moses seat out lasted Moses In the OT

So why do you think your opinion of scripture trumps what the disciples taught.

believe what you will.
Im justifying what we believe, not asking you to join.

Why don’t you accept the gospel of James? There’s no proof it wasnt written by apostle James.
Why don’t you accept the first canon of scripture, which was outlawed by the church!! If you don’t accept the church authority.
Why don’t you accept maccabees? It was in the Septuagint Jesus quoted.
Do you get to decide your own canon Like Luther did?

Most protestant positions including non denom fall apart on cscrutiny of history. And authority to decide,

 

[Brakelite]

Scripture says “ Lean not on your own understanding “

I think you need to read and quote scripture with a little more integrity and honesty...
KJV Proverbs 3:5-6
5 Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.
6 In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.
When one reads scripture, it is absolutely essential that one begins with prayer and a heart in tune with God's will. Fully surrendered to God's purposes, and a willingness to obey the truth when revealed. We are trusting God to fulfil his promise when He said, "the holy Spirit will lead you into all truth". But such promises are conditional. As Paul said, you must have a love for truth... As a principle... Not a love for what you believe to be truth. Yes, the scriptures are the final authority, because they are the word of God. They are not the word of the church.

and listen to those who are “ sent” to preach?

And like the Bereans, confirm what others teach by comparing with the scriptures. Retain what is true, and throw out what isn't.

The faith handed down, tradition was the only early truth. Councils decided what was scripture in part on The basis of what aligned with traditon. So cart and horse in reverse.
Scripture also refers to the power of the church to resolve disputes. to bind and loose which is why it is the “ pillar of truth”
it was because of that the creed was written

God never gave any man or institution final authority. He gave them disciplinary power over behaviour within the body, but spiritual authority always remained with Jesus as our High Priest. No institution or priest or pastor, be it Catholic, Protestant, or independent, has authority over the consciences of man. Of man makes a mistake in theology, and is willing to be corrected, God will correct him. If he refuses to be corrected, God will allow him the freedom to go his way and bear the result of his errors, and perhaps in time see his fault and repent. But the relationship with God is real, and no-one, not even the Pope, stands between me and God and accepts the responsibility for the direction and path I take in life. That's on me.

Also as a Christian I protest the protestant reformation. They got allot of things wrong. I say this as a former calvinist.

They got stuff right as well. And the reformation was God's doing. There was pain, and there were mistakes, but it was necessary else the world would remain in ignorance and superstition. It took time to shed the vestiges of Roman error, and it still isn't over. That some are returning to Rome to embrace "Mother" again means the reformation in some contexts will have to be fought all over again.

the pillar and foundation of truth is the church”

Only in so much as the church actually retains a connection with the Way, the Truth, and the Life. The Catholic church in Rome and Alexandria departed from the Truth when they embraced and coveted the baubles of political office in the 4th century and created a union of church and state. They trusted in political power to entrench church dogma over the power of the holy Spirit. Then later persecuted those who refused to join in this new Papal concept.

You think Jesuswould allow his church to go off the rails in one generation?

Yes. Because it wasn't the entire church. Only Rome took the steps to apostasy as follows...

1. Forming a creed, expressing their faith in man-made phrases instead of adhering to the word of the Lord.
2. Making that man-made creed a test of fellowship, and denouncing all as heretics who would not assent to the exact wording of their creeds.
3. Making the creed a rule by which all heretics must be tried. Many were thus declared sinners whose faith was more in harmony with the direct statements of the Bible than that of those who decreed against them.
4. Constituting themselves a tribunal for the trial of heretics, and excluding from their fellowship all who would not assent to their creeds. Not content to debar such from church privileges in this world, they declared them subjects for the lake of fire.
5. Having thus kindled a hatred in their own hearts against all who did not conform to their creeds, they next invoked and obtained the aid of the civil power to torture, and kill with sword, with hunger, with flame, and with beasts of the earth, those whom they had declared unfit to remain in the world.

 

[Grace ambassador]

the relationship with God is real, and no-one, not even the Pope, stands between me and God and accepts the responsibility for the direction and path I take in life. That's on me.

Amen! Absolutely "No one!!":

1Co_11:3 "But I would have you know, that The Head of every man is Christ;..."

Amen.

