Featured Love Alone Saves (Part 2)

That would be the church in Jerusalem. The one that met in the upper room. The one that convened the Jerusalem council.

What it doesn't mean is the church at Rome, which has fallen into heresy.

 

As for traditions, they are only useful if they align with scripture. Sadly much of Rome's traditions have no connection to scripture and thus are worthless in glorifying God as they represent heresy.

 

Yes, Church teaching, the one Jesus set up. He never said for all of us to go at this alone. He never just wrote a book for all of us to read and then figure things out by ourselves. This was never His intent, not a book - but a church, with men (Bishops) leading it to instruct the faithful. Bishops then taking over from those Bishops who have passed on, with the Church itself retaining the accumulated knowledge. We have it, you reject it.

 

You mean the church at Jerusalem of course.
The one at Rome was not set up by Jesus despite your fairy tale stories created by the guy with the dunce cap.

 

Herein lies the division. Ezekiel chapter 34 says it all. Why do you think men somehow became more reliable shepherds? I'll always follow the Good Shepherd provided living Word of God and the Holy Spirit. They will not lead me astray. Everything about Catholicism screams Replacement theology. Jerusalem is Holy, not Rome. The Jews are still the chosen, we are grafted INTO the tree rooted in the covenant to Abraham. Catholicism's elevated men don't hold a candle to The Word. Jesus walked in the midst of the seven churches, none of which was Rome. The Epistles and Revelations make it crystal clear that there was not an apostasy free age. It is soooooo much easier to follow men. It takes Faith to receive the truth. "So then faith cometh by hearing, and HEARING BY THE WORD OF GOD."

 

"xlsdraw,"

Allow me to try something here. What if I said this:

Your comments exhibit "what happens when you mix human logic and legalese with spirituality. We are spiritual beings. Trust the Holy Spirit. There is no greater teacher. Isaiah 55:8 "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord." Keep it simple. Another brother said it best, he was more effective for Christ before he received all the letters after his name. Hebrews 4:12 "For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart."Matthew 28:18 "And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven an earth." We can learn a little from our brothers, but it is a drop in the bucket to what the Word and the Holy Spirit reveals. Of our own abilities, it is very difficult to unlearn what we have been taught by men. Trust that ALL power is possessed by Jesus and let the awesome power of the Word and the Holy Spirit do it's great work."

Do you see how that works? It seems as though everybody else is guilty of mixing things that should not be mixed (human logic and spirituality) unless it's you doing the mixing. If you're mixing human logic and spirituality, apparently, you have a valid point to make. When others do this, they are just not following the Spirit (like you do)...

As for the following comments, please consider my replies:

1. You said: "Why do you think men somehow became more reliable shepherds?"

I'll tell you exactly why. Because Jesus said so. Let's consider the following: "On the evening of that day, the first day of the week, the doors being locked where the disciples were ffor fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said to them, “Peace be with you.” he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord. the Father has sent me, even so I am sending you.” breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you withhold forgiveness from any, it is withheld.”

Please consider the fact that:

a) Jesus sent the Apostles with the very authority given to him by the Father. That means that "all" the authority granted to Christ by the Father was, for the purposes of the institution of His Church, conferred upon the Apostles.

b) The Apostles were given the authority to forgive sin, an authority which the Jews of Christ's days said belonged to God alone.

c) Notice, too, that Christ breathed on them, saying "Receive the Holy Spirit." These men, then, were truly and literally "God-breathed." All of this is why for 1,500 years despite the corruption that plagues any institution, people remained faithful to Christ's Church.

2. You said that "It is soooooo much easier to follow men."

a) Catholics aren't following "men." We are following Christ. The fact that Christ has included the co-operation of men in his work shouldn't be understood as a fault in Christian theology.

b) In a qualified sense, though, I'd agree. It is easier for some to follow the teachings of men. Take those who hold to "Sola Scriptura" for example, they are certainly following men, since their doctrine is nowhere taught in Scripture or revealed by a genuine prophet or angel. and in some ways it's easy for them, I guess. At the very least, it's (wrongly) self-assuring.

Finally, please remember that I was a Baptist Christian until the age of 30. I am almost 40. Over time I came to see things I'd always accepted according to a different light. If someone wishes to suggest that I was "led astray" I am all ears. I'd invite him to explain exactly how the doctrines I now accept are flawed and/or unGodly. Because it is through the drawn-out experience of "conversion" that I speak and that I'd ask you to please consider the fact that the Bible does not come with a divinely-revealed Table of Contents. So no matter how you consider it, you're relying upon the judgment of men (incidentally Catholic Councils, to be precise) to recognize those texts which are rightly accepted by Christians as Scripture. You're following a "tradition of men" derived from the authority granted by Christ to His Church to affirm those texts which you accept as validly canonical. There is no way to avoid this fact without straying into the realm of philosophical/historical consideration and leaving the realm of "faith" which is grounded in the Word of God, and that deposit "once delivered for all the saints." In other words, you might come up with a collection of 27 New Testament texts as a "New Testament" through historical inquiry. But such a conclusion wouldn't be something that would be binding upon you as a matter of faith.

I would be very interested to hear your thoughts concerning these considerations. As a matter of fact, I have never heard a single non-Catholic speak directly to these challenges with anything that resembles a logical argument.

In Him,

Herbert

 

@steaver & @xlsdraw:

You have both raised some issues, I responded with a few thoughts of my own. It would be great to hear from either of you. Maybe a new thread will have to be started in order for this conversation to continue.

In Him,

Herbert

 

Jesus stated that we live by the words of God, and he got really upset when the Pharisees made their man made up doctrines equal to those of God, same thing RCC does!