You as a Christian Evangelizing Catholics.

As a Protestant, I struggle with the same issues Armando brings up. I, too, would like to hear a response.

 

Anyone know of a good study guide? My small group was thinking about doing a study of RC compared to Scripture.

 

webdog, you'd have to explain the "RC compared to Scripture."

There are a lot of sources for anti-Catholic rhetoric. What's rarer is a study that focuses on the Deuterocanonicals in an effort to understand the theology of Catholicism, thus ending this silly in-fighting that takes us away from the real purpose of the Gospel.

But hey, far be it for me to disabuse anyone fo their misconceptions...

 

How about a study of the teachings of the RC as found in Scripture? Plenty of those around, webdog...

 

Some folks would say that any resemblance between present day(it changes constantly) RCC doctrine and Scripture is purely coincidental. Any scriptural doctrine they may have is far superceded by their traditions of men, i.e. the holy fathers, councils, papal bulls and the like. A better study: the Philosophy of Aristotle and the legalism of the Roman Empire. Study the term: pontifex maximus. They are either the vicars of Christ or they are bogus. If they are the vicars of Christ, all others are bogus. Now what?

Selah,

Bro. James

 

'Pontifex maximus' doesn't mean 'vicar of Christ'; again, I'm not sure what your point is here.

 

Matt,

Sometimes it gets wearisome to go over the same things over...and over...and over again.

Regarding Armandos "problems", sola scriptura, authority and the eucharist, we have exposed the Catholic Churchs errors on those issues, and supported the truth regarding those issues so very many times. Its just gets wearisome.

Once again, I think this happened yesterday or the day before, I am posting just before having to leave for work, but I'll post later on regarding them.

(Hopefully some others will as well)

Grace and peace,

Mike

 

Did not mean to imply that these terms are synonymous. While they are titles dubbed on the same head, they have different etymologies. I should have started a new paragraph. Sorry.

The point: to find the origins of the RCC, one must study: the ancient philosophers like Aristotle, the legalistic system of the Roman Empire, and such terms as pontifex maximus and vicar. These are the origins of such teachings as: salvation by good works, falling from grace, popes, cardinals, archbishops, saints worship, purgatory, sale of indulgences, etc, etc. ad infinitum.

Selah,

Bro. James

P.S. The points made by Armando are true only if the premises are true. Most of the premises are false. Any conclusions drawn therefrom are also false.

 

Purgatory and veneration (not worship) of saints actually comes from a Biblical source -- providing you consider the Deuterocanonicals to be inspired Scripture, as do the Catholic and Orthodox traditions.

We could talk for hourse, you and I, about examples of Protestants insisting "good works" bring salvation.

Are you saying, by the way, that any church whose polity is episcopal is a false church?

 

Are the daughters not like the mother?

Nihilo ex nihilo fit, says it quite well.

This is more about authority than polity; however, New testament Churches had not an earthly PaPa, vicar, or Archbishop. They were fiercely theocratic/congregational. i.e. The Holy Spirit leading the Body of Christ in all Truth. Such an assembly is difficult to find 1900+ years later; but The Bride is still out there, undefiled, waiting for the Groom to return. Jesus said He would never leave her nor forsake her.

Now what?

Even so, come Lord, Jesus.

Selah,

Bro. James

[ March 23, 2006, 07:18 PM: Message edited by: Bro. James ]

 

Fiercely theocratic/congregational, despite having elders/bishops over them? It's biblical, bro, you can't have it both ways.

 

Elder and bishop are the same word in the Gk. The practice of parishes, archdiocese, bishop, archbishop, cardinal, pope, also vicar come out of the quasi-religious maze which centered in Alexandria, Rome and Constantinople and later Canterbury. Such practice is not found in scripture. These are traditions and commandments of men--the blind leading the blind. The ditches are filled. Now what?

Selah,

Bro. James

 

Qualification of the Overseers are found in 1 Tim 3:1-7. Overseers are mentioned in Acts 20:28.
Paul sent for Elders of the Church at Ephesus from Miletus (Acts 20:17) Then Paul says to them " Holy Spirit has made you overseers"

"the church" was singular, which means Multiple Elders (Overseers) at one singular church.

Overseers and Deacons are mentioned again in plural in Philippians 1:1.

Titus 1:5 says Paul left Titus so that he may ordain "Elders" in every city.
then verse 7 says: Bishop ( Overseer) must be blameless.... which are the same qualification for the Overseers as in 1 Tim 3:1-7.

So, we can confirm Elders are the same as Overseers ( Bishops). Elders are the word for the status and Bishops (Overseers) are the word for the function and responsibility.

There are only 2 offices in the church; Elder and Deacon. They are important and therefore their qualifications are mentioned in the Bible.

