Published on March 18, 2010 By lulapilgrim In Ethics

A certain self-styled Protestant whom I’ll call “Deleter” thinks it’s OK to make false claims against the Catholic Church and Catholicism while at the same time insists upon no rebuttal from me by deleting my comments.


Comments (Page 1)
on Mar 18, 2010

The 2 passages that pertain "to bind and loose" are St. Matt. 16:18-19: "And I say to thee: that thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom. And whatsoever thou shalt  bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven."

and 18:18 where Christ promises the Apostles the power to bind and loose. "Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose on upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven."

Every word in these passages has significant meaning.

kfc posts:

Christ is the Rock...NOT PETER.

Point 1....regarding 16:18  Yes, Christ is the Eternal Rock on which St.Peter rests. It's significant that Jesus addresses St.Peter with a specific statement, "upon this rock". If it were "upon the rock" or "upon a rock", it could refer to someone other than St. Peter. However, as it stands grammatically, the demonstrative adjective "this" followed by "rock" denotes the connection between Peter and rock.   

From this passages we learn that Christ would found a Church, (only one) and since the gates of Hell would not prevail against this Church, this Church could not ever be overcome. 

Christ said at the end of His Sermon on the Mount that a wise man builds his house upon a rock and therefore we see Our Lord meant what He said....He meant to build His Church upon a rock. We learn in v. 18,  that rock is St. Peter so that His Church (the House of God) might stand firm forever until the end of time. 

Earlier, Jesus asked who do you say I am? And Simon Peter answered, "Thou art Christ, Son of the Living God." On this occasion, Our Lord fulfilled the promise which He had made 2 years earlier when He first met Simon and said, Thou shalt be called Cephas (Peter). It's as though Christ was saying, "You said that I am Christ, the Son of the living God and therefore you are the one which is signified by the name I gave you when I first called you." So, St.Peter here Faith is also the rock of the Church as St.Peter's faith is that which makes him the foundation. St.Peter's profession of Christ's Divinity merited him the honor of bieng made the foundation rock of the Church.  

Christ the Founder of the Church, the Cornerstone of the house of the kingdom of God, elected St.Peter to be His Church's rock strong foundation and chose those other Apostles to be her pillars so that it might be Apostolic in origin, doctrine and ministry. So the 12 with Peter as their chief were the foundation of CHrist's Church upon which and into which all members (like many stones) had to be built. What doesn't rest on this Apostolic foundation does not belong to Christ's Church.

Point 2....regarding v. 16:19..."and I will give to thee the keys to the kingdom"...St.Peter obtains the office of primacy over His Church through the bestowal of the keys from Jesus. The precedent for this transfer of power comes from Is. 22:22 in which Eliakim receives the key of the house of David from king Hezekiah. Eliakim's position of office "over the house" (al habayith) was continued throughout Isreal's history. Ahishar is given the same office over the house of Solomon. Arza is "over the house" of king Elah, Obadiah is over the house of King Ahab. JJotham, the king's son is designated as both over the house and as having judged the people of the land. So here we see the extension of authority associated with the position.

With each succession among the kings would be a succession of the office of al habayith. The relationship between the master of the house and the king he serves parallels the relationship between Christ and St.Peter and his successors down through the ages until the end of time. Christ, the Eternal King of the Church, possesses a succession of men who are masters of the house of God (the Church) ruling within it on behalf of the King.

 The Greek grammar of 16: 18-19 confirms Jesus entrusted a specific authority to St.Peter.... He is singled out from the other Apostles for the office of "master of the house" and so he's given primacy over them. "And I will give to thee the keys..".  The reason St.Peter is singled out is becasue the Father in heaven revealed to him that Jesus is the Messias, the Son of God and Jesus therefore knows he is the man chosen to lead the Church. The primacy is given to Peter based upon his faith, but a faith that comes supernaturally from a revelation given by the Father.

