Hey Everyone,

For the sake of repeating answers and the long posts - I have decided [as to Gail's request] to draw all my answers from the different posts to this one post. Hopefully to narrow things down a bit. I will try to bring over all the main points. If I miss some, please bring them to my attention. I am taking my time, and hope I answer everyone. This post is long, so please take your time to read it, and hopefully understand what I am trying to say.

------------

1] The churches and The Church

-- Apparently it seems that I have been confusing in my post concerning the church and Church. I do believe that Christ has set up churches and a Church. What do I mean? Let's see...

First of all, I do not consider the Catholic Church to be THE CHURCH, but could be consider a church.

According to Strong's a church is an assembly of Christians gathered for worship in a religious meeting.

As I stated, and Gail mentioned, "According to what I have read [Exploring Church History], it appears that Catholicism was really started in Rome in 590, by Gregory I's appointment as bishop of Rome [yet he refused to use the name of pope]."

With this statement, I am showing that the religion Catholicism was not established till 590, but that churches did exist before then; for they existed in the New Testament.

[unto the churches of Judaea which were in Christ, Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, unto the churches of Galatia, unto the church of the Thessalonians, etc. AND Revelation mentions more than one church, the Spirit saith unto the churches] - KJV

And Christ established the churches to have a certain leadership:

Ephesians 4:11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

I do not see where Christ established one church to be over all the other churches, nor do I conclude that in the one verse of Peter, that Christ is claiming him to be a pope. If this were so, then why not have Jesus as the first pope?

With the leadership, what was Christ going to use them for?

Ephesians 4:12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

- a] to perfect the saints

- b] to edify the body of Christ [the Believers which are in the body of Christ]

The body of Christ has nothing to do with the Catholic Church or the religion, but with the saved individuals that may attend a Catholic Church [or any other church for that matter].

The church was made to keep order, I understand that side of Catholicism. It is true that it has tried to control its beliefs [although creating some new ones], but so has most of the different denomonations also. Baptists, Mormons, Jehovah Witness, etc. True THEY ARE NOT ALL RIGHT, but they do have a set of beliefs which they follow, as do the Catholics. They are just different. And yes, this is what makes us all agree that the other one is wrong... lol!

Now, THE CHURCH, is the body of Believers which are in the body of Christ through salvation. I will try not to beat the dead horse of [works with faith and faith alone] too much here, but it must be looked at.

1 Corinthians 12 talks about every Believer being different, but being of "the same Spirit, the same Lord, the same God, the body of Christ, and members in particular."

Verse 27 says, "Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular." - that means EVERY BORN AGAIN BELIEVER. How do I know, because of how we get into the body of Christ. How do we get into the body of Christ? By joining the Catholic Church or any other church? No.

Although "there are diversities of operations" [vs. 6] God works in all of us, with "the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit" [vs. 7]; And "all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will" [vs. 11].

1 Corinthians 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

True, "there should be no schism in the body" [vs. 25], but there is - and that is why we have the leadership in the churches.

When Christ taught the Apostles, he taught the exactly THE WORDS OF GOD 100% TRUE. But, man in his wisdom has taken and added to those words, since they left Christ's mouth. They were corrupting the Word of God then, and still do so today. And that is how doctrine has divided itself into the so called "famous" 30,000 whatevers!

But, cheer up! [Of course, you believe you hold the truth] There is coming a time when all Believers WILL KNOW 100% THE WORD OF GOD!

Let's go back to Ephesians 4, verse 13 this time:

Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

Well, when shall we be have this? [I don't mean as Catholics and Protestants, but as Believers, Christians]

1 John 3:2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.

------------

2] Salvation

Now, to be in THE CHURCH, the body of Christ, one MUST BE SAVED! You can attend a Catholic or Protestant church and be on your way to Hell, but you CAN NOT be in the CHURCH OF CHRIST on your way to Hell!

What must I do to be saved? Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved... [Acts 16:30-31]

What about baptisim? Is it a "like figure", does it save us, or does it work with faith to save us?

John 1:33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.

So, is it the baptisim of water [done by man] or the Holy Ghost [done by Christ] which saves us?

Ephesians 1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,

We are SEALED by the HOLY SPIRIT of promise until when?

Ephesians 1:14 Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.

Ephesians 4:30 And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.

We are sealed until THE DAY OF REDEMPTION - that means WE CANNOT GET UNSEALED, or we make GOD A LIAR! See, the Holy Spirit of promise seals us, so we are not sealed by our merit, and since God CANNOT break a promise, we CANNOT unseal ourselves by our merit.

We can grieve the Holy Spirit, but that isn't unsealing ourselves.

This is how we are baptized by the Holy Spirit into the Body of Christ [1 Corinthians 12:12-13]...

Eph 5:30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.

Don't try to say this verse only applys to the Catholic Church, that would be contrary to other Scripture.

Try reading Colossians 2, and see what is said about our security by Christ and in Christ.

We CANNOT LOSE salvation or GIVE IT UP. You can't show me a verse that claims it is a sin to KNOW YOU ARE SAVED AND ON YOUR WAY TO HEAVEN!

1 John 5:13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that [ye may know that ye have eternal life], and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.

So, how can we "GET OUT" or LOSE salvation if we are IN the "flesh" and "bones" of Christ, and we are HELD BY THE POWER OF GOD - not by ourselves?

1 Peter 1:5 Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.

And if you COULD lose your salvation, YOU COULD NOT GET IT BACK - NO SECOND CHANCES!

Heb 6:4-6 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

------------

3] Election

It has been said that God calls everyone to salvation. Is this true?

Romans 3:11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.

Romans 8:30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

By this verse, if we say that everyone is called by God = then we must also say that all are justified and glorified. That would be A LIE!

In the eyes of God, when was Christ slain?

1 Peter 1:19-20 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: Who verily was [foreordained before the foundation of the world], but was manifest in these last times for you,

Revelation 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the [Lamb slain from the foundation of the world].

Since we don't seek after God, he sent Christ to seek for us.

Luke 19:10 For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost.

So, do we choose Christ, even though we do not seek Him? How can we choose something that we do not seek after?

Ephesians 1:4-6 According as [he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world], that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.

By this we see that we were chosen BY HIM before the foundation fo the world - Why?

He PREDESTINATED us according to HIS WILL, for HIS PRAISE!

And we saw in Romans 8:30, the ones that he predestinates, he calls, justifies, and glorifies.

You can't look at it as God rejecting man - BUT MAN HAS REJECTED GOD since Adam. All are on the way to Hell. It is the GRACE OF GOD, that He pulls some out. Yes some.

Still believe that all are called by God to salvation? Then explain to me these verses:

Isaiah 44:18 They have not known nor understood: for he hath shut their eyes, that they cannot see; and their hearts, that they cannot understand.

Mr 4:10-12 And when he was alone, they that were about him with the twelve asked of him the parable. And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables: That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.

What do you mean "lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them"?

What do you have to say about these verses? It is clear!

------------

4] Scripture

As for Scripture as my foundation...

Matthew 21:42 [Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures], The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?

But, I have been told that Scripture was not meant to be read or written, but oral???

Matthew 22:29 [Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures], nor the power of God.

Luke 24:27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, [he expounded unto them in all the scriptures] the things concerning himself.

Luke 24:32 And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and [while he opened to us the scriptures]?

John 5:39 [Search the scriptures]; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

John 10:35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and [the scripture cannot be broken];

This is not all, but you can see God puts a great deal of importance in Scripture. Do you believe the Scripture to be the Word of God?

Ps 138:2 I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for [thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name].

I believe this put Scripture over the church and tradition!

With this - I do not believe that everyone that carries a Bible and quotes Scripture can be a Pastor. The Holy Spirit is supposed to lead us into all Truth. Now, this seperates the church from THE CHURCH. EVERYONE IN THE CHURCH [body of Christ] has the Holy Spirit. But we can quench Him [1 Thessalonians 5:19 Quench not the Spirit], and that is when WE ERR from the Truth.

1 Thessalonians 1:5 For [our gospel came not unto you in word only], [but also in power, and in the Holy Ghost], and in much assurance; as ye know what manner of men we were among you for your sake.

You must be a memeber of the CHURCH [to have the Holy Spirit], but being a member of the Catholic church or any other church DOES NOT MEAN YOU HAVE THE HOLY SPIRIT! You might and you might not! If you are saved, you do - if you are lost, you don't!

The only way that someone can tell if someone is telling the truth or lying when it comes to Scripture, is if they do 2 things.

1] Stay close to God

2] Study the Scripture

If you do these two things [and are saved] the Holy Spirit can and will lead you. The only time that someone will come up with the wrong interpretation of Scripture is [1] they just agree with the speaker {church, preacher, teacher}, or they denie what the Holy Spirit shows them to be the Truth.

This is why we have 30,000 whatevers!

------------

I hope that this has answered the post given to me. I know, for sure, it has created MORE debates. I just needed to "narrow" [I know that this post is VERY long, but it deals with a lot] down the 3 or 4 post to one. I know some may not read through it all, please do not just take 1 statement out of the entire post, and run a large debate over it. Thanks! Again, I hope I have covered everything in the other post, if not mention it.

----------------------

P.S. Since it has been brought to my attention [by more than one] the page on my website entitled "The 62 Primary Errors of Roman Catholicism" has upset many, if not all here, I have decided to offer this chance to debate it. NOT HERE, please! What I mean is, if someone will take the 62 points [or numbers] and just put the Catholic side or version, I might post it as a debate to the page already on my site. Please don't give a long debate, but just list the number and put the Catholic teachings under it. If a lot reply, I will have to take the best one, by letting you here vote. Please email your debate to me at tlw97@cox.net. I think that would be fair.

----------------------

Thanks and God Bless!

-- Tim (tlw97@cox.net), December 13, 2002

Answers

Take a breath before you reply... :)

-- Tim (tlw97@cox.net), December 13, 2002.

Hey Tim!

I tried to respond earlier and got the "server too busy" message - so I'm gonna give it another shot!

Just wanted to comment on one thing you wrote:

True, "there should be no schism in the body" [vs. 25], but there is - and that is why we have the leadership in the churches.

The problem I have with that is that it's very similar to the arguments made in favor of letting kids use condoms: "True, having sex at your age is bad, but you're gonna do it anyway, so here's a condom."

If something is wrong, it's wrong, and it's not a good idea to accommodate it. How many more denominations and sub-denominations and sub-sub-denominations can the Body of Christ handle? If nothing else, we're gonna need our own Yellow Pages before long!! ;-)

Hoping this gets through this time - and that you have a blessed weekend!

-- Christine L. :-) (christine_lehman@hotmail.com), December 13, 2002.

Sorry Christine,

What I meant by that was, that the leadership should be grounded in the Truth enough to keep the memebers of the church out of error. But this is poorly done now days, because it requires the leader [pastor or teacher] to study A LOT to be "instant in season and out of season" for any question that someone might bring to their attention.

I agree if something is wrong, we should not accommodate it. That is why we have so many denomonations. Baptist don't agree with Catholics and Catholics don't agree with Baptist - that is why there is two instead of one. TRUE we should all believe the same thing - but man has messed that all up by his own wisdom - and that brings us full circle back to why Catholics believe they are right, Baptist believe they are right, and etc...

Thanks, and have a nice weekend yourself...

-- Tim (tlw97@cox.net), December 13, 2002.

Also, notice that it is "schism in the body". That is the body of Christ. Not listening to the Holy Spirit and trusting ones own wisdom has caused this.

That is why we will see when we get to heaven, there will not only be Catholics or just Baptists there! :)

You'll even have to see me there! lol!

-- Tim (tlw97@cox.net), December 13, 2002.

Hi Tim, if there were numerous churches prior to 590 that functioned separately and independently as your 'authority' suggests, then who had the authority to hold the councils of Hippo and Carthage in the late 300's that determined what books of the New Testament would be read in the churches as canonical? Surely, you are not saying that these were independent, nondemoninational Protestant churches that came together in the 300's to establish the canon.

Read the writings of the Church Fathers for themselves. IT COMPLETELY BAFFLES ME that you refuse to read their writings for yourself, but instead put so much faith in some modern day historian. THE CHURCH WAS ONE BODY!!! Read Augustine. Read St. Jerome. Read Clement and Ignatius. They were united WELL BEFORE 590. Did they disagree at times? Sure they did. When they came to disagreements they refer "to the seat of Rome" in determining the final outcome of their disagreements.

Interestingly, I called CRI's Hank Hanengraf and his guest Paul Meyer, who is a church historian AND the head of the Missouri Lutheran Synod, and asked "When did the early church become Catholic?" You know what, Tim, they DID NOT KNOW, and they admitted such!

Love,

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), December 13, 2002.

"Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self- pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere." Irenaeus,Against Heresies,3:3:2 (A.D. 180),in ANF,I:1415-416

"A question of no small importance arose at that time. For the parishes of all Asia, as from an older tradition, held that the fourteenth day of the moon, on which day the Jews were commanded to sacrifice the lamb, should be observed as the feast of the Saviour's passover. It was therefore necessary to end their fast on that day, whatever day of the week it should happen to be. But it was not the custom of the churches in the rest of the world to end it at this time, as they observed the practice which, from apostolic tradition, has prevailed to the present time, of terminating the fast on no other day than on that of the resurrection of our Saviour...Thereupon Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the common unity the parishes of all Asia, with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox; and he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicate.But this did not please all the bishops. And they besought him to consider the things of peace, and of neighborly unity and love. Words of theirs are extant, sharply rebuking Victor. Among them was Irenaeus, who, sending letters in the name of the brethren in Gaul over whom he presided, maintained that the mystery of the resurrection of the Lord should be observed only on the Lord's day. He fittingly admonishes Victor that he should not cut off whole churches of God which observed the tradition of an ancient custom ..." Pope Victor & Easter(c.A.D. 195),Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History 5:23,24,in NPNF2,I:241-243

"And he says to him again after the resurrection, 'Feed my sheep.' It is on him that he builds the Church, and to him that he entrusts the sheep to feed. And although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, thus establishing by his own authority the source and hallmark of the (Church's) oneness. No doubt the others were all that Peter was, but a primacy is given to Peter, and it is (thus) made clear that there is but one flock which is to be fed by all the apostles in common accord. If a man does not hold fast to this oneness of Peter, does he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church? This unity firmly should we hold and maintain, especially we bishops, presiding in the Church, in order that we may approve the episcopate itself to be the one and undivided." Cyprian,The Unity of the Church,4-5 (Primacy Text,A.D. 251/256),NE,228-229

"After such things as these, moreover, they still dare--a false bishop having been appointed for them by, heretics--to set sail and to bear letters from schismatic and profane persons to the throne of Peter, and to the chief church whence priestly unity takes its source; and not to consider that these were the Romans whose faith was praised in the preaching of the apostle, to whom faithlessness could have no access." Cyprian,To Cornelius,Epistle 54/59:14(A.D. 252),in ANF,V:344

"For Dionysius, Bishop of Rome, having written also against those who said that the Son of God was a creature and a created thing, it is manifest that not now for the first time but from of old the heresy of the Arian adversaries of Christ has been anathematised by all. And Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria, making his defence concerning the letter he had written, appears in his turn as neither thinking as they allege, nor having held the Arian error at all." Athanasius,Dionysius of Rome,13 (A.D. 352),in NPNF2,IV:180

"Supposing, as you assert, that some offence rested upon those persons, the case ought to have been conducted against them, not after this manner, but according to the Canon of the Church. Word should have been written of it to us all , that so a just sentence might prceed from all. For the sufferers were Bishops, and Churches of no ordinary note, but those which the Apostles themselves had governed in their own persons. And why was nothing said to us concerning the Church of the Alexandrians in particular? Are you ignorant that the custom has been for word to be written first to us, and then for a just decision to be passed from this place? If then any such suspicion rested upon the Bishop there, notice thereof ought to have been sent to the Church of this place; whereas, after neglecting to inform us, and proceeding on their own authority as they pleased, now they desire to obtain our concurrence in their decisions, though we never condemned him. Not so have the constitutions of Paul, not so have the traditions of the Fathers directed; this is another form of procedure, a novel practice. I beseech you, readily bear with me: what I write is for the common good. For what we have received from the blessed Apostle Peter, that I signify to you; and I should not have written this, as deeming that these things were manifest unto all men, had not these proceedings so disturbed us." Athanasius,Pope Julius to the Eusebians,Defense Against the Arians, 35 (A.D. 347),in NPNF2,IV:118

Athanasius attended and sanctioned the deliberations of the Council of Sardica and referred to the Council of Sardica as "the great Council" (Defense Against the Arians 1) or "the Holy Synod" (Letter to the People of Antioch 5)

"Bishop Hosius said: This also it is necessary to add, that no bishop pass from his own province to another province in which there are bishops, unless indeed he be called by his brethren, that we seem not to close the gates of charity. And this case likewise is to be provided for, that if in any province a bishop has some matter against his brother and fellow-bishop, neither of the two should call in as arbiters bishops from another province. But if perchance sentence be given against a bishop in any matter and he supposes his case to be not unsound but good, in order that the question may be reopened, let us, if it seem good to your charity, honour the memory of Peter the Apostle, and let those who gave judgment write to Julius, the bishop of Rome, so that, if necessary, the case may be retried by the bishops of the neighbouring provinces and let him appoint arbiters; but if it cannot be shown that his case is of such a sort as to need a new trial, let the judgment once given not be annulled, but stand good as before." Council of Sardica,Canon III (A.D. 343/344),in NPNF2,XIV:416-417

"Bishop Gaudentius said: If it seems good to you, it is necessary to add to this decision full of sincere charity which thou hast pronounced, that if any bishop be deposed by the sentence of these neighbouring bishops, and assert that he has fresh matter in defence, a new bishop be not settled in his see, unless the bishop of Rome judge and render a decision as to this." Council of Sardica,Canon IV (A.D. 343/344),in NPNF2,XIV:418

"Bishop Hosius said: Decreed, that if any bishop is accused, and the bishops of the same region assemble and depose him from his office, and he appealing, so to speak, takes refuge with the most blessed bishop of the Roman church, and he be willing to give him a hearing, and think it right to renew the examination of his case, let him be pleased to write to those fellow-bishops who are nearest the province that they may examine the particulars with care and accuracy and give their votes on the matter in accordance with the word of truth. And if any one require that his case be heard yet again, and at his request it seem good to move the bishop of Rome to send presbyters a latere, let it be in the power of that bishop, according as he judges it to be good and decides it to be right that some be sent to be judges with the bishops and invested with his authority by whom they were sent. And be this also ordained. But if he think that the bishops are sufficient for the examination and decision of the matter let him do what shall seem good in his most prudent judgment. The bishops answered: What has been said is approved." Council of Sardica,Canon V (A.D. 343/344),in NPNF2,XIV:419

"What we have always believed, that we now know, for experience is proving and confirming for each of us what he has heard with his ears. It is true what the Apostle Paul, the most blessed teacher of the Gentiles, said of himself: 'Do ye seek a proof of him who speaks in me?' For, since the Lord Christ dwelt in him, there can be no doubt that the Spirit spoke by through his soul and animated the instrument of his body. And thus you, dearly beloved brother, though distant in body, have been with us in unison of mind and will. The reason for your absence was both honorable and imperative, that the schismatic wolves might not rob and plunder by stealth nor the heretical dogs bark madly in the rapid fury nor the very serpent, the devil, discharge his blasphemous venom. So it seems to us right and altogether fitting that priests of the Lord from each and every province should report to their head, that is, to the See of Peter, the Apostle." Council of Sardica,To Pope Julius (A.D. 342),as cited by James T. Shotwell and Louise Ropes Loomis The See of Peter (New York:Columbia,1927),pp.527-528.