Pastors, Evangelist, etc are the names of gifts mentioned in Ephesians 4:11. Office ( or Title) and Gifts by Holy Spirit must be distinguished.

If the titles of Pope, Archbiship, Cardinal are not found in the Bible, they are nothing from the view of God, even though they may be respected by human beings who are destined to stand in front of the Judgment Seat.

 

I was sort of hoping that while I was at work some others...who are much more adept than I am at these types of questions...would have responded to Armandos post, but I'll share my feeble attempts...

All of the scriptures that we call the "new testament" were considered to be "scripture" and inspired by God...and where being circulated and taught...by approximetly the time of the destruction of the Temple in 70AD. Maybe a few years after that. Of course the old testament scriptures were around for thousands of year prior to that.

God has been protecting and preserving his scriptures for 2000 years now. The scriptures are our truth standard. God can speak to people in many many ways. God speaks through the proverbial "still small voice", through thunderous revelations, through words from a preacher or teacher, through creation, through a friend or brother or sister, through revelations, through word of knowledge and prophecies, etc etc.

But the scriptures are and always will be Gods unchanging truth standard.

It doesnt matter if its in book form, scroll form, or whatever form. Its still the word of God.

I'm not sure what you are talking about there. If anyone removes some of Gods scriptures, God will hold them accountable and God will get those removed scriptures back where they belong in due time. (Just like God will hold people accountable who add to His scriptures in the way of added false books or tradition.)

Perfection can not be fully achieved because we are all sinners. The fault is ours, not the fault of Gods scriptures.

Well, you dont elaborate at all with this one so I dont know what you have in mind.

The Catholic Church promotes the lie that they and they alone are the truth interpreters for the lowly masses, and that they have the "keys" to get people in and out of heaven. Both are a lie.

The "keys" to the kindom of heaven is nothing more than faith alone in Jesus Christ. (or Christs gospel.) The interpreter of the scriptures is the Holy Spirit.

"However, when He the Holy Spirit has come, He will guide you into all truth"

Needless to say, the "you" there is every born again person.

And you can read the hearts of every christian who lived for all those 100's of years?

Of course, you have absolutly no way of knowing what "all christians" of any period of time believed about the Lords supper, or the Catholic "eucharist"

There have been born again people, an uninterrupted string of them, for 2000 years now who have known full well that the Catholic Church has been in error in may areas. Many of them were tortured or murdered by the Catholic Church, many of them had family memebers massacred by the Catholic church. Many of them simply kept the truth in their hearts and quietely witnessed as God gave opportunity.

Well, its been 2000 years now and we still have Gods scriptures. In spite of the Catholic Churchs attempts at making sure the common folk never know it or understand it.

The scriptures do not support that Catholic Churchs view of the "eucharist", but rather they contradict it. And since you have no way of reading peoples hearts you have no basis for your claim that the erronious Catholic view of the Lords supper memorial was "fully accepted" by all people.

Why would you be in the least bit concerned with what the mere man Ignatious believed in the 2nd century when you have Almighty Gods divinely inspiried truth standard to consult and learn from, and the Holy Spirit available to guide you?

God bless,

Mike

 

The heck they are! πρεσβυτηρος is 'elder'; επισκωπος is 'bishop'; these were appointed by the Apostles and their successors eg: Timothy.

Yor 'avin' a larf, mate!

Now what?

 

Mike, just to pick up on a couple or so of your points:

Mikeerfection can not be fully achieved because we are all sinners. The fault is ours, not the fault of Gods scriptures.</font>[/QUOTE]Then what's the point of sola Scriptura?

Mike:And you can read the hearts of every christian who lived for all those 100's of years? </font>[/QUOTE]No. Can you? Can you prove that they didn't believe in the Real Presence?

No. And neither do you. What we do have is that every single writing on the Eucharist up to Zwingli in the 1520s demonstrates belief in the Real presence and not a single one doesn't. Not one.

There have been born again people, an uninterrupted string of them, for 2000 years now who have known full well that the Catholic Church has been in error in may areas. Many of them were tortured or murdered by the Catholic Church, many of them had family memebers massacred by the Catholic church. Many of them simply kept the truth in their hearts and quietely witnessed as God gave opportunity. </font>[/QUOTE]Prove it.

Mike:Well, its been 2000 years now and we still have Gods scriptures. In spite of the Catholic Churchs attempts at making sure the common folk never know it or understand it. </font>[/QUOTE]Slightly disingenuous - see my comments on the 'Catholicism - cult?' thread

Mike:The scriptures do not support that Catholic Churchs view of the "eucharist", but rather they contradict it. And since you have no way of reading peoples hearts you have no basis for your claim that the erronious Catholic view of the Lords supper memorial was "fully accepted" by all people. </font>[/QUOTE]Only your interpretation doesn't support the Real Presence; I prefer to take the Lord's plain words of "This is My Body, this is My Blood" and "Unless you eat My Flesh and drink My blood, you can have no part in me" at their face value.