The power of the keys designates the authority to teach and govern the house of God, which is the Church, the Catholic Church. Jesus, the Good Shepherd, after His Resurrection conferred the jurisdiction of supreme shepherd and ruler over His whole flock with this mandate to St.Peter: "Feed My lambs....Feed My sheep." St.John 21:15-17.  

The early Fathers of the Church, Tertullian and St.Cyprian,  both wrote that St.Peter is called the rock and that he alone obtained the keys. The primacy of St.Peter wasn't a personal privilege, but an essential part of Christ's Chruch as He was the Architect. As long as the Chruch was to last until the end of the world, St.Peter was to begin the first reign in an unbroken successions of Bishops of Rome. 

Point 3...as to the last part of v. 19, I gave a partial description...

St.Matt. 16 tells us that Christ gave St.Peter His authority to make decisions and that He would back them in Heaven. Since Jesus promised to be with His Church until the end of time, that same authority would have to remain with whomever succeeded St.Peter and the other Apostles down through the ages. 

So, St.Peter was given the keys of the kingdom singularly and was entrusted with them in conjunction with the powers of binding and loosing. 

Binding and loosing is equated with the authority to decide what is allowed and forbidden.  

The power to bind and loose connotes the authority to absolve sins or to hold them bound, St. John 20:22-23; 9:8.  to pronounce doctrinal judgments (for example to include people in the Chruch or to exclude or excommunicate them) and to make disciplinary decisions in the Church.  

As to the word "Whatever you bind...whatever you loose indicates that Jesus gives St.Peter the authority to decide the extent and limitations of his role to bind and loose. The Chruch has traditionally understood the parameters of binding and loosing as applying only to the areas of faith and morals.

The limitations are noted in Scripture. The difference between St.Peter's infallible decisions on faith and morals as opposed to his personal opinions on issues of the day is contrasted no better than in the difference between Peter's binding decree at the Jerusalem Council Acts 15:1-12  issued to the whole Chruch regarding the non-necessity of circumcision in contrast to his faulty decision to refrain from eating with Gentiles for fear of the Jews of which St.Paul rightly upbraided him.

on Mar 18, 2010

You still have nothing in Scripture to prove that the RCC is the church which Christ built.  The Bible in no way states whether the church was Protestant, Lutheran, Catholic, or whatever else.

In fact, these denominations didn't even exist at the time, so why would Christ have said "the RCC is my holy church" in the first place?

The truth, which you work around with circular logic and red herring arguments, is that Christ did not directly endorse the RCC at all.  He didn't endorse any of the denominations alone - if anything, He endorsed all of them together.

on Mar 19, 2010

The original church split up several times over doctrinal differences that Peter didn't have any input into any more after his death.

To "prove" (if we accept it as such) that the original Church founded by Peter is the true church does NOT demonstrate that the Catholic Church, one of the branches the Church has split into, is exactly that church.

It's evolution, Lula. Neither the Tiger nor the Lion are the species both derived from and neither English nor German is the Germanic language that came before. But neither is the Tiger a new species or German a new language.

We do not know whether the Assyrian Church split away from the non-Assyrian Church or vice versa. And you have offered no proof at all.

Assume that you have proven that Peter founded the one Church. That is not the problem. (We don't necessarily believe it, but that has nothing to do with it.) But you must prove that the Catholic Church today, and not all the other churches founded at the same time by the same person as the same church, is that same church.

To me it looks like trying to prove that English is the original Germanic while German isn't, despite the fact that both have the same relationship with it and neither are identical with it.

 

on Mar 19, 2010

I still don't understand why you use language as an example of evolution when it was actively modified by intelligent beings.  Or do you believe God uses/used evolution?

on Mar 19, 2010

I still don't understand why you use language as an example of evolution when it was actively modified by intelligent beings. 

Intelligent beings modify biological evolution in the same way by choosing mates and deciding when to die (i.e. not commit suicide) or by deciding which horse should meet which other horse in the shed.

The point is that languages evolve in the same way as lifeforms although the mechanisms are different.