"You cannot deny that you know that in the city of Rome the Chair was first conferred on Peter, in which the prince of all the Apostles, Peter,sat ... in which Chair unity should be preserved by all, so that he should now be a schismatic and a sinner who should set up another Chair against that unique one." Optatus of Mileve,The Schism of Donatists,2:2-3 (c.A.D. 367),in GCC,55

"For the good of unity Blessed Peter deserved to be preferred before the rest, and alone received the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, that he might communicate them to the rest." Optatus of Mileve,The Schism of Donatists,7:3 (c.A.D. 367),in GCC,50

"Yet, at the very outset, error was so far set right by the bishops on whom the attempt was made at Ariminum to compel them to manipulate or innovate on the faith, that they confessed themselves seduced by opposite arguments, or owned that they had not perceived any contradiction to the opinion of the Fathers livered at Nicaea. No prejudice could arise from the number of bishops gathered at Ariminum, since it is well known that neither the bishop of the Romans, whose opinion ought before all others to have been waited for, nor Vincentius, whose stainless episcopate had lasted so many years, nor the rest, gave in their adhesion to such doctrines. And this is the more significant, since, as has been already said, the very men who seemed to be tricked into surrender, themselves, in their wiser moments, testified their disapproval." Pope Damasus[regn. A.D. 366-384],About Council at Arminum,Epistle 1 (A.D. 371),in Theodoret's Church History,in NPNF2,III:83

"Since the East, shattered as it is by the long-standing feuds, subsisting between its peoples, is bit by bit tearing into shreds the seamless vest of the Lord, woven from the top throughout,' since the foxes are destroying the vineyard of Christ, and since among the broken cisterns that hold no water it is hard to discover the sealed fountain' and the garden inclosed,' I think it my duty to consult the chair of Peter, and to turn to a church whose faith has been praised by Paul. I appeal for spiritual food to the church whence I have received the garb of Christ. The wide space of sea and land that lies between us cannot deter me from searching for the pearl of great price.' Wheresoever the body is, there will the eagles be gathered together.' Evil children have squandered their patrimony; you alone keep your heritage intact. The fruitful soil of Rome, when it receives the pure seed of the Lord, bears fruit an hundredfold; but here the seed corn is choked in the furrows and nothing grows but darnel or oats. In the West the Sun of righteousness is even now rising; in the East, Lucifer, who fell from heaven, has once more set his throne above the stars. Ye are the light of the world,' ye are the salt of the earth,' ye are "vessels of gold and of silver." Here are vessels of wood or of earth, which wait for the rod of iron,and eternal fire. Yet, though your greatness terrifies me, your kindness attracts me. From the priest I demand the safe-keeping of the victim, from the shepherd the protection due to the sheep. Away with all that is overweening; let the state of Roman majesty withdraw. My words are spoken to the successor of the fisherman, to the disciple of the cross. As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the church is built! This is the house where alone the paschal lamb can be rightly eaten. This is the ark of Noah, and he who is not found in it shall perish when the flood prevails. But since by reason of my sins I have betaken myself to this desert which lies between Syria and the uncivilized waste, I cannot, owing to the great distance between us, always ask of your sanctity the holy thing of the Lord. Consequently I here follow the Egyptian confessors who share your faith, and anchor my frail craft under the shadow of their great argosies. I know nothing of Vitalis; I reject Meletius; I have nothing to do with Paulinus. He that gathers not with you scatters; he that is not of Christ is of Antichrist." Jerome,To Pope Damasus,Epistle 15:1-2(A.D. 375),in NPNF2,VI:18

"But he was not so eager as to lay aside caution. He called the bishop to him, and esteeming that there can be no true thankfulness except it spring from true faith, he enquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is, with the Roman Church?" Ambrose,The death of his brother Satyrus,1:47(A.D. 378),in NPNF2,X:168

"Your grace must be besought not to permit any disturbance of the Roman Church, the head of the whole Roman World and of the most holy faith of the Apostles, for from thence flow out to all(churches) the bonds of sacred communion." Ambrose,To Emperor Gratian,Epistle 11:4(A.D. 381),in SPP,160

"To your inquiry we do not deny a legal reply, because we, upon whom greater zeal for the Christian religion is incumbent than upom the whole body, out of consideration for our office do not have the liberty to dissimulate, nor to remain silent. We carry the weight of all who are burdened; nay rather the blessed apostle Peter bears these in us, who, as we trust, protects us in all matters of his administration, and guards his heirs." Pope Sircius[regn. A.D. 384-399],To Himerius,Epistle 1(A.D. 385),in DEN,36-37

"Or rather, if we hear him here, we shall certainly see him hereafter, if not as standing near him, yet see him we certainly shall, glistening near the Throne of the king. Where the Cherubim sing the glory, where the Seraphim are flying, there shall we see Paul, with Peter, and as a chief and leader of the choir of the Saints, and shall enjoy his generous love. For if when here he loved men so, that when he had the choice of departing and being with Christ, he chose to be here, much more will he there display a warmer affection. I love Rome even for this, although indeed one has other grounds for praising it, both for its greatness, and its antiquity, and its beauty, and its populousness, and for its power, and its wealth, and for its successes in war. But I let all this pass, and esteem it blessed on this account, that both in his lifetime he wrote to them, and loved them so, and talked with them whiles he was with us, and brought his life to a close there. Wherefore the city is more notable upon this ground, than upon all others together. And as a body great and strong, it hath as two glistening eyes the bodies of these Saints. Not so bright is the heaven, when the sun sends forth his rays, as is the city of Rome, sending out these two lights into all parts of the world. From thence will Paul be caught up, from thence Peter. Just bethink you, and shudder (frixate) at the thought of what a sight Rome will see, when Paul ariseth suddenly from that deposit, together with Peter, and is lifted up to meet the Lord. (1 Thess. iv. 17.) What a rose will Rome send up to Christ! (Is. xxxv. 1) what two crowns will the city have about it! what golden chains will she be girded with! what fountains possess! Therefore I admire the city, not for the much gold, not for the columns, not for the other display there, but for these pillars of the Church. (1 Cor. xv. 38.) Would that it were now given me to throw myself round (pericuqhnai) the body of Paul, and be riveted to the tomb, and to see the dust of that body that "filled up that which was lacking" after "Christ" Col. i. 24), that bore "the marks" (stigmata,) (Gal. vi. 17) that sowed the Gospel everywhere yea, the dust of that body through which he ran to and fro everywhere!" Chrysostom,Epistle to the Romans,Homily 32:24(c.A.D. 391), in NPNF1,XI:561-562

"Number the bishops from the See of Peter itself. And in that order of Fathers see who has succeeded whom. That is the rock against which the gates of hell do not prevail" Augustine,Psalm against the Party of Donatus,18(A.D. 393),in GCC,51

"I am held in the communion of the Catholic Church by...and by the succession of bishops from the very seat of Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection commended His sheep to be fed up to the present episcopate." Augustine,Against the Letter of Mani,5(A.D. 395),in GCC,78

"Carthage was also near the countries over the sea, and distinguished by illustrious renown,so that it had a bishop of more than ordinary influence, who could afford to disregard a number of conspiring enemies because he saw himself joined by letters of communion to the Roman Church, in which the supremacy of an apostolic chair has always flourished" Augustine,To Glorius et.al,Epistle 43:7(A.D. 397),in NPNF1,I:278

"If the lineal succession of bishops is to be considered with how much more benefit to the Church do we reckon from Peter himself,to whom, as bearing in a figure the whole Church, the Lord said: Upon this rock I will build my church,and the gates of hell shall not conquer it!' For to Peter succeeded Linus,Clement...Damsus,Sircius,Anastasius. In this order of sucession no Donatist bishop is too be found." Augustine,To Generosus,Epistle 53:2(A.D. 400),in GILES,180-181

"The chair of the Roman Church, in which Peter sat, and in which Anastasius sits today." Augustine,Against the Letters of Petillian,2:51(A.D. 402),in GCC,78

"In making inquiry with respect to those things that should be treated with all solicitude by bishops,and especially by a true and just and Catholic Council,by preserving,as you have done,the example of ancient tradition,and by being mindful of ecclesiastical discipline,you have truly strengthened the vigour of our religion,no less now in consulting us than before in passing sentence. For you decided that it was proper to refer to our judgement,knowing what is due to the Apostolic See,since all we who are set in this place,desire to follow the Apostle from the very episcopate and whole authority of this name is derived.Following in his footsteps, we know how to condemn the evil and to approve the good. So also, you have by your sacredotal office preserve the customs of the Fathers,and have not spurned that which they decreed by a divine and not human sentence,that whatsoever is done,even though it be in distant provinces,should not be ended without being brought to the knowledge of this See,that by its authority the whole just pronouncement should be strengthened,and that from it all other Churches (like waters flowing from their natal source and flowing through the different regions of the world,the pure streams of one incorrupt head),should receive what they ought to enjoin,whom they ought to wash,and whom that water,worthy of pure bodies,should avoid as defiled with uncleansable filth.I congratulate you,therefore,dearest brethren,that you have directed letters to us by our brother and fellow-bishop Julius,and that,while caring for the Churches which you rule,you also show your solicitude for the well-being of all,and that you ask for a decree that shall profit all the Churches of the world at once; so that the Church being established in her rules and confirmed by this decree of just pronouncement against such errors,may be unable to fear those men,etc." Pope Innocent[regn A.D. 401-417],To the Council of Carthage,Epistle 29 (A.D. 417),in SEP,146-147

"Although the tradition of the Fathers has attributed to the Apostolic See so great authority that none would dare to contest its judgements...For(Peter) himself has care over all the Churches, and above all that in which he sat nor does he suffer any of its priveleges or decisions to be shaken" Pope Zosimus[regn A.D. 417-418 ],To Aurelius and the Council of Carthage,Epistle 12(A.D. 418),in GCC,95,115

"For it has never been allowed to discuss again what has once been decided by the Apostolic See" Pope Boniface[regn A.D. 418-422],To Rufus Bishop of Thessalonica,Epistle 13(A.D. 422),in GCC,115

"The rising pestilence was first cut short by Rome,the see of Peter,which having become the head to the world of the pastoral office,holds by religion whatever it holds not by arms." Prosper of Aquitaine,Song on the Enemies of Grace,1(A.D. 429),in GCC,79

"Joining to yourself,therefore,the sovereignt of our See,and assuming our place with authority,you will execute this sentence with accurate rigour:that within ten days,counted from the day of your notice,he shall condemn his[Nestorius'] false teachings in a written confession." Pope Celestine[regn. A.D. 422-432],To Cyril of Alexandria,Epistle 11 (A.D. 430),in GCC,88

"The Holy Synod said:'Since most impious Nestorius will not obey our citation, and has not received the most holy and God-fearing bishops whom we sent to him,we have necessarily betaken ourselves to the examination of his impieties;and having apprehended from his letters,and from his writings,and from his recent sayings in this metropolis,which have been reported,that his opinions and teachings are impious,we being necessarily compelled thereto by the canons and by the leter of our most holy father and colleague,Celestine,bishop of the Roman Church,with many tears,have arrived at the following sentence against him:--'OurLord Jesus Christ,Who has been blasphemed by him,defines by this present most holy synod that the same Nestorius is deprived of episcopal dignity and of all sacredotal intercourse." Council of Ephesus,Session I(A.D. 431),in GCC,89-90

"And all the most reverend bishops at the same time cried out. This is a just judgment. To Coelestine, a new Paul! To Cyril a new Paul! To Coelestine the guardian of the faith! To Coelestine of one mind with the synod! To Coelestine the whole Synod offers its thanks! One Coelestine! One Cyril! One faith of the Synod! One faith of the world!....Arcadius...said:...Wherefore we desire to ask your blessedness, that you command that we taught what has been already decreed by your holiness.... Theodotus...said: The God of the whole world has made manifest the justice of the judgment pronounced by the holy Synod by the writings of the most religious bishop Coelestine, and by the coming of your holiness. For ye have made manifest the zeal of the most holy and reverend bishop Coelestine, and his care for the pious faith. And since very reasonably your reverence is desirous of learning what has been done from the minutes of the acts concerning the deposition of Nestorius your reverence will be fully convinced of the justice of the sentence, and of the zeal of the holy Synod, and the symphony of the faith which the most pious and holy bishop Coelestine has proclaimed with a great voice, of course after your full conviction, the rest shall be added to the present action." Council of Ephesus,Session II (A.D. 431),in NPNF2,XIV:222-223

"Philip, presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See, said: There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: Our holy and most blessed Pope Celestine the bishop is according to due order his successor and holds his place....Accordingly the decision of all churches is firm, for the priests of the eastern and western churches are present....Wherefore Nestorius knows that he is alienated from the communion of the priests of the Catholic Church." Council of Ephesus,Session III (A.D. 431),in GILES,252

"B. Peter in his successors has delivered what he received." Pope SixtusIII[regn. A.D. 432-440],To John of Antioch,Epistle 6(A.D. 433),in GCC,95

"For he[Pope Sixtus] wrote what was in accord with the holy synod [Council of Ephesus],and confirmed all of its acts,an is agreement with us." Cyril of Alexandria,To Acacius of Meletine,Epistle 40(A.D. 434),in GCC,114

"And since these heretics were trying to bring the Apostolic See round their view,African councils of holy bishops also did their best to persuade the holy Pope of the city(first the veneranle Innocent,and afterwards his successor Zosimus) that this heresy was to be abhorred and condemned by Catholic faith. And these bishops so great a See successively branded them,and cut them off from the members of the Church,giving letters to the African Churches in the West,and to the Churches of the East,and declared that they were to be anathematised and avoided by all Catholics.The judgement pronounced upon them by the Catholic Church of God was heard and followed also by the most pious Emperor Ho they had wandered,and are yet returning,as the truth of the right faith becomes known against this detestable error." Possidius,Life of Augustine,18(A.D. 437),in GCC,80-81

"The example of Pope Stephen in resisting the Iteration of Baptism. Great then is the example of these same blessed men, an example plainly divine, and worthy to be called to mind, and medirated upon continually by every true Catholic, who, like the seven-branched candlestick, shining with the sevenfold light of the Holy Spirit, showed to posterity how thenceforward the audaciousness of profane novelty, in all the several rantings of error, might be crushed by the authority of hallowed antiquity. Nor is there anything new in this? For it has always been the case in the Church, that the more a man is under the influence of religion, so much the more prompt is he to oppose innovations. Examples there are without number: but to be brief, we will take one, and that, in preference to others, from the Apostolic See, so that it may be clearer than day to every one with how great energy, with how great zeal, with how great earnestness, the blessed successors of the blessed apostles have constantly defended the integrity of the religion which they have once received. Once on a time then, Agrippinus, bishop of Carthage, of venerable memory, held the doctrine--and he was the first who held it --that Baptism ought to be repeated, contrary to the divine canon, contrary to the rule of the universal Church, contrary to the customs and institutions of our ancestors. This innovation drew after it such an amount of evil, that it not only gave an example of sacrilege to heretics of all sorts, but proved an occasion of error to certain Catholics even. When then all men protested against the novelty, and the priesthood everywhere, each as his zeal prompted him, opposed it, Pope Stephen of blessed memory, Prelate of the Apostolic See, in conjunction indeed with his colleagues but yet himself the foremost, withstood it, thinking it right, I doubt not, that as he exceeded all others in the authority of his place, so he should also in the devotion of his faith. In fine, in an epistle sent at the time to Africa, he laid down this rule: Let there be no innovation--nothing but what has been handed down.' For that holy and prudent man well knew that true piety admits no other rule than that whatsoever things have been faithfully received from our fathers the same are to be faithfully consigned to our children; and that it is our duty, not to lead religion whither we would, but rather to follow religion whither it leads; and that it is the part of Christian modesty and gravity not to hand down our own beliefs or observances to those who come after us, but to preserve and keep what we have received from those who went before us. What then was the issue of the whole matter? What but the usual and customary one? Antiquity was retained, novelty was rejected." Vincent of Lerins,Commonitories,6(A.D. 434),in NPNF2,XIV:134-135

"Although, therefore, dearly beloved, we be found both weak and slothful in fulfilling the duties of our office, because, whatever devoted and vigorous action we desire to do, we are hindered by the frailty of our very condition; yet having the unceasing propitiation of the Almighty and perpetual Priest, who being like us and yet equal with the Father, brought down His Godhead even to things human, and raised His Manhood even to things Divine, we worthily and piously rejoice over His dispensation, whereby, though He has delegated the care of His sheep to many shepherds, yet He has not Himself abandoned the guardianship of His beloved flock. And from His overruling and eternal protection we have received the support of the Apostles' aid also, which assuredly does not cease from its operation: and the strength of the foundation, on which the whole superstructure of the Church is reared, is not weakened by the weight of the temple that rests upon it. For the solidity of that faith which was praised in the chief of the Apostles is perpetual: and as that remains which Peter believed in Christ, so that remains which Christ instituted in Peter. For when, as has been read in the Gospel lesson, the Lord had asked the disciples whom they believed Him to be amid the various opinions that were held, and the blessed Peter bad replied, saying, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,' the Lord says, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona, because flesh and flood hath not revealed it to thee, but My Father, which is in heaven. And I say to thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shall bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shall loose on earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.'The dispensation of Truth therefore abides, and the blessed Peter persevering in the strength of the Rock, which he has received, has not abandoned the helm of the Church, which he undertook. For he was ordained before the rest in such a way that from his being called the Rock, from his being pronounced the Foundation, from his being constituted the Doorkeeper of the kingdom of heaven, from his being set as the Umpire to bind and to loose, whose judgments shall retain their validity in heaven, from all these mystical titles we might know the nature of his association with Christ. And still to-day he more fully and effectually performs what is entrusted to him, and carries out every part of his duty and charge in Him and with Him, through Whom he has been glorified. And so if anything is rightly done and rightly decreed by us, if anything is won from the mercy of God by our daily supplications, it is of his work and merits whose power lives and whose authority prevails in his See. For this, dearly- beloved, was gained by that confession, which, inspired in the Apostle's heart by God the Father, transcended all the uncertainty of human opinions, and was endued with the firmness of a rock, which no assaults could shake. For throughout the Church Peter daily says, Thou an the Christ, the Son of the living God,' and every tongue which confesses the Lord, accepts the instruction his voice conveys. This Faith conquers the devil, and breaks the bonds of his prisoners. It uproots us from this earth and plants us in heaven, and the gates of Hades cannot prevail against it. For with such solidity is it endued by God that the depravity of heretics cannot mar it nor the unbelief of the heathen overcome it." Pope Leo the Great[regn. A.D.440-461],Sermon 3:2-3(A.D ante 461),in NPNF2,XII:117

"Who does not cease to preside in his see,who will doubt that he rules in every part of the world." Pope Leo the Great[regn. A.D.440-461],Sermon 5(A.D ante 461),in GCC,95

"After the reading of the foregoing epistle [i.e. the Tome of Pope Leo], the most reverend bishops cried out: This is the faith of the fathers, this is the faith of the Apostles. So we all believe, thus the orthodox believe. Anathema to him who does not thus believe. Peter has spoken thus through Leo [regn. A.D. 440-461]. So taught the Apostles. Piously and truly did Leo teach, so taught Cyril. Everlasting be the memory of Cyril. Leo and Cyril taught the same thing, anathema to him who does not so believe. This is the true faith. Those of us who are orthodox thus believe. This is the faith of the fathers. Why were not these things read at Ephesus [i.e. at the heretical synod held there] ? These are the things Dioscorus hid away." Council of Chalcedon,Session II (A.D. 451),in NPNF2,XIV:259

"Wherefore the most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of the great and elder Rome, through us, and through this present most holy synod together with the thrice blessed and all-glorious Peter the Apostle, who is the rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith, hath stripped him of the episcopate, and hath alienated from him all hieratic worthiness. Therefore let this most holy and great synod sentence the before mentioned Dioscorus to the canonical penalties." Council of Chalcedon,Session III (A.D. 451),in NPNF2,XIV:259-260

"The great and holy and universal Synod...in the metropolis of Chalcedon...to the most holy and blessed archbishop of Rome, Leo....being set as the mouthpiece unto all of the blessed Peter, and imparting the blessedness of his Faith unto all...and besides all this he [Dioscorus] stretched forth his fury even against him who had been charged with the custody of the vine by the Savior, we mean of course your holiness, ...." Leo the Great,Pope,Chalcdeon to Pope Leo,Epistle 98:1-2 (A.D. 451),in NPNF2,XII:72

This text may downloaded and viewed for private reading only. This text may not be used by another Web site or published, electronically or otherwise, without the written permission of the copyright holder.