 

[mikepec]

I think you need to read and quote scripture with a little more integrity and honesty...
KJV Proverbs 3:5-6
5 Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.
6 In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.
When one reads scripture, it is absolutely essential that one begins with prayer and a heart in tune with God's will. Fully surrendered to God's purposes, and a willingness to obey the truth when revealed. We are trusting God to fulfil his promise when He said, "the holy Spirit will lead you into all truth". But such promises are conditional. As Paul said, you must have a love for truth... As a principle... Not a love for what you believe to be truth. Yes, the scriptures are the final authority, because they are the word of God. They are not the word of the church.

And like the Bereans, confirm what others teach by comparing with the scriptures. Retain what is true, and throw out what isn't.

God never gave any man or institution final authority. He gave them disciplinary power over behaviour within the body, but spiritual authority always remained with Jesus as our High Priest. No institution or priest or pastor, be it Catholic, Protestant, or independent, has authority over the consciences of man. Of man makes a mistake in theology, and is willing to be corrected, God will correct him. If he refuses to be corrected, God will allow him the freedom to go his way and bear the result of his errors, and perhaps in time see his fault and repent. But the relationship with God is real, and no-one, not even the Pope, stands between me and God and accepts the responsibility for the direction and path I take in life. That's on me.

They got stuff right as well. And the reformation was God's doing. There was pain, and there were mistakes, but it was necessary else the world would remain in ignorance and superstition. It took time to shed the vestiges of Roman error, and it still isn't over. That some are returning to Rome to embrace "Mother" again means the reformation in some contexts will have to be fought all over again.

Only in so much as the church actually retains a connection with the Way, the Truth, and the Life. The Catholic church in Rome and Alexandria departed from the Truth when they embraced and coveted the baubles of political office in the 4th century and created a union of church and state. They trusted in political power to entrench church dogma over the power of the holy Spirit. Then later persecuted those who refused to join in this new Papal concept.

Yes. Because it wasn't the entire church. Only Rome took the steps to apostasy as follows...

1. Forming a creed, expressing their faith in man-made phrases instead of adhering to the word of the Lord.
2. Making that man-made creed a test of fellowship, and denouncing all as heretics who would not assent to the exact wording of their creeds.
3. Making the creed a rule by which all heretics must be tried. Many were thus declared sinners whose faith was more in harmony with the direct statements of the Bible than that of those who decreed against them.
4. Constituting themselves a tribunal for the trial of heretics, and excluding from their fellowship all who would not assent to their creeds. Not content to debar such from church privileges in this world, they declared them subjects for the lake of fire.
5. Having thus kindled a hatred in their own hearts against all who did not conform to their creeds, they next invoked and obtained the aid of the civil power to torture, and kill with sword, with hunger, with flame, and with beasts of the earth, those whom they had declared unfit to remain in the world.

My suggestion is you do not question integrity and honesty. @civic are you happy with that? One more strike and you are out.
I will not reply again if you do.


I suggest you STUDY the early church.
Jesus sent the apostles to preach, not write, which is why Romans says the faith "comes by hearing" not reading, few could read, scripture was kept hidden from the romans, and the printing press was 1500 years in the future, the decision on what was canonical 300 years in the future..

Which is why Paul tells you to stay true to what is taught by word of mouth and letter.

The faith is handed down which is the meaning of "paradosis", "tradition". Scripture only came later as a product of the churches power to bind and loose.
Without it you would have a heretical canon, many heresies and no idea which books are canonical.

We know what was handed down by the writings of the disciples of the apostles.

We know what apostle John taught about the eucharist from disciples such as Ignatius that a eucharist is of the real flesh valid only if presided by a bishop in succession. We know from iraneus the entire succession was known to his day. He even lists the bishops of Rome.

So that is what John taught. Iraneus tells us that to his day mid second century the entire succession was known. He also lists the bishops of Rome. We know by scripture the meaning of the inherited office of "keys of the kingdom", and we know the meaning of "bind and loose. Even Calvin in commentary accepts the succession of Peter. It seems you are arguing with almost all other christians.

The blame on the fourth century is echoing a myth. If you read such as the life of anthony by anasthasius (him of the nicene creed and council) you see nothing actually changed in doctrine other than freedom to worship. It is an often quoted antic catholic myth as the time of apostasy. It does not stack up.

"sola scriptura" is a false man made tradition of the reformation - we know who defined it and when with no sciptural basis or basis in early fathers - disprovably logically, historicall and scripturally, and by its fruits. The fruits of sola scriptura are endless division and schism
as such as all "lean on their own understanding" about meaning of scripture.