Note that while there are artificial languages (like Esperanto and Klingon) and artificial creation of language features by intelligent beings (plusquamperfect forms in ancient Latin if I recall correctly and words for modern Hebrew) most natural languages really evolve without our active attempt to make them evolve. If anything we try to stop the evolution by teaching children the correct (i.e. old) way to form sentences. (Remember not to split infinitives!)

 

Or do you believe God uses/used evolution?

Yes.

 

on Mar 20, 2010

Audiafox

You still have nothing in Scripture to prove that the RCC is the church which Christ built. The Bible in no way states whether the church was Protestant, Lutheran, Catholic, or whatever else.

OK. Agreed...the specific name, Catholic Church, Lutheran Church, or the other Protestant churches, is not in the Bible (however, nor will you find the words incarnation or trinity there, but they too are in the Bible though not under those names).

What information does the Bible give us about "the Church" that Christ built?  St.Matt. 16:18-19; 18:17-18 are 2 Scriptural texts that give a picture, some information about "the Church", Christ's Church, that He intends to build. Christ called it "My Church".

Christ's building of "His Church" is upon Peter, the "rock". Christ spoke in Aramaic and the Aramaic word for rock is kepha. It is --thou art "kepha" (rock) and upon this "kepha" (rock) I will build My Church. Put that together with St. John 1:42 when 2 years earlier Jesus first met Simon and declared that Simon would be called Kepha, the rock which is by interpretation Peter. "Cephas" is a Greek transliteration of the Aramaic word kepha.

In 1Cor. 1:12; 3:22, 9:5, 15:5, St.Paul refers to Peter several times as "Cephas".

So Christ gave Simon the name of the rock Kepha and constituted his office as the earthly head of "His Church" He was building. That Simon Peter was selected by Jesus to be the rock foundation (earthly head) of His Church is enforced by the unquestioned fact that the Keys to the kingdom were promised to Peter on the occasion when his name was changed from Simon to Kepha. The keys to the kingdom of Christ signify power, authority, jurisdiction such as were exercised by every Bishop of Rome from St.Peter to Benedict XVI. We have the writings of the early Church Fathers, some contemporaries of the Apostles, that name St. Peter and show this uninterrupted succession of Bishops.  

What do we know about "the Church" from St.Paul's teachings in 1Cor. 12?  He called "the Church"--- that Christ built of which He is the Eternal Head and we, the baptized, are members,--- the "Body of Christ". The "Body of Christ" has a hidden, transcendent, supernatural nature. It's a spiritual though real Body which binds its members to each other (one faith, one baptism, one Lord, one flock, etc.) and to Christ, her Head.

"The Church" is the Catholic Church, designated as the "Mystical Body of Christ" differs from all other churches that are called Christian in that it is a spiritual organism, not a mere organization as all the others are.   

Only the Catholic Church is both an organization as well as a spiritual organism. From Christ comes His grace, the spiritual nourishment, the life giving influence of the Church to her members. We faithful say with St.Paul "I live, now not I, but Christ liveth in me" having been corporated with Christ into His Body, through the Sacrament of Baptism.

That "the Church" is an organism rather than just a mere organization means it is God-made and not man-made.  God and God alone can make an organism whereas man's power is limited to making organizations, in this case sects...or to use the more modern American terminology..denominations.  The difference is that an organism, be it a tree, insect, human being, or supernatural society has implanted in it the principle that gives it life. While an organization depends upon its members for its existence, functions, and objective. Yes, the Catholic Church is a society of baptized persons, but has a supernatural nature which doesn't depend upon its members for life as do all the sects.

The Church Christ Our Lord and Our God established upon St.Peter and the Apostles is of supernatural origin as Christ is the Eternal Head and the Holy SPirit indwelling as its soul. It is therefore a real visible body though spiritual in its nature.

Back to St.Matt. 16:18-19. As I've said before, the Catholic Church can never fail because she is indestructible. The destruction of the Mystical Body of Christ would be the destruction of Christ and the Holy Spirit, something that is impossible. To this and this alone can be attributed the indefectibility, the perpetuity of the CC; the inability of "the gates of hell to prevail against it" during the 2,000 years of its existence.