Mike:Why would you be in the least bit concerned with what the mere man Ignatious believed in the 2nd century when you have Almighty Gods divinely inspiried truth standard to consult and learn from, and the Holy Spirit available to guide you?</font>[/QUOTE]Because Ignatius of Antioch was discipled by John and appointed Bishop by him; this same John wrote the second set of words I quoted from above; Ignatius therefore sheds vital light on how the first geeneration of Christians after the apostles interpreted those words; in this case by someone who was a disciple and confidante of the guy who wrote them down!

 

Matt,

Would you please do us all a favor and speak ENGLISH on these boards!

(and yes, I know you live in ENGLAND!)

God bless,

Mike

 

Sorry, it's 'Cock-er-ny' as they say in Lunnon!

Posh version: "You have made a risable statement, my dear friend."

 

Matt,

So that we have an unchanging truth standard. We MUST have one. We arent even able to measure the height of a door without a standard. One man says it 12 high, one says its 4 high. Another says it 16 high.

12 what? 16 what? 4 what?

With an unchanging standard we can say for sure that it is 6 feet 2 inches high.

Me...

You...

When did I say I could? Armando did....not me.

Yes.

Because its Gods truth that Christ does not turn into a cracker. Since its Gods truth God is going to teach His people that truth.

Even if He has to do it through divine revelation sometimes, He will get the truth to His people.

(Since the visible "teaching authority" was, and still is, filled with false teaching due to so few born again people being a part of it)

He is our Father. We are His children. Dads do that for their kids.

Ha ha! Every single Catholic writing!

Wow...I guess that *really* settles it, doesnt it?

Me...

You...

God is our heavenly Father and He speaks to His children. God has never been without a witness. When He had to one time in the OT He spoke through a mule.

I said...

You...

Totally false.

With absolutly no centralised Truth Gestapo to command us what we believe, millions upon millions understand that the scriptures do not teach that Christ turns into a cracker.

And to believe those on face value you must mangle the scriptures royally rather than allow them to fit together like a hand in a glove.

Me...

You...

And the scriptures teach that even as the scriptures(that we know as the new testament) themselves were being inscripturated, "savage wolves", "decievers" and "false teachers" were already in the body of Christ seeking to decieve.

Back to the unchanging truth standard again.

We test everything against it.

Evangelicals
Catholics
Orthodox
Pentecostals
Ignatius
You
Me

EVERYONE.

God bless,

Mike

 

So that we have an unchanging truth standard. We MUST have one. We arent even able to measure the height of a door without a standard. One man says it 12 high, one says its 4 high. Another says it 16 high.

12 what? 16 what? 4 what?

With an unchanging standard we can say for sure that it is 6 feet 2 inches high.</font>[/QUOTE]But it's still useless if we can't agree on what the measuring standard means...

Yes.

Because its Gods truth that Christ does not turn into a cracker. </font>[/QUOTE]Really? Says who?

Ha ha! Every single Catholic writing!</font>[/QUOTE]No. Every single writing - Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran, and indeed most Protestant writings since that time.

And in the absence of any other viable candidates (please don't flog the JM Carroll Dead Horse), one would be hard-pressed to conclude that that witness was anything other than the Catholic and Orthodox Churches prior to 1517)

Millions maybe. But they still represent only a fraction of the Christians on this planet, most of whom believe in some kind of Real Presence - and that's with a Bible! And they're a very recent theological phenomenon - up until the last century hardly anyone apart from Zwingli espoused a memorialist position. So they're a small minority in both space and time; that doesn't necessarily make them worng, but I find it highly unlikely that God would have let this vital part of doctrine go neglected for so long if they're right...

Mike:And to believe those on face value you must mangle the scriptures royally rather than allow them to fit together like a hand in a glove.</font>[/QUOTE]&lt;shrug&gt;Then take your problem with them up with Jesus; those are His words, not mine.

You...

Mike:And the scriptures teach that even as the scriptures(that we know as the new testament) themselves were being inscripturated, "savage wolves", "decievers" and "false teachers" were already in the body of Christ seeking to decieve.</font>[/QUOTE]Are you seriously suggesting that John, who under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit wrote a gospel, three letters and Revelation appointed a 'savage wolf' to be Bishop of Antioch less than a decade later?

...and it's mutually contradictory interpretations.

And all arrive at different conclusions...