What is Salvation in Catholicism?

A Visual Catholic Catechism Cathedral of Mary Our Queen, Baltimore.

The New American Bible: John3.htm.

I would like to know how the Catholics in this forum feel about this website and view of Salvation (Baltimore)as presented in the website.

Links(1st,2nd, used above):

http://www.cathedralofmary.org/faith/01.htm#
http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/john/john3.htm

...............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 27, 2004

Answers

...from darkness, we walk into the light.

...................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 27, 2004.

I thought it was a good presentation rod. I liked how it gave one more level of detail with the "characteristics of the People of God".

I think the whole salvation view can be summed up in:

"For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him might not perish but might have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him will not be condemned, but whoever does not believe has already been condemned, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. And this is the verdict, that the light came into the world, but people preferred darkness to light, because their works were evil. For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come toward the light, so that his works might not be exposed. But whoever lives the truth comes to the light, so that his works may be clearly seen as done in God. "

I thought the link did a good job of presenting it. Hope I didn't miss anything.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), September 27, 2004.

In fact, after looking at it a bit more, I'm pretty impressed. They did a good job.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), September 27, 2004.

I'm kind of feeling the same way. I just wondered that, it being "Baltimore", it might be using an "off" catechism. I'm not sure it that would even matter.

................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 27, 2004.

Hey Rod,

The Baltimore Catachism was the whole deal for me "back in the day" ---growing up here in Baltimore. We had to memorize huge parts of it before being Confirmed.

The nuns threatened that the Bishop would ask us questions. I was petrified. I tended to freeze when asked any Catachism question other than "Who is God?" (I would have nailed that one.) Fortunately---no questions were asked.

Actually I'm probably not the best advertisement for the Baltimore Catachism and what it might produce.

I think its been replaced anyway.

-- Jim (furst@flash.net), September 27, 2004.

Catechism, Catechism, Catechism.

-- Jim (furst@flasfh.net), September 27, 2004.

You could have typed "catacasm"--a deep rock formation for the dead.

Anyway--

I finally have my own personal copy: Catechism of the Catholic Church , Second Edition. Libreria Editrice Vaticana

I've been having a time studying it. There is one section that really has me worried, scared, and bothered--2382-2386. I don't know how this will be resolved. I'm also scared to death about meeting with the priest in my old parish. He is willing to meet, but I think I already know the outcome to all of this mess.

......................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 27, 2004.

I checked those sections out and remember some of your posts regarding that situation.

I wouldn't know what to say about it,--- but many have traversed that difficult and painful territory. You're not alone, but my intuition and knowlege of you from reading your posts tells me that you are a good person which for me carries, a lot of weight.

I hope your meeting goes well.

-- Jim (furst@flash.net), September 27, 2004.

Thanks, Jim.

For me, I think it's time to face the music and get things accomplished. My wife is kicking me to get things done in this regard. Everything seems so impossible. But, like you've noted, I'm not the only one who has gone through this. I'm sure things will work out as they should.

In the meantime, I'm keeping my eyes crossed......Uh, fingers crossed( short prayers, of course).

............................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 27, 2004.

Hey Jim--

I remember that too!

I studied 100 questions and answers for my Confirmation, because we were told we would have to answer them.

Our Father didn't ask us one!! Not one!!

Lol!!

Boy--I remember sweating that out so bad.

I wonder if I would still remember those questions and answers if I ever saw them again?

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), September 27, 2004.

Faith

You must remember the "Who is God?" question. That was always my favorite. After hearing my "grandfathers story" I figured I would never get it wrong.

My family has a long history of difficulty answering Catechism questions.

The famous family story about the "Who is God?" question involved my grandfather, as a little boy innocently responding---"God is a supreme being who never was and never will be---"

I believe he got his ear twisted for that one. My nuns were less "corporal" in there response to error.

-- Jim (furst@flash.net), September 27, 2004.

their, their, their.

-- Jim (furst@flasfh.net), September 27, 2004.

I wrote Daniel Webster about including the word thair in place of they're, there, and their. Hey, we can even replace dare.

....................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 27, 2004.

I whish he could do something about dat.

-- Jim (furst@flash.net), September 27, 2004.

The Baltimore website does an excellent job on explaining how one is saved. The website is sponsored by the Archdiocese of Baltimore, not the Baltimore Catechism which was the American standard catechism for children; and to a large degree still is. I'm told that a new, updated Q&A format catechism similar to the Baltimore is being compiled by the US Bishops for release next year. This tried and true Q&A format is better suited for teaching children and teens than the offcial Catechism of the Catholic Church is. Nothing in the Baltimore Catechism has been repudiated and it is still used in many dioceses, parishes and schools.

-- Jack (romanrite@aol.com), October 05, 2004.

"What is Salvation in Catholicism?"

A distortion of the truth.

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), October 09, 2004.

We just don't get no respect!

RIP Rodney D.

-- Jim (furst@flash.net), October 09, 2004.

The very same "distortion of the truth" held by the Apostles and by every Christian on earth until the foundation of a new unauthorized tradition a few hundred years ago in open rebellion against Christ's Church. Now there are hundreds of different versions of salvation teaching being offered. But luckily, none of these are "distorted", even though they conflict with one another on every possible detail.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 09, 2004.

The Roman Catholic religion is one of the worst offenders in changing what Jesus and His apostles originally taught!

Even though distortion and false teachings tried to worm their way in right away--even while the Paul was still living---nothing can quite compare to the large scale deception that Rome/Babylon is guilty of.

God has a very strong judgement planned for her....

4Then I heard another voice from heaven say: "Come out of her, my people, so that you will not share in her sins, so that you will not receive any of her plagues; 5for her sins are piled up to heaven, and God has remembered her crimes.

6Give back to her as she has given; pay her back double for what she has done. Mix her a double portion from her own cup. 7Give her as much torture and grief as the glory and luxury she gave herself.

In her heart she boasts, 'I sit as queen; I am not a widow, and I will never mourn.' 8Therefore in one day her plagues will overtake her: death, mourning and famine. She will be consumed by fire, for mighty is the Lord God who judges her.

9"When the kings of the earth who committed adultery with her and shared her luxury see the smoke of her burning, they will weep and mourn over her. 10Terrified at her torment, they will stand far off and cry:

" 'Woe! Woe, O great city, O Babylon, city of power! In one hour your doom has come!'

11"The merchants of the earth will weep and mourn over her because no one buys their cargoes any more-- 12cargoes of gold, silver, precious stones and pearls; fine linen, purple, silk and scarlet cloth; every sort of citron wood, and articles of every kind made of ivory, costly wood, bronze, iron and marble; 13cargoes of cinnamon and spice, of incense, myrrh and frankincense, of wine and olive oil, of fine flour and wheat; cattle and sheep; horses and carriages; and bodies and souls of men. 14"They will say, 'The fruit you longed for is gone from you. All your riches and splendor have vanished, never to be recovered.' 15The merchants who sold these things and gained their wealth from her will stand far off, terrified at her torment. They will weep and mourn 16and cry out:

" 'Woe! Woe, O great city, dressed in fine linen, purple and scarlet, and glittering with gold, precious stones and pearls! 17In one hour such great wealth has been brought to ruin!'

18"Every sea captain, and all who travel by ship, the sailors, and all who earn their living from the sea, will stand far off. When they see the smoke of her burning, they will exclaim, 'Was there ever a city like this great city?' 19They will throw dust on their heads, and with weeping and mourning cry out:

" 'Woe! Woe, O great city, where all who had ships on the sea became rich through her wealth! In one hour she has been brought to ruin! 20Rejoice over her, O heaven! Rejoice, saints and apostles and prophets! God has judged her for the way she treated you.' "

21Then a mighty angel picked up a boulder the size of a large millstone and threw it into the sea, and said:

"With such violence the great city of Babylon will be thrown down, never to be found again. 22The music of harpists and musicians, flute players and trumpeters, will never be heard in you again. No workman of any trade will ever be found in you again. The sound of a millstone will never be heard in you again. 23The light of a lamp will never shine in you again. The voice of bridegroom and bride will never be heard in you again. Your merchants were the world's great men. By your magic spell all the nations were led astray. 24In her was found the blood of prophets and of the saints, and of all who have been killed on the earth."

Revelation 18

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 10, 2004.

Curious that the Apostle John would write such things about the Church which he had personally seen Christ found only a short time earlier, and which he himself was not only a member but also a bishop of. If he had truly told people to "come out of her", he would be telling them to come out of Christianity, for the Church Christ founded was the only body of Christians that existed. Anyone with a modicum of biblical knowledge recognizes that Babylon represented the pagan Roman Empire, under which the early Catholic Church was persecuted. Notice that the pagan Roman Empire was indeed "thrown down, never to be found again", just as John's vision predicted, while the Holy Catholic Church has continued to grow in numbers, strength, and holiness for 2,000 years.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 11, 2004.

...or the fact that it was St. John to whom Our Lord gave His own mother, in person an in His own words, at the foot of the Cross. By that act He gave His own mother to the Universal Church, and it is only in the Catholic Church that she has been called blessed ever since.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), October 11, 2004.

Well Paul.., perhaps this is why John was so astonished a the revealing of her identity.

Notice that the seven churches that John addresses at first--are still doing okay. None of those religions are the apostate religion that is judged in Rev. 18., and none of those seven churches are in Rome.

None of those seven churches seem to recognize Rome as their head either. Each church is addressed individually...

The church of Rome/Babylon, however, receives condemnation.

It is no secret that the Roman church also was refered to as Babylon early on in the church era by Peter. So yes., John is astonished that such a church could become so evil.....

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 11, 2004.

There isn't the slightest indication that John is writing about a church at all. He says he is writing about a city. Rome. The lengths to which some people will go in trying to force Scripture to support their own predjudices is just astounding.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 11, 2004.

Sorry Paul--but pagan Rome doesn't qualify as an apostate religion. Pagan Rome never claimed to be the head of God's church.

The city is Vatican City---the city that sits on seven hills. It is so obvious. Only Vatican City claimed to be the head of Christ's church.., and only an entity with spiritual ties to God can be guilty of fornication and adultery (in the spiritual sense) against God.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 11, 2004.

one more time Faith

the Vatican City is a sovereign state, not a City -- and it sits outside the 7 hills, not on them.

Rome was a City that sat on 7 hills.

you are accusing St John of being a lousy prophet if you think he meant to describe the Vatican City.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), October 11, 2004.

Faith,

You base your interpretation on the city of Babylon/Rome being the center of a religion that professed belief in God. I thought the fornication committed by Babylon/Rome was with kings (political entities) in Revelation. Fornication in Scripture does not have to refer to fornication of God's people with other gods. It also refers to political alliances and the literal sins of fornication. Pagan Rome was well known for its rampant fornication in John's time.

Also, Vatican City does not sit on seven hills. Rome (both pagan and modern) does. If you want to freely interpret Revelations, maybe the verse "come out of her my people" refers to a call for the papacy centered at Vatican City to leave Rome. Vatican City is but a small part of Rome after all. The verse could be referring to the Pope and loyal Catholics to leave Rome before it is punished for its wickedness.

If you read Revelations with an anti-Catholic bias, you can see all kinds of parallels to Roman Catholicism. If you read it with a pro- Catholic bias or a more objective view, you can see other parallels. It's full of imagery and symbolism that the reader can use to support just about any view they have.

The point of view from the early Christian Church that was persecuted under pagan Rome with forced emperor worship also fits.

-- Andy S ("ask332004@yahoo.com"), October 11, 2004.

Sorry for the repeat of Ian's point about Vatican City. I posted right after he did before reading his post.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), October 11, 2004.

The Catholic Encyclopedia itself states:

"It is within the city of Rome, called the city of seven hills, that the entire of Vatican State proper is now confined."

Not only does Rome's pope call himself the vicar of Christ, but the church he heads claims to be the one true Church and Bride of Jesus Christ. And although Christ's Bride--whose hope it is to join her Bridegroom in heaven is to have no earthly ambitions--the Vatican is obsessed with earthly enterprise as history shows.

Exactly as John forsaw in his vision--the Roman Catholic Church has engaged in adulterous relationships with the Kings of the earth. The Catholic Church has always been involved in politics!

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 11, 2004.

"It is within the city of Rome, called the city of seven hills, that the entire of Vatican State proper is now confined."