Yet, the Church as an organization as well as an organism is of Christ's making. In an organization-- in the sense of being made up of parts--laity, ministerial, heirarchal priesthood, Sacrifice, Sacraments, endowed with Christ's own authority guided by the Holy Spirit St.John 14:25-26; 16:13, and transmission of powers "to bind and loose" in the areas of faith and morals as well as the authority to forgive and retain sins. St.John 20:23.

So, finishing up, Christ built His Church with St.Peter and the other Apostles as its human foundation. They formed the human part of the Mystical Body of Christ much like an organization...like a corporation in modern business terms...the Twelve men it's board of directors, who extended and expanded its priestly and lay membership as well as the territory in which it operated. They didn't make "the Church", nor could they or their successors unmake the Church (as they could where it a mere organization as are Protestant churches that originally sprang up in the 1500s).

All this is said to drive home one fact: The Catholic Church is the only spiritual organization of Christ's making. All other churches are organizations of human origin.

In fact, these denominations didn't even exist at the time, so why would Christ have said "the RCC is my holy church" in the first place?

Because the Catholic Church is the only one of Christ's making based upon the foundation of St.Peter and the other Apostles.

There is no lumping the CC with all the other churches as just another denomination. All those other churches have no unity of faith, no one baptism, no one faith, diverse doctrines,as well as no continuity of apostolic succession all days since Christ was here on earth. Only the Catholic Church has kept the link of continuity to the action of Christ in founding His Church on the Apostles with their chief being St.Peter. 

The truth, which you work around with circular logic and red herring arguments, is that Christ did not directly endorse the RCC at all. He didn't endorse any of the denominations alone - if anything, He endorsed all of them together.

I'll respond to the charge of circularity next.  

 

 

on Mar 20, 2010

my god it is really handy that the bible is so clear and unambigous.  Otherwise it would be dreadfull to the plan a world view on a 2000 year old book that enables everybody to get different divine messages from it.

on Mar 20, 2010

You still have nothing in Scripture to prove that the RCC is the church which Christ built. The Bible in no way states whether the church was Protestant, Lutheran, Catholic, or whatever else.

exactly, because it has NOTHING to do with denomination.  The church is made up of "overcomers."  PERIOD!  The church is made up of believers from all walks of life and all denominations.  The RCC CANNOT prove that Peter founded their church.  Neither can they link their church back to Peter.  What they did was go back and reach for Peter taking that scripture from Matthew and saying ta-da!  That's us!  Other groups have done the same thing ("you are my witnesses" so says the JW's for instance) because they build religions around some theme and call themselves blessed and chosen over and above all others.  It's quite common.  The RCC were the first and after the reformation (Luther) the rest followed by dong the same thing. 

The difference between St.Peter's infallible decisions

The bible tells us to be careful of false teaching and to test the spirits.  This is such a case.  Peter was not infallible and neither was anyone else but Christ himself.   If so, there would have been no need for Christ to come and die for us as a sinless person.  The bible says

"ALL have fallen short of the glory of God."  Romans 3:23

 "There is none righteous, no not one."  Romans 3:10

"All men are liars."  Psalm 116:11

Peter is no exception...neither is Mary.  He also said:

"It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in man."  Psalm 118:8

What you're trying to do Lula is convince us to put our trust in man made religion.  It's all about Peter, not Christ with you. 

What about all the other Apostles? They were all planting churches.   If anyone, Paul having three missionary trips all over Asia Minor had more church planting than any of them. He was the Apostle to the Gentiles and Peter was the Apostle to the Jews.  Paul wrote almost all of the NT and Peter writing two Epistles referred to Paul's writings as Holy Scriptures. 

It's quite clear that Paul's work was much more prolific resulting in many more churches (that we know of) than Peter did.  All you have to do is read the book of Acts to see this not to mention all the letters to the diff churches that Paul wrote to. 