Even Luther despaired of the monster he created in later life - he lamented " it is the greatest scandal" "every milk maid now has their own doctrine". But Luther could not put pandora back in the box. It was precisely because the meaning of scripture is not obvious or evident and all made up their own meaning believing sometimes in polar opposites using the same scripture to do it!

The only way to know what scripture means is to study tradition - what post apostolic fathers said it meant, and authority -
Jesus gave the power to bind and loose.


You forget. I was protestant and evangelical, till I discovered none of it made sense. I know both sides of the arguments.

I suggest you Read "essay on development of christian doctrine" by Newman before he crossed the tiber.
Read the hundreds of testimonies of why many theologians and pastors returned to Rome by studying history,.

 

[Grace ambassador]

I suggest you STUDY the early church.

God Suggests to me No such thing; I am Neither 'roman Nor protestor', Because,
He Commanded me:

"Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth​

not to be ashamed, Rightly Dividing The Word Of Truth." (2 Timothy 2:15)​

​

I have decided to follow Jesus?​

+

"And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to​

Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think above That ​

Which Is Written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another."​

(1 Corinthians 4:6) Why?:​

​

"I will worship toward Thy holy temple, and praise Thy Name for Thy Lovingkindness​

and for Thy Truth: for Thou Hast Magnified Thy Word Above All Thy Name."​

(Psalms 138:2)​

​

Thus, no one (Satan) Nor anything (history / tradition ) Is Equal To Nor Higher Than:

God's Holy Name!​

Amen.

Bible Study Rules!...​

 

[mikepec]

God Suggests to me No such thing; I am Neither 'roman Nor protestor', Because,
He Commanded me:

"Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth​

not to be ashamed, Rightly Dividing The Word Of Truth." (2 Timothy 2:15)​

​

I have decided to follow Jesus?​

+

"And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to​

Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think above That ​

Which Is Written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another."​

(1 Corinthians 4:6) Why?:​

​

"I will worship toward Thy holy temple, and praise Thy Name for Thy Lovingkindness​

and for Thy Truth: for Thou Hast Magnified Thy Word Above All Thy Name."​

(Psalms 138:2)​

​

Thus, no one (Satan) Nor anything (history / tradition ) Is Equal To Nor Higher Than:

God's Holy Name!​

Amen.

Bible Study Rules!...​

Questions
1/ How was the faith handed down in the early church? Word of mouth by those who were sent - which is called tradition.
2/ How do we know that the succession matters? Because the disciples of the apostles say it , who were taught by the apostles.
3/ Who decided the canon of scripture? The table of contents? Answer the church in council.
4/ Who gave the church authority to select scripture and decide on disputes? Jesus with the power to bind and loose , which is why the church is the "pillar of truth" Also because scripture shows that "keys" are an inherited office of steward whilst the king is away.
5/ Where do we look for the meaning of scripture? Tradition and authority

What happens if you ditch 5/ with the false man made tradition of sola scriptura?
6/ 10000 schisms. Protestants disagree on every aspect of doctrine, often with polar opposite views. They have nowhere to go except schism. How so if sola scriptura works? Reality is scripture is hard to understand not easy, and it was not written as an easy read a anual of faith/

You are told you cannot "lean on your own understanding" and to listen to those who " were SENT to preach" .
Start with the disciples of John.

Study what the early church thought. It was not protestant in any way shape or form, it was catholic. Take the eucharist of real flesh started right there. Valid only if presided by a bishop in succession. Ask John - by reading his disciples writings, take ignatius

 

[Brakelite]

My suggestion is you do not question integrity and honesty. @civic are you happy with that? One more strike and you are out.
I will not reply again if you do.

The integrity issue comes up when Catholics are repeatedly informed by protestants... And scripture... That understanding of scripture comes through the holy Spirit. This means by which we can know God is a promise. Protestants simply take Him at His word. Not, as you seem to agree, on ones own understanding.

I suggest you STUDY the early church.
Jesus sent the apostles to preach, not write, which is why Romans says the faith "comes by hearing" not reading, few could read, scripture was kept hidden from the romans, and the printing press was 1500 years in the future, the decision on what was canonical 300 years in the future..