A: That is incorrect. Rome is part of the nation of Italy. The Vatican is a separate nation. Also, Vatican Hill is not one of the seven hills of Rome.

"The Catholic Church has always been involved in politics!"

A: Well I would hope so! Christ said His followers are be to "in the world" but not "of the world". "In the world" doesn't just mean located there. It means actively involved and bringing the light of Christ into worldly matters, including politics. Too many churches are cowardly toward such obligations, more concerned about losing their tax-exempt status than about proclaiming the truth. But the Holy Catholic Church always boldly proclaims the truth of Jesus Christ to the world, and doesn't hesitate to identify "broods of vipers" in the political system, or to clearly inform us of political ideologies a Christian cannot support in good conscience.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 11, 2004.

Anyone who wishes to check out the sources of the allegations that the Roman Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon can see part of them at http://www.wayoflife.org/otimothy/tl030003.htm

To accept the author's premise, you must accept his opinion that:

1. Vatican City = Rome in John's vision

2. The papacy is "obsessed with earthly enterprise". To do this you must also ignore the popes who don't fit that description.

3. Ignore the numerous parallels to pagan Rome and the Christian persecutions under emperors Nero, Trajan, and Domitian (as well as emperor worship) that occurred around the time John wrote Revelations.

4. Ignore the possibility that fornication is fleshly and literal as practiced in pagan Rome. Or that fornication refers to the alliances between pagan Rome and other kingdoms that eventually turned on it.

5. Accept other biased assertions and selective historical interpretations by the author.

The case for Roman Catholicism being equated with the "Whore of Babylon" seems to be prejudicial and not based on objective historical interpretation and biblical exegesis.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), October 12, 2004.

"The very same "distortion of the truth" held by the Apostles and by every Christian on earth until the foundation of a new unauthorized tradition a few hundred years ago in open rebellion against Christ's Church."

This is not true... Catholics teach many things that are contrary to what is taught in the New Testament hence, they distort the truth.

"Now there are hundreds of different versions of salvation teaching being offered. But luckily, none of these are "distorted", even though they conflict with one another on every possible detail."

The truth of the matter is there is only one way to be saved and that is that one must obey the gospel of Jesus Christ for it is the gospel that is God's power to salvation. (See Romans 1:16). The Catholic Church does "not" teach that one must obey the gospel of Christ in order to be saved.

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), October 12, 2004.

"The Roman Catholic religion is one of the worst offenders in changing what Jesus and His apostles originally taught!"

Exactly!!! "9 The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, 10 and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved." (2 Thessalonians 2:9-10). This most certainly fits the Catholic Church.

Here's the rest of the story:

"11 And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, 12 that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness." (2 Thessalonians 2:11-12).

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), October 12, 2004.

"Catholics teach many things that are contrary to what is taught in the New Testament hence, they distort the truth. "

A: That is categorically impossible. The Catholic Church alone defined and compiled the New Testament. That is historical fact, not open to discussion. Every word of the New Testament is there because the Catholic Church put it there. The only possible way the New Testament could contain anything contrary to Catholic Teaching would be if the bishops of the Catholic Church, gathered in Council to define the Canon of Scripture, looked at the various writings before them and said "ok, this particular text contains material which directly contradicts our own teaching of 350 years, but what the heck, let's put it in our book of inspired Scripture anyway". Now seriously, how likely do you think that is?? Silly claims to the effect that the Catholic Church teaches contrary to the Bible simply reflect ignorance of how the Bible came to be, and ignorance of the historical fact that the Catholic Church taught the fullness of Christian truth for over 350 years before the Bible was even compiled!

"The Catholic Church does "not" teach that one must obey the gospel of Christ in order to be saved."

A: The Catholic Church taught this truth for 350 years before the Bible was compiled, for 1,500 years before your manmade tradition of mutually contradictory denominations existed, and it will teach this truth until the end of time, long after denominationalism collapses and dies. If the Catholic Church had not taught this truth from the days of the Apostles, this teaching would not have been allowed into the New Testament when the Church compiled it, and you therefore would never have heard of it.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 12, 2004.

I wrote, "Catholics teach many things that are contrary to what is taught in the New Testament hence, they distort the truth."

To which Paul replied, "A: That is categorically impossible."

Not at all impossible but true. Here is one example, the Catholic church says that pouring or sprinkling are acceptable forms of baptism however, the New Testament knows nothing of this practise.

Paul wrote, "The Catholic Church alone defined and compiled the New Testament."

Actually, it is God who defined what Scripture was to be included in the New Testament, not the Catholic Church.

Paul wrote, "That is historical fact, not open to discussion."

Just because the Catholic Church compiled the books of the New Testament does not mean that they "own" them...

Paul wrote, "Every word of the New Testament is there because the Catholic Church put it there."

Actually, every word is there because God placed it there, not the Catholic Church as Paul asserts.

Paul wrote, "The only possible way the New Testament could contain anything contrary to Catholic Teaching would be if the bishops of the Catholic Church, gathered in Council to define the Canon of Scripture, looked at the various writings before them and said "ok, this particular text contains material which directly contradicts our own teaching of 350 years, but what the heck, let's put it in our book of inspired Scripture anyway".

All one has to do is look at the many conflicting Catholic teachings that are not in the New Testament and there are some that actually contradict what is specifically stated in the New Testament. Catholic bishops - hardly... these fake bishops don't even have the qualifications that God specifically stated one must have in order to hold this office. "A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife,..." (1 Timothy 3:2). Catholic bishops are "not" married, hence they are "not" bishops of Christ's church.

Paul wrote, "How seriously, how likely do you think that is??"

It is serious business to change the laws of God isn't it Paul?

Paul wrote, "Silly claims to the effect that the Catholic Church teaches contrary to the Bible simply reflect ignorance of how the Bible came to be, and ignorance of the historical fact that the Catholic Church taught the fullness of Christian truth for over 350 years before the Bible was even compiled!"

Yes, the gospel has been taught but "not" by the Catholic Church. Yes, the Catholic Church teaches contrary to what the Bible teaches. Paul claims ignorance, but he is the one who has been deceived. It is interesting that the Catholic Church is not even mentioned in the Bible and yet he claims that they teach the "fullness of Christian truth", what nonsense...

I wrote, "The Catholic Church does "not" teach that one must obey the gospel of Christ in order to be saved."

To which Paul replied: "A: The Catholic Church taught this truth for 350 years before the Bible was compiled, for 1,500 years before your manmade tradition of mutually contradictory denominations existed, and it will teach this truth until the end of time, long after denominationalism collapses and dies."

Really Paul? Does the Catholic Church teach that one must obey the gospel of Christ in order to be saved??? What is the gospel of Christ and how does one obey it in order to obtain salvation?

Paul wrote, "If the Catholic Church had not taught this truth from the days of the Apostles, this teaching would not have been allowed into the New Testament when the Church compiled it, and you therefore would never have heard of it."

Again Paul makes an assertion with no proof offered. It is absurd to assert that without the Catholic Church we would not have the New Testament for the word of God was in circulation long before this Church compliled them into what we now know as the New Testament.

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), October 12, 2004.

Hi Kevin and Paul,

I will not poke my nose in on this one, except to ask you, Kevin, when you said:

"Actually, it is God who defined what Scripture was to be included in the New Testament, not the Catholic Church."

Yes, Kevin, you are right, but He made His intentions known through the Church. Do you trust that the Church made the right decision, or that they "heard from the Lord correctly"?

Gail

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), October 12, 2004.

"Here is one example, the Catholic church says that pouring or sprinkling are acceptable forms of baptism however, the New Testament knows nothing of this practise."

A: The New Testament says nothing about any specific form of baptism. Where can I find the word "immersion" in the New Testament? The New Testament says we must be born of water to enter the Kingdom. The Church has full authority to specify the method to be used. Whatsoever the Church binds upon earth - including the form of baptism - is bound in heaven.

"Actually, it is God who defined what Scripture was to be included in the New Testament, not the Catholic Church."

A: Yes, obviously. And when the Catholic Church evengelized pagan countries and brought them to the faith, obviously it was God Who was at work. And when the Church heals the ill and forgives sins and blesses marriages, obviously it is God who is doing it. God told His Holy Church "he who hears you hears Me". Therefore when His Church determined the Canon of Scripture, it was He who was speaking through His Church; and when His Church proclaimed to the world as binding truth that 73 specific texts, nothing more and nothing less, are the written Word of God, that proclamation was bound in heaven, as it was the voice of God speaking.

"All one has to do is look at the many conflicting Catholic teachings that are not in the New Testament and there are some that actually contradict what is specifically stated in the New Testament"

A: Again, that is impossible. Catholic teaching cannot conflict with a book of Catholic teaching, and the New Testament is a record of the early history of the catholic Church and its teachings. Catholic teaching may indeed conflict with your personal interpretations of the Catholic teaching contained in the Bible, but that is hardly a surprise since you, as a non-Catholic, have no authority whatsoever to attept to interpret Catholic documents. the Church to which God gave the Scriptures, and which definwed what the Scriptures are, is the only authorized interpreter of the texts.

"Catholic bishops are "not" married, hence they are "not" bishops of Christ's church."

A: And here we have a clear demonstration of why the Bible needs an authorized and authoritative interpreter! The Bible does NOT say that a bishop must be married! It only says that a bishop cannot have more than one wife! If you understood the context of this passage, as the Church does, you would not make such ludicrous blunders. The Church had been converting both Jews and Gentiles for a number of years, and some men from both those groups had risen to positions of leadership in the Church. However, the Gentile (pagan) traditions some of these men had come from allowed polygamy, and some of them had brought their multiple wives with them into the Church. What this passage is stating is that men who had more than one wife were not eleigible to become bishops! It is not a requirement for marriage! Understanding Scripture is more than simply reading it and seeing what pops into your head!

"Yes, the gospel has been taught but "not" by the Catholic Church."

A: Sorry, but if it was taught at all it was taught by the Catholic Church, for there was no other to teach it! Not then and not for 1,000+ years afterwards.

"It is interesting that the Catholic Church is not even mentioned in the Bible and yet he claims that they teach the "fullness of Christian truth", what nonsense..."

A: And where can I find the word "Protestant" in the Bible? In fact, the Catholic Church is mentioned in the Bible every time "the Church" is mentioned, for history clearly shows that the Catholic Church is the only Church which can trace its history directly back to Apostolic times and to the Apostles themselves. The lineage from Peter to John Paul II is as well documented as the presidents of the United States. Further, early historical documents reveal that the Church Christ founded for all men was calling itself "The Holy Catholic Church" by the end of the first century.

"Does the Catholic Church teach that one must obey the gospel of Christ in order to be saved???"

A: I repeat - if the Catholic Church did not teach this truth faithfully for 2,000 years, you and the rest of the world would never have heard of such teaching. The Catholic Church is the sole repository, guardian, interpreter, and channel of the fullness of the truth of Jesus Christ.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 12, 2004.

"The New Testament says nothing about any specific form of baptism. Where can I find the word "immersion" in the New Testament?"

Everytime you see the word "baptism" for baptism is "immersion" not sprinkling and not pouring.

"The New Testament says we must be born of water to enter the Kingdom."

Correct.

"The Church has full authority to specify the method to be used."

False. Only God has the authority to legislate what is required and that method is "immersion".

"Whatsoever the Church binds upon earth - including the form of baptism - is bound in heaven."

Wrong again. The church does not have the authority to "bind and loose".

More later...

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), October 14, 2004.

WE live near the river, but they continue to baptize in swimming pools. Why not go all the way to the River Jordan? That would prove obedience, Kevin.

...............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 14, 2004.

"..they continue to baptize in swimming pools.."

what's wrong with the Ocean, Rod ;-))

or is that too far away and too too cold.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), October 14, 2004.

Kevin,

Circular reasoning just doesn't make the case. You are telling me "every time you see the word "baptism" in the Bible it means immersion because immersion is the only acceptable method of baptism because every time you see the word "baptism" it means immersion because immersion is the only acceptable method ..." . Sorry but that is meaningless. You make the claim that you base all your beliefs on the Bible, and you also claim to believe that immersion is the only acceptable method - therefore WHERE in the Bible does it state that immersion is the only acceptable method of Baptism? In fact, WHERE in the Bible is ANY specific method of Baptism mentioned? Unless this belief of yours is stated in the Bible, it is just a tradition of men with no biblical basis.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 14, 2004.