Joseph A. Gallegos © 1997 All Rights Reserved.

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), December 13, 2002.

TIM:
Jesus Christ knew our human failings would cause us to falter in the end. Therefore, He promised us the Holy Spirit. You said: ''The leadership should be grounded in the Truth enough to keep the members of the Church out of error. But this is poorly done now days, because it requires the leader [pastor or teacher] to study A LOT to be "instant in season and out of season" for any question that someone might bring to their attention.''

The Holy Spirit doesn't sleep. We are assured of His vgilance; as long as we remain faithfully in His first Church. Catholics don't falter. Not by human wisdom alone. (It serves, for the ordinary work.) By the love and care of God the holy Spirit.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 13, 2002.

Tim,

My brother, Your work is inspired. Truth is truth.

Many religions are full of half truths, thus blinding them to The TRUTH!!!!

May Jesus be your portion. Love in Christ, Manny

-- Manfred (manyhoo@yahoo.com), December 14, 2002.

Dear Manny-- Did the Baptist pay you to interject the high- five? Lol!

Not only is Tim blind to truth, he's not even into the half-truths. This is what passes for ''inspired'' in the Baptist church? No wonder Jimmy Carter flew that coop.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 14, 2002.

Gail,

"Hi Tim, if there were numerous churches prior to 590 that functioned separately and independently as your 'authority' suggests..."

Show me in Scripture where the churches in Scripture had a central Catholic Church run by Peter??? I would sure like to see Scripture on that. Just because churches were seperate, doesn't mean anything. [1]They should have all been teaching the Truth - which isn't happening today, we both agree, [2] they still could have gotten together to establish Scripture.

I did glance at your post "Was Peter the "Head" of the Church? Sorry, Tim, but you asked for it.", and yes it is like the person that can't leave their name says - if it is such a MAJOR teaching of Christ and the Apostles, it should be in Scripture more than the 1 or 2 verses of assumption. Reading what Catholics believe to prove your point is the same thing you tell me not to do concerning Protestants. Although I am Protestant and read Protestant material, you say I need to read the Catholic material because I am reading incorrect data. But when it comes to the Catholic material it is gospel? Even if it isn't contained in the Gospels? [sorry for the sarcasum]

But, my entire post does not surround around the churches or the Church - what about salvation and election? Is there any Scripture debating it? We could spend months showing each other what Catholics and Protestants have said - What sayeth the Scritpure?

"THE CHURCH WAS ONE BODY!!!" - that is correct EVERY BELIEVER THAT IS BORN OF GOD IS THE CHURCH! - the Body of Christ!

And robert, who wrote the post "Tim, you said that Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons..." misunderstood what I posted. Sorry, if I didn't make myself clear.

"You seemed to infer that 'Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons are parts of the body of Christ.'" - What?

This is what I said, "Baptists, Mormons, Jehovah Witness, etc. True THEY ARE NOT ALL RIGHT, but they do have a set of beliefs which they follow, as do the Catholics."

All I was stating that like the Catholics, each "group" has their own set of beliefs [some might be right and some might be wrong] - that seperates the groups into religions. Not all the Protestants are in one group, and then you have the Catholics.

But - now get this - a 'Jehovah's Witnesses or a Mormon [could] be in the body of Christ. The problem is that Catholics want to believe that you have to be Catholic and perform all the rules that the Catholics have to be in the body of Christ, which is considered the Catholic Church. [Doesn't that sound like Judaism?]

I don't find that in the Bible at all. What I find in the Scripture is what is pointed out in the Salvation and Election points of this post - which apparently NO ONE has read.

When a person gets saved, the Holy Spirit begins to work in us and lead us to be more like Christ. Do we become instantly perfect? No! So, if a Mormon or Buddist comes in contact with the Word of God and the Spirit leads him to salvation - is he saved because the Spirit leads him to repent and the blood of Jesus Christ cleanses him from all unrighteousness - or does he have to get out of Mormonism and join the Catholic church first? Scripture please...

---------------

Eugene,

"Not only is Tim blind to truth, he's not even into the half-truths."

If I am so blind to the truth, then why is that no one has any debate for Scripture? It is always Catholic teachings of man and writings of man, but hardly any Scripture. Take my points on salvation and prove me wrong with the Scripture... Please!

----------------

P.S. Has anyone decided to write a debate to "The 62 Primary Errors of Roman Catholicism" for me to post?

God Bless!

-- Tim (tlw97@cox.net), December 16, 2002.

Dear Tim:

Holy Scripture isn't our only tool. We have no stricture in the Bible to rely on it alone. You haven't either! Our Lord never saw a Bible-- and what's more, he provided us a perfectly infallible Church. --Have you ever read a verse anywhere in the Bible saying: ''Believe ONLY what is written for you HERE?''

No; and still you claim we have to use a biblical formula for the learning of God's Will.

It isn't because Catholics can't abide the truth of the Holy Bible. We just aren't obliged to refute your error by simple bible reference. It may suit you-- but you have no Church. That makes you One-Eyed King in the Land of the Blind. We have two eyes; and we live in the kingdom of heaven where Christ's Vicar on earth holds the KEYS; as Peter received them from Christ. Two eyes; scripture and tradition; both being keys in the Catholic faith. We don't grope through the Bible on a hunt for the truth; we already have it in the Church, supported by the scriptures. You keep demanding ''Prove me wrong with the Scripture-- Please!'' Look, wrong is wrong, even if I can't ''prove'' it. You are married to the Bible, and we aren't.

But we have Christ's undisputed truth in His apostles and their Church-- as well as the Holy Bible!

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 16, 2002.

--OH! --And, Tim,
There's one other thing I neglected to say:

Your whole last post is pure balderdash.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 16, 2002.

On Scripture Alone (Sola Scriptura):

Jesus Christ became man to do certain things.

Yet interestingly, we can all agree that one of those things was NOT to write a book listing everything God wants us humans to know. What this means is that while the bible is true, and valuable, and the very Word of God, it certainly does not contain EVERY truth there is. In short, relying on the bible alone (sola scriptura) is downright foolish. Everything in the bible is worthy, but not everything worthy is confined to being found only in the bible. The bible itself even says as much - re-read the first few chapters of 2 Thes and 2 Tim and listen to what St. Paul is saying about the importance of both spoken AND written teachings. And keep in mind that the bible was not even finished when St. Paul wrote those words, let alone organized into an approved canon!

Another interesting thing to note. Until the VERY recent past, most of the world simply could not even have access to a bible! In fact, you could argue convincingly that even today much of the world's population couldn't have a bible even if they wanted one. And yet according to Protestant theology, this kind of personal access to a bible is an absolute requirement to salvation, because each person must interpret scripture for him or herself! So essentially Protestant theology demands that because of historical circumstances (which God maybe didn't foresee?) the majority of the people who've ever lived haven't had access to the lone tool of salvation. Crazy.

But I digress... I want to get back to Jesus and His tasks. We can all see that Jesus did not come to write the bible. Wouldn't that be strange if the bible (*alone*) is meant to be our primary means of instruction? But here's a task DID Jesus take great pains to accomplish: to establish a Church. The Church. And you should readily see (even Protestant scholars cede this point) the great importance of everything that has been handed down to us (including that very bible, alone upon which Protestant's base their faith) through the inspiration and guidance of the Church. And that, like it or not, is the Catholic Church. And Jesus Himself promised us that we could put our trust in the Church He established - He promised to send the Holy Spirit to safeguard it.

So what is it that makes you think, 1600 (or more) years after Christ's life on earth - and in direct opposition to the Church's constant teachings since the time of Christ - that God Himself changed his mind and decided that the Church He established no longer had authority over leading His flock on earth? To me it looks a lot like immature children who turn 18 and then turn from all the good instruction their parents have offered. Of course they have that prerogative, but it's not wise... and it's not what God calls them to.

Please prayerfully rethink your position. It's really a question of authority. Should you accept your own interpretation (sincerely though you may hold it), or should you humbly accept the interpretation offered through the Church God Himself established, and promised to protect with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and built upon more than 2000 years of inspired and holy effort? You may not *like* what the Church teaches truly, but I submit that relying on your own understanding is a dangerous proposition indeed. If the Holy Spirit has touched your heart with a fervor for scripture, then study scripture through the lens of the Catholic Church - your eyes and heart will be opened to a whole new depth of understanding... based upon truths revealed through time and built upon one another.

If you grasp the authority for yourself that God Himself entrusted to the Church (the Apostles and their successors), you're like a vagabond who runs away from his family. It's not a road that can't be walked, but it's not the road you're meant for and you put yourself in great peril. It is in losing yourself (willingly) that you'll find yourself.

God Bless You... -Greg Adas GAdas@familink.com

-- Greg Adas (gadas@familink.com), December 16, 2002.

Tim, I can't even begin to understand where you are coming from. It seems you are saying that there is no truth outside of scripture. Or you can't believe anything in scripture unless there are more than two scriptural references to that issue, regardless of the historical record. That is really the most pathetic argument I can fathom.

Christ gave the Shepherd's mantel to PETER. Then history proves BEYOND ALL REASONABLE DOUBT that he was considered the prime apostle. Your bias has driven you past the point of reason, my friend!

Love,

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), December 16, 2002.

Greg says,

"It's really a question of authority."

That is a correct statement. The correct answer however is that Jesus has ALL authority, NOT the Catholic Church. There is only ONE lawgiver, and that is God, NOT the Catholic Church.

-- A Christian (--@---.net), December 16, 2002.

He certainly did pass on authority to His Church. ''Even as Thou hast sent me into the world, so I also have sent them into the world, and for them I sanctify myself, that they also may be sanctified in the truth. Yet not for these only do I pray, but for those also who through their word are to believe in me.'' (John 17 :18-20)

Not to mention the obvious: ''And I will give thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever thou shalt loose on earth (universally-- Catholic, everywhere on earth) shall be loosed in heaven.'' Total authority to His church on earth, (Matt 16:19) --directly from the mouth of Jesus Christ.

It is His power to grant, and He granted it to Peter and the apostles. The Catholic Church. It still rests there in the Pope, His Holiness John Paul II.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 16, 2002.

We know that, "a christian". However, we believe that Christ, through His Authority, gave that Authority to His Church on Earth. The Catholic Church has no authority without Jesus Christ. He gave the Authority to His Church!

It bothers me when so many people keep saying, "Well all authority comes from God, not the Catholic Church", like we don't know that. WE KNOW THIS! But, Jesus Christ told His Church, whatever you loose on earth shal be loosed in Heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shal be bound in heaven! He gave His Authority to the Church!

in Christ.

-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), December 16, 2002.

All right, ''a''--?
It's obvious to Jake H. and it ought to be for you, too. *A spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down, the medicine go down; --

In the most delightful way!*

Give him a spoonful, Jake! Lol!

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 16, 2002.

To claim that Peter was the first Pope shows ignorance of God?s Word. About twenty years after the establishment of the church, a controversy arose regarding circumcision. A council was convened in Jerusalem to discuss the matter. If Peter was the first pope, he would have presided over this affair; but he DID NOT. James was the leading figure; Peter was merely a testifying witness (Acts 15).

The apostle Paul said, "For NO OTHER FOUNDATION can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ." (1 Cor. 3:11). There is NO other foundation but Christ. The church is NOT built on Peter, but on Christ. Any church which does not recognize Christ alone as the foundation stone CANNOT be the church of Christ.

Colossians 1:18, speaking of Christ, says, "And He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He may have the preeminence..."

With reference to the authority in the church, the Lord Jesus Christ holds the preeminence in ALL things. This leaves nothing for the Pope.

-- A Christian (---@---.net), December 16, 2002.

Well, I just went and read Acts 15, and it sure LOOKS like Peter was presiding over the whole affair. Sure, James stood up and gave a speech explaining his position and that position was adopted. But Peter is the one who got them started.

6 "And the apostles and ancients assembled to consider of this matter.

7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter, rising up, said to them: "Men, brethren, you know that in former days God made choice among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe."

Peter was the first one to speak or at least the first speaker whose words are recorded - so it sure looks like he was in charge. Where you get this "only a testifying witness" stuff I don't know.

-- Christine L. :-) (christine_lehman@hotmail.com), December 16, 2002.

Scripture states that the "Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth." 1 Tim 3:15 It does NOT state that SCRIPTURE is the foundation ANYWHERE! Gosh, wouldn't you think if it were that important that we all know that SCRIPTURE is the foundation that the Lord would have put that in His word somewhere?

Also stating in Ephesians 2:20 "And are built upon the foundation of the APOSTLES AND PROPHETS, Jesus Christ himself being the chief cornerstone." Hmmm, sounds like the inception of something good!

EVERY mainline Protestant denomination has a President. What's with that? I do not see any scriptural support for that, or for boards of directors, elected pastors, etc. NONE, ABSOLUTELY NONE!

Yet, Christ instituted an authoritative Church; one that disciplines and corrects. Ummmm, which one could He mean? The ones that popped up overnight at various and sundry times since the Reformation? Well, let's see who has the pedigree. Oh, I know, could He have meant the ONE Church begun by his very own disciples, and corroborated by TONS OF HISTORICAL EVIDENCE? LOGIC, my friend. It doesn't take a rocket-scientist to figure out this one!

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), December 16, 2002.

Acts 15:13, And after they had become silent, JAMES answered?he continues in verse 19, ?Therefore I JUDGE that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God,?

It is James that judged, NOT Peter.

By the way, I am NOT a member of any of those Protestant organizations that Gail says has a President, Board of pastors, etc?The Lord?s church has none of those people.

I have told you before Gail that historical evidence means absolutely nothing. The Catholic Church has forged documents and used them in the past [please tell me that I am wrong] so, who is to say that anything that has been supposedly written by the early Church fathers was not a forgery also?

Peter denied the church was built by him or on him. (1 Peter 2:4-6).

Christ is the rock, "petra", NOT Peter. (1 Corinthians 10:4).

Christ is the builder and head of the church. (Matthew 16:18; Colossians 1: 18)

Peter was NOT superior to the other apostles. (1 Peter 5:1; 2 Corinthians 11:5).

Only one case of apostolic succession in Bible in Acts 1:15-26.

When James was beheaded, NO ONE was selected to succeed him like in the case of Judas. (Acts 1:15-26; 15:1-29).

The ONLY personal representative of Christ on earth is the Holy Spirit. (John, 14:15-17, 26; 16:7, 13).

-- A Christian (--@---.net), December 16, 2002.

A Christian, I'm getting the feeling I have talked to you before, though I believe you were using a different alias -- Dashes -- perhaps!

Jesus formed a Church. HIS WORD says so. You select the portions of scripture that suit your fancy, and neglect the rest. Big deal. Anyone can do that. You are a scripture peddler; peddling the latest gimmick.

So long, Dashes,

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), December 16, 2002.

Yes Gail, Jesus did form His church. But he did NOT form the Catholic Church.

The Catholic Church DOES NOT teach that one must obey the gospel to be saved. This is evidenced by their baptizing of infants who are INCAPABLE of having faith. There are NO examples anywhere in the NT of babies being baptized for the forgiveness of their sins.

Please look in the book of Acts and see how people were saved. Repentance and remission of sins were to first be preached in Jerusalem, and this is what happened in Acts 2 when Peter spoke the first gospel sermon.

People were saved ONLY after they believed, [they were cut to the heart when they realized they had crucified the Son of God] they were told to repent and be baptized for the remission of their sins. Those who gladly received Peter's words [this included many other words] were BAPTIZED and their sins were washed away. Then and only then can it be said that they obeyed the gospel.

The apostle Paul said in Romans 6:16, "Do you not know that to whom you present yourselves slaves to obey, you are that one's slaves whom you obey, whether of sin leading to death, or of obedience leading to righteousness".

Paul thanked God in verse 17 that they obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine to which they were delivered. What form of doctrine were they taught? They obeyed the gospel, which is the same gospel messagethat Peter preached in Acts 2.

To claim that one can be saved [babies] without obedience to God is to preach another gospel. There is only ONE gospel, and those who preach another gospel are to be accursed. (Galatians 1:8-9).

-- A Christian (---@---.net), December 16, 2002.

But the Catholic church does not teach that baptism of an infant WILL unequivocally save them regardless if they believe the gospel years later. Who told you that?

Baptism of an infant is symbolic of the parents' promise to raise that child in the ways of the Lord, i.e., dedicated to the Lord for the Lord's work. When the child becomes older and is able to understand, then he/she IS culpable, and must continue to walk a life of obedient faith in Christ in order to be saved. Remember, "Children are sanctified through a believing parent."

There is an instance in the Book of Acts where the whole family is baptized, ages are not given. BUT we know from historical records of the early church that infants were baptized.

There are many many ways to interpret scripture, and there are many interpreting scripture today in various ways. I want to know what did those in the first, second, third centuries believe? What did they do? How did they worship? What were their practices? Customs?

I would pull some info for you on infant baptism, but it wouldn't mean anything to you. You are content to interpret scripture apart from history. I am not. Our forefathers' faith means very much to me. Our ancestors, many of whom were martyred, hold a great deal of sway with me. Unlike the selling and sensationalism we see in today's market of Christian writers, peddling the latest fad of the day, the early Church was holy, and wholly dedicated to the Lord, to the point of bloodshed. They were not "selling" anything. They were not trying to impress anyone. They were handed a tradition, a holy tradition, and they faithfully handed those traditions down to their children, and their children's children.

I've gotta to go,

Goodnight,

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), December 16, 2002.

Gail says, "Baptism of an infant is symbolic of the parents' promise to raise that child in the ways of the Lord, i.e., dedicated to the Lord for the Lord's work."

No Gail, baptism is for the remission of sins, to obey God's commandment. To claim that the parents can have faith for a child flies in the face of God's clear command that faith precedes baptism. (Mark 16:16).

You have been deceived.

The instance that Gail speaks of in the book of Acts 16:25-34, where the whole family is baptized is the Philippian Jailer. To claim that the whole family was baptized, including infants once again shows ignorance of God’s Word. In verse 30, the jailer asked “what must I do to be saved”? to which Paul and Silas said, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household."

Please do tell Gail, are babies able to believe? No they are not.

Then after telling the jailer to believe, what did Paul and Silas do? Verse 32 says, “Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house.”

What infant is able to understand the word of the Lord? There are NONE.

To claim that infants were included in all of his household is not the truth according to the Word of God.

-- A Christian (--@---.net), December 17, 2002.

"A Christian" wrote: "About twenty years after the establishment of the church, a controversy arose regarding circumcision. A council was convened in Jerusalem to discuss the matter. If Peter was the first pope, he would have presided over this affair; but he DID NOT. James was the leading figure; Peter was merely a testifying witness (Acts 15)."

You know what's great about the truth? It can be twisted, it can be misunderstood. But it ultimately reveals itself (sooner to those who are open to it), and usually in the most delightful ways. This is one of those ways...

You're right, "A Christian" - there was a dispute. And a council was gathered - IN JERUSALEM (keep that in mind, it's important). And at that council, two people spoke authoritatively - Peter and James (Paul and Barnabas gave a "report" of their experiences, but that was informative not authoritative).

So here's the gist of the story: After much debate, Peter got up and made his proclamation. After that "The whole assembly fell silent." Try to put yourself into the scripture, imagine what it was like to be there, Peter sure seems to speak with great authority! So much so that after Peter spoke, "The whole assembly fell silent." [of course, the Acts of the Apostles is chock-full of Peter speaking and acting with great authority... teaching, healing, raising the dead, etc.]