What else is interesting is Peter pretty much disappears after Acts 15 which records the history of the church.  When Paul wrote to the Roman church (not RCC) he wrote to the ones working it and Peter was not mentioned (see Romans 16 for the whole list of names).  Peter didn't even plant the church in Rome at all. 

It's clear by reading the gospels the other Apostles didn't look at Peter as the founding member of any particular great church.  If so, two of them wouldn't have asked if they could have places of honor on either side of Christ in the kingdom.  This request was made AFTER the "supposed" placing Peter as head of any denomination. 

The rock is Christ.  It's not Peter.  Upon this rock..is UPON CHRIST!  It's upon the CONFESSION of CHRIST that Peter made.  It's NOT about Peter.  It's about Christ.   Even Peter says that in his own epistle. 

The whole thing is a fallacy the RCC came to make to control the masses way back.  All you have to do is look at the fruit.  The whole of Europe right now is reeling with RCC abuses. 

 

 

 

on Mar 20, 2010

The RCC CANNOT prove that Peter founded their church. 

But even if they could, how woud they prove that they and not any of the other branches of that same tree are the unique true church of old?

The Anglican Church was also founded by St. Peter (obviously) and so was the Armenian Church.

 

on Mar 20, 2010

Audiafox posts:

The truth, which you work around with circular logic and red herring arguments, is that Christ did not directly endorse the RCC at all.

I do not reason truth in a circle.

The truth is Christ founded a (only one) Church. This makes "the Church" He founded of Divine origin.

The truth is Our Lord Jesus Christ has Divine authority and infallibility to teach on matters essential to ultimate happiness (eternal salvation).

The truth is He transmitted His Divine authority and infallibiliity ("to bind and loose"--- which is to make solemn and binding decisions in matters of faith and morals under the guidance of the Holy Spirit) first to St.Peter and then to His Apostles and thereafter "by the laying on of hands" (Holy Orders) their legitimate successors.

So, from here on, by the term "the Church" I mean the Catholic Church and by the Catholic Church I mean that visible society which is in full communion with the Apostolic See of Rome and accepts the God given infallibile power and authority of binding and loosing of the occupant of the Chair of St.Peter when as shepherd and teacher of all Christians and speaking only in that capacity (ex cathedra) defines or expresses Divine truth in matters of faith and morals.  

The CC and the CC alone claims existence all days since Christ, claims Divine origin, claims God-given authority and infallible power "to bind and loose."

When has the hierarchical Church exercised her God-given authority and infallible power "to bind and loose"?At the Councils throughout the history of the Church beginning with the Council of Apostles and presbyters assisted by the Holy Spirit....the Council of Jerusalem.  Read of the later Councils...of Elvira 300, infallibly decreed Sunday as the Lord's Day and of Laddicea...... of Nicea 325 infallibly decreed Christ, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity is God;......... of Carthage 367 infallibly decreed the canon of Sacred Scripture......of Constantinople 381, of Ephesus 431, of Chaldean 451 infallibly defined the dogma of the Incarnation and on and on. Fast forward to 1994, Pope John Paul II, made the last infallible decision of the Church...no women priestessess.

 

I offer proof the Church is the one and only Church that Christ established by the infallible words of Christ and His Apostles as well as the indisputable facts of History itself. 

So, in conclusion, the Bible proves that the Catholic Church's claims as noted above were the same in the beginning as they are now...the Church received her God-given authority from Christ to teach and decide on matters essential to ultimate happiness (eternal salvation). Thus both the Bible and the Church depend on the authority of Our Lord. When two independent witnesses confirm each other's evidence, the argument for truthfulness of both is not circular, but cumulative.

 

on Mar 20, 2010

To "prove" (if we accept it as such) that the original Church founded by Peter is the true church does NOT demonstrate that the Catholic Church, one of the branches the Church has split into, is exactly that church.

Leauki, there is only one Church Christ founded upon St.Peter.....the Catholic Church and on Christ's promise will be here until the end of time.  Only the CC is of Divine origin...There are no churches that the CC has split into or split off from CC...all, every one, of the churches (sects) that formed over the centuries are of human origin. Everyone of them came into existence against the CC. 