"Yes, obviously. And when the Catholic Church evengelized pagan countries and brought them to the faith, obviously it was God Who was at work."

It is only Paul's "opinion" that God was at work for God has nothing to do with the corrupt organization that calls itself the Catholic Church.

"And when the Church heals the ill and forgives sins and blesses marriages, obviously it is God who is doing it."

The Catholic Church does "not" heal anyone, nor can anyone in the Catholic Church "forgive" sin. Only God can forgive sin!!! I won't even bother going into the marriage question...

"God told His Holy Church "he who hears you hears Me"."

Actually, God told His "Apostles" not the Catholic Church who claims to be "successors" to them.

"Therefore when His Church determined the Canon of Scripture, it was He who was speaking through His Church;"

Just because an entity determines cataloged the books of the Bible does not mean that they own it!!!!

"and when His Church proclaimed to the world as binding truth that 73 specific texts, nothing more and nothing less, are the written Word of God, that proclamation was bound in heaven, as it was the voice of God speaking."

Actually what the inspired men proclaimed on earth had already been bound and loosed in heaven and yes it was God that spoke and He still speaks to us today through His word the Bible.

"Again, that is impossible."

Not impossible, but true.

"Catholic teaching cannot conflict with a book of Catholic teaching, and the New Testament is a record of the early history of the catholic Church and its teachings."

The Bible is "not" a Catholic book, never has been, and never will be. It is amazing that the Catholic Church is "not" even mentioned in the Bible. The Catholic Church claims that they "love" the Bible and that they gave the world the Bible until someone brings up the fact that we are to believe God through His word only then they cry "Sola Scriptura" and cast doubt upon the very word which they claim God gave to man. What hypocrisy!!!

"Catholic teaching may indeed conflict with your personal interpretations of the Catholic teaching contained in the Bible, but that is hardly a surprise since you, as a non-Catholic, have no authority whatsoever to attept to interpret Catholic documents."

I never claimed any "authority" to "interpret Catholic documents" nor will I ever be inclined to do any such thing. The Bible is not hard to interpret unless of course you are a Catholic and have to have someone explain the Bible for you because you are too ignorant to understand.

"the Church to which God gave the Scriptures, and which definwed what the Scriptures are, is the only authorized interpreter of the texts."

Where does it mention in the Bible that the Catholic Church is the "only authorized interpreter of the texts"??? Scripture(s) please.

More later...

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), October 14, 2004.

“And here we have a clear demonstration of why the Bible needs an authorized and authoritative interpreter! The Bible does NOT say that a bishop must be married! It only says that a bishop cannot have more than one wife!”

This most certainly means that a bishop “must” be married hence the “husband of one wife”.

“ If you understood the context of this passage, as the Church does, you would not make such ludicrous blunders.”

Sorry, the only blunder here is “ignoring” what God has “plainly” stated in His word that a bishop “must” be married.

“The Church had been converting both Jews and Gentiles for a number of years, and some men from both those groups had risen to positions of leadership in the Church. However, the Gentile (pagan) traditions some of these men had come from allowed polygamy, and some of them had brought their multiple wives with them into the Church.”

The Catholic Church has strayed from the Bible and allowed pagan traditions to influence their doctrines.

“ What this passage is stating is that men who had more than one wife were not eleigible to become bishops!”

No, actually this passages states that bishops “must” be married and have children for how can they rule the church of God if they cannot even rule their own household?

“It is not a requirement for marriage! Understanding Scripture is more than simply reading it and seeing what pops into your head! “

Unless you are a Catholic and have Scripture interpreted for you!!!

-- (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), October 14, 2004.

“Sorry, but if it was taught at all it was taught by the Catholic Church, for there was no other to teach it! Not then and not for 1,000+ years afterwards.”

Please notice this is Paul’s opinion however, it is not the truth. The Catholic Church does not teach that one must obey the gospel in order to be saved.

“And where can I find the word "Protestant" in the Bible?”

Who said anything about a “Protestant”???

“In fact, the Catholic Church is mentioned in the Bible every time "the Church" is mentioned, for history clearly shows that the Catholic Church is the only Church which can trace its history directly back to Apostolic times and to the Apostles themselves.”

Just because a “Church” claims it can trace it’s history back to Apostolic times does not make it the “true” church of Christ. It just could as well be a false church, what did Paul say? “After my departure savage wolves will come in…”

“The lineage from Peter to John Paul II is as well documented as the presidents of the United States.”

This is supposed Catholic lineage. How many popes have been condemned as heretics by their successors??? How many times have there been more than one pope??? Please…

“Further, early historical documents reveal that the Church Christ founded for all men was calling itself "The Holy Catholic Church" by the end of the first century.”

The Apostles never called the church “The Holy Catholic Church” so this name is false.

More later...

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), October 14, 2004.

“I repeat - if the Catholic Church did not teach this truth faithfully for 2,000 years, you and the rest of the world would never have heard of such teaching. The Catholic Church is the sole repository, guardian, interpreter, and channel of the fullness of the truth of Jesus Christ.”

I repeat, the Catholic Church does not teach that one must obey the gospel of Christ in order to be saved. The Catholic Church has never been the “sole repository” nor has it ever been the so called “guardian”. They claim to be sole “interpreter” of the Bible however this is nothing but a “lie”.

“:Circular reasoning just doesn't make the case.”

You are the one who is arguing in a circle Paul.

“ You are telling me "every time you see the word "baptism" in the Bible it means immersion because immersion is the only acceptable method of baptism because every time you see the word "baptism" it means immersion because immersion is the only acceptable method ..." .”

That is exactly true, every time you see the word baptism, it means “immersion” and immersion “only”.

“Sorry but that is meaningless.”

You make a lot of assertions and give a lot of opinions however, not one of them are based upon the word of God.

More later…

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), October 14, 2004.

"You make the claim that you base all your beliefs on the Bible, and you also claim to believe that immersion is the only acceptable method - therefore WHERE in the Bible does it state that immersion is the only acceptable method of Baptism? In fact, WHERE in the Bible is ANY specific method of Baptism mentioned? Unless this belief of yours is stated in the Bible, it is just a tradition of men with no biblical basis."

Scripture has much to say about baptism.

1. "baptism" occurs 22 times in 22 verses. 2. "baptize" occurs 9 times in 7 verses. 3. "baptized" occurs 61 times in 51 verses. 4. "baptizing" occurs 4 times in 4 verses. 5. "baptisms" occurs 1 time in 1 verse.

We must accept, practice, & teach only what the Bible says about "baptism."

The word "baptize" is a transliteration of the Greek "baptizo" (bap-tid'-zo) and means "to dip repeatedly, to immerse, submerge; to cleanse by dipping or submerging, to wash, to make clean with water; to wash one's self, bathe; (metaph.) to overwhelm, to be overwhelmed with calamities".

- (Matt. 3:16) "went up straightway out of the water" anabaino (an-ab-ah'ee-no) - "to go up (lit. or fig.):--arise, ascend (up), climb (go, grow, rise, spring) up, come (up)"

- (Acts 8:39) "when they were come up out of the water" (see above definition for anabaino)

- (Rom. 6:4-5) "buried" "raised up" "planted"

- (Col. 2:12) "buried" sunthapto (soon-thap'-to) - "to bury together with" (for all who in the rite of baptism are plunged under water, thereby declare that they put faith in the expiatory death of Christ for the pardon of their past sins; therefore Paul liken baptism to a burial by which the former sinfulness is buried, i.e. utterly taken away-THAYER)

In the light of the word "baptize" and its meaning, burial in water is the only spiritual mode for baptism. Sprinkling or pouring water is a man-made substitution and is done without biblical authority (Col.3:17).

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), October 14, 2004.

"We must accept, practice, & teach only what the Bible says about "baptism."

A: Why? Can you give me a verse to back up that tradition? I don't know about your Bible but my Bible says that the Church is the foundation of truth; that whatsoever the Church binds upon earth is bound in heaven; and that whoever hears the Church hears Christ. So it makes sense to me to accept, teach and practice only what the Church teaches, since that is what the Bible tells me to do. Besides, the bible doesn't tell us how to baptize.

"The word "baptize" is a transliteration of the Greek "baptizo" (bap-tid'-zo) and means "to dip repeatedly, to immerse, submerge; to cleanse by dipping or submerging, to wash, to make clean with water; to wash one's self, bathe; (metaph.) to overwhelm, to be overwhelmed with calamities"

A: Actually "baptizo" simply means "to immerse". The sacrament is an immersion in the Holy Spirit, an immersion in grace. Of course you don't see it as a work of the Holy Spirit, but simply as something you do to express your faith to God, so I guess the only "immersion" you can relate to is the physical one.

- (Matt. 3:16) "went up straightway out of the water" anabaino (an-ab-ah'ee-no) - "to go up (lit. or fig.):--arise, ascend (up), climb (go, grow, rise, spring) up, come (up)" - (Acts 8:39) "when they were come up out of the water" (see above definition for anabaino)

A: Notice that the passage from Acts says "THEY" came up out of the water. That should give you a clue about the meaning of the phrase. In baptism by immersion, the one doing the baptizing does not get immersed, only the one being baptized. So why does it say "THEY" came up out of the water? Because this passage has nothing to do with baptism by immersion. Read it in context! They are on dry land. The man asks to be baptized. So they go "down into the water". Once there, Philip baptizes the man (NO description of how). Once the baptism is completed, THEY "come up out of the water", back onto dry land. Why would they stay in the water? In this passage it is obvious that there is no reference to immersion. Since the exact same phrase is used in Matt 3, we can safely assume that the meaning is the same as well. However, in the case of Jesus's baptism, only Jesus "came up out of the water" after He was baptized, because John stayed in the water to baptize others.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 14, 2004.

I get the impression that you think that by this:

I don't know about your Bible but my Bible says that the Church is the foundation of truth; that whatsoever the Church binds upon earth is bound in heaven; and that whoever hears the Church hears Christ.

...that somehow humans determine what will be true in heaven?? And that without these humans in the church--Jesus would not be heard??

I would think that you would be able to understand that we bind only what is already bound in heaven. And we loose only what is already loosed in heaven.

And I would think you could give God credit for Jesus., and understand that is is His Word that reveals Jesus. We are His disciples in that we help to spread the Word--but God grows us up in Him. It isn't the other way around!

Sheesh!!

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 15, 2004.

"...that somehow humans determine what will be true in heaven??"

A: No, humans don't "determine" what is true in heaven. Truth is truth in and of itself. However, God does reveal to his Church what is true in heaven, and has assured His Church, and no other, that the Holy Spirit will guide it to teach what is true in heaven, and only that.

"And that without these humans in the church--Jesus would not be heard??"

A: Could you suggest one possible way we could have heard about Jesus, other than through the members of His Church? And please don't say the Bible, because the Bible came to us through members of His Church.

"I would think that you would be able to understand that we bind only what is already bound in heaven. And we loose only what is already loosed in heaven."

A: No, "we" don't. But yes, that is precisely what His Church does for us, which is why His Word refers to His Church as "the pillar and foundation of truth".

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 16, 2004.

I wrote, "We must accept, practice, & teach only what the Bible says about "baptism."

To which Paul replied, "A: Why? Can you give me a verse to back up that tradition?"

What tradition? Baptism is "not" a tradition, but is required in order to be saved.

Paul wrote, "I don't know about your Bible but my Bible says that the Church is the foundation of truth;"

Actually the Bible says the church (Not the Catholic Church) is "the pillar and ground of the truth" (1 Timothy 3:15).

Paul wrote, "that whatsoever the Church binds upon earth is bound in heaven;"

No this is not true. The church has "no" authority to "bind and loose" this authority was "only" given to the apostles.

Paul wrote, "and that whoever hears the Church hears Christ."

Again, this was written to the Apostles "not" to the church. Jesus said in speaking to the Apostles in Luke 10:16, "He who hears you hears Me, he who rejects you rejects Me, and he who rejects Me rejects Him who sent Me." 1 John 4:6 says, "We are of God. He who knows God hears us; he who is not of God does not hear us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error." Those who do "not" hear the Apostles words as written in the New Testament do "not" have God. The Catholic Church "claims" to follow God but they in fact do not. Their own words of disdain against the word of God in their use of the word "Sola Scriptura" prove that they do not follow the Apostles words as written in the New Testament.