So then, Paul and Barnabas gave their report. Presumably their tales of "the signs and wonders God had worked among the gentiles through them" supported Peter's judgement, as we'll see with James (starting in Acts 15:13).

Finally, James gets up to speak. And James talks about how what Peter has proclaimed is indeed true ("the words of the prophets agree"). And then, in verse 19, James officially passed his judgement to those gathered - that he (of course) agreed with Peter... was in communion with Peter on this issue. The apostles and presbyters, then, "in agreement with the whole church" (verse 22) chose representatives to carry a letter to the gentiles explaining the decision offered by Peter, accepted by James, and held in common (communion) by "agreement with the whole church."

"Why James?" you might ask. Is it because HE (and not Peter) is the leader of the Apostles, the human head of Christ's Church on earth? No... But remember that this council was in Jerusalem. And does anyone remember over which locality (diocese) James was the head (bishop)? Yes - Jerusalem!

So get this: dispute arises. Great debate ensues. Peter rises and speaks authoritatively. A report of the situation by church leaders who've seen it firsthand is given. The church leaders are unified in their acceptance of Peter's direction. The local church leader (in this case James) concurs wholeheartedly (at the same time passing the teaching on to his local flock). A letter is drawn up (the first encyclical) and shared to the distant localities as well as the entire world's faithful.

All of this is directly from scripture. The Acts of the Apostles. The very inspired book that gives us the clearest picture of what the earliest Church (undisputably the Church Christ Himself founded - in fact many of these leaders were the first followers of Christ, chosen BY Christ) was like. And it's the SAME process still used to this day - by the Catholic Church. Issues crop up in localities. Church Councils are called. There is much debate. Under the prompting of the Holy Spirit, the Vicar of Christ (notice, not Christ Himself... but the *person* Christ has installed to lead His Church on earth) speaks. The bishops, recognizing truth as truth, "in agreement with the whole church" pledge unity. Then the bishops take that unity back to their localities as they shepherd their flocks.

Peter WAS a "testifying witness" at the Council of Jerusalem - because Christ Himself desired and arranged it so. It's astounding to know that the very same process continues unabated nearly 2000 years later. Thanks be to God for our Catholic faith!

In Christ's Peace, -Greg

-- Greg Adas (gadas@familink.com), December 17, 2002.

Greg, That was Awesome!!!! Thank you! When you know the REAL Catholic Faith (not the anti-Catholic rubish scattered hither and thither), it is hard NOT to find it in Scripture!

In Christ.

-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), December 17, 2002.

Greg says, "So here's the gist of the story: After much debate, Peter got up and made his proclamation. After that "The whole assembly fell silent."

Please notice that after Peter spoke the multitude also kept silent while listening to Barnabus and Paul.

Then Greg says, "Try to put yourself into the scripture, imagine what it was like to be there, Peter sure seems to speak with great authority! So much so that after Peter spoke, "The whole assembly fell silent."

Yea, and they continued to remain silent when Barnabus and Paul spoke. Remember, there was a great dispute. Obviously more than one person was speaking if there was much dispute. (verse 7).

Greg continues with, "[of course, the Acts of the Apostles is chock- full of Peter speaking and acting with great authority... teaching, healing, raising the dead, etc.]"

Of course the book of Acts also speaks of Paul and Philip doing the same thing.

The only thing that Peter did was recount how the Holy Spirit was poured out on Cornelius household and how the Gentiles would be saved the same way as the Jews. You claim that he spoke authoritatively. Well I am sure that Barnabus and Paul did the same thing don't you think?

There is no mention in scripture that James was the bishop of Jerusalem. There is also no mention in scripture where Peter was a bishop.

Yes, Peter was a testifying witness, so was Barnabus and Paul. That did not make them pope, nor does it prove that Peter was the first pope.

-- A Christian (--@---.net), December 17, 2002.

Greg, What a beautiful job!!!

Thanks,

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), December 17, 2002.

"A Christian" wrote: "The only thing that Peter did was recount how the Holy Spirit was poured out on Cornelius household and how the Gentiles would be saved the same way as the Jews. You claim that he spoke authoritatively. Well I am sure that Barnabus and Paul did the same thing don't you think?"

So you're ceding that Peter spoke authoritatively, but submitting that Paul and Barnabus *also* spoke authoritatively. Of course, by authoritatively I mean to speak truth that binds those listening. And here's why I think it's *Peter* rather than Paul and Barnabus who spoke with authority: I listen to James (he refers back to Peter, *not* to Paul & Barnabus - in fact, we don't even know what Paul & Barnabus said!).

I don't doubt that Paul and Barnabus spoke truth, but exactly *what* they said wasn't part of the point - the writer inspired by the Holy Spirit didn't even reveal any specifics of the "signs and wonders" they shared with the council. It would seem that, per the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, their words (while true) did not bind those present authoritatively (and also don't bind us "listening in" 2000 years later - after all, we can't even know what they said!)

Instead, the sacred scripture reveals to us first the direct authoritative pronouncements of Peter (acting as "Prime Minister" among the Ministers collected) and then (also directly quoted) the acceptance of Peter's pronouncement by James. I mean, c'mon... James specifically refers back to Peter's pronouncement, says that it agrees with the teachings of the prophets, and says, "it is my judgement, therefore, that we ought to..." (Acts 15:19). The authority with which James speaks is a) clearly recorded by design of the Holy Spirit, b) clearly in union with Peter's earlier pronouncement, and c) clearly accepted by all present. This was an early example of what Catholics today speak of as "the teaching authority of the Church [Magesterium] through the bishops in union with the Pope [successor to Peter]."

I'll grant you that James had a leading role at the council meeting... that makes perfect sense - he was the bishop of Jerusalem (where the council was being held). Very much the same thing happens today in meetings among the bishops; the Pope doesn't have to run every meeting to hold his position of primacy among bishops. And if you listen to James, you'll hear that he agreed with Peter wholeheartedly; he was what we Catholics call acting "in union" with Peter.

"A Christian" further wrote: "There is no mention in scripture that James was the bishop of Jerusalem. There is also no mention in scripture where Peter was a bishop."

But it is from scripture itself that we know that James was set as elder (what we Catholics call bishop) over the Church in Jerusalem. After reading Acts 12:17, 15:13, 21:18; and Galatians 1:19; 2:9-12 we should all be able to agree to that. Thus we should also be in agreement that James bore responsibility for Christ's flock in Jerusalem - where the council was taking place.

We should trust scripture as steadfastly reliable. So I trust James and take a valuable lesson from how he shepherded Christ's flock in Jerusalem... and Acts 15 tells us so clearly how he and the other bishops (apostles/presbyters) acted as one body, in union with Peter, to make valid, authoritative decisions affecting Christ's faithful.

And like I said, it's awe-inspiring... the very same thing still happens today in the Catholic Church.

It's all there for everyone to see, whether they choose to or not. I pray that we all do.

In Christ's Peace,

-- Greg Adas (GAdas@familink.com), December 17, 2002.

''a''.
There are numerous passages in the gospels showing without doubt that Jesus selected Saint Peter to be the leader of the apostles. The leader is Pope; and to this day that man is the bishop of Rome, where Peter was bishop before his martyrdom.

___________________________________

You dispute with us, but you can't deny the words of the Bible. Even if you won't give Peter any recognition by Christ's naming him Peter, ''rock''; (Matt 16:18) (Of course you're wrong) there's no way to stop Jesus' holy words right after that verse: "And I will give thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven;" clear authority to Peter on earth over His Church. (Matt 16:19) and again in Luke 22:31, "Simon, Simon, behold, Satan has desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat. But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith may not fail; and do thou, when once thou hast turned again, strengthen thy brethren." He was to strengthen all the apostles; just Peter, no other man.

Then, in John 21:15-17-- Three times Christ inquired of Simon Peter: "Simon, son of John; dost thou love me?" --Just as Peter had denied Him three times before the crowing of the cock, now three times he said to Jesus; "Lord, Thou knowest that I love thee."

Each time Christ, founder of the Catholic Church, told Peter to ''feed His lambs and His sheep." Meaning the Church.

Peter was the first apostle to raise a man from the dead, (Acts) and was the first Pope; and his successors are every bishop of Rome in unbroken line of descent from Peter to John Paul II.

Don't try to deny the Holy Bible; nothing you say can change the words, or muddy the water, ''a''. You haven't the goods, you haven't the authority, and you haven't the truth. Worst of all, you have no faith in Jesus Christ. If you did, you would accept His plain words.

Thanks, glenn and Gail and Jake! Get the spoon and some sugar for the protestant; he's getting a dose of Christian medicine.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 17, 2002.

Greg,

To claim that only Peter spoke with authority and not Barnabus and Paul is nothing but pure speculation on your part. Just because James referred back to what Peter said doesn?t mean a thing now does it? The Holy Spirit did not deem it necessary to reveal what signs and wonders were done by Barnabus and Paul because it was not necessary to put down into writing.

Greg claims ?the sacred scripture reveals to us first the direct authoritative pronouncements of Peter (acting as "Prime Minister" among the Ministers collected) and then (also directly quoted) the acceptance of Peter's pronouncement by James.?

Nice try. This passage of scripture does not even infer, much less imply that such is the case. This is nothing but a figment of Greg?s imagination.

Greg said, ?After reading Acts 12:17, 15:13, 21:18; and Galatians 1:19; 2:9-12 we should all be able to agree to that. Thus we should also be in agreement that James bore responsibility for Christ's flock in Jerusalem - where the council was taking place.?

None of the verses that you quoted show conclusively that James was the bishop of Jerusalem. In Galatians 1:19, Peter was also with James in Jerusalem. In Galatians 2:9-12, Peter, James and were given responsibility for proclaiming the gospel to the Jews as Paul and Barnabus were given responsibility for proclaiming the gospel to the Gentiles. This was a perfect opportunity for the Holy Spirit to reveal the fact that Peter was the head of the Church, but He did NOT do that did He?

Eugene quotes Matt 16:18 where Jesus says ?you are Peter [petros], and on this rock [petra] I will build My church??

Unfortunately for Eugene, the same word [petra] is used to describe Jesus in 1 Corinthians 10:4 is the same word he claims is used for Peter in Matt. 16:18. ??For they drank of that spiritual Rock [petra] that followed them, and that Rock [petra] was Christ.?

So much for Peter being the first pope.

The church is built on the foundation of the apostles [plural] and Jesus Christ is the chief cornerstone. (Eph. 2:20).

-- A Christian (---@---.net), December 17, 2002.

One more thing.

Greg implied that James was the ONLY bishop [elder] over Jerusalem.

This is not true.

According to the Word of God, bishops [elders] are the overseers of the church (Acts 20:17, 28; Ephesians 4:11; Philippians 1:1; 1 Peter 5:1-4).

It is God's pattern for His church that each congregation will have overseers [also called shepherds and pastors] who meet the special qualifications which He has given in His Word. (Acts 14:23; 1 Timothy 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-9).

There must be two or more bishops [pastors, elders, shepherds, overseers] for they are always plural when mentioned as leading a congregation.

Paul told Titus in Titus 1:5 for him to, "appoint elders in every city as I commanded you."

In Acts chapter 15, the apostles gathered with the elders [plural]. There was more than one elder present at the Jerusalem council.

In Acts chapter 20 verse 17, Paul called for the elders [plural] of the church.

When Paul went to James in Acts 21:18, ALL the elders [plural] were present. Okay, now I see that it is possible that I was wrong, and James was a bishop [elder] in the Jerusalem church. However, it still remains that James was not the only bishop [elder] in Jerusalem. If I am wrong, I will admit that I am wrong. Are you willing to do the same?

James 5:14 says, "Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let THEM pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord." Once again, this implies more than one elder.

In 1 Peter 5:1 Peter says, "The elders who are among you I exhort, I who am a fellow elder."

Please notice here Peter makes a distinction between an elder [one] and elders [more than one].

-- A Christian (--@---.net), December 17, 2002.

"A Christian" brings up a good point about 'petro' and 'petra'. Since, like most protestants, He probably has no idea where the bible came from, he is inadvertantly making a case for Catholicism. You see, 'petra' is Greek for 'rock'. But, it is femanine in tense, so it could not be used as a man's name. For this reason, when Matthew was writing his gospel, he changed Petra to Petro. Some people try to say that this is to show that Peter is not the rock, but Jesus never called Simon Peter. He called him Kepha. Jesus didn't speak Greek, he spoke Aramaic. Kepha is the only word in the Aramaic language that Jesus could have used in this context. That's why Peter is sometimes called Cephas in the Epistles of Paul. Just as Peter is a transliteration of Petro; Cephas is a transliteration of Kepha (Rock). Coincidentally, Cephas is a Greek work meaning 'head'. This shows even more proof of the continuity between the languages, and meanings of words used in writing the Bible; and that the Tradition of the Catholic Church (a.k.a. The Body of Christ) has kept that meaning unchanged and unblemished, the way Jesus created it. And he will protect it from the gates of hell, just as he promised, until He returns to glorify His bride and take us to the Kingdom which he has prepaired for us.

God bless you all. I pray that this forum will bring doubters to the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostalic Church.

-- Tom (tjb2_99@yahoo.com), December 17, 2002.

Bravo, Tom! Fine post to ''a'',

You can run, ''a'' but you can't hide, as pertains to Christ's founding the Church upon ''rock''. I have to poke you once more: You must have no answer to the verse, ''I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven,'' etc., also addressed to the apostle Peter. I knew you'd evade that one. What about Luke 22:31, and John 21:15--? Read your Bible, Sir!

Cyber-spoonful of sugar for the preacher! Comin' up!

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 17, 2002.

Yes; and thinking now, didn't I present the same verse (Matt 16:19) to TIM for clarification? Oh, he was making some other point. You know, about the Word of God.

Tim also wants another look at Luke 22:31, and possibly John 21:15-17. But he won't be saying much. Peter isn't at all to a Baptist's taste. Nasty guy; you know Jesus called him Satan.

Some Baptists like to call our Pope Anti-Christ, too. (Sigh!) Why isn't the Bible a big piece of cake?

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 17, 2002.

I'd like to bring our discussion back into focus by going back to the question that spawned the thread:

"A Christian" originally wrote: "About twenty years after the establishment of the church, a controversy arose regarding circumcision. A council was convened in Jerusalem to discuss the matter. If Peter was the first pope, he would have presided over this affair; but he DID NOT. James was the leading figure; Peter was merely a testifying witness (Acts 15)."

Let's sift through what we do and do not agree upon: -we agree that there was a controversy. -we agree that a council convened in Jerusalem to discuss. -we agree James played a lead role in the council.

-we disagree that Peter MUST have led the meeting if he was prime among the apostles. I *hope* now we can agree that James was a bishop (elder) in Jerusalem, where the council took place. "A Christian" even wrote: "Okay, now I see that it is possible that I was wrong, and James was a bishop [elder] in the Jerusalem church." See Acts 12:17, 15:13, 21:18; and Galatians 1:19; 2:9-12 for more examples from scripture.

Another area of disagreement seems to be over the question of authority. Who speaks authoritatively? Of course all authority is given by God the Father (Jesus even speaks of HIS authority being given to Him by the Father) - so at the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15), to whom does God confer authority? Anyone?

My position is that Peter spoke with authority. And that James spoke with authority. And that Paul and Barnabus certainly spoke (and truthfully) but not with binding authority - after all, their words are not even recorded. [I hope I'm not bound to what they spoke, because I don't know what they said!] I'm very unclear about "A Christian"'s position on authority. At the Council of Jerusalem, to whom did God give the power to speak with binding authority?

Here I'm tempted to insert a bit about Jesus Himself promising Peter the keys to the kingdom - a glaring symbol of authority - along with the authority to bind and loose on heaven and earth (Matt 16:19). But I know you're reluctant to accept that Jesus could have given Peter (a mere man, we know) such authority. I mean, that's a LOT of authority. Plus, that's what the Catholic Church teaches. Only it's also right out of the bible. Oh, what to do?

"A Christian" writes: "Greg implied that James was the ONLY bishop [elder] over Jerusalem."

What I *do* imply is that James was clearly the leader of the Church in Jerusalem. It is also clear that he was not the ONLY Church leader there - I mean we know Peter spent a lot of time in Jerusalem; lots of other bishops in the early Church seemingly did, too (It was a VERY important city!). But scripture, tradition, and historical record all point to James as the Church leader (bishop) with overt responsibility of the Church in Jerusalem at the time Acts was written.

So it makes perfect sense to me that James would speak authoritatively at the Council of Jerusalem. And when he speaks with authority notice that he does not oppose Peter; rather, he speaks in union with Peter - and with the other elders (bishops) there assembled. Even though there had previously been "great debate" over this issue.

So in short, I submit that God chooses to bestow His authority through the mechanism of His Church. It's been that way from the beginning of His Church (from even before there was a bible!). And members (elders, bishops, and otherwise) of His Church speak with His authority when they speak in union with the consistent teachings of the bishops (including Peter and Peter's successors - remember the keys?). Why, even Paul tells us (Gal 2:11) how he opposed Peter to his face on this very issue. But did St. Paul get indignant and form a splinter group in the Church? No - even though he was right. Rather, Paul understood that it was to be through the mechanism of His Church - specifically the Council of Jerusalem - that the truth was accepted. The Church gathered together, the Holy Spirit moved them, and they acted in union. And Scripture even relates (Acts 15) that *Peter* was the one who first got up and spoke (authoritatively) to end the debate. The same Peter who had previously disagreed with Paul about this very question.

I dread the thought - though it has obviously happened - that there are those who, unlike St. Paul, would act rashly and refuse the guidance the Holy Spirit provides by means of the Church. While obviously not the only manifestation of the Spirit (God acts EVERYwhere - not JUST within His Church!), the Catholic Church will continue to be the fullest manifestation of the Spirit precisely because it rests on the foundation of Christ and His apostles (and not man's opinion). And Church leaders don't have the authority to act rashly - to run off and form splinter groups just because they think they're right. They can do it, of course... but they'll be leaving the solid ground of the authority God vested in His Church.

Thanks for listening. I appreciate the chance to talk about these issues. I think studying these early Church councils (and knowing that they still work the same way. Wow!) is very enriching.

I pray that we'll all come to understand the truth more deeply through such discourse...

-- Greg Adas (GAdas@familink.com), December 18, 2002.

-- (^@^.^), December 18, 2002.

Tom,

Unfortunately for you, Matthew, writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, wrote in Greek NOT Aramaic as you try to make a distinction, a language that DOES allow for the distinction between Petra and Petros. The Holy Spirit saw fit for Matthew to make that CLEAR distinction. Petra and Petros DO NOT refer to the same thing.

Greg wrote, ?My position is that Peter spoke with authority. And that James spoke with authority. And that Paul and Barnabus certainly spoke (and truthfully) but not with binding authority - after all, their words are not even recorded. [I hope I'm not bound to what they spoke, because I don't know what they said!] I'm very unclear about "A Christian"'s position on authority. At the Council of Jerusalem, to whom did God give the power to speak with binding authority??

You claim that only Peter and James spoke with binding authority? This can only be speculation on your part because nowhere in the text does it support your claim. Did the apostle Paul preach the gospel? Did he speak with authority? If not, then where did he get his authority? I really don?t understand what you are trying to prove by claiming that only Peter and James spoke with binding authority. The Holy Spirit did not deem it necessary to write down for us what Paul and Barnabus said and we also do not know all that Jesus said either, but we have everything that is required to cause one to have faith. (John 20:30-31).

Greg continued with, ?Here I'm tempted to insert a bit about Jesus Himself promising Peter the keys to the kingdom - a glaring symbol of authority - along with the authority to bind and loose on heaven and earth (Matt 16:19). But I know you're reluctant to accept that Jesus could have given Peter (a mere man, we know) such authority. I mean, that's a LOT of authority. Plus, that's what the Catholic Church teaches. Only it's also right out of the bible. Oh, what to do??