For example, in the 1st century there were the Gnostics..the 2nd...the Montanists...the 3rd...the Manicheans..St.Agustine led the Chruch in refuting and it was condemned at the 4th Council of Lateran and confirmed at the 12th General Council. The 4th--the Arians...condemned at Council of Nicea...the 5th...the Nestorians condemned at the council of Ephesus..the Pelagianists...6th..the Monothelitists.....the Berengarists..the 12th...Albigensianists....then Waldensianists...the 16th..Protestantism which has produced thousands of sects.

All of these man-made churches will come and go while the Christ-made Catholic Church keeps on her way, teaching all nations leading souls to Christ as she will continue to do until the end of time. Why? Becasue she and she alone has the guarantee of her Founder, to be with her and the gates of Hell will not prevail against her.

leauki posts #

Assume that you have proven that Peter founded the one Church. That is not the problem. (We don't necessarily believe it, but that has nothing to do with it.) But you must prove that the Catholic Church today, and not all the other churches founded at the same time by the same person as the same church, is that same church.

I'm not clear on what you mean by the part that is highlighted.

I have offered proof that the CC today is the same Church as described throughout the New Testament. The churches described in the BIble were part of the one early Church. The Church at Smyrna, at Ephesus, at Corinth, at Philippi were all part of the early Church...the same one that would later become known as the one, holy, catholic and Apostolic Church. Everyone contains a piece of Catholic Chruch history. I know because I read the writings of the early Church Fathers and Doctors. The Church at Ephesus is where the Blessed Mother Mary was for a while.

on Mar 21, 2010

my god it is really handy that the bible is so clear and unambigous.

Hi Basmas,

See, that's just it! The Bible isn't so clear..it states that itself ..that it is insufficient of itself as a teacher but rather needs an interpreter.

I'm referring to 2St.Peter 3:16, where we read that in St.Paul's Epistles there are "certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest (distort), as they do also the other Scriptures, to their own destruction." 

And regarding prophecy, 2 St. Peter 1:20, "No prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation." From this the Bible itself states that its prophecies are not a matter for which the individual is to arrive at his own interpretation.

I will note that this verse is preceeded by a section on the Apostolic witness vs. 12-18 and followed by a section on false teachers 2: 1-10. So, St.Peter is obviously contrasting genuine, Apostolic teaching with the false prophets and false teachers and he makes reference to private interpretation as the pivotal point between the two.  The clear implication is that private interpretation is one way where the individual turns from authentic teaching and begins to follow erroneous teaching.  

So, hmmmm....who is the authoritative and authentic teacher? The Catholic Church as she is "the pillar and bulwark of truth" and also who Christ sent to teach all nations and promised He would be with her until the end of the world. 

"And Jesus came and said to them (the Apostles), "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the end of the world." St. Matt. 28:18-20.

    

 

on Mar 21, 2010

Leauki, there is only one Church Christ founded upon St.Peter.....the Catholic Church and on Christ's promise will be here until the end of time.  Only the CC is of Divine origin...There are no churches that the CC has split into or split off from CC...all, every one, of the churches (sects) that formed over the centuries are of human origin. Everyone of them came into existence against the CC. 

There are several churches that trace their history back to the same origin. As long as you use that origin to prove that the Catholic Church is the only legitimate church you are also proving that all the other churches with the same origin are legitimate.

And since only one organisation can be legitimate, I guess, you have still proven nothing.

 

I'm not clear on what you mean by the part that is highlighted.

I know. It is the part you ignore.

Your argument goes something like

1. Peter founded _the Church_.

2. <missing step>

3. Hence the Catholic Church is _the Church_.

The missing step is the proof that of all the churches _the Church_ branched into it must be exactly that one branch, the Catholic Church that is _the Church_. And you cannot prove this by citing the "New Testament" because that was written before the schisms.

I'll leave it to KFC to argue why the NT doesn't allow for step 1 in your argument. I'll focus merely on step 2 here.