Paul wrote, "So it makes sense to me to accept, teach and practice only what the Church teaches, since that is what the Bible tells me to do."

Again, the Catholic Church is "not" the true church of Christ and as shown in my last post Paul does not know what he is talking about.

Paul wrote, "Besides, the bible doesn't tell us how to baptize."

The Apostle Paul says baptism is a burial. Sprinkling or pouring water on one does not fit with that Biblical description of baptism. In fact, those who administered Bible baptism never handled the element of baptism. The element is water and in sprinkling and pouring the administrator handles the water within a container. This was not the case in the New Testament. Baptism was always a burial and for those who seek to know God's will today, baptism is exactly what the Bible says it is.

John 3:23 says John was "baptizing in Aenon near to Salim, because there was much water there." Baptism requires much water. It also requires a "going down into the water and a coming up out of the water. The account of the Ethiopian and his conversion in Acts the eighth chapter indicates this. Philip the evangelist preached to the Ethiopian nobleman and as they came to some water the Ethiopian said, "See, here is water. What doth hinder me to be baptized?" (Acts 8:36). "And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the Eunuch; and he baptized him. And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip..." (Acts 8:38-39). The baptism taught in the New Testament is a burial or immersion in water.

Paul wrote, "A: Actually "baptizo" simply means "to immerse". The sacrament is an immersion in the Holy Spirit, an immersion in grace."

So baptism is now "an immersion in grace"??? Where does the Bible state this to be true?

Paul wrote, "Of course you don't see it as a work of the Holy Spirit, but simply as something you do to express your faith to God, so I guess the only "immersion" you can relate to is the physical one."

How is baptism a "work of the Holy Spirit"???

Paul wrote, "A: Notice that the passage from Acts says "THEY" came up out of the water. That should give you a clue about the meaning of the phrase. In baptism by immersion, the one doing the baptizing does not get immersed, only the one being baptized."

Exactly.

Paul wrote, "So why does it say "THEY" came up out of the water? Because this passage has nothing to do with baptism by immersion. Read it in context! They are on dry land. The man asks to be baptized. So they go "down into the water". Once there, Philip baptizes the man (NO description of how). Once the baptism is completed, THEY "come up out of the water", back onto dry land. Why would they stay in the water? In this passage it is obvious that there is no reference to immersion."

Notice also that both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water. And they came up out of the water. Philip did not "sprinkle" or "pour" him. Philip fully immersed the eunuch in physical water.

Paul wrote, "Since the exact same phrase is used in Matt 3, we can safely assume that the meaning is the same as well. However, in the case of Jesus's baptism, only Jesus "came up out of the water" after He was baptized, because John stayed in the water to baptize others."

Jesus was baptized - immersed, just as everyone in the New Testament who has obeyed the gospel of Christ. Those who are "sprinkled" are "poured" as a substitute for baptism merely got wet, they were not baptized in accordance with God's word.

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), October 16, 2004.

A: No, humans don't "determine" what is true in heaven. Truth is truth in and of itself. However, God does reveal to his Church what is true in heaven, and has assured His Church, and no other, that the Holy Spirit will guide it to teach what is true in heaven, and only that.

That's true Paul--God has revealed everything that is true in heaven--in His holy written Word--to His church. Remeber that it is His Word that gave rise to His church--and not His church that gave rise to His Word. And also remember that His church is not hold up in your Roman Catholic religion.

"And that without these humans in the church--Jesus would not be heard??"

A: Could you suggest one possible way we could have heard about Jesus, other than through the members of His Church? And please don't say the Bible, because the Bible came to us through members of His Church.

We hear about God through His Word--which His disciples brought to us. They were not Roman Catholics, either--Paul! The New Testament-- as preached by the apostles--gave rise to the church. The Roman Catholic Church did not give rise to the Scriptures!! Sheesh...

A: No, "we" don't. But yes, that is precisely what His Church does for us, which is why His Word refers to His Church as "the pillar and foundation of truth".

As I have already discussed with you.., the pillar and foundation of the truth is Jesus Christ., and His church is not the Roman Catholic religion--but is a body of true believers that have been converted and added since the time of pentecost..by His Word.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 16, 2004.

-- (bold@off.com), October 16, 2004.

"That's true Paul--God has revealed everything that is true in heaven--in His holy written Word--to His church"

A: So, let me get this straight - the Apostles did not have the Word of God until they wrote it down? It was their writing it, not Jesus teaching it, that made it the "Word of God"?

"Remeber that it is His Word that gave rise to His church--and not His church that gave rise to His Word"

A: Sorry, but history plainly reveals that His Church existed and taught the Word of God for about 80 years before the New Testament writings were finished, and for more than 350 years before the Canon of Scripture was finalized. If His Church had not existed first, the New Testament would not have been written, and the Bible would not have been compiled, for that writing and that compilation were the work of the Church under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

"And also remember that His church is not hold up in your Roman Catholic religion."

A: Again, history plainly reveals that the Catholic Church alone traces its roots to the Apostles and through them to Jesus Christ. Every other Christian church is a later - much later - development. the Catholic Church alone holds the promise of Jesus Christ, "I will be with you until the end of time". The Catholic Church alone holds the promise of Christ, "when the Holy Spirit comes He will guide you into all truth".

"And that without these humans in the church--Jesus would not be heard??"

A: How will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher? How will they preach unless they are sent? (Romans 10:14-15) The next obvious question in this series is - "How will they be sent unless there is a Church to send them?" No Church = no sending = no preaching = no hearing = no believing = no salvation.

"We hear about God through His Word--which His disciples brought to us."

A: So you agree. It is only through members of His Church that we can receive His Word.

"They were not Roman Catholics, either--Paul!"

A: I know how much you need to believe that, but the Bible clearly shows us that they were members of the Church Christ founded; and history just as clearly shows us the identity of that Church - the Catholic Church. If you have to deny the plain facts of history in order to hang onto your beliefs, it may be time to re-examine what you are believing.

"The New Testament-- as preached by the apostles--gave rise to the church. The Roman Catholic Church did not give rise to the Scriptures!! Sheesh...

A: Sheesh is right! How can something "give rise to" that which preceded it? If there had been no Church there would have been no Apostles and no preaching, for their position was meaningless except within the context of the Church Christ founded. They were the ones who were sent, as representatives of the Church, to make disciples of all peoples.

"As I have already discussed with you.., the pillar and foundation of the truth is Jesus Christ."

A: Well, I guess you'll just have to take up that theory with Him, since His Word only mentions the pillar and foundation of truth once, and specifically says it is the Church. Christ is the SOURCE of truth. It is He from Whom the Church first RECEIVES the truth. Follow the analogy He provided for you. The pillars and foundation are not the SOURCE of a structure. They are simply what keeps the structure strong and true, what prevent it from becoming warped and weakened and disfigured over time. That is the Church's function regarding the truth, as demonstrated by the warping and fracturing of the truth which inevitably occur when people separate themselves from the pillar and foundation.

"His church is not the Roman Catholic religion--but is a body of true believers that have been converted and added since the time of pentecost..by His Word."

A: True believers must all believe the same, for the truth cannot contradict itself. The divisions within Protestantism can only be explained one way - widespread, pervasive untruth. There are innumerable varieties of untruth which can conflict with one another; but there is only one pure, unadulterated body of truth; and where it is found there is unity of teaching throughout the world and across the centuries. As found in His Holy Catholic Church.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 16, 2004.

A: So, let me get this straight - the Apostles did not have the Word of God until they wrote it down? It was their writing it, not Jesus teaching it, that made it the "Word of God"?

The gospel mwriters are Jesus' apostles and wrote the Word of God as the Holy Spirit brought to their rememberance everything that Jesus had taught them and had delivered from the Father. Other New Testament writers wrote God's Word as the Spirit moved them to do so-- even though they may not have known Jesus personally during his earthly ministry. These men revealed in writing--the church as Jesus describes it--which is His body of believers....not some religion that developed centuries later.

"Remeber that it is His Word that gave rise to His church--and not His church that gave rise to His Word"

A: Sorry, but history plainly reveals that His Church existed and taught the Word of God for about 80 years before the New Testament writings were finished, and for more than 350 years before the Canon of Scripture was finalized. If His Church had not existed first, the New Testament would not have been written, and the Bible would not have been compiled, for that writing and that compilation were the work of the Church under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

Ridiculous Paul...you make the mistake of confusing the apostles with your religious movement. Just as the Jews knew their Scriptures and received God's Word as it was being written--so too did the early believers know and receive God's Word as it was being written. And I will state again that these early believers were not from Rome or even in Rome.

"And also remember that His church is not hold up in your Roman Catholic religion."

A: Again, history plainly reveals that the Catholic Church alone traces its roots to the Apostles and through them to Jesus Christ. Every other Christian church is a later - much later - development. the Catholic Church alone holds the promise of Jesus Christ, "I will be with you until the end of time". The Catholic Church alone holds the promise of Christ, "when the Holy Spirit comes He will guide you into all truth".

No Paul--as you well know, this is your Roman Catholic claim. Those supposed apostolic succession lists are a fraud.., fabricated just to make this claim. Your religion actually has two different lists. Only true disciples can claim their way all the way back to Christ..this is the true church--His body of believers, those who have been born again by His Word.

"And that without these humans in the church--Jesus would not be heard??"

A: How will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher? How will they preach unless they are sent? (Romans 10:14-15) The next obvious question in this series is - "How will they be sent unless there is a Church to send them?" No Church = no sending = no preaching = no hearing = no believing = no salvation.

"We hear about God through His Word--which His disciples brought to us."

A: So you agree. It is only through members of His Church that we can receive His Word.

"They were not Roman Catholics, either--Paul!"

A: I know how much you need to believe that, but the Bible clearly shows us that they were members of the Church Christ founded; and history just as clearly shows us the identity of that Church - the Catholic Church. If you have to deny the plain facts of history in order to hang onto your beliefs, it may be time to re-examine what you are believing.

The church that Christ founded is not of this world...it is His true body of believers. We are universal (catholic) and can be found all over the world. Christ knows who we are : )

"The New Testament-- as preached by the apostles--gave rise to the church. The Roman Catholic Church did not give rise to the Scriptures!! Sheesh...

A: Sheesh is right! How can something "give rise to" that which preceded it? If there had been no Church there would have been no Apostles and no preaching, for their position was meaningless except within the context of the Church Christ founded. They were the ones who were sent, as representatives of the Church, to make disciples of all peoples.

Nothing preceeded the Word of God, Paul. John tells us this in John 1:1.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.

There came a man who was sent from God; his name was John. He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all men might believe. He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light. The true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world.

He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God- - children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God.

"As I have already discussed with you.., the pillar and foundation of the truth is Jesus Christ."

A: Well, I guess you'll just have to take up that theory with Him, since His Word only mentions the pillar and foundation of truth once, and specifically says it is the Church. Christ is the SOURCE of truth. It is He from Whom the Church first RECEIVES the truth. Follow the analogy He provided for you. The pillars and foundation are not the SOURCE of a structure. They are simply what keeps the structure strong and true, what prevent it from becoming warped and weakened and disfigured over time. That is the Church's function regarding the truth, as demonstrated by the warping and fracturing of the truth which inevitably occur when people separate themselves from the pillar and foundation.

Well Paul--you are the one who claims Peter is this rock or foundation of your Church. So I'd say you are in even worse shape.

I say Christ is the rock and foundation of of His church--which is His body of true believers. We have His Word in written form., but that is the very same thing as Jesus. This truth in Jesus is the church (not the Roman Catholic religion) and this truth is the pillar and foundation--which is God.

"His church is not the Roman Catholic religion--but is a body of true believers that have been converted and added since the time of pentecost..by His Word."

A: True believers must all believe the same, for the truth cannot contradict itself. The divisions within Protestantism can only be explained one way - widespread, pervasive untruth.

to which the Catholic religion was the main cause

There are innumerable varieties of untruth which can conflict with one another.

Yes--to which your Catholic religion can be to blame

but there is only one pure, unadulterated body of truth; and where it is found there is unity of teaching throughout the world and across the centuries. As found in His holy catholic church.

Yes--which is His body of true believers--as revealed in the Word of God...

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 16, 2004.