Jesus DID NOT say "thou art Peter, and upon THEE I will build my church!" There is NOT a scripture in all of the Bible which says that the church was built on Peter. The Bible teaches that Christ is the foundation of the church.

What Jesus said to Peter concerning binding and loosing (Matt. 16:19), he ALSO said to ALL the apostles in Matthew 18:18. The binding and loosing would NOT come from their own devising for God ALONE is the lawgiver. (James 4:12). With the Holy Spirit guiding them the apostles would proclaim the things that God wanted bound and loosed. They declared what God bound for forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38), and what God loosed "...Delivered me from the law of sin and death " (Rom. 8:2).

This principle is expressed in Matthew 10:20 which says, "...For it is not you who are speaking, but the Spirit of your Father who speaks through you." So, to claim that ONLY Peter was given authority to bind and loose is NOT a true statement.

There are NO successors to the apostles and NO ONE has their authority because NO ONE is inspired by the Holy Spirit today. The possession of the Spirit was the factor that determined the apostles authority. They had the power to bind and loose, forgive and retain, because God was speaking through them [Through the Holy Spirit]. On that basis and ONLY on that basis were they able to unerringly deliver God's message to man. How can the Catholic Church claim to have authority such as theirs, when they are NOT inspired of the Holy Spirit? The apostles and those on who they laid their hands could speak with tongues, prophesy and work miracles. They worked miracles to demonstrate their authority, to show that they were inspired of God. (See Hebrews 2:3-4). NO ONE can work miracles today as they did, so NO ONE is inspired today and NO ONE has the same authority today.

The apostles were God's chosen ambassadors to deliver the faith to man and their work has been completed. NO ONE today possesses their qualifications. NO ONE has their spiritual gifts and miraculous powers and NO ONE can work the signs and wonders which they did. By inspiration of the Holy Spirit they were guided into all truth just as Jesus promised. When we read the things which they wrote, we CAN UNDERSTAND their knowledge in the mystery of Christ (Eph. 3:34). All things of the will of Christ are recorded in the New Testament. (2 Tim. 3:16-17, 2 Pet. 1:3). It contains ALL that God has bound upon us and ALL by which we will be judged. (Rev. 20:12).

-- A Christian (--@---.net), December 19, 2002.

Hello, Greg Adas.

Welcome to the forum. I hope that you will be able to visit often and for a long time to come. Your wide knowledge and enthusiasm are truly commendable!

Well, "A Christian." I suppose, after the drubbing you have taken here, I should not "pile on." However, I must! You wrote:
"I have told you before Gail that historical evidence means absolutely nothing."
[Historical evidence means a great deal to intelligent people, but perhaps "absolutely nothing" to ignorant people that go by the discredited principle called "sola scriptura."]

"The Catholic Church has forged documents and used them in the past [please tell me that I am wrong] ..."
[OK. I'll tell you that you are wrong. Listen closely ... "The Catholic Church has NOT forged documents and used them in the past."]

"... so, who is to say that anything that has been supposedly written by the early Church fathers was not a forgery also?"
[Why, the Catholic Church of today, of course -- which retains a living memory of such things, handed down from one generation to the next.]

Folks, "A Christian" has been here before, under various guises (possibly even one that was banned [named Gale, I think]) and is back to promote the c. 150-year-old theories of his deeply troubled, very anti-Catholic denomination, "the church(es) of Christ." Some of you will recall when "A Christian" was here in March, as Kevin Walker (who also liked to talk about the the Jerusalem Council and St. James).
"A Christian" gave himself away as a "CoC-man" by using the phrase, "It is God's pattern for His church that [such-and-such be true]." This is a slogan, a "tradition of men," used by the CoC (almost exclusively). Their founders, a small group of American guys (led by a father and son, the Campbells) who had already tried a few mainstream protestant denominations, thought that they could identify "patterns" in the New Testament -- structures that all local congregations would have to follow from then onward.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 19, 2002.

'A Christian' fails to address my arguement about the origins of Peter's new name, so I can only assume that he has no evidence to back his side. The fact that Matthew wrote in Greek, does not change the FACT that Jesus, speaking in Aramaic, called Simon Kepha (rock). If Peter is not the rock, then why is he called Rock, in different forms of the word, for the rest of his life, after the point in Mt. 16? If 'A So-Called Christian' would humble him or herself, submit to authority, and let go of hate, the truth is staring him right in the face; and it will set him free. But this probably will not happen, because 'A So-Called Christian' is too sure of himself, too proud, and too full of hate to have a true conversion of heart.

I pray that I am wrong!

-- Tom (tjb2_99@yahoo.com), December 19, 2002.

John writes, “Well, "A Christian." I suppose, after the drubbing you have taken here, I should not "pile on." However, I must!”

Drubbing? It is obvious from what I have written, that is NOT the case. John as does Eugene makes an accusation that is simply NOT true. Not ONE example has been provided in the NT of where infant baptism is authorized NOR has one example been provided of where someone can be baptized first and then come to faith at a later date, so to say that I have taken a ‘drubbing’ as you call it is a lie.

John wrote, “[Historical evidence means a great deal to intelligent people, but perhaps "absolutely nothing" to ignorant people that go by the discredited principle called "sola scriptura."]”

Yea, the Catholic Church claims to love and respect the Bible, but at every opportunity, they make feeble attempts to discredit it as the sole source of authority as evidence by their false charge of [sola scriptura]. The real reason that the Catholic Church makes this vain attempt is to make their Church the ONLY source of authority and NOT the Word of God. God said that His word IS sufficient, (2 Tim. 3:116- 17) and Catholics DO NOT. I choose to believe God

John writes, [OK. I'll tell you that you are wrong. Listen closely ... "The Catholic Church has NOT forged documents and used them in the past."]

John conveniently forgets that the Catholic Church used the False Decretals which were proved to be a forgery. So, to claim that the Catholic Church has NOT forged documents is another lie.

Tom,

Yes, John 1:42 records Jesus as using the Aramaic term for Peter which is Cephas. However, by the same inspiration of the Spirit, Matthew 16:18 records Jesus speaking two DIFFFERENT words in Greek. It was not a simple case of Matthew choosing to change a feminine noun to a masculine noun in an effort to clarify what Jesus said and meant. Matthew was NOT the definitive author of the words; the Holy Spirit was. Just because the Lord changed Peter's name, does not mean a thing now does it?

If Jesus used only one word (kepha), why would the Holy Spirit lead Matthew to use two different words? The Holy Spirit inspired Matthew to say exactly what Jesus said! Peter was a rock, but Jesus was the even bigger Rock upon whom the church was established. Jesus said He would build His church "upon this petra," not "upon petros."

-- A Christian (--@---.net), December 19, 2002.

"A Christian" wrote: "You claim that only Peter and James spoke with binding authority?"

Not exactly. I claim that *AT THE COUNCIL OF JERUSALEM* Peter and James both spoke with binding authority (Peter as leader of the Apostles, James as leader of the flock in Jerusalem). Paul and Barnabus spoke, but we *don't even know what they said*!

Of course Paul spoke with binding authority at other times (many of his words are captured in a great collection of books called the New Testament). He did so because the original apostles (appointed by Christ Himself) laid hands upon him and because he spoke in union with the other elders (bishops). You'll notice in scripture that Paul (a lawyer by trade) makes sure to bind himself to the Church and the Church's authority (again, given by Christ Himself). After all, that's the reason they had this council in Jerusalem - so the Church could settle the matter. [Paul had obviously already formed his opinion!] If the Church had no authority to settle the matter, Paul would be kinda foolish to run off to Jerusalem to meet with all the elders (bishops).

Now I'd like to "replay" a bit of the thread:

Greg wrote "Here I'm tempted to insert a bit about Jesus Himself promising Peter the keys to the kingdom - a glaring symbol of authority - along with the authority to bind and loose on heaven and earth (Matt 16:19). But I know you're reluctant to accept that Jesus could have given Peter (a mere man, we know) such authority. I mean, that's a LOT of authority. Plus, that's what the Catholic Church teaches. Only it's also right out of the bible. Oh, what to do?"

"A Christian" wrote: "Jesus DID NOT say 'thou art Peter, and upon THEE I will build my church!' There is NOT a scripture in all of the Bible which says that the church was built on Peter. The Bible teaches that Christ is the foundation of the church."

And "A Christian" continued: "What Jesus said to Peter concerning binding and loosing (Matt. 16:19), he ALSO said to ALL the apostles in Matthew 18:18. The binding and loosing would NOT come from their own devising for God ALONE is the lawgiver. (James 4:12). With the Holy Spirit guiding them the apostles would proclaim the things that God wanted bound and loosed. They declared what God bound for forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38), and what God loosed '...Delivered me from the law of sin and death' (Rom. 8:2)."

Although I'm tempted to dispute some of the statements above, I want to concentrate on the issue of authority. As scripture tells us, Christ Himself promised to give Peter the "keys to the kingdom" - isn't that important?!

Check out Is 22:20-22. In the Davidic kingdom, the King ruled through a cabinet consisting of royal ministers. And one among them was the "prime minister." But how was that made clear to everyone? Because the King gave the prime minister the keys to the kingdom! Is 22 tells us how the Lord will thrust Shebna from his office (Prime Minister) and install His servant, Eliakim, instead. How will he do this? "I will place the key of the House of David on his shoulder; when he opens, no one shall shut, when he shuts, no one shall open" (Is 22:22). And in the New Testament, Jesus promises *Peter* the keys - because he is to be the "prime minister" among the Apostles. Of *course* Christ is the foundation of the Church - and Christ Himself appointed Peter to guide it. Thankfully, blessedly, Christ also promised to send the Holy Spirit to safeguard it. Peter, like all men (except Jesus), was unfit for the task on his own merits. "A Christian" chooses to ignore the issue of the keys and the authority they symbolize. [FYI - In an excellent tape series called "Our Father's Plan," Scott Hahn and Jeff Cavins explore God's covenant plan of salvation through the bible from Genesis to Revelation. I highly recommend the series.]

As for binding and loosing, of *course* Christ gave that power to all the Apostles (not just Peter - only the keys, representing his primacy among them, were given to Peter alone). I hope you don't misunderstand Catholic theology here... the power to bind and loose (forgive or bind sins) has not been given ONLY to Peter. This power was given by Jesus to the original apostles. And they, in turn, laid hands and validly ordained others - who came to be called elders (bishops). In the same manner (laying of hands), this power to bind and loose has been given validly to all who have received what are now called Holy Orders (ministerial priesthood). And all Catholic priests to this day can trace their laying on of hands back through time to one of the Apostles - who were appointed by Christ Himself. Amazing! Of course only the successors to Peter (only 265 men so far, the Popes) have also received the keys to the kingdom.

"A Christian" wrote: "There are NO successors to the apostles and NO ONE has their authority because NO ONE is inspired by the Holy Spirit today."

Wow. I'm floored. "NO successors to the apostles"?! "NO ONE is inspired by the Holy Spirit today"?! That is an absolutely *astonishing* claim. And completely un-biblical; I'm surprised by it. Let's just look at one - very famous - example from scripture (Acts 9)... Saul, still breathing murderous threats against Christians, heads out for more persecution. [clearly he's not yet filled with the Holy Spirit] Along the way God strikes him blind. And sends him to Damascus, there to be healed by a disciple named Ananius. Ananius was not one of the original apostles, but was very clearly a "successor to the apostles." The very people who you claim are NOT inspired by the Holy Spirit. Yet the Lord speaks to Ananius, Ananius goes and lays hands on Saul, and Saul is healed. And it's a great thing, too... because Saul, as Paul (who ALSO wasn't one of the original apostles... never even personally met Christ) did many wonderful and worthy things for God's Kingdom.

"A Christian" wrote about the apostles: "God was speaking through them [Through the Holy Spirit]. On that basis and ONLY on that basis were they able to unerringly deliver God's message to man."

Wow. Again, I'm floored. I assume (based on your bible-only stance) that you think "God's message to man" was delivered via Holy Scripture alone. And yet the "official" books of the bible (the canon) were obviously not set down and agreed upon right from the start. The Councils of Rome (382 AD) and Carthage (397 AD) produced lists of NT and OT canon that were formally approved at the Council of Trent (1545-1563 AD).

My question is: if you think only the original apostles (and certainly NO ONE today!) were inspired by the Holy Spirit, and considering that the Holy Spirit did not move the apostles to adopt a list of authoritative writings, how do you know what is valid scripture (canonical) and what is not? Upon whose authority do you know it?

I'll finish up by answering your question...

"A Christian" wrote: "How can the Catholic Church claim to have authority such as theirs, when they are NOT inspired of the Holy Spirit?"

As I hope I've made clear, the Catholic Church *does* claim to have authority such as theirs [the apostles] precisely because our priests and leaders (bishops) can trace their appointment - through laying on of hands - directly back, in unbroken succession, to the original apostles appointed by Christ Himself. And we think we and our leaders ARE inspired by the Holy Spirit - Christ Himself promised to send that Spirit to be with the apostles, our spiritual fathers. And further, we believe that when those leaders act in union with one another and the pope (the successor to Peter) - such as at a Church council - that Christ's Church is protected from error by that same Holy Spirit. The same Spirit we believe *continues* to be very active in the world today... despite abundant evil.

Our Catholic faith is a wonderful gift. All praise and thanks be to God through Jesus His Son!

-- Greg Adas (gadas@familink.com), December 19, 2002.

''a''--
Just come back for another drubbing, Hmm? OK, as we all read, Peter is the Rock, and the founder of the church is Christ. A founder, ''a'' founds the institution, and what He founds is what we get. Christ didn't say, I will build my church on ME! The plain words are, (just as pain as a wart on your nose, ''a'',) ''Upon this ROCK--'' Peter, Cephas a rock, ''I will build my church.'' A builder BUILDS. Christ selects something sturdy, the Rock, for the building.

He wasn't giving Simon a new name, Peter, for nothing. In later narratives, the names Peter, Simon-Peter and Cephas are interchangeable. --When God called Abram from his home into the new land He would give him, his name was changed forever to Abraham. When Saul the Pharisee was converted on the road to Damascus, the name ''Saul'' was dropped, he was named PAUL.

This is ''a known pattern'' (to cop your meetin' house's jargon) which scripture has shown indicates some great new work about to be entrusted by God to the one whose name is changed.

Abraham became the Father of the Israelites unto this day. Saul became the Apostle Paul.

And Simon the fisherman, Peter became the ROCK upon which Christ built the Holy Catholic Church still here today. All three of these personages had new names given them to alert the world to their new posts.

You may not have realised that. But every time you see the name PETER in the Holy Bible after this-- it will alert you to the clear intent of Jesus Christ, announced to the world; Peter is the Prince of the Apostles, the first Vicar on earth of Jesus Christ.

Go ahead and cry. It's good for you, ''a''. Nobody takes a drubbing without learning something. You learned what the name Peter means. *Rock*. The Church Jesus built still stands after two millennia; because He built it on Rock.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 19, 2002.

I'd like to jump in here just a tiny bit....two itty bitty questions for the person who denies the authority of the Catholic church: please name THE church who approved all of the infallible scriptures please? and: since the scriptures ARE the infallible word of God, how can THE church who approved them be a false church?

-- lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), December 19, 2002.

How can Peter do this:

Mt 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

Mt 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

Then do this:

Lu 22:60 And Peter said, Man, I know not what thou sayest. And immediately, while he yet spake, the cock crew.

Lu 22:61 And the Lord turned, and looked upon Peter. And Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how he had said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice.

Think about it!

God Bless!

-- Tim (tlw97@cox.net), December 19, 2002.

The above post was for lesley.

-- Tim, the Baptist (tlw97@cox.net), December 19, 2002.

Lesley can answer I'm sure. The actions of Saint Peter before the passion, death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus are only what any normal weak man might do under stress. He wasn't superman.

Christ foresaw all of it, and yet prepared Peter as before, to be the leader of His Church. It's well- documented in the gospels. (Luke 22:31, John 21 :15-17)

When the Holy Spirit descended, a wonderful thing happened. Peter clearly assumed the mantle he'd been chosen for and became a great saint and apostle. Christ clearly knew what He was doing. You're second-guessing Jesus Christ, Tim.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 19, 2002.

I was basically commenting to the post:

"since the scriptures ARE the infallible word of God, how can THE church who approved them be a false church?"

To show that although the man of God was saved, he still denied the Lord 3 times!

-- Tim, the Baptist (tlw97@cox.net), December 19, 2002.

Well, Tim
You didn't do it very well. It's a non sequitur, as well. The very Church who has the Holy Spirit is trusted to say which books are authentic-- by YOU-- And they go into the Church's Canon. Yet you deny the Church where the Bible was declared inspired. It seems you say, ''There was no Holy Spirit in her; but she canonized the Bible I read.

You rely on the Bible anyway. Logically, if you can't accept the Church, you should be rejecting the Bible.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 19, 2002.

John,

And do you rember what is name was before it was Gale in forum? Its him, the one and only Dr. L. I left you a post a month ago about this cat.

-- - (.@.....), December 19, 2002.

Tim, I expected more..sigh...you skated. And I note a complete lack of an answer of any kind, from the other individual "a Christian" who otherwise seemed to have a rather zippy response for everything.Your response is illogical...for many years, there was NO written scripture at all in the world..none, zero..only ORAL teaching..and who did that ORAL teaching and preaching??? Hmmmm, the Catholic church..then came the written gospels..bunches of them..letters to churches from many men..what churches??? Catholic churches... (hint..there were no Protestants yet)...it occured to the learned men of the time to group these gospels together under one authority, lest people go off on tangents willy nilly and preach whatever "truths" they felt like (sound familiar?) This had already been a problem (see previous exerpts from early CATHOLIC church letters)...and so which letters should be included out of MANY as truly inspired works?? What was TRUTH??? CATHOLIC theologians came together and prayed, and met, and decided with FULL AUTHORITY and we have the BIBLE...now here is the LOGIC...Scripture is the WORD OF GOD...the CATHOLIC CHURCH decided what was SCRIPTURAL and WHAT WAS NOT...therefore, the CATHOLIC CHURCH had the GOD-given authority to do so, otherwise, the scriptures would mean nothing. Your saying that because Peter denied Christ before the Holy Spirit worked in him is an incredibly lame offering and from what I've read so far, unworthy of you. There are many times in theologic discussions that I find myself ill prepared with a response..it used to be because I recognized truth and couldn't argue with it...how about you?

-- lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), December 20, 2002.

Hi Tim,

I have noticed that when Protestants get backed against the wall on an issue, they simply start slinging mud, i.e, Mary, now Peter. It's a terrible shame that the only defense for Protestantism is to sling mud at the saints of old.

If you would but take down your Strong's concordance and look up "Peter" you would see how prevalent he is in the N.T. Just reading through the first 5 chapters of Acts, you will see Peter having the preiminence, "Then Peter stood ... Then Peter answered . . . Then Peter" It was Peter to whom Ananias and Saphira uttered their blasphemies, and Peter's pronunciation of their judgment of death (of course through the Holy Spirit).

Well, I think this is all a waste of time. You are blind to the truth, Tim, because you want to be blind to the truth so that you can make an idol out of your theology and spend your days trying to gather disciples for yourself. Protestantism cannot validate itself unless it invalidates the Catholic Church!

With Respect to you, Tim, and God Bless,

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), December 20, 2002.

First Greg says that Paul did not speak with binding authority at the council of Jerusalem, then he claims that he did speak with binding authority at other times. To claim that Paul did not speak with binding authority only because he was at this council but yet he was able to do this at other times is just not true.

Greg wrote, “If the Church had no authority to settle the matter, Paul would be kinda foolish to run off to Jerusalem to meet with all the elders (bishops).”

If what Paul spoke was not binding, then why was he even required to be in Jerusalem?

Greg wrote, “As scripture tells us, Christ Himself promised to give Peter the "keys to the kingdom" - isn't that important?!”

Then he says to “Check out Is 22:20-22. To claim that this one passage proves the fact that Jesus gave the keys to Peter is just not true. When the rulers of Israel would turn from His laws in the OT and do evil in His sight, God would render judgment on them.