 

I have offered proof that the CC today is the same Church as described throughout the New Testament.

No, you haven't. You have simply ignored the fact that the CC is not the only church that claims descent from that original church.

You have neither shown that only one of the branches is legitimate nor which branch that would be.

In order to prove that the CC is _the Church_ you would have to prove that it must be and that no other can be OR that all others are not. You haven't even attempted either. You merely quote the NT, interpret it to say that Peter founded a church as an organisation run by man, and then ignore what happened to Peter's church and announce that you have proven something. It's a logical fallacy.

The Nile splits up into a delta in Lower Egypt at the coast. Which of the individual rivers in the delta is the Nile? Maybe all of them are? And if you showed me where the Nile comes from and then announced that hence the westernmost river of the delta is that original Nile, you still haven't proven that the westernmost river of the delta is that original Nile.

So the next time you skip a part of the argument and ignore the existence of all those other branches (including the Assyrian Church which I mentioned before), remember that river in Egypt.

 

 

on Mar 21, 2010

See, that's just it! The Bible isn't so clear..it states that itself ..that it is insufficient of itself as a teacher but rather needs an interpreter.

And regarding prophecy, 2 St. Peter 1:20, "No prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation." From this the Bible itself states that its prophecies are not a matter for which the individual is to arrive at his own interpretation.

It doesn't say that at all!!  AND you're contradicting not only yourself but scripture at the same time!  Good going! 

You say the bible needs an interpreter and then you quote scripture that says scripture can't be made by private interpretation?  Hello? 

Peter is saying that the bible interprets itself.  It doesn't need an interpreter.  For instance when you read Daniel's dream it's explained bit by bit by looking at the next chapters. 

Peter is right...YOU ARE WRONG!  The bible DOESN"T need an interpreter (read RCC).  It's divine.  It interprets itself. 

on Mar 22, 2010

KFC  posts 8

…… The church is made up of believers from all walks of life and all denominations.

Your saying “the Church” is made up of believers in all denominations is mouthing a teaching of Calvin repeated by Luther, etc. You need to stop repeating their false teaching. The Protestant forefathers revolted against the Catholic Church and established their own doctrines. That's why they redefined "the Church". “The church is made up of believers from all denominations” is not found in Scripture because it is not Christ’s or the Apostle’s teaching.

Believers of all denominations cannot possibly be the church as one body…..and  the Church as “one body” was very, very important to Christ.

What does Scripture state as to the true composition of Christ’s Church? The Bible reveals that "the Church" is a  body, not like a body of believers of all denominations, but an organic and spiritual organism like the body of a single person made up of different parts each working as one body. The Bible also reveals the one, true Church is “the Body of Christ” Himself in that the faithful are the members of Christ’s Church and Christ is the Head. 1Cor. 12; Col. 1:18; Eph. 5:30.

Taking this, we can only arrive at one conclusion…that Christ’s Church must be a unified body, not a segmented body of believers in all denominations.  Correlate the above texts with these:

“There shall be one fold and one shepherd” St.John 10:16………go to 17:22….”And the glory that thou, Father has given me, I have given to them, that they might be one even as we are one.” …….and then to Eph. 4:4-5  “You were called in one body…one spirit…one hope…one Lord…one faith…one baptism”.

It is plain as plain can be that according to Scripture, we must understand that Christ’s true Church was constituted as one---one in every respect: one in membership, one in belief, and one in worship.  That was the way Christ’s Church was originally constituted and that is the way it has to remain if it was always to be identified as His Body until the end of time. The Catholic Church is the Mystical Body of Christ; the Church described in Scripture with unity of  belief, worship, baptism, etc. which Christ said would characterize His faithful body.  

Your definition of the Church as believers in all denominations can not possibly be consonant with these Scriptural texts.  And you should think long and hard on this realization……there is no way that  believers in all denominations are members of one Christian body as these denominations are different in body, in belief, in baptism, and in mode of worship.

Meta
Views
» 18911
Comments
» 99
Category
Sponsored Links