Faith,

I was wondering if you would provide me with the refernces and further clarification of a couple claims you make:

1. Those supposed apostolic succession lists are a fraud.., fabricated just to make this claim. Your religion actually has two different lists.

What are these two different lists and what is the proof that any list is a fraud?

2. The divisions within Protestantism can only be explained one way - widespread, pervasive untruth...(to which the Catholic religion was the main cause)

There are innumerable varieties of untruth which can conflict with one another....(Yes--to which your Catholic religion can be to blame)

How is the Catholic Church to blame for the divisions and any ocntradictions in theology among Protestant denominations?

Thanks.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), October 18, 2004.

Correction: ocntradictions should be contradictions.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), October 18, 2004.

Faith, I would like to know how the Catholic Church is responsible for all of the errors in Protestantism as well? Which group of Protestants are you referring: Calvanism and Lutheranism are the two closest Protestant sects post-Reformation. Is that to whom you refer? If so, how is Catholicism responsible for Calvin, or Luther for that matter?

As to your two separate lists of apostolic succession, I don't know of any "reputable" Protestant scholar who has ever made such a claim. The writings located at ccel.or are called "spurious" if they are, and for what reasons that are noted to be spurious. You must have some "proof" to make such claims. Where is the proof? Or are they just wild accusations with no basis in fact?

Gail

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), October 18, 2004.

The Catholic religion is responsible for the reformation in that its false teachings forced many to leave the Church because the Church would not reform itself and do away with its false teachings. Instead they excommunicated those who would speak out against the lies.

Luther was a Catholic.

Calvin was also a Catholic.

Calvin is actually a by-product of Augustinian thought.

I never said that the Catholic Church is responsible for anything within the Protestant reformation that has developed since then-- though, as sinful human beings--we all fall prey to the same problems. We seem to repeat history.

No earthly religion, Catholic or Protestant is the one true church of Jesus Christ. The continued division amongst our earthly religions is proof enough for me...and this something that Catholicism cannot separate itself out of. Your religion is at the heart of the division.

Division was seen almost immediately in Paul's day. Yet Jesus said that His body cannot be divided. How do you suppose we can harnize that truth with the reality of History?

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 18, 2004.

oops--make that *harmonize*

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 18, 2004.

Hi Faith, I had asked you to PROVE your allegations. I have heard all of your accusations before, but I never see any proof.

Luther's 95 theses was only about the sale of indulgences. Have you ever read it? He never denounced Mary, the Eucharist, veneration of saints, prayerful invocation of the saints, feast days, nor even the teachings on purgatory. He believed one could sin with impunity and "sin he must," which of course, the Church does not teach, never has, never will.

So what teachings of the Church do you think Luther denounced? And where is the proof?

How is Calvin a by-product of Augustianism? Augustine was the greater preacher of grace, whose teachings the Church STILL UTILIZES IN ITS CATECHISM. If Augustine taught Calvin's theory of predestination, I would dearly love to see the quotes on that!

Faith, do you have any PROOF at all to substantiate your claims?

Gail

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), October 18, 2004.

Gail--

Can any of us prove anything here?

Can you prove that the New Testament churches had an earthly head church who ruled over them? I think Scripture reveals that each church was its own entity.

The only head is Christ....and His Word.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 18, 2004.

Faith, quite honestly, it is impossible to debate you using evidence; evidence from scripture AND evidence from history completely slays every article of rhetoric you use. But for some reason, evidence doesn't mean anything to you, but you base your faith completely on subjective feelings; fanciful whims that tickle the fancy. You dream of an early church that resembles the one you attend -- BUT IT DOES NOT EXIST! You make slanderous accusations against the Church that are completely unfounded and that you cannot even begin to prove.

Faith, what if you are wrong, and the Church you despise so completely REALLY is the bride of Christ, really is who she says she is, do you realize the sin you are committing? Slander is a very very grave matter. Surely you are aware of that. You repeat what you have heard other anti-Catholics say, never bothering to check the facts. You are culpable, Faith! Because the evidence is there, but you REFUSE to even take a peek. Don't you think you owe it to yourself to just take a look? I mean really LOOK Faith, not just pass it off as some sort of grand conspiracy perpetrated by the Harlot!

On the other thread, "Who has the keys" or something like that, I posted probably just slightly less than 30 quotes (maybe more) from 1st, 2nd, 3rd generation Christian leaders who COMPLETELY OBLITERATE your and Kevin's contentions that N.T. churches were autonomous! Not only that, scathing judgments are made of "schismatic churches" that are not "authorized." Christians are told that if they are "not in union with the Bishop, they are not in union with Christ."

Are you so sure of your position on the Church -- a position not founded on evidence, but pure whimsy -- that you are willing to stake your immortal soul upon it? Because if you aren't willing to do that, then you are indeed showing willfull and reckless disregard for your own soul by remarks that if not true, are borderline blasphemous!

Gail

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), October 18, 2004.

Gail--

I am convinced beyond any doubt that Christ's Body is not hold up in your religion--or any religion for that matter.

Christ's true church could not be the Roman Catholic Church--given its horrendous history--not to mention its lack of understanding of the completely sufficient sacrifice of Jesus Christ and God's grace and mercy and *gift* of salvation to those who place their faith in Jesus Christ to save them.

Yours is a religion of works and tradition--something Jesus rebuked the Jews of His day for.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 19, 2004.

Yours is a religion of works and tradition--something Jesus rebuked the Jews of His day for.

Faith, I know you believe that statement to be true. It pains me that you see Catholicism that way, because that is not what Catholicism is about. Catholicism is a religion of faith in Christ and salvation as a gift that no one deserves. Those works and Tradition you disparage are based on faith in Christ's once and for all sacrifice and the divine mercy He won for us. They flow from a strong faith in Jesus as Lord and the perfect love he has for us.

As far as the horrendous history goes, doctrinal truth is not dependent on the personal holiness of each and every member of the Church. Would you believe Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide to be wrong if you found out that the men who formed these doctrines (and their followers) also committed sins that rivaled anything Catholics did?

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), October 19, 2004.

Baptism with immersion, or pouring, both are valid, but the main thing is the water and words. No water ,no salvation for anyone!

-- Tanya (littletanya@westernrt.com), October 19, 2004.

Hi Tanya.

How would you understand Dismas and his Salvation? Was Dismas baptized in water?

....................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 19, 2004.

The penitent thief at the cross was told by Jesus that he would be in paradise with Jesus that day.....not because the thief went through a "water ritual* performed by man--we know he did not.

It was because His baptism was of the Holy Spirit--it was a rebirth-- the kind that Jesus Christ brings.

When we believe in Him and confess that we are sinners--and when we recognize that Jesus is sinless--and confess that He alone is our Lord and Savior and we ask Him to save us.., we are born-again.

The water is symbolic of this spiritual rebirth. The performance of water baptism represents the death of our old self and the rebirth of our new self filled with the Holy Spirit.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 19, 2004.

"I posted probably just slightly less than 30 quotes (maybe more) from 1st, 2nd, 3rd generation Christian leaders who COMPLETELY OBLITERATE your and Kevin's contentions that N.T. churches were autonomous!"

Let's not forget what the Apostle Paul said in Acts 20:29-30.

"29 For I know this, that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock. 30 Also from among yourselves men will rise up, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after themselves."

Gail's little quibble that the church in the first century was not autonomous is defeated by the very book that Catholics want to pervert. Catholics claim they love the word of God however they do lie and not speak the truth. Every time someone says the word of God (the Bible) is all we need in religion (see 2 Timothy 3:16-17), they immediately throw the flag and scream Sola Scriptura in order to cast doubt on His word. Gail and Catholics will continue to try to woo people with their fabricated history however, those who are truly searching for the truth will find that God's word is sufficient to prove what is true and what is false. (see Proverbs 2:1-5).

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), October 19, 2004.

"Christ's true church could not be the Roman Catholic Church--given its horrendous history"

Exactly!!!

Rom 13:9-10 states, "9 ...if there is any other commandment, are all summed up in this saying, namely, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." 10 Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law."

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), October 19, 2004.

Tanya wrote, "Baptism with immersion, or pouring, both are valid, but the main thing is the water and words. No water ,no salvation for anyone!"

Sorry Tanya, that is not consistent with what is revealed in God's word. Pouring is not an acceptable form of immersion (baptism).

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), October 19, 2004.

What about people in the Shara, Kevin, where is no running water, will you immerse tme or not?

Yahweh is all forgiving. Yahweh has full understanding. We should not make things harder for believers. Life is hard already.

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), October 19, 2004.

Keven,

All churches are made up of men/humans who by their very nature are horrenously sinful. I think with not much digging around you will find that "horrendous history" can not and should not be applied only to the Catholic Church.

We all give our best shots at being evil from time to time. Its a People thing. Not a Church thing.

-- Jim (furst@flash.net), October 19, 2004.

Elpidio wrote, "What about people in the Shara, Kevin, where is no running water, will you immerse tme or not?"

This is a typical excuse to not obey the truth Elpidio. I am sure that if someone was sincerely seeking to obey God's word, He would make sure that water was available for one to be baptized in obedience to His command to be baptized to have their sins washed away.

Jim wrote, "Keven, All churches are made up of men/humans who by their very nature are horrenously sinful. I think with not much digging around you will find that "horrendous history" can not and should not be applied only to the Catholic Church."

My name is Kevin, not "Keven". I was only talking about the Catholic Church, not anyone else so this can be applied to their history for this is the truth.

Jim wrote, "We all give our best shots at being evil from time to time. Its a People thing. Not a Church thing."

The church is the people and the people are the church. So it is a church thing whether you choose to accept it or not.

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), October 19, 2004.

I wouldn't dismiss this statement you made so easily as meaning nothing...

with not much digging around you will find that "horrendous history" can not and should not be applied only to the Catholic Church.

This is true and it proves one thing--that not one earthly religion or church on the face of the earth can claim to be the true church of Jesus Christ. With all the sinful ways and division that started immediately--how can we think that any one of them could qualify as the true Body of Christ?

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 19, 2004.

"This is true and it proves one thing--that not one earthly religion or church on the face of the earth can claim to be the true church of Jesus Christ."

Faith, this is not true.

Belief of and obedience to the Word of God is the difference between the church of Christ and the denominational world. Since the church for which Christ died (Acts 20:28) is not a denomination, and since God adds the saved to the church (Acts 2:47), and since all the saved are in the church, which is the body of Christ (Eph. 1:21-23), it is correct to say, "We are Christians only, and the only Christians."

This claim is neither bigoted nor prejudicial. It is, on the other hand, respectful of truth (John 8:32). To imply that we are not the only Christians is to imply that there are Christians in all churches. To believe this, one would have to believe that one church is as good as another; and to believe this, one would have to deny that the Lord has only one church.

The "only" Christians are those who have obeyed the gospel of Christ (Rom. 1:16-17; 1 Cor. 15:1-4), and "Christians only" means that we are not a part of the denominational world with its names, creeds, and doctrines.

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), October 19, 2004.

Kevin you said,

"29 For I know this, that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock. 30 Also from among yourselves men will rise up, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after themselves" -- TO DRAW AWAY, Kevin, TO DRAW UNTO THEMSELVES, corresponding perfectly to Corinthians "I am of Paul, I am of Jesus, I am of Apollos," PROTESTANTISM fits this bill! PROTESTANTISM IS PRODUING MORE Heretics today than EVER BEFORE IN ITS HISTORY -- pulling PEOPLE INTO FINANCIAL AND SPIRITUAL RUIN -- pulling them away from the Church Christ instituted HIMSELF! EVER WATCH TBN, KEVIN? It is appalling, nauseating and abhorrent.

If Christ would have meant for sola scripture to be the sole rule of faith, He would have told his followers to go to the Word when disputes arose, but HE DIDN'T, He told them to GO TO THE CHURCH! (Oh, how you must HATE THAT!)

If sola scriptura was the ruling authority, then Paul wouldn't have said that the "CHURCH IS THE PILLAR AND FOUNDATION OF THE TRUTH."

Fabricated history! Are you accusing the Church of "penning" the letters from which I quote? If you are, Kevin, then you better be able to PROVE IT! Catholic and Protestant scholars of all denominations do not refute the authenticity of these writing, but YOU DO . . .? Why do you do that Kevin? Is it because the writings of the fathers SCREAM AT YOU the truth, and YOU CAN'T STAND THE TRUTH, KEVIN! That is why you won't even look at the monumental quotes I posted on the other thread . . . YOU ARE SCARED WITLESS!!!