Please notice that he does agree with me that the other apostles were also given the keys when he writes, “As for binding and loosing, of *course* Christ gave that power to all the Apostles (not just Peter - only the keys, representing his primacy among them, were given to Peter alone).”

To claim that just because Peter was given the authority for binding and loosing first in the NT this represents the *primacy of Peter* is just NOT true. If the binding and loosing was given to ALL of the apostles, then you CANNOT say that Peter had primacy. If Peter had the primacy then why was Peter never called the apostle that Jesus loved? This statement was made many times of the apostle John. It is also interesting to note that several times the Holy Spirit inspired the apostles to write that the church was built on the foundation of the apostles [plural] and NOT just Peter. (Ephesians 2:20, Revelation 21:14.

I wrote, "There are NO successors to the apostles and NO ONE has their authority because NO ONE is inspired by the Holy Spirit today." To which Greg replied, “Wow. I'm floored. "NO successors to the apostles"?! "NO ONE is inspired by the Holy Spirit today"?! That is an absolutely *astonishing* claim. And completely un-biblical;”

No, it is NOT unbiblical Greg, it is the truth. Please read 1 Corinthians chapter 12 verse 10. The apostles were directly inspired by the Holy Spirit, thus they were able to prophesy, speak in tongues and they had knowledge [given by the Holy Spirit] to preach the gospel and bring into remembrance all things that Christ had told them. Remember what Jesus said to the apostles in John 14:26, “But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you.”

When everything had been revealed [knowledge] and when that which is [perfect] had come [the New Testament] the [knowledge] they had received from the Holy Spirit would be done away since it would be no longer needed. (1 Cor. 12:8-10).

Your analogy of Acts chapter 9 does not prove a thing. The laying on of hands by Ananias was only to restore Saul’s sight and nothing more. To claim this clearly proves succession is just not true. You are reading more into the verse than is actually there. You claim that Paul “never personally met Christ” Oh, that is another false statement. The truth of the matter is, Jesus spoke DIRECTLY to Saul. (Acts 9:4-5, 22:7-9). . One more thing, ONLY the apostles could hand down gifts of the Holy Spirit. Paul said he was an apostle, what was the ONE requirement that was made known in order to be called an apostle?

Greg said, “I assume (based on your bible-only stance) that you think "God's message to man" was delivered via Holy Scripture alone. And yet the "official" books of the bible (the canon) were obviously not set down and agreed upon right from the start. The Councils of Rome (382 AD) and Carthage (397 AD) produced lists of NT and OT canon that were formally approved at the Council of Trent (1545-1563 AD).”

The books of the New Testament were in circulation BEFORE the Council of Rome. Just because a council approved lists does NOT mean a thing. The apostles put their writings into circulation.

Greg writes, “My question is: if you think only the original apostles (and certainly NO ONE today!) were inspired by the Holy Spirit, and considering that the Holy Spirit did not move the apostles to adopt a list of authoritative writings, how do you know what is valid scripture (canonical) and what is not? Upon whose authority do you know it?

God is the one who made sure what scripture was valid and what was not. Just because a church compiled a list does not mean a thing. the Word of the New Testament existed before the church (first given orally and then written). The church was born of the Word (Matt. 13:19; Luke 8:11). The Word was NOT born of the church nor is the Church the mother of the Word.

Eugene writes, “Just come back for another drubbing, Hmm? OK, as we all read, Peter is the Rock, and the founder of the church is Christ. A founder, ''a'' founds the institution, and what He founds is what we get. Christ didn't say, I will build my church on ME! The plain words are, (just as pain as a wart on your nose, ''a'',) ''Upon this ROCK--'' Peter, Cephas a rock, ''I will build my church.'' A builder BUILDS. Christ selects something sturdy, the Rock, for the building.”

This flies clear in the face of the statement Peter said when he wrote that Jesus was the chief cornerstone in 1 Peter 2:4-8. To claim that the church was built on Peter is just not true. Peter wrote two books in the New Testament, and not once did he ever say that he had preeminence over the other apostles.

Eugene writes, “He wasn't giving Simon a new name, Peter, for nothing. In later narratives, the names Peter, Simon-Peter and Cephas are interchangeable. --When God called Abram from his home into the new land He would give him, his name was changed forever to Abraham. When Saul the Pharisee was converted on the road to Damascus, the name ''Saul'' was dropped, he was named PAUL. This is ''a known pattern'' (to cop your meetin' house's jargon) which scripture has shown indicates some great new work about to be entrusted by God to the one whose name is changed. Abraham became the Father of the Israelites unto this day. Saul became the Apostle Paul. And Simon the fisherman, Peter became the ROCK upon which Christ built the Holy Catholic Church still here today. All three of these personages had new names given them to alert the world to their new posts.”

This means absolutely nothing Eugene. In Mark 3:17, Jesus gave the name of John the brother of James the name of Boanerges. Just because someone was given a new name DOES NOT mean that they were put in positions of authority.

Eugene writes, “You may not have realised that. But every time you see the name PETER in the Holy Bible after this-- it will alert you to the clear intent of Jesus Christ, announced to the world; Peter is the Prince of the Apostles, the first Vicar on earth of Jesus Christ.”

You should also realize that NOT ONCE will you ever find this statement in the Word of God.

Eugene writes, “Go ahead and cry. It's good for you, ''a''. Nobody takes a drubbing without learning something. You learned what the name Peter means. *Rock*. The Church Jesus built still stands after two millennia; because He built it on Rock.”

The Word of God is sufficient to disprove this false theory as I have shown above where your statement is just NOT true.

Lesley wrote, “I'd like to jump in here just a tiny bit....two itty bitty questions for the person who denies the authority of the Catholic church: please name THE church who approved all of the infallible scriptures please? and: since the scriptures ARE the infallible word of God, how can THE church who approved them be a false church?”

Please read my comments above about approving lists to be included in the Bible.

In one breath the Catholic Church professes to adore the Bible, uphold it and propagate it, in the next breath she will ridicule it, cast reflection upon it and seek to destroy faith in it.

In one breath she will say that the Bible is inspired of God, in the next she will say that it is incomplete and insufficient.

In one breath she will talk about the good it has produced; in the next she will talk about the insidious evil, the error and the division that have come through individuals studying it.

The Catholic Church will appeal to the Bible in efforts to uphold her doctrines before prospective converts and then claim that it is not the standard by which to measure anything religiously.

Talk about hypocrisy.

-- A Christian (---@---.net), December 20, 2002.

Dear "- (.@.....)",
You wrote: "And do you remember what his name was before it was Gale in forum? Its him, the one and only Dr. L. I left you a post a month ago about this cat.

Yes, I do recall your message, and I do believe that you are right.
Doesn't it go something like this:
Dr. Lance ... Sam Leith ... Gale [banned?] ... Kevin ... A Christian?

Well, if it is true, then I suspect he was drawn back here by the recent revival of the "reiki" discussion.

God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 20, 2002.

Jmj

Back for yet another drubbing, "A (Kevin) Christian"? We can accommodate you!

You wrote (in a vain attempt to refute what had been said about Simon's new name, Peter:
"In Mark 3:17, Jesus gave the name of John the brother of James the name of Boanerges. Just because someone was given a new name DOES NOT mean that they were put in positions of authority."
But "Boanerger" was not a "new name" given to the sons of Zebedee. Rather, it was just a nickname -- "Sons of Thunder" -- about the origin of which we may speculate. That nickname is mentioned in just one verse of the Bible (early in St. Mark), showing that it was not a "new name." They are thereafter referred to only by their real names, James and John -- unlike Simon, who is often referred to as Cephas or Peter after he got his real "new name."

"Kevin," you wrote: "John conveniently forgets that the Catholic Church used the False Decretals which were proved to be a forgery. So, to claim that the Catholic Church has NOT forged documents is another lie."

To use a phrase that you have whined six times on this thread alone: "That's just not true!"
"Kevin," you have not proved (and cannot prove) that "the Catholic Church ... forged" the False Decretals. Anyone can read a scholarly article about the Decretals in the Encyclopedia (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05773a.htm), from which I have drawn these excerpts:

"'False Decretals' is a name given to certain apocryphal papal letters contained in a collection of canon laws composed about the middle of the ninth century by an author who uses the pseudonym of Isidore Mercator [the Merchant], in the opening preface to the collection. ... Isidore was too clever to invent these documents in toto out of his own head. For the most part he plagiarized them in substance, and often in form. ... [I]t was especially in the form of the letters that the forger played the plagiarist. His work is a regular mosaic of phrases stolen from various works written either by clerics or laymen. This network of quotations is computed to number more than 10,000 borrowed phrases, and Isidore succeeded in stringing them together by that loose, easy style of his, in such a way that the many forgeries perpetrated either by him or his assistants have an undeniable family resemblance. Without doubt he was one of the most learned men of his day. ... [T]he false decretals are the work of private enterprise and have no official character. The theory that they were planned in Italy has been long since abandoned. They are of purely Gallican [French] origin ... [T]hey deceived the Church [and] the Church accepted them in good faith and without any complicity."

"Kevin," you wrote: "God said that His word IS sufficient, (2 Tim. 3:16-17) and Catholics DO NOT."
I say, quoting you: "It's just not true."

That passage (the most misinterpreted in history) does not say that God's written word is sufficient. Here is the RSV (but you'll find it to be very similar in the KJV and elsewhere): "All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work."
Nowhere in these two verses do we see the word "sufficient" nor the idea that religious truths cannot exist outside the Bible. Moreover, when St. Paul wrote this, his word "scripture" referred to the Old Testament, so you, Kevin, are making the strange claim that the Old Testament is "sufficient" for us Christians.

Now having said all that, a Catholic can say, "The Bible is materially sufficient to lead a person into Christian truth and salvation." Notice the phrase, "materially sufficient." This means that there is enough "stuff" of truth in the Bible to help a person be saved. But it does not mean two other crucial things: (1) It does not mean that there is no religious truth elsewhere (e.g., Apostolic Tradition), and (2) it does not mean that a person can read the Bible and, without the Catholic Church's guidance, understand what many crucial passages mean. So the written Word of God, all by itself, is "insufficient," in the sense that it must be complemented by the spoken Word of God -- the word of the Church passed down from the Apostles. When the spoken Word is ignored, the result is 30,000+ protestant denominations.

I could say much more, especially about the ridiculous statements at the bottom of your message (about the Catholic Church and the Bible), but I should share the floor with my Catholic brethren and sisteren.

God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 20, 2002.

I love your post in reply to ''a'', John. In fact, I was about to send him a new protest but I'll hold off till

HE-- as well as others like Tim, and robert; READ YOUR POST, right above this!

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 20, 2002.

Well, let me clear up some thoughts here... or at least try...

lesley wrote: "since the scriptures ARE the infallible word of God, how can THE church who approved them be a false church?"

I took this to mean, as Paul has also stated, that you believe that the Catholic Church established the Scriptures [which we use today] and have been exactly the same way for 2,000 years or so. For this reason - you believe that since God used some men to put the Scriptures together [the way He wanted it] for future generations, you also would like to believe that these men and the Catholic Church has never faulter left or right, but has stayed on the strait and narrow path.

The only reason I brought Peter into the picture was for 1 reason. I believe Peter was a great man of God [who doesn't?], but I also wanted to note that although he did a lot of things right, he also did some things wrong. Therefore, I [yes me :)] have concluded that although God uses man to perform Godly things such as writing and collecting the Scriptures, doesn't mean that everything that the same men say or believe [outside of what God has made sure is pure] is always correct.

I wasn't trying to turn away the subject, but put another view into it. Sorry, if I didn't make my point understandable.

And I am sorry, lesley, this is a lie - "for many years, there was NO written scripture at all in the world..none, zero..only ORAL teaching..and who did that ORAL teaching and preaching???"

If that were true - when did it happen - and where did the documents come from that we read today? That maybe true, concerning the Catholics only allowed Scripture to be in Latin, so that only the "learned" people could read it. But there has always been translations of the Scripture since they were written. You might could try to say that there was none before Noah, but I don't think that you could find any proof concerning that.

The problems is that everyone of old that is considered an Apostle or is mentioned as Believers is claimed by Catholics to be Catholics. What a joke! They did not [I repeat did not] do half of the things that the Catholic Church does today. But your own rules, they can't be Catholic, because they didn't keep all the sacraments.

Gail, I don't doubt that Christ left Peter to take care and help the other Apostles.

Lu 22:31 And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat:

Lu 22:32 But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.

But to be a pope over every Christian of the world, and the rock of the Church? I doubt it!

That is the job of Christ - was, is , and will be forever!

--

To be an Apostle - is it possible that we have Apostles today?

Lu 6:12 And it came to pass in those days, that he went out into a mountain to pray, and continued all night in prayer to God. Lu 6:13 And when it was day, he called unto him his disciples: and of them he chose twelve, whom also he named apostles;

----- Note, He chose twelve out of ALL the disciples

The ONLY time in Scripture where you find someone being chosen to be an Apostle - by men? I think they asked God to choose.

Ac 1:21 Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,

Ac 1:22 Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.

Ac 1:23 And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias.

Ac 1:24 And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, show whether of these two thou hast chosen,

Ac 1:25 That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.

Ac 1:26 And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.

----- And he had to have been with them from the beginning of Christ's ministry and see the resurrection.

--

Paul was another Apostle - to the Gentiles.

Ga 1:1 Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;)

--

Oh, but I forgot there can be false ones:

2co 11:13 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.

--

And as for Peter being your rock, I have two things to say:

Eph 2:20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, [Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone];

De 32:31 For their rock is not as our Rock....

--

God Bless!

-- Tim (tlw97@cox.net), December 20, 2002.

Tim, I apologize for my glaring error..I should have been more specific since I thought it was obvious that I was referring to the New Testament as "scripture"...of course there was written O.T. scripture , scrolls, parchments, etc...I didn't think I had to be so specific when I stated that initially, in the beginnings of the early church, say when Paul was preaching, there was no written New Testament around for people to take home and study individually and interpret as they saw fit, etc. Since for a matter of a thousand + years after Christ walked the earth, most common people anywhere in the world couldn't read or write anyway, I sure don't know how they would have read the scriptures themselves for their "personal interpretation." It doesn't take a rocket scientist to comprehend that when Paul, or any other gospel writer refers to "scripture" they must, by necessity be referring to the Old Testament, because there wasn't any other around to refer to. I cannot for the life of me see why this is so clouded for anyone to miss. Yet, although folks can type and "talk" until they are bone-weary, there are those other folks who will continue to say "Nay..'tis false"..oh well..better folks than I, more capable intellectuals than I have offered you sound factual statements. I have had Protestants tell me that Peter was not a Catholic at all, and ask me to "prove it"..when I refer them to Church documents from antiquity, they refuse to read about them, calling them "fabrications"...sigh..personally, I equate this mentality with folks who would deny the history of the holocaust in Germany..historical fact IS what it IS...to believe otherwise is to proffer that throughout the centuries, thousands of persons over all the civilized world conspired to dupe future generations, beginning immediately after the ressurection of Jesus Christ...my, my...and to think that this vast conspiracy was only discovered by a handful of "enlightened" individuals in the late 1800s! The beauty and truth of the Catholic Church is that we have the promise of Jesus that He will never leave the church, and the gates of hell will never prevail against it...You don't believe in the very history of the church, so how could your eyes ever be opened to the truths of her teachings? Certainly, I cannot provide any answers suitable to you. Perhaps others can..so I'll dropout of the conversation. God bless.

-- lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), December 20, 2002.

John,

You are right, I could not prove that the Catholic Church forged the False Decretals. When I am wrong, I will admit that I am wrong.

I am also right when I said, "John conveniently forgets that the Catholic Church used the False Decretals which were proved to be a forgery. "

I find it hard to believe that the Catholic Church which is supposedly guided by the Holy Spirit, would allow a forgery to be used by the Catholic Church.

The Catholic Encyclopedia says, ?The Middle Ages were deceived by this huge forgery, but during the Renaissance men of learning and the canonists generally began to recognize the fraud.?

How was it possible for the Church in the Middle Ages to be deceived?

John wrote, "The Bible is materially sufficient to lead a person into Christian truth and salvation." Notice the phrase, "materially sufficient." This means that there is enough "stuff" of truth in the Bible to help a person be saved."

If the written word of God is "materially sufficient" for one to be saved then why does one need the Catholic Church to interpret crucial passages that one supposedly cannot understand?

-- A Christian (--@---.net), December 20, 2002.

Dear Christian,

"Materially sufficient" means that the needed material is there, contained in the written words. However, the fact that the text itself is "materially sufficient" does not mean that every individual's personal guesses regarding its correct meaning are "interpretationally sufficient". That's why there is so much untruth in denominational churches which adhere to Luther's novel traditions of sola scriptura and personal interpretation. That is also why any body of writing which is of any general importance MUST have an officially appointed body with the authority to interpret it. For the Constitution of the USA, it's a governmentally appointed body, the Supreme Court. For the Bible, it's a divinely appointed body, the Church Jesus Christ founded, the Holy Catholic Church. Jesus said "by their fruits shall ye know them". The fruit of Catholicism, with its central and authoritative interpretation of God's Word, is 2,000 years of unchanging, pure doctrinal truth. The fruit of modern "Bible Christianity", coupled with the idea of doctrine by personal guesswork, is 450 years of widespread division, conflict, and doctrinal chaos. Could this be the will of the same Jesus who prayed "Father, that they all may be ONE, even as you Father and I are ONE"? You need to think about issues like this. Simply forging ahead with blinders on, trying to bend the Word of God into agreement with the particular teachings of whichever one of the thousands of manmade sects you are currently attached to, is clearly not in accord with the teachings of Jesus Christ, as taught by the original Christian Church, or as recorded in its writings, the Holy Bible.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 20, 2002.

Dear Tim:
See your excuse:

''I took this to mean, as Paul has also stated, that you believe that the Catholic Church established the Scriptures [which we use today] and have been exactly the same way for 2,000 years or so. For this reason - you believe that since God used some men to put the Scriptures together the way He wanted it for future generations, you would like to believe these men and the Catholic Church never falter left or right, but are on the strait and narrow path.''

You paint yourself into a corner, Tim. If Our Lord gave His Church full authority; within which she canonized Holy Writ, that by itself establishes she is the True Church. --Certainly we believe God ''used some men.'' They were the men in His only Church. Where else you going to build a Church, if not in the world of men? The straight and narrow path you claim disqualifies her God-given authority is totally out of context, because Christ stated unequivocally He was with her for all days even to the end of the world. He did not say, ''If you keep on the straight and narrow, I'll be with you all days, even to the end of the world.'' We are far from conceding to you or any protestant, that the Church has ''strayed from the straight and narrow.'', anyway.

The relatively few men that can be accused of committing serious public sins when serving in the Church have nothing to do with preserving the undoubted holiness of the Church herself. That is an action of the Holy Spirit abiding in her forever. What's more, the Church was entrusted with EVERYTHING even remotely having to do with our faith as Christians --besides just producing the Scriptures. The Scriptures were only the beginning.

The Gospel is spread in the world and sustained in Sacred Tradition as well, and the teaching authority the Church provides Christians is a bulwark to their faith and sanctification. It is a priceless and divine treasure just as important as the Holy Bible. --You then say, with little or no logic:

''Therefore, I [yes me :)] have concluded that although God uses man to perform Godly things such as writing and collecting the Scriptures, doesn't mean that everything that the same men say or believe [outside of what God has made sure is pure] is always correct.'' Well, fine-- But you aren't a Pope. You have no mandate from Christ as the apostles had, to supervise the life of the Church.

You can ''conclude'' men have wings, and rainwater is beer. [Yes you. :)] Let me know what you conclude so I can totally dismiss it as human wisdom, Tim. To God the wisdom of man is folly.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 20, 2002.

Thank you, Gene, for your outpouring of praise.