They preached the word of God as written in the OT. Jesus rebuked Satan 3 times, IT IS WRITTEN. To claim that the NT was never intended to be a written testimony is a slap in the face to God's prophets and the explicit command of God...KJV Habakkuk 2:2-4
2 And the LORD answered me, and said, Write the vision, and make it plain upon tables, that he may run that readeth it.
3 For the vision is yet for an appointed time, but at the end it shall speak, and not lie: though it tarry, wait for it; because it will surely come, it will not tarry.
4 Behold, his soul which is lifted up is not upright in him: but the just shall live by his faith.

The faith is handed down which is the meaning of "paradosis", "tradition". Scripture only came later as a product of the churches power to bind and loose.
Without it you would have a heretical canon, many heresies and no idea which books are canonical.

KJV 1 Corinthians 12:3-4, 8-9
3 Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.
4 Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit....
8 For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit;
9 To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit;

one cannot help but notice you are giving your institution all the glory for what you believe is their doing... The tremendous spread of the gospel around the known world. News flash... It wasn't your church. It was entirely the work of the holy Spirit.

It seems you are arguing with almost all other christians.

That I don't mind. Since when have the majority been right... About anything?

It was precisely because the meaning of scripture is not obvious or evident and all made up their own meaning believing sometimes in polar opposites using the same scripture to do it!

That happened, yes. But let's put the blame precisely where it belongs... Upon those who did not hear, trust, and obey the Spirit of God. And I would include among them many of what you call "early church fathers".

The only way to know what scripture means is to study tradition -

Nonsense.

 

[Brakelite]

you see nothing actually changed in doctrine other than freedom to worship

The Godhead was defined in such a manner as to deny the gospel. But you are correct in one respect... Religious freedom became a near extinct concept in any nation wherein Rome had any influence, and the trinity was one of the first dividing factors, with armies being deployed to destroy Christian communities who believed the scriptures as they read in plain language. Nicea and the councils afterwards just made the entire faith a complicated creed based on what you earlier cursed... Man's own understanding.

 

[mikepec]

The Godhead was defined in such a manner as to deny the gospel. But you are correct in one respect... Religious freedom became a near extinct concept in any nation wherein Rome had any influence, and the trinity was one of the first dividing factors, with armies being deployed to destroy Christian communities who believed the scriptures as they read in plain language. Nicea and the councils afterwards just made the entire faith a complicated creed based on what you earlier cursed... Man's own understanding.

There is one truth. No freedom on that.
Protestants do not have the freedom to change it yet they disagree with each other (let alone us) on every major aspect of doctrine, even polar opposites on most of it. It is part of why I left protestantism. No source of authority to resolve disputes. Scripture does - it tells you to go to the church which is the "pillar of truth" precisely because Jesus gave it the power to bind and loose disputes.

I have been your side of the fence , which is why I know all of the falacies protestants preach.

It is precisely because you claim that the holy spirit supports your personal understanding of scripture that disagrees with most protestants too..

So unless there are 10000 holy spirits all disagreeing with each other, your method is clearly false. Scripture tells you to listen to those sent to preach instead. . The early christian writings tell us what the apostles taught which includes the succession of bishops given power to perform a eucharist. They could list the sucession.

There is one holy spirit and only one truth. Not the 10000 flavours protestants have.

We listen to Jesus instead.
Who appointed apostles to hand down the truth, who appointed disciples, given the power to "bind and loose" which is why you can trust the councils.

You still do not get it. If you studied history you would know you have no new testament except because of the power of the church to make definitive judgement. And if you actually STUDIED the fourth century you would know nothing actually changed. Except like many heresies , the arians came and went. That is the function of the church - to out heresies.
If you read Iraneus "against heresies" you would see how the early church works including tradition and authority. Also how it outed false canons of scritpure. If you do not accept the power of the church, you have no table of contents for what is scripture,

Sola scriptura and your private interpretation of what it means is a total #fail.
It has led to division of every aspect of doctrine.

You disagree with most protestants let alone catholics if you deny the creed!.
Even calvin noted the succession of bishops of rome had the power to bind and loose in one of his commentaries. (before arbitrarily deciding he had relinquished it)

So you are in a very lonely place!

It is "bold" for you to believe only you know the truth and everyone else is wrong.
Almost Everyone believed the same essential doctrines for the first 1000 years. Most of us still do.
That is the mark of the true church, since the truth cannot change.

Your last warning
You challenged "integrity" again just because almost all disagree with your private understanding of scripture. I will not respond if you use the word again.
As a scientist I can tell you that when 99 people disagree with me, only 1 agrees. I am almost always wrong. You should look for the fault in your reasoning not ours. It is the falacy that is sola scriptura.