Faith, you think that horrendous crimes done by clergy within the Church is proof positive that it is demonic. Well, let me ask you this, couldn't it also be said that since the Church survived for over 2,000 DESPITE PERSONAL CORRUPTION OF ITS MEMBERS, that surely IT IS DIVINE? Can you name one organization that HAS EVER WITHSTOOD the kind of corruption the Church did without full and total collapse? No, you CAN'T BECAUSE THERE ARE NONE. NOT ONE! NOT ONE! NOT ONE! Fortune 500 companies collapse overnight. Governments rise and fall, and YET THE CHURCH STILL STANDS!

Gail

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), October 19, 2004.

Kevin Sorry for the typo with your name. I'm prone to typing faster than I can think. My point was to say that the Catholic Church with all its warts an sins was brought to that condition by men. All Churches have this problem. This is not endemic to Catholicism.

I thought your statement was unfair so I said so. Nothing personal. I'm not that even that good a Catholic but can recognise an unnecessary jab. You will find very little of that attitude coming back from me because its counter productive. WE are all trying to get it right and at its very hard. The animosity is just not helpful. I'm not a true fan of tough love.

-- Jem (furst@flash.net), October 19, 2004.

Gail--you cannot prove that the Roman Catholic religion dates back to Jesus. You can make that claim., but it doesn't really matter.

The truth is that what has stood the test of time--what cannot be knocked down--is "Christianity" as revealed in the Scriptures!

Jesus Christ divied time--and He monopolizes much of History...and He cannot be disproven.

We can see in the Scriptures all about the destruction of apostacy....

People to this day have life-changing experiences.., because of giving themselves to Jesus Christ....not to the Roman Catholic religion.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 19, 2004.

Hi Jem.

I wish I could agree with my conscience, but my behavior is difficult to control when there is that constant jab at my Catholicism. I get from all sides.

red.............

p.s. I meant "Jim" and "rod", serry.

.....................................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 19, 2004.

Me two red.

-- Jem (furst@flash.net), October 19, 2004.

Gail,

You wrote, "TO DRAW AWAY, Kevin, TO DRAW UNTO THEMSELVES, corresponding perfectly to Corinthians "I am of Paul, I am of Jesus, I am of Apollos," PROTESTANTISM fits this bill! PROTESTANTISM IS PRODUING MORE Heretics today than EVER BEFORE IN ITS HISTORY -- pulling PEOPLE INTO FINANCIAL AND SPIRITUAL RUIN -- pulling them away from the Church Christ instituted HIMSELF! EVER WATCH TBN, KEVIN? It is appalling, nauseating and abhorrent."

This drawing away unto themselves continued through the first centuries of the church until it manifested itself in the Catholic Church and one man rule. I don't even know why you bothered to state something about Protestantism for you know (maybe you forgot) that I am not a Protestant. Catholics are no better than the Protestants in a great many ways. Catholics claim that the Protestants are pulling people away from the church that Christ instituted however this is not the truth. They may be gaining converts to their religion however I can assure you that neither of these religions are of Christ.

You wrote, "If Christ would have meant for sola scripture to be the sole rule of faith, He would have told his followers to go to the Word when disputes arose, but HE DIDN'T, He told them to GO TO THE CHURCH! (Oh, how you must HATE THAT!)"

Sorry Gail, Christ did "not" tell people to go to "the church". He told people to obey the gospel. (see Romans 1:16).

You wrote, "If sola scriptura was the ruling authority, then Paul wouldn't have said that the "CHURCH IS THE PILLAR AND FOUNDATION OF THE TRUTH."

The fact of the matter is He did not say the church is the "foundation of the truth", He said it was the "ground of the truth".

You wrote, "Fabricated history! Are you accusing the Church of "penning" the letters from which I quote? If you are, Kevin, then you better be able to PROVE IT! Catholic and Protestant scholars of all denominations do not refute the authenticity of these writing, but YOU DO . . .? Why do you do that Kevin? Is it because the writings of the fathers SCREAM AT YOU the truth, and YOU CAN'T STAND THE TRUTH, KEVIN! That is why you won't even look at the monumental quotes I posted on the other thread . . ."

The Catholic Church has used "fabricated" documents in the past to gain influence and who is to say that they did not "fabricate" their own history??? Gail conveniently forgets that the Catholic Church used the False Decretals which were proved to be a forgery.

You wrote, "YOU ARE SCARED WITLESS!!!"

Not... "4 For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, 5 casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God." (2 Corinthians 10:4-5). "Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth." (John 17:17).

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), October 19, 2004.

Hi Kevin,

You said in reply to Gail that The fact of the matter is He did not say the church is the "foundation of the truth", He said it was the "ground of the truth".

I've seen both words "foundation" and "ground" used depending on the translation. They basically mean the same thing. How do you interpret this verse in light of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura?

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), October 19, 2004.

Kevin,

You also said, The Catholic Church has used "fabricated" documents in the past to gain influence and who is to say that they did not "fabricate" their own history??? Gail conveniently forgets that the Catholic Church used the False Decretals which were proved to be a forgery.

What we know of early church history is based on historians who are both Catholic and non-Catholic. If history supports the Catholic stance, it is not because the Catholic Church "fabricated" it. In some cases, the historical certainty of the documents Gail quoted is greater than New Testament writings.

The Catholic Church does not base its doctrines on the False Decretals of the Pseudo-Isidore. In the past, the False Decretals were used to support the Church in conflicts between political and ecclesiastical authorities, but there is legitimate evidence that was also used. In fact, the False Decretals plagiarized from legitimate sources. That's why the False Decretals fooled some churchmen, because there was truth mixed with fiction.

There is a big difference between apocryphal papal letters contained in a collection of canon laws composed about the middle of the ninth century and your insinuation that the Catholic Church fabricated early church history to support it's claim of being the true Church of Christ.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), October 19, 2004.

Kevin,

Excommunication and Church discipline are well-founded principals in the N.T. I am sure you know that. Matthew 18 has Jesus telling his disciples to "take the matter to the Church," if they will not listen to two or three of the brothers.

I'm also sure you are aware of the scripture "You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

It is your contention that Christ's church disappeared into complete apostacy immediately upon Christ's ascension, and then did not "reappear" until your church came on the scene. According to you EVERYONE was deceived, from Clement to Ignatius to Polycarp, to Athanasius to Augustine. The thousands of martyrs who shed their blood, allowed themselves to be burned, fed to lions, did so on false premises taught them by the 'apostate' church, according to you. You believe that the apostacy came about EVEN BEFORE the N.T. was recognized canonical.

According, to you, there were 1800 years of apostacy until the "true" church appeared. That is so ridiculous, Kevin. I cannot believe a man with your intelligence and biblical knowledge would believe such a preposterous scenario!

You believe all of this CONTRARY TO THE EXTRAORDINARY WEIGHT OF RELIABLE EVIDENCE, and based on false teachings presented by YOUR church.

Gail

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), October 20, 2004.

Gail,

You wrote, "Excommunication and Church discipline are well-founded principals in the N.T. I am sure you know that. Matthew 18 has Jesus telling his disciples to "take the matter to the Church," if they will not listen to two or three of the brothers."

Yes, I know this for this is taught in Scripture.

You wrote, "I'm also sure you are aware of the scripture "You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

Why did Jesus make that statement Gail??? Is the seed of the kingdom the word of God or the Church??? (see Luke 8:11). The reason Jesus made that statement was that the grave would not keep Him from building His church as He was raised from the dead. Jesus did build His church and on the day of Pentecost 3,000 souls were added. (see Acts 2:41).

You wrote, "It is your contention that Christ's church disappeared into complete apostacy immediately upon Christ's ascension, and then did not "reappear" until your church came on the scene."

I have never made that statement Gail. What is it that produces Christians, is it the word of God or the Catholic Church? If it is the Catholic Church, then where is your proof that this is true???

You wrote, "According to you EVERYONE was deceived, from Clement to Ignatius to Polycarp, to Athanasius to Augustine. The thousands of martyrs who shed their blood, allowed themselves to be burned, fed to lions, did so on false premises taught them by the 'apostate' church, according to you."

Again, I have "never" said that "everyone" was deceived. You forget that it was the Catholic Church who "killed" many of these martyrs who were burned, fed to the lions, etc...

You wrote, "You believe that the apostacy came about EVEN BEFORE the N.T. was recognized canonical."

In the book of Revelation, there were 7 churches that God admonished. How many of these 7 churches were faithful and needed no admonition??? What did God say??? "Repent or else..." and this is only one example. (Revelation 2:16). This doesn't include the numerous times other churches had to be admonished, i.e. the Romans, Corinthians, Thessalonians, etc...

You wrote, "According, to you, there were 1800 years of apostacy until the "true" church appeared. That is so ridiculous, Kevin. I cannot believe a man with your intelligence and biblical knowledge would believe such a preposterous scenario!"

Again, I have "never" stated that there were "1800 years of apostacy until the "true" church appeared". What is the seed of the kingdom??? What is ridiculous Gail is that you would rather believe uninspired men instead of what God has plainly revealed in His word.

You wrote, "You believe all of this CONTRARY TO THE EXTRAORDINARY WEIGHT OF RELIABLE EVIDENCE, and based on false teachings presented by YOUR church."

You "claim" that the church of Christ has "false teachings", I challenge you to prove this to be true. You make good accusations, how about backing them up. Can you do this Gail without having to resort to your so called "reliable evidence"??? If you can prove from Scripture that my church is teaching false doctrine, then I will change my view. Are you willing to do the same???

Gail

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), October 21, 2004.

Andy,

The true church would "never" have to resort to using any type of fabricated documents for any reason at all. This is one of the many reasons the Catholic Church is not the true church of Christ.

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), October 21, 2004.

"How do you interpret this verse in light of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura?"

Here is a verse that Catholics do not like to see quoted for this dispels the ignorant notion of "Sola Scriptura". God says that His word is sufficient, the Catholic Church disagrees. Who are you going to believe, God or the Catholic Church. The decision is yours to make...

"16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work." (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), October 21, 2004.

Kevin,

The true church would "never" have to resort to using any type of fabricated documents for any reason at all. This is one of the many reasons the Catholic Church is not the true church of Christ.

I think you may have misunderstood my point. The Catholic Church did not resort to using fabricated documents for anything. They were fabricated by a man with his own motives. Maybe with good intentions, maybe not. The fabricated documents were used without malice along with legitimate documents to support the Church's stance in conflicts with political authorities. When their illegitimacy was determined, they were not used anymore.

If it was a member of the Church of Christ that had fabricated some documents, would that change the legitimacy of your church? Do the sins of any member of your church prove that your church is not the true Church of Christ? It is important to distinguish between the wrongs of individual members of a church and the church's doctrines.

Here is a verse that Catholics do not like to see quoted for this dispels the ignorant notion of "Sola Scriptura". God says that His word is sufficient, the Catholic Church disagrees. Who are you going to believe, God or the Catholic Church.

Actually Catholics love this verse. It is God's truth. Read in context with Paul's First Letter to Timothy (1 Tim 3:15) that the church is "the pillar and foundation [or ground] of the truth" you can see how both Scripture and the church are necessary for the truth of salvation. That verse from Paul's Second Letter to Timothy, does not say what you want it to.

What translation are you using? All the translations I've seen read that scripture is "beneficial" or "profitable", not "sufficient" or "all that one needs." These are two different ideas. I think you are reading the doctrine of Sola Scriptura into that verse. That is not what the verse says on its own.

The Catholic Church has always taught that "all scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice: That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work."

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), October 21, 2004.

Kevin,

How do you interpret Paul's words that "the pillar and foundation [or ground] of the truth" is the church if Scripture is all a Christian needs for the truth? If Scripture is "sufficient" for the truth, why is any church necessary at all?

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), October 21, 2004.

Well Kevin,

If Paul was telling us that Scripture is all we need, then He was telling us to disregard the teachings of Jesus Christ. The only Scriptures Paul knew were the Hebrew Scriptures. Therefore, any references to "the Scriptures" which appear in his writings, or in the writings of any Apostle, were necessarily references to the Scriptures they had known all their lives - what we now call the Old Testament. If Paul had said that the Scriptures are all we need to live the Christian life, then he must have meant that the Old Testament is all we need, which would mean that he considered the teachings, life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ unimportant and unnecessary.