Thank you, Lesley, for your insightful post. I would like to ask a little favor of you, because my eyesight is not the best. If you write something longer than just a very brief message, please break it up into paragraphs. You can do this by striking the "Enter" key twice, leaving a blank line on your screen (in the "Answer" box). Striking "Enter" just once will not do the trick. Thanks.

Thank you, Paul, for showing "Kevin" why "material sufficiency" is not enough.

"Kevin," you wrote: "I am also right when I said, 'John conveniently forgets that the Catholic Church used the False Decretals which were proved to be a forgery.' I find it hard to believe that the Catholic Church which is supposedly guided by the Holy Spirit, would allow a forgery to be used by the Catholic Church. The Catholic Encyclopedia says, 'The Middle Ages were deceived by this huge forgery, but during the Renaissance men of learning and the canonists generally began to recognize the fraud.' How was it possible for the Church in the Middle Ages to be deceived?"

The first and most important point is that the deception did not lead the Catholic Church into teaching false doctrine. THAT is the main way in which the Holy Spirit protects the Church. No one said that the Church is always protected from receiving harm from people who choose to do evil things against her. Witness the following exampled:
1. Pagan Roman emperors (and later barbarians) persecuted her and martyred thousands of Catholics. [The "blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church."]
2. Moslems overran Catholic dioceses throughout Asia, Africa, and Spain, murdering many and forcing conversions.
3. Protestants vilely rent asunder the Western Church's unity and murdered thousands of Catholics between 1515 and 1700.
4. Anti-Catholics rage against the true Church even in our own time, even in this own forum [hint, hint].
The Holy Spirit protected the Church from teaching error and led millions of Catholics into holiness during all these 20 centuries. But he did not always protect her from the sins of men who chose to do evil -- such as Isidore Mercator, forger of the Decretals. If Jesus was persecuted and killed, without the Holy Spirit protecting him from men of evil, then how can we Catholics (the Body of Christ) expect better treatment?

God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 21, 2002.

"A 'Kevin' Christian,"

You ended your first post of the 20th with a most ungracious and error-laden tirade against the Catholic Church. Since no one has responded to it, and since it should not be allowed to sit there unscathed, I will speak up about it.

You wrote [and I will number your statements]:
"1. In one breath the Catholic Church professes to adore the Bible, uphold it and propagate it, in the next breath she will ridicule it, cast reflection upon it and seek to destroy faith in it.
"2. In one breath she will say that the Bible is inspired of God, in the next she will say that it is incomplete and insufficient.
"3. In one breath she will talk about the good it has produced; in the next she will talk about the insidious evil, the error and the division that have come through individuals studying it.
"4. The Catholic Church will appeal to the Bible in efforts to uphold her doctrines before prospective converts and then claim that it is not the standard by which to measure anything religiously.
"5. Talk about hypocrisy."

REPLIES:

1. We Catholics do not "adore" the Bible. We adore God alone. (I have, however, heard of Fundy "bibliolatry.")
We never "ridicule" the Bible. I would "ridicule" anyone who claimed something so foolish about us, though.
I have never heard the phrase, "cast reflection upon," so I cannot respond to that. However, the odds appear excellent that what you were trying to say would have been wrong too.
We never "seek to destroy faith in" the Bible. Again, this is utter nonsense. No Christian body uses as much of the Bible in its weekend worship service than the Catholic Church does. Moreover, we are encouraged to read the Bible privately (and I can prove this to you).

2. Well, we would not say that the Bible is "inspired of God," because that would be speaking in archaic language. We say that the Bible is "inspired by God."
We do not say that the Bible is "incomplete." It contains all that God chose to have it contain, making it "complete" for its purposes.
A bit earlier, you learned our actual belief -- that the written word of God is "materially sufficient," but that it must be complemented by the spoken Word of God.

3. We Catholics never say that "insidious evil, error, and division have come through individuals studying it." It is not the studying that is bad. (I just told you that we are encouraged to study it.) Studying isn't bad, but wrongly interpreting it and using false conclusions as a basis to undermine (or break away from) the Church ... that is the "evil, error, and division" that we deplore.

4. I don't know what you mean by the word "uphold." But anyway, we don't use the Bible to "proof-text" our doctrines. Such a thing is not required of us. Looking at the Bible, though, will show that no Catholic doctrine is contradicted therein. In a sense, then, it is A standard for "measuring ... religiously" -- but not the only standard. The Word of God has TWO fonts -- written and oral. The Bible cannot be a reliable "standard for measuring religiously" for a non-Catholic, because he lacks the ability to interpret it without erring.

5. Talk about religious errors! You, "A Christian," may hold the Guinness World Record for them.

God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 21, 2002.

Oops! Forgot something for point #2.
You said that we call the Bible "incomplete." I replied to that already, but I forgot to mention this important fact:
It is not "the Bible" that is "incomplete" -- but rather "the protestanst Bible" that is "incomplete," since it is missing seven Old Testament books!
JFG

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 21, 2002.

We return to the false exegesis and distorted faith of one ''a'', the C-of-C minster in our forum. John calls him Kevin; so who cares???

Kevin replies: ''John wrote, "The Bible is materially sufficient to lead a person into Christian truth and salvation." Notice the phrase, "materially sufficient." This means that there is enough "stuff" of truth in the Bible to help a person be saved."

If the written word of God is "materially sufficient" for one to be saved then why does one need the Catholic Church to interpret crucial passages that one supposedly cannot understand?'' -- A Christian (--@---.net), December 20, 2002.

Hey, a good question! For these reasons, Kevin-- Because the Holy Spirit abides in the Catholic Church. He is inerrant, and protects His Church from erroneous belief.

Within the Catholic Church, He brings out every truth contained in scripture; as opposed to your own churches' faulty renditions and editings. Your very best exegesis and scholarship overlooks or disowns all the basic truths which apply to the Church herself, for instance. And it's understandable you'd tailor the scriptures to fit your motives, which are right out in the open. You've never made any bones about rejecting the Church. When scripture verifies some doctrine of your old Church, you skip it or change its interpretation to fit your ''big lie''.

The Holy Spirit would never allow that to happen in the apostle's church. Only the truth would be (IS) given to the faithful. The all- encompassing truth about Christ and salvation and our communion with Him and His saints. The rejection of all false doctrine, as in the days when heretical movements thretened to contaminate Christ's Gospel. These were actions of the holy Spirit; working amidst men in His Church. Your churches by comparison, will not benefit this way, when an odd-ball comes along and sways your followers.

This happens all the time outside the Catholic sphere of influence. You have Russellites and Millerites and Mary Baker Eddyites and Jim Jones Churches and Branch Davidians always speaking corrupted Bible wisdom!

WHY? Because all they ever rely on is the Holy Bible and their mouths. Not much brains, either!

In these congregations any sel-ordained minister like yourself is entitled to give private interpretation of his own version of salvation. His own knowledge of God's Will, and his own theory on infant baptism, the leadership of the Church, and what constitutes Christian faith.

You ask John: ''If the written word of God is "materially sufficient" for one to be saved then why does one need the Catholic Church to interpret crucial passages?''

It's because you can't discern them for yourself, Kevin! It's a proven fact: you reject more than one ''crucial truth''-- even the simpler ones, such as what BAPTISM is all about! You called it a ''work''-- and for protestants, works are useless. That means in your book, baptism is worthless.

What about in other, truly mystery-laden biblical truths, such as Original Sin, the Body and Blood of Christ, the book of revelation, and even the sources of the Bible?

They're crucial, and you couldn't begin to understand them with no help from the Church, and in her the Holy Spirit. Crucial matters for which you are in no better position to learn now than David Koresh or Jim Jones or Mary Baker Eddy or the Jehovah's Witnesses ever were.

You reject many divine truths and call yourself saved! You presume to teach others about salvation! Just CRAZY--

--------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 22, 2002.

---

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 22, 2002.

John,

Since you have already said that the written Word of God contains enough truth to be "materially sufficient" in order for one to be saved, [this is a very interesting admission, you are halfway to the truth] please do tell why then the spoken Word of God is required? By the way, I have never heard of the phrase "materially sufficient", this must be another Catholic word that is not in the Bible.

Please provide me a listing of what you claim is the "spoken Word of God" so that I can investigate for myself to see if it came from God. Since this [the spoken Word of God] has been preserved by the Catholic Church [as you claim], you should have no problem providing this listing to me?

Once one obeys the gospel from hearing, believing, repenting, confessing and being baptized "IN water" for the forgiveness of one?s sins, one is commanded to remain faithful until death. (Revelation 2:10). This involves growth as a Christian. We are commanded to "as newborn babes, desire the pure milk of the word, that you may grow thereby," (1 Peter 2:2). Please notice that there is NO mention of the spoken Word of God in this passage. The written Word of God is sufficient for this task also.

John claims to adore God, but in works, Catholics do deny Him.

Catholics claim that infants can be baptized for the remission of sin, but not one example is found in the Word of God that will support this doctrine. Catholics make the ignorant claim that one can be baptized and then the Holy Spirit can "infuse" one with faith, but that is not true. All of the miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit ceased when the "perfect" written Word of God was completed. (1 Cor. 13:10).

Catholics also "change the Word of God" to suit their false doctrines. Here is one glaring example, the false claim that baptism can be administered by pouring or sprinkling. Once again, not one example in the New Testament supports this lie. I could go on and on, but you get the point.

John claims, "No Christian body uses as much of the Bible in its weekend worship service than the Catholic Church does."

Would you care to prove this statement?

Peter attributed Paul's own writings as "Scripture" when he was still alive (See 2 Pet. 3:15-16). Were Peter?s letter?s considered "Scripture"? Of course they were, so to claim that 2 Tim. 3:15-16 is only speaking of the Old Testament is just not true.

There was a time when all the Word of God was given orally by word of mouth of the inspired apostles and prophets. When people heard, believed and obeyed the word given by the apostles, the Lord added them to His church (Acts 2:47). In all the accounts of conversion in the book of Acts, it is revealed that the Word of God was first preached so, churches were established as result of the preaching of God's Word, and after being established, they continued to be guided and instructed by the inspired men who were present with them. (See Acts 20:17, 28).

The Word of God given orally was the guide and standard of authority in that early period. If Christians in any given locality wished to be pleasing to God, they had to receive the Word of the inspired teachers as coming from God Himself (1 Thess. 2:13).

There was a period when the Word of God was given both orally and written. The apostles and prophets began delivering God's will both by preaching and writing. (See 2 Thess. 2:15) There was a time when the church was guided either by having inspired men in their presence or by epistles written by inspired men. Both of these had equal authority because both were the product of the Holy Spirit. When the apostles and prophets passed from the earth, their inspired writings became the ONLY source of authority in religion.

Today the church must look into the perfect law of liberty, the written New Testament to learn what it should be and must be taught.

Please notice that it is the Catholic Church that has caused and is the mother of ALL division.

John states, "Looking at the Bible, though, will show that no Catholic doctrine is contradicted therein."

Yea right, The Bible does not mention nor give authority for the following Catholic practices: a pope, a cardinal, a college of cardinals, metropolitans, patriarchs, councils, the Vatican, religious orders, parishes, dioceses,archdioceses, nuns, sacraments, original sin, infant baptism, sprinkling for baptism, confirmation, the mass, transubstantiation, rosaries, indulgences, etc. or a host of other things that make up the doctrines and practices of the Catholic Church. The list goes on and on and on.

John writes, "The Bible cannot be a reliable "standard for measuring religiously" for a non-Catholic, because he lacks the ability to interpret it without erring."

Please provide me a passage that states that someone else [the Catholic Church] must interpret the Bible for me?

John says, "5. Talk about religious errors! You, "A Christian," may hold the Guinness World Record for them."

It is too bad for John that the "Guinness World Record" will not be our standard for judgment, it will be the written Word of God. (Revelation 20:12).

Please notice that in Eugene's lengthy reply, not one time does he ever quote Scripture where God said that He would protect the Church from error. What does 2 Tim. 4:3-4 say? See also 1 Tim. 4:1-3. What happened to the 7 churches in the book of Revelation?

-- A Christian (--@---.net), December 22, 2002.

To "A Christian," the bigoted, anti-Catholic member of the PROTESTANT DENOMINATION known as the "Church(es) of Christ" ...

You have been shown to be wrong on several threads, a total of a hundred of more times in this latest go-round. Instead of admitting error, you deny the obvious or you just change the subject to another in your lengthy list of vacuous objections to Catholicism.
The EXACT same thing happened in your previous "incarnations" as Gale, Kevin, etc.. Just as you disappeared then, it is time for you to go now. Get your butt in motion and skedaddle.

We Catholics have work to do here, "Kevin," helping each other out, and helping sincere, open-minded, and respectful non-Catholics. We have given you far more time you deserved, since you came here for no reason except to proselytize. You have not listened and learned, but have only preached. This forum does not exist for you to teach Catholics and to abuse us. I therefore ask the Moderator to ban you and to delete all future posts left from your computer.

May God forgive you for your service to his angelic enemy.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 22, 2002.

John, This actually is Tim's thread; and yes, he's another going after stragglers. They seem to hope one or two mugwumps in the audience will take their posts seriously and defect to their camp. I think Tim and Kevin know deep down their preaching is too shallow to make a dent on faithful Catholics; but still hope to snare a soul now and then. Yes; the devil takes great comfort in these proselytisers. May God shed His light on them.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 23, 2002.

Regarding infant baptism...

Through baptism, we become the children of God. Granted, we do not understand the grace that baptism bestows as an infant...that is why parents are charged with the task of instilling the reasons for the baptism...later to be accepted by the child upon their confirmation.

Since baptism is the first measure taken in being embraced as a member of Christ's salvation, why would you want to delay the salvation? Are not babies worthy of entering the ranks of sinners who struggle to find Heaven like all of us here? Just because people of other faiths determine that they must understand and accept what their adult baptism implies, does not mean they are free from trying to overcome temptation. Just the same with infants. Even though they are baptised, they will still face temptations, but why deny them the grace of the seal of Christ?

-- Melissa Wilson (meanolemelissa@hotmail.com), December 23, 2002.

John says, "To "A Christian," the bigoted, anti-Catholic member of the PROTESTANT DENOMINATION known as the "Church(es) of Christ" ..."

This must be what Catholics do to people who ask questions that CANNOT be answered truthfully and in accordance with the Word of God. Catholics in this forum are good at name calling and throwing out false accusations. Sorry, I am NOT a member of any PROTESTANT DENOMINATION as you falsely charge. I challenge John to prove first that I am a "PROTESTANT" and second that the church of Christ of which I am a member is a "DENOMINATION".

I asked the following question, "Please provide me a listing of what you claim is the "spoken Word of God" so that I can investigate for myself to see if it came from God. Since this [the spoken Word of God] has been preserved by the Catholic Church [as you claim], you should have no problem providing this listing to me?"

Of course, I will not get a reply to this question, because such a list DOES NOT exist. Catholics do a good job of saying that the [spoken Word of God] is also required, but when pressed to provide a list of those Words that were supposedly handed down, they run and hide and DO NOT provide clear answers to this question. John says, "You have been shown to be wrong on several threads, a total of a hundred of more times in this latest go-round. Instead of admitting error, you deny the obvious or you just change the subject to another in your lengthy list of vacuous objections to Catholicism."

Sorry, I have provided scriptural rebuttal to your false charges, and it is you and those who have provided responses that do not admit error. To claim that I have been shown to be wrong on several threads is just not true.

John says, "The EXACT same thing happened in your previous "incarnations" as Gale, Kevin, etc.. Just as you disappeared then, it is time for you to go now. Get your butt in motion and skedaddle."

Once again, this is expected of those who DO NOT have the answers to the questions that I ask.

I also asked this question, "The Bible does not mention nor give authority for the following Catholic practices: a pope, a cardinal, a college of cardinals, metropolitans, patriarchs, councils, the Vatican, religious orders, parishes, dioceses,archdioceses, nuns, sacraments, original sin, infant baptism, sprinkling for baptism, confirmation, the mass, transubstantiation, rosaries, indulgences, etc. or a host of other things that make up the doctrines and practices of the Catholic Church. The list goes on and on and on."

No reply except an appeal to the moderator to delete my posts.

I also have not had a reply to the following question, "Please provide me a passage that states that someone else [the Catholic Church] must interpret the Bible for me?"

Nor do I expect one to be forthcoming, because there are NO passages that so state in the Word of God.

John said in an earlier post, "The first and most important point is that the deception did not lead the Catholic Church into teaching false doctrine. THAT is the main way in which the Holy Spirit protects the Church."

However, this is what he had to say on the Mary & Jesus thread, "The last official Catechism for the universal Church came out in the 16th century, and it did not teach a doctrine of Limbo. You may have been thinking of the Baltimore Catechism, which became a local (U.S.) Catechism around the turn of the 20th century. I believe that it has had many editions and varying versions (for people of different ages). My recollection is that a reference to Limbo was temporarily present in one or more editions of the Baltimore. I can't recall if it was in a footnote, but it was not (or should not have been) put forward as a doctrine of the Church, since it was only theological speculation. I know, I know. You are going to say that you were taught Limbo as a doctrine. I think that I was too, in the late 1950s, but that was wrong."

This clearly contradicts the absurd notion that the Catholic Church CANNOT ever teach error or false doctrine.

John says, "May God forgive you for your service to his angelic enemy."

Once again, John throws out an accusation with no proof offered. The devil has problems when it comes to giving answers from the Word of God. The Word of God is sufficient to refute Catholic doctrine.

"For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ, and being ready to punish all disobedience when your obedience is fulfilled." (2 Corinthians 10:4-6).

Satan has blinded [and continues to blind] people to the truth of the gospel. (2 Cor. 4:3-4).

The gospel contains facts to be believed, (1 Cor. 15:1-4) and commands to be obeyed. (Heb. 5:9).

To claim that an infant is able to obey the gospel is just another of Satan’s blatant lies against the truth of God’s Word.

Melissa says, "Just the same with infants. Even though they are baptised, they will still face temptations, but why deny them the grace of the seal of Christ?"

Infants have NO sin, so they do NOT need to be baptized.

In order to obey the gospel, one must first hear, then believe, then repent, then confess, then be baptized for the forgiveness of sins.

Until one complies with ALL of those prerequisites for salvation, one is NOT saved.

It is my sincere prayer that God will open your eyes to the truth of His Word.

What did Jesus say? "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand. Repent, and believe in the gospel." (Mark 1:15).

-- A Christian (--@---.net), December 23, 2002.

"A Christian" wrote: "First Greg says that Paul did not speak with binding authority at the council of Jerusalem, then he claims that he did speak with binding authority at other times. To claim that Paul did not speak with binding authority only because he was at this council but yet he was able to do this at other times is just not true."

Wow. I'm going to try to unsort this "spaghetti." 1. Whether he was "at this council or not" is not what determines the authority of Paul's words. Paul spoke with authority whenever he (a) spoke on matters of faith and morals *and* (b) spoke in union with the other bishops (elders) including Peter (or his successor). Paul spoke in this authoritative way a LOT - and much of it is recorded in the New Testament, which was collected and authorized (approved) by subsequent Church Councils. That's how YOU (even today) know what books (including St. Paul's letters) are inspired.

"A Christian" wrote: "If what Paul spoke was not binding, then why was he even required to be in Jerusalem?"

I've tried repeatedly to propose that Paul did not come to Jerusalem to make pronouncements... binding or otherwise. He came to Jerusalem to bring the question at hand before the proper authority: The Church. And, as you imply, it's "required" that Paul bring this before the Church - Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit - recognized his need to submit such things to the authority of the Church. I think that should tell us something!

Jesus Himself taught His disciples (Matt 18:15-20) that the Church was the proper authority to settle disputes. He even says, "If he refuses to listen *even to the Church*..." Then He follows that up with a call for UNITY (Mt 18:19-20). It seems Jesus intended His Church to be UNIFIED (thus the bishops must act in union with one another) and AUTHORITATIVE (the Church even has the ability to bind and loose in heaven!). Are you arguing that this authority of the Church has been revoked (I'm just wondering where in the bible it says that)? ... Maybe you think this happened at the same time the Holy Spirit quite inspiring people? What year was that?

Greg wrote, “As scripture tells us, Christ Himself promised to give Peter the "keys to the kingdom" - isn't that important?!” "A Christian" wrote: "Then he says to “Check out Is 22:20-22. To claim that this one passage proves the fact that Jesus gave the keys to Peter is just not true."

Actually, the passage from Isaiah doesn’t prove Jesus gave the keys to Peter… after all, it was written way before Jesus was born on earth! The passage that PROVES that Jesus gave the keys to Peter is Mt 16:19 ("I [Jesus] will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven."). Isaiah 22:20-22 is just excellent context for understanding what the keys meant to Jesus and Peter - and it's almost surely the OT scripture to which Jesus was alluding. Look at the parallels between Is and Mt - it's astounding. Understanding such OT writings (especially as the people of Jesus' time understood them) are a great way of understanding the depth of meanings in the NT. I think it was St. Augustine who said (roughly): "The New Testament is hidden in the Old and the Old Testament is revealed in the New." If you can understand both the OT and the NT - and how they complement each other - you'll arrive at an ever-greater understanding of scripture.

“A Christian” wrote: “Please notice that he does agree with me that the other apostles were also given the keys when he writes, ‘As for binding and loosing, of *course* Christ gave that power to all the Apostles (not just Peter - only the keys, representing his primacy among them, were given to Peter alone).’”

Please re-read the sentence. Whether intentionally or not, you’re misunderstanding what I wrote. See especially, “only the keys, representing his primacy among them, were given to Peter alone.” I am quite obviously – and quite overtly – NOT agreeing that the other apostles were also given the keys to the kingdom. It’s clear that PETER was given the keys. Isaiah helps us to understand what the giving of those keys means. Christ is the true head of His Church (keep in mind that Christ’s Church is comprised of far more than just His Church on earth) and He set Peter as head of His Church here on earth. Now Peter himself is not still the head of Christ’s Church on earth – he’s now in heaven (with the Church Triumphant). Someone else now holds Peter’s office (the papacy) and holds the keys to the kingdom –the passing of the keys in Isaiah 22:20-22 showed how the office of Prime Minister was of primacy in the Davidic Kingdom. See how the Davidic Kingdom was an earthly representation of the Heavenly Kingdom that is to come?

“A Christian” wrote: “To claim that just because Peter was given the authority for binding and loosing first in the NT this represents the *primacy of Peter* is just NOT true. If the binding and loosing was given to ALL of the apostles, then you CANNOT say that Peter had primacy. If Peter had the primacy then why was Peter never called the apostle that Jesus loved? This statement was made many times of the apostle John

So is the argument here that the apostle John had primacy among the apostles?! Or that Jesus DIDN’T love the apostles other than John?! I can just see it… if the Catholic Church said that Jesus loved Peter “A Christian” would raise the same argument “against” that claim – after all, John was the apostle whom Jesus loved! Where in scripture does it say, “Jesus loved Peter”? Would “A Christian” go so far as to argue that Jesus did NOT love Peter – just to take an anti- Catholic stand? I wonder…

I was intrigued to see “A Christian” on December 22, 2002, write, “… several times the Holy Spirit inspired the apostles to write that the church was built on the foundation of the apostles [plural] and NOT just Peter. (Ephesians 2:20, Revelation 21:14.” But did not “A Christian” claim that Christ Himself was the ONLY rock and foundation of the Church?! … But I guess if we’re including ALL of the apostles, then we can agree that the Church is built upon them? Good. The Church IS built upon the apostles. And those apostles MUST (and did) act in union with one another, with Peter at their head. And they MUST (and did) rest on the foundation that is Christ Himself. We all must, for without Christ there is no salvation. And the normal means of that salvation is through His Church. [that’s why Christ established a Church when He came]

"A Christian" wrote: "There are NO successors to the apostles and NO ONE has their authority because NO ONE is inspired by the Holy Spirit today." To which Greg replied, “Wow. I'm floored. "NO successors to the apostles"?! "NO ONE is inspired by the Holy Spirit today"?! That is an absolutely *astonishing* claim. And completely un-biblical;”

Then "A Christian" wrote: "No, it is NOT unbiblical Greg, it is the truth. Please read 1 Corinthians chapter 12 verse 10. The apostles were directly inspired by the Holy Spirit, thus they were able to prophesy, speak in tongues and they had knowledge [given by the Holy Spirit] to preach the gospel and bring into remembrance all things that Christ had told them. Remember what Jesus said to the apostles in John 14:26, “But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you.”

There's no doubt whatsoever that the Holy Spirit inspired the apostles. None. Yet even Paul, himself inspired by the Holy Spirit, in Acts 15 brings the question TO THE CHURCH. He does not act like a lone wolf. He acts in UNION with the other bishops (elders). The Spirit moves Him to work *through the Church* - not in opposition to it! That’s how the Spirit always works (and thanks to God for that). The Church has, throughout history, given the credit, glory, and honor to the Holy Spirit (along with credit, glory, and honor to the Father and the Son).

"A Christian" wrote: "Your analogy of Acts chapter 9 does not prove a thing."

I don't mind if you don't accept my example. The principle of Apostolic Succession can be seen throughout the bible - ever notice all the laying on of hands and then sending forth that goes on? I guess if you don't want to believe it you don't have to... but that leaves you in the unenviable position of claiming (as you've done) that NO ONE is inspired by the Holy Spirit anymore - that only the original apostles were. And that the authority of their office(s) (if you agree they had been given any) ended when they died. Absurd.

“A Christian” wrote, “The books of the New Testament were in circulation BEFORE the Council of Rome. Just because a council approved lists does NOT mean a thing. The apostles put their writings into circulation.”

Of course the books of the NT were around before the Council of Rome. That’s how the Council could select them for a list of canonical, inspired writings. The point is that it was the Church (the Catholic Church) that determined, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, which writings were truly inspired and organized them into canon. That’s how you have a book called “The Bible” that speaks the truth to you… and you certainly should accept the Catholic Church telling you the truth about which books are inspired. You should also accept the Catholic Church’s interpretations of that sacred scripture. If the Spirit inspires NO ONE (including you) today, as you claim, then how do you possibly determine what books are inspired? Clearly the books of the bible were not collected into an official canon until after all the original apostles had died. How then can you claim the collected books today as the Word of God? Without the Holy Spirit, what authority?

“A Christian” wrote: “God is the one who made sure what scripture was valid and what was not. Just because a church compiled a list does not mean a thing. the Word of the New Testament existed before the church (first given orally and then written).”

Just because the Church compiled a list DOES mean something. When the Church compiled a list of canonized scripture, she put herself under the guidance of the Holy Spirit! Tell me, please… you live ~2000 years after the NT was first written. If the Spirit hasn’t inspired anyone since the time of the original apostles (as you claim), who safeguarded those NT writings for you until you were born?! If not the Holy Spirit of God, then whose spirit guided those men who translated the original texts into various languages? And if it wasn’t Christ’s Church on earth (the Catholic Church) who approved the spiritual accuracy of those translations, then how do you know that the bible that you read in American English, ~2000 years after the books were written, is the reliable word of God upon which you can stake your eternal life?

I would not want to find myself standing alone, outside of the Church, without the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, banking my eternal salvation on an unauthorized rendering of what was undoubtedly once the Word of God Himself.

Please do like Paul did in Acts 15… bring your question to the Church. There you can be assured of finding the truth of God. When my wife finally submitted herself to the teachings of the Church (to God’s authority), she explained it very aptly: “I finally realized,” she said, “that when something I believed went against what the Church authoritatively taught as true the problem was with me, not the Church.” My wife didn’t claim to be perfect, nor even that it was miraculously easy to accept everything the Church teaches – some of it is HARD (see John 6: 53-60). But my wife recognized that yielding your will to the will of God is hard… who should expect otherwise?

I pray that we will all submit our wills to that of God our Father.

-- Greg Adas (GAdas@familink.com), December 23, 2002.

''a'' wants to see: Eugene's nthy reply, not one time does he ever quote Scripture where God said that He would protect the Church from error.

He must not believe Jesus is God. The Bible is replete with Christ's promises to sustain the Church to the end of the world. He placed the obligation on His Church to persevere to the end; and would not have failed to provide us the spiritual guidance. He stated clearly the Advocate was coming after His return to the Father; His Church would be ''sanctified in the truth.'' John 17: 19 -- Next CASE,

''a'' ponderous block of new nonsense:
'The Bible does not mention nor give authority for : a pope, a cardinal, a college of cardinals, metropolitans, patriarchs, councils, the Vatican, religious orders, parishes, dioceses,archdioceses, nuns,

First off, minister ''a'', what is in the bible is the Good News. Not the blueprints for Chrsit's Holy Church. It'd quite sufficient for Christians to have the Bible record this: ''My Church,'' (Matt 16:18) with the name of Peter foremost in authority. He received not just a name to sustantiate the greatness of his new office, but also the keys of the kingdom of heaven. It would not have been biblical, you're right; for Christ to change Simon's name to Pope. That wasn't a Hebrew or Aramaic title. It's Latin; given to the bishop of Rome where Peter was martyred It means simply Holy Father. Same with the other nomenclature, sacrament, mass, and cardinal. Vatican, religious orders, parishes, dioceses,archdioceses, nuns, Nothing historical has to remain in bible language to be legitimate, ''a''. --Your own given name is probably derived from the Latin. (You're too afraid to post it.) And the church was intended by Jesus to grow, not remain static. Developments such as convents, parishes, etc., are the work of the Holy Spirit. Very scriptural; read the 16th chapter of John.
You've had original sin explained. It's fully supported by the Bible; since not one human being lives today in the Garden of Eden, owing to Adam's disobedience; and all mortals are descended from him. Everything to do with Original Sin is explained in scripture. So is the essence of Baptism, the first SACRAMENT; which is water and the Holy Spirit. NOT IN WATER; you won't find that ''refinement'' of the sacrament written down. If you do, you must show it.

The only words Christ used specifically were: ''Born again of water and the Spirit.'' --You are attaching conditions on baptism that are totally unscriptural. Rosaries are just PRAYERS & meditations centered on the outstanding biblical events and the GLORY of God through His divine Son Jesus Christ. This doesn't depart from any Bible teaching, rather it enhances our understanding.

''. . . etc. or a host of other things that make up the doctrines and practices of the Catholic Church?'' So, what's unscriptural??? The Church is Christ's own Body and capable of great wonders and revelations. If He accomplished these in the gospels, why wouldn't He continue doing so in a span of 2,000 more years through His Church? His Church teaches, she heals, she offers spiritual help to the world. His host of things and doctrines in His Church extend Christ's reach over the whole world; just as His countless schools, hospitals, clinics, rehab centers, shelters for the poor and lost women, and most of western civilization's greatest universities are an extension the Will of God through Jesus Christ. All are from Jesus Christ to the world's souls, and to their welfare in this life as well. (NUNS, by the way, give their entire lives up for Him, working mostly within this holy framework. Just as Saint Paul predicted they would.

''a'' asks then,

Please provide me a passage that states that someone else [the Catholic Church] must interpret the Bible for me? --Let me say there is ample proof you will be needing this interpretation, ''a''. Saint Paul is obviously talking about your inability to understand the Bible in Gal 1:6: ''You are so quickly . . .changing to another gospel; which is not another gospel except in this respect, that there are some who trouble you, and wish to pervert the gospel of Christ.''

In fact, that's what happened to you in the 16th century. False doctrines were given to you, and you follow them today. If you only had been given true interpretations of scripture, you wouldn't have broken up into 30,000 lost, free-lance sects. You would be in the Holy Catholic Church founded on Peter and the apostles by Jesus. AND-- you wouldn't have to prop up your nonsense by scouring the Bible. That isn't what the Bible was written for. It was written to tell the truth to us, not to undermine Christ's glorious work in this world. You were supposed to HELP Him, not turn to Satan and his false prophets.

Before closing, I have to remind ''a'' that the Bible has no single passage telling me or you to prove evything by the words of the bible. CHrist never said, ''Blessed are the Bible-proof-text readers.'' When he says, '''The Bible does not mention nor give authority--'' He is saying the Bible HAS authority; and MUST mention everything. But he's mistaken. The Bible DOESN'T.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 23, 2002.

Tim,

In the email I sent you, I said that I thought you just misunderstand Catholic doctrine. But your most recent post sounds more like hate. You need to ask yourself why you even come to this forum. Is it just to make people mad? You already know the answers to your question / accusations before you even ask. So why even ask? When you drive someone to anger or rage, you lead them into sin.

He said to his disciples, "Things that cause sin will inevitably occur, but woe to the person through whom they occur. It would be better for him if a millstone were put around his neck and he be thrown into the sea than for him to cause one of these little ones to sin". (Lk. 17:1-2)

YOU ARE A PROTESTANT. Why do protestants try to distance themselves from their own tradition? That's right, protestants use tradition. Ask yourself where you got that bible you read. It was handed down to you from generaions past, therefore it is tradition.

The Oxford Collegiate Dictionary gives the definition of protestant: Any christian who is not a member of a Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, or Anglican Church.

The Catholic Church is the universal church; Eastern Orthodox Churches came from the Great Schism in the 12th century; the Anglican Church was started when King Henry VIII declaired himself head of the Church of Englan. ALL other churches began with the Protestant Revolt, or split from one of those churches. YOU ARE PROTESTANT.

---

Nobody is running and hiding, as much as you want us to. If you want to know what the spoken Word of God is (a.k.a. Sacred Tradition), read the Catechism of the Catholic Church. The problem with your statement is that you don't have any authority to judge the Word of God. So, you can attack the Catachism as much as you want, but nobody is going to listen to you.

---

You know that Scriptural support for the pope is found in Mt. 16. If you refuse to see the obvious, we cannot make you see it. The bible is clear in its presentation of the early church heirarchy. In the bible you have priest, deacons, bishops, and a pope.

The Vatican? Come on, you cannot be serious. Where is your church named specifically in the bible? Thought so.

Holy Orders: Just one example from the bible Do not neglect the gift you have, which was conferred on you through the prophetic word with the imposition of hands of the presbyterate. (1Tim 4:14)

A parish is just what Catholics call the local church. a diocese is a group of local churches. Your denomination has a local church too. The one you go to on Sunays. You just don't call it a parish.

Nuns? You have a problem with someone who wants to remain a virgin and spend her life in prayer? How do you call yourself a christian? There were communities of virgins and widows in the first century. Mary lived in one of these communities after Jesus' Assention.

---

I don't have the time nor inclination to teach you about all of the sacriments. But here's a crash course. I already showed you Holy Orders in the bible.

Baptism - I am baptizing you with water, for repentance, but the one who is coming after me is mightier than I.I am not worthy to carry his sandals. He will baptize you with the holy Spirit and fire. (Mt. 3:11)

Jesus answered, "Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit. (Jn. 3:5)

Peter (said) to them, "Repent and be baptized, * every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the holy Spirit. (Acts 2:38)

But when the kindness and generous love of God our savior appeared, not because of any righteous deeds we had done but because of his mercy, he saved us through the bath of rebirth and renewal by the holy Spirit, (Titus 3:4-5)

The Eucharist - So Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, it was not Moses who gave the bread from heaven; my Father gives you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is that which comes down from heaven and gives life to the world." So they said to him, "Sir, give us this bread always." * Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me will never hunger, and whoever believes in me will never thirst. But I told you that although you have seen (me), you do not believe. (Jn. 6:32-36)

Jesus told the Jews that although they saw him, they would not believe. Protestants fall into the same folly.

I am the bread of life. Your ancestors ate the manna in the desert, but they died; this is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world." The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?" Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats * my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever." (Jn. 6:48-58)

And just like our seperated christian brethren, the Jews did not believe Jesus.

Then many of his disciples who were listening said, "This saying is hard; who can accept it?" v60

As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him. v66

The Jews knew what Jesus was saying. They knew that he was not speaking symbolicly. How many times did he repeat himself? They just could not believe. Sound familiar?

Matrimony - A wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to be married to whomever she wishes, provided that it be in the Lord. (1Cor 7:39)

Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ loved the church and handed himself over for her to sanctify her, cleansing her by the bath of water with the word, that he might present to himself the church in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. (Eph. 5:25-2)

The word 'sacriment' comes from the Latin 'sacrimentum' which means 'oath'. Read the book of Hebrews, to get an idea of what this means.

So when God wanted to give the heirs of his promise an even clearer demonstration of the immutability of his purpose, he intervened with an oath (sacrimentum), (Heb. 6:17)

For the law appoints men subject to weakness to be high priests, but the word of the oath (sacrimentum), which was taken after the law, appoints a son, who has been made perfect forever. (Heb. 8:28)

---

Original Sin - Read Gen.3

True, I was born guilty, a sinner, even as my mother conceived me. (Ps. 51:7)

---

infant baptism, sprinkling for baptism, confirmation, the mass, transubstantiation -

OK, Mister Sola Scriptura, I have shown the case for baptism. Now show me where it says NOT to baptize infants, or that you MUST be submerged during baptism. Now we will see some running and hinding, because these things are not said anywhere in the Bible.

The Mass - The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because the loaf of bread is one, we, though many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf. Look at Israel according to the flesh; are not those who eat the sacrifices participants in the altar? So what am I saying? That meat sacrificed to idols is anything? Or that an idol is anything? No, I mean that what they sacrifice, (they sacrifice) to demons, not to God, and I do not want you to become participants with demons. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and also the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and of the table of demons. (1Cor. 10:16-21)

The Rosary is obviously not in the Bible. But, your arguement is futile. You already know that we don't fallow the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

---

In response to your plea for a passage that says that someone else needs to interpret Scripture for you; I say, "Turn to Scripture."

Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, (2Pet. 2:20)

And consider the patience of our Lord as salvation, as our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, also wrote to you, 16 speaking of these things * as he does in all his letters. In them there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction, just as they do the other scriptures. (2Pet. 3:15-16)

The Spirit said to Philip, "Go and join up with that chariot." Philip ran up and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet and said, "Do you understand what you are reading?" He replied, "How can I, unless someone instructs me?" So he invited Philip to get in and sit with him. (Acts 8:29-31)

Trust in the LORD with all your heart, on your own intelligence rely not; In all your ways be mindful of him, and he will make straight your paths. Be not wise in your own eyes, (Prov. 3:5-7a)

---

The example you give of a supposed mistake in the Baltimore Catechism is irrelivant. The U.S. Bishops are not protected from teaching false doctrin; but the Catholic Church (i.e. - all the bishops in communion with the pope) is protected from teaching false docrtrine.

---

The last few paragraphs of your post are the ones you should ask for forgiveness for. You go on a rant, spewing non-biblical hate. You need to humble yourself and not be so assured of yourself. You cannot accuse us of the same thing, because we do humble ourselves and submit to the authority of Christ's Church. You read the bible and interpret it to mean whatever you want it to mean. Why waste your time? You already know what you are going to make it say.

Therefore, whoever thinks he is standing secure should take care not to fall. (1Cor. 10:12)

God bless,

-- Tom (tjb2_99@yahoo.com), December 23, 2002.

[Sorry, I am NOT a member of any PROTESTANT DENOMINATION as you falsely charge. I challenge John to prove first that I am a "PROTESTANT"]

In saying you are a Protestant, John gives you credit for being a Christian. There are three categories of Christian Churches - Protestant (16th century origin), Orthodox (11th century origin), and Catholic (1st century origin ). You obviously are not Catholic or Orthodox; therefore, if you are not Protestant, you are not Christian. However, everything you have posted reveals that you are a member of the Protestant tradition, founded on the manmade traditions of sola scriptura, sola fide, and personal interpretation. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck , and quacks like a duck, it is most likely a duck.

[and second that the church of Christ of which I am a member is a "DENOMINATION"]

The Protestant "