But of course that is not what Paul was saying here. No Apostle could make such an absurd statement. Let's look at the passage in context ...

2 Timothy 3:14 ... "... continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them"

Keep in mind that Paul is writing to a bishop of the Church, Timothy, who has already received the fullness of the Christian message from Paul himself. Paul here says that Timothy already knows and is convinced of the truths of Christianity which Paul, a missionary of Christ's Church, has taught him. He didn't learn such truths from a book.

2 Timothy 3:15 ... and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus."

Paul here identifies what he means by "the Scriptures" - that which he and Timothy have known from their childhood, and which they hold "sacred" - the Hebrew Scriptures. Paul tells Timothy that the Old Testament writings can provide wisdom which can "lead to" faith in Jesus Christ - obviously a reference to the many Old Testament prophecies about the Messiah which were fulfilled in Christ Jesus. Paul is saying to Timothy, "through my teaching you know the Good News of Jesus Christ; now search the Hebrew Scriptures for confirmation that He is indeed who I claim He is - the Messiah."

2 Timothy 3:16-17 - All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

After saying that Timothy already possesses the Good News of salvation through the teaching of the Church, and recommending that Timothy go a step further and seek out Jesus in Old Testament prophecy, Paul now says that the Scriptures are also useful in a number of other ways - a fact that no Christian would deny. That after all is why the Catholic Church compiled the Bible in the first place - as a useful tool, profitable in various ways. Note that Paul does not say the Scriptures are essential, just "profitable" - or "useful", as many translations render it. He was preaching the Good News of Jesus Christ, and converting thousands, with no Scripture to back him up except Old Testament prophecy, and he could have preached the same message even if the Old Testament didn't exist. So really, the passage has nothing whatsoever to do with the manmade tradition of sola scriptura, which no Christian on earth even heard of until 1,500 years later.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 21, 2004.

Andy,

First you say, "The Catholic Church did not resort to using fabricated documents for anything."

Then you say, "The fabricated documents were used without malice along with legitimate documents to support the Church's stance in conflicts with political authorities."

So, the Catholic Church "did" use these documents. To claim they did not use them is not the truth.

You wrote, "If it was a member of the Church of Christ that had fabricated some documents, would that change the legitimacy of your church?"

Yes it would.

You wrote, "Do the sins of any member of your church prove that your church is not the true Church of Christ?"

First the Catholic Church didn't use the documents. Then you said they did use them and now you are saying it was a sin to use the documents??? Please explain.

This is why individual churches are autonomous so one man's sin would not affect the whole church.

You wrote, "It is important to distinguish between the wrongs of individual members of a church and the church's doctrines."

Church doctrine comes from the New Testament not the Church.

You wrote, "Actually Catholics love this verse. It is God's truth. Read in context with Paul's First Letter to Timothy (1 Tim 3:15) that the church is "the pillar and foundation [or ground] of the truth" you can see how both Scripture and the church are necessary for the truth of salvation. That verse from Paul's Second Letter to Timothy, does not say what you want it to."

Actually the church proclaims the truth, it does not legislate truth.

You wrote, "What translation are you using? All the translations I've seen read that scripture is "beneficial" or "profitable", not "sufficient" or "all that one needs."

I used the New King James version... it says sufficient...

You wrote, "These are two different ideas. I think you are reading the doctrine of Sola Scriptura into that verse. That is not what the verse says on its own."

That is your opinion Andy and it does not agree with what has been written in the New Testament.

You wrote, "The Catholic Church has always taught that "all scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice: That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work."

Except when it comes to disproving "Sola Scriptura" right Andy???

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), October 22, 2004.

Hi Kevin,

I probably should have highlighted or used bold to clarify what I was saying. Let me try again:

The Catholic Church did not resort to using fabricated documents for anything. They were fabricated by a man with his own motives. Maybe with good intentions, maybe not. The fabricated documents were used without malice along with legitimate documents to support the Church's stance in conflicts with political authorities. When their illegitimacy was determined, they were not used anymore.

My point was that the church's position was not solely based on these fabricated documents, thgus the Church did not resort to using them. You used the word "resort" which implied the church was forced to use the fabricated documents when no other evidence was available. I was pointing out that your notion is not correct. These false documents were used, but the Church did not have to use them to support its position. Sorry for the miscommunication.

Whether the use of the documents or the writing of the false documents was a sin, I honestly can't make that judgment. It depends on the intent of the persons using and writing them. I do know that fabrication of the docuements and attempting to pawn them off as being legit is wrong and the ramifications carry on to today.

My reference to the "sins of members" of any church was a lead-in to a bigger question. Even though Church doctrine comes from the New Testament, do the sins or wrongs of individual members of those who claim to follow those doctines mean the doctrines are wrong? This is important, because if that were true, we would be slaves to following the doctines espoused by only impeccable people. And we know the only one that fits that description is Christ Jesus, who is much more than human.

Your translation of 2 Tim 3:16 is very curious. Because the original KJV does not use "sufficient" and the ALT, ASV, DRB, ESV, HNV, LITV, MKJV, and YLT all translate the word as "profitable." Check the word in Strong's or Thayer's dictionary and you'll see it means advantageous, profitable, or serviceable, but not "sufficient."

I really think if you take away a preconceived notion that Sola Scriptura is true, then you'll better see the meaning of this verse.

You also said,

That is your opinion Andy and it does not agree with what has been written in the New Testament.

What other parts of the New Testament does my opinion about Sola Scriptura not agree with? On the contary, I think that Sola Scriptura does not agree with the rest of the New Testament such as 1 Tim 3:15. But then, I know that is just my opinion.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), October 22, 2004.

Paul,

To claim the passages you quoted only speak of the Old Testament Scriptures prove that you really don't know what you are talking about.

The Apostle Paul knew he was writing Scripture for he specifically stated in 1 Corinthians 14:37, "If anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord."

What Paul WROTE were commands of the Lord.

In John 20:29-31, The Apostle John wrote so people would have an eyewitness record of Jesus miracles and thereby could believe in Jesus and have life in His name, even though they did not personally see Him (cf. 21:24,25).

In 1 John 1:1-4; 2:1-17, The Apostle John wrote so people could have his eyewitness testimony regarding Jesus, could have fellowship with God, could know we should not sin, and could be told God's commands we should obey.

In Revelation 1:1,2,10,11,19; chap. 2 & 3, The Apostle John was instructed by Jesus to write a message from Jesus and the Spirit to instruct the churches of Asia regarding Jesus will for them. (cf. 14:13; 19:9; 21:5).

In Ephesians 3:3-5, What The Apostle Paul received by revelation from the Spirit, he wrote so others could understand what he had received.

In 1 Timothy 5:18, That which is properly called "Scripture" includes quotes from New Testament writing (Luke 10:7) right along with Old Testament writings.

In 2 Peter 3:15,16, The Apostle Peter classifies Paul's epistles right along with "other Scripture". Hence, they should be treated with the same respect as any other Scripture.

In 2 Timothy 3:14-17, All Scripture (both Old and New) is inspired by God and was given to teach and instruct men so they could know all good works. Just as Old Testament writings were given to be a guide that people must follow to please God in their day, so the New Testament serves as an inspired guide in this age.

All men and women, need to know God's will, and God desires everyone to have that opportunity. To meet this need, God inspired men to record His message in writing in the Scriptures.

To assert, "So really, the passage has nothing whatsoever to do with the manmade tradition of sola scriptura, which no Christian on earth even heard of until 1,500 years later." is not the truth according to the word of God.

By the way, there is no mention in the New Testament that Timothy was ever a bishop.

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), October 22, 2004.

Andy,

You wrote, "The Catholic Church did not resort to using fabricated documents for anything. They were fabricated by a man with his own motives. Maybe with good intentions, maybe not. The fabricated documents were used without malice along with legitimate documents to support the Church's stance in conflicts with political authorities. When their illegitimacy was determined, they were not used anymore."

Did the Catholic Church use these documents??? Yes or No??? If Yes, (and they did) it proves my point.

You wrote, "My point was that the church's position was not solely based on these fabricated documents, thgus the Church did not resort to using them."

Whether or not the Catholic Church "position was not solely based on these fabricated documents" is irrelevant. The point is they used them?

You wrote, "You used the word "resort" which implied the church was forced to use the fabricated documents when no other evidence was available."

I did not imply, nor did it come to my mind that "no other evidence was available" when I used the word "resort".

You wrote, "I was pointing out that your notion is not correct."

You were mistaken... :-)

You wrote, "These false documents were used, but the Church did not have to use them to support its position. Sorry for the miscommunication."

Again, this supports my position that the Catholic Church did indeed use false documents.

You wrote, "Whether the use of the documents or the writing of the false documents was a sin, I honestly can't make that judgment. It depends on the intent of the persons using and writing them. I do know that fabrication of the docuements and attempting to pawn them off as being legit is wrong and the ramifications carry on to today."

The Catholic Church had no problem using them...

You wrote, "My reference to the "sins of members" of any church was a lead-in to a bigger question. Even though Church doctrine comes from the New Testament, do the sins or wrongs of individual members of those who claim to follow those doctines mean the doctrines are wrong? This is important, because if that were true, we would be slaves to following the doctines espoused by only impeccable people. And we know the only one that fits that description is Christ Jesus, who is much more than human."

What does 2 John 1:9-11 say?

You wrote, "Your translation of 2 Tim 3:16 is very curious. Because the original KJV does not use "sufficient" and the ALT, ASV, DRB, ESV, HNV, LITV, MKJV, and YLT all translate the word as "profitable." Check the word in Strong's or Thayer's dictionary and you'll see it means advantageous, profitable, or serviceable, but not "sufficient."

This is what I wrote initially concerning 2 Timothy 3:16-17 from the New King James version: "16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work." (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

I was wrong when I said earlier today, "I used the New King James version... it says sufficient..."

Actually, you were the one who originally brought the word "sufficient" up when you said: "What translation are you using? All the translations I've seen read that scripture is "beneficial" or "profitable", not "sufficient" or "all that one needs."

I think you just misread what I posted... :-)

You wrote, "I really think if you take away a preconceived notion that Sola Scriptura is true, then you'll better see the meaning of this verse."

I think that if you read the Old and the New Testament without any of your Catholic influence, you will see that the will of God can be understood without an interpreter.

You wrote, "What other parts of the New Testament does my opinion about Sola Scriptura not agree with? On the contary, I think that Sola Scriptura does not agree with the rest of the New Testament such as 1 Tim 3:15. But then, I know that is just my opinion."

"Therefore do not be unwise, but understand what the will of the Lord is". (Ephesians 5:17).

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), October 22, 2004.

Hi Kevin,

You said,

Actually, you were the one who originally brought the word "sufficient" up when you said: "What translation are you using? All the translations I've seen read that scripture is "beneficial" or "profitable", not "sufficient" or "all that one needs."

But you were the one who said sufficent in your post when you first brought up 2 Tim 3:16 when you said:

Here is a verse that Catholics do not like to see quoted for this dispels the ignorant notion of "Sola Scriptura". God says that His word is sufficient, the Catholic Church disagrees. Who are you going to believe, God or the Catholic Church. The decision is yours to make...

I was merely replying to your first post regarding your interpretation of 2 Tim 3:16.

I will reply to your other questions when I get a little more time.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), October 22, 2004.

Kevin,

Everything I know about the False Decretals can be found here. You are welcome to check it out and see if I am misrepresenting them.

Did the Catholic Church use these documents??? Yes or No??? If Yes, (and they did) it proves my point.

Whether or not the Catholic Church "position was not solely based on these fabricated documents" is irrelevant. The point is they used them?

Yes, a man, most likely a Roman Catholic created the documents known as the False Decretals. They were also used by some Churchmen (including at least one pope) who had been duped as to their authenticity. However, this does not prove your point that the Catholic Church cannot be the true Church of Christ. Again, you are confusing the truth of the teachings of a Church with the wrongful acts of its members. No members of a church are without fault. Faults of the members of a church do not mean that the church itself does not contain the truth. If a member of your church committed wrong, should I then say your church is entirely wrong? If so, then you are saying the truth only lies in a church without sinners. And all of us sin.

I did not imply, nor did it come to my mind that "no other evidence was available" when I used the word "resort".

Sorry for misunderstanding you.

The Catholic Church had no problem using them...

Ah, but the Catholic Church did have a problem using them once church members realized they were forgeries.

What does 2 John 1:9-11 say?

It says that those who do not continue in the doctrine of Christ do not have God. OK. I was referring to wrongful acts and sins of Church members. Are you saying that no one in the true Church of Christ will fall? What about 1 John 1:8-9? These all refer to individual members of a church. 2 John 1:9-11 does not say that Christ's church on earth only contains perfect sinless people. I'm not sure what you're getting at. Would you clarify a bit?

I think that if you read the Old and the New Testament without any of your Catholic influence, you will see that the will of God can be understood without an interpreter.

I agree to a certain extent. But we are infallible human beings who can interpret the Word of God to see what we want to in it. You think I'm doing it, and I think you're doing it, and a third party would see that we're both doing it. I've argued with Christians who use the Word of God to support abortion on demand. Shouldn't the church (and we can argue till the cows come home as to which one) be the final arbiter of whether church members are abiding by true doctrine or not? Would you allow someone with the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses to remain a member in good standing of your church and to claim that he is really a member of your church just because he uses Scripture alone to support his beliefs? 2 John 1 9- 11 seems appropriate in this regard.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), October 22, 2004.

Correction time:

...but we are infallible human beings... should instead read

...but we are fallible human beings...

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), October 22, 2004.

Andy,

You seem to want to focus on "words" such as "profitable" or "sufficient" just like earlier you tried to jump on my use of the word "resort". Okay, so I didn't use the exact word "profitable" when I said "His word is sufficient". You were right, I did first use that word... and what I posted still stands true whether you use the word "profitable" or "sufficient" it still means the same thing. If the "man of God is complete and thoroughly equipped for every good work" please explain what else is needed???

You wrote, "Yes, a man, most likely a Roman Catholic created the documents known as the False Decretals. They were also used by some Churchmen (including at least one pope) who had been duped as to their authenticity."

The Catholic Church did in fact use these documents... case closed...

You wrote, "However, this does not prove your point that the Catholic Church cannot be the true Church of Christ."

Really??? If a pope (who is head of the Church) used them (false documents) then this Church indeed cannot be true.

You wrote, "Again, you are confusing the truth of the teachings of a Church with the wrongful acts of its members."

The Pope is the head of the Catholic Church... He used the documents and thereby taught false doctrine... Can the true church of Christ teach false doctrine and still abide in the doctrine of Christ??? Certainly not...

You wrote, "No members of a church are without fault. Faults of the members of a church do not mean that the church itself does not contain the truth."

If one man (the pope) teaches false doctrine, then the whole church will teach and belive false doctrine thereby causing many people to sin and be lost. This is why God created autonomous churches so this would not happen to the entire body of Christ if one individual caused this church to fall into apostasy.

You wrote, "If a member of your church committed wrong, should I then say your church is entirely wrong? If so, then you are saying the truth only lies in a church without sinners. And all of us sin."

There is a way that members (if they commit wrong) can be judged by the church. (see Matthew 18:15-17).

You wrote, "Ah, but the Catholic Church did have a problem using them once church members realized they were forgeries."

How long did that take??? Was the pope excommunicated for it??? If not why not???

God speaks specifically of those who enter the church in Revelation 21:27, "But there shall by no means enter it anything that defiles, or causes an abomination or a lie, but only those who are written in the Lamb's Book of Life."

The true church of Christ would never teach a lie... and still remain the true church... What did Jesus tell the churches in Asia???

You wrote, "It says that those who do not continue in the doctrine of Christ do not have God. OK. I was referring to wrongful acts and sins of Church members. Are you saying that no one in the true Church of Christ will fall?"

No, I didn't say that "no one in the true Church of Christ will fall"...

You wrote, "What about 1 John 1:8-9? These all refer to individual members of a church."

Exactly... does the Pope ever sin???

You wrote, "2 John 1:9-11 does not say that Christ's church on earth only contains perfect sinless people. I'm not sure what you're getting at. Would you clarify a bit?"

If a church does not "abide in the doctrine of Christ" as this verse teaches, then they do not have God. The Catholic Church taught and used forgeries in their doctrines they developed and they did not have God. This verse doesn't talk about "sinless people" it talks about those who go outside of the doctrine of Christ and this doctrine is revealed to us in the New Testament...

You wrote, "I agree to a certain extent. But we are infallible human beings who can interpret the Word of God to see what we want to in it."

That's right and God knows this that is why we are to "seek" and "find" and God will reveal His will to us... If we abide in His doctrine as it has been delivered to us...

More later...

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), October 23, 2004.

"Shouldn't the church (and we can argue till the cows come home as to which one) be the final arbiter of whether church members are abiding by true doctrine or not?"

Yes, the people of the "church" are the ones who are the final arbiter not some institution. The church is the "people" and this is why they are to do as God commands in 2 Timothy 2:15, "Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."

"Would you allow someone with the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses to remain a member in good standing of your church and to claim that he is really a member of your church just because he uses Scripture alone to support his beliefs? 2 John 1 9- 11 seems appropriate in this regard."

Not at all... What does Matthew 18:15-17 say??? Does this apply to the Pope???

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), October 23, 2004.

This debate, (if it proves nothing else,) shows that faith is indeed a gift. As one said that you can argue until the cows come home, but to no avail.

Our Lord said " Shake the dust from that place, and move on". Both sides will know the truth after his eyes closes in final sleep. It will be too late for that wrong side.

-- Dooley (Highgear10@aol.com), October 23, 2004.

Good point Dooley and good advice. I'm starting to repeat myself.

Maybe it's time for our "closing arguments" Kevin.

I'll reply once more and let you finish. If someone else wants to take up the discussion, they're welcome to.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), October 23, 2004.

You seem to want to focus on "words" such as "profitable" or "sufficient" just like earlier you tried to jump on my use of the word "resort". Okay, so I didn't use the exact word "profitable" when I said "His word is sufficient". You were right, I did first use that word... and what I posted still stands true whether you use the word "profitable" or "sufficient" it still means the same thing. If the "man of God is complete and thoroughly equipped for every good work" please explain what else is needed???

But Kevin, using the word “sufficient” changes the meaning of the passage. “Sufficient” does not mean the same thing as “profitable” or any of the other words that may be used to translate the passage to English. “Sufficient” means “being as much as is needed.” “Profitable” means “yielding profit, or advantageous.” This is why I thought you read your doctrine into the passage. What else is needed? Well, getting back to 1 Tim 3:15, the church is needed.

Really??? If a pope (who is head of the Church) used them (false documents) then this Church indeed cannot be true.

Popes are not impeccable or perfect. The idea that Christ protects the Church from false doctrine basically means that the Holy Spirit prevents the pope, in his capacity as chief shepherd of the Church, from solemnly and formally teaching as "truth" something that is, in fact, error. This is in terms of faith and morals. Is there a particular doctrine of faith and morals of the Catholic Church that, without the False Decretals, could not stand on legitimate sources?

The Pope is the head of the Catholic Church... He used the documents and thereby taught false doctrine... Can the true church of Christ teach false doctrine and still abide in the doctrine of Christ??? Certainly not...

I TOTALLY agree that “the true church of Christ” cannot “teach false doctrine and still abide in the doctrine of Christ.” Amen to that! A pope used the False Decretals but did not teach false doctrine because of them. Maybe you can start a new thread where you point out to me exactly what doctrine of the Catholic Church is based solely on the False Decretals. I’d be happy to discuss this in a new thread and invite commentary from everyone. This might be a good discussion.

If one man (the pope) teaches false doctrine, then the whole church will teach and believe false doctrine thereby causing many people to sin and be lost. This is why God created autonomous churches so this would not happen to the entire body of Christ if one individual caused this church to fall into apostasy.

You are absolutely right Kevin. That’s why the Spirit protects the Church from this. That is the gift of papal and Magesterial infallibility. That’s why ecumenical councils are infallible. The other side of the coin is that each autonomous church may fall into apostasy, may not have the full truth, may be blown about by the winds of false doctrine and could be lead by the world rather than Christ. A defeated nation’s king might split his troops up into smaller armies, each driven with a different strategy in the hopes that some of them would be effective and that others would escape to fight another day. But this would leave his troops and his nation at the mercy of the enemy. Wouldn’t Christ act more like the king of a great army, keeping his troops united so that they could be effective against the enemy and better protect his people?

There is a way that members (if they commit wrong) can be judged by the church. (see Matthew 18:15-17).

Agreed. We should all heed these words of Christ’s.

How long did that take??? Was the pope excommunicated for it??? If not why not???

As I said, the pope didn’t intentionally use forged documents and there were legitimate documents that were used for his case against political powers. It’s like writing a paper and finding one of your references is a fake. If your conclusions were based on other legitimate sources that wouldn’t necessarily mean your conclusions are false. It also shouldn’t be held against you when grading time comes, especially if other professionals in the field were likewise duped.

The true church of Christ would never teach a lie... and still remain the true church... What did Jesus tell the churches in Asia???

Right. But you still fail to see that it was members of the church who were duped by another member. They didn’t intentionally use false documents. The only liar is pseudo-Isidore who actually wrote the False Decretals and pawned them off as real. Who knows what place he had in the church. Would you call President Bush a liar because he had bad information about Saddam’s WMD?

No, I didn't say that "no one in the true Church of Christ will fall"...

OK.

Exactly... does the Pope ever sin???

Yes, in fact the pope goes to confession daily.

If a church does not "abide in the doctrine of Christ" as this verse teaches, then they do not have God. The Catholic Church taught and used forgeries in their doctrines they developed and they did not have God. This verse doesn't talk about "sinless people" it talks about those who go outside of the doctrine of Christ and this doctrine is revealed to us in the New Testament...

I agree with your interpretation of 2 John 1:9-11. But as I stated above, the False Decretals do not equate to false doctrines.

That's right and God knows this that is why we are to "seek" and "find" and God will reveal His will to us... If we abide in His doctrine as it has been delivered to us...

I agree Kevin, but the question is which doctrines of Scripture, as interpreted by whom? Shouldn’t the church be the “foundation of truth” that corrects us if we are reading into Scripture our own fallible ideas in order to justify what we have already decided?

Yes, the people of the "church" are the ones who are the final arbiter not some institution.

An “institution” still consists of people, but the church is much more than that.

The church is the "people" and this is why they are to do as God commands in 2 Timothy 2:15, "Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."

This is good. But the church is much more than the people, it is Christ’s Body and Christ’s Bride. It is greater than the sum of its parts. That is why Catholics say the Church is holy even though it consists of both saints and sinners.

Not at all... What does Matthew 18:15-17 say??? Does this apply to the Pope???

Yes it does. In fact, there are many people who advise the pope. And the pope is part of the church mentioned in this verse. The pope also acts in the office of chief shepherd to protect the flock. This is where the Holy Spirit comes in to protect the Church. The pope is an integral part of the church, in this respect.

Well, that’s my reply. Looking forward to yours. As I said, I’ll let you have the last word on this.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), October 23, 2004.

I believe that *salvation* is the gift--not faith.

The Bible says that it is by faith that we are *saved*--and that this is a gift. I believe that the *this* is in reference to the salvation- -not the faith.

Romans 6:23

For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Romans :16-17

Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. 17For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.

Ephesians 6:8-10

For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God-- not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.

Clearly the biblical message is that salvation is the gift--Jesus Christ is the gift of God....

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 23, 2004.

All good comes from God and is a gift because we deserve none of it.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), October 23, 2004.

That's a nice thought Andy--

But I am actually pointing to a specific verse where people think the verse is saying that faith is a gift from God--when actually the verse means that salvation is the gift. I posted other Scripture verses to show the biblical message of salvation being a gift-- something we cannot earn.

Ephesians 6:8-10

For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God-- not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.

Romans 4:4-8

Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness.

David says the same thing when he speaks of the blessedness of the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works: “Blessed are they whose transgressions are forgiven, whose sins are covered.

Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord will never count against him."

-- (:faith01@myway.com"), October 23, 2004.

Gotcha Faith. I just thought it appropriate to point out that faith (and anything that is good) is a gift from God too.

I didn't intend to start a discussion on the meaning of that particular verse. Thanks for the clarification.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), October 24, 2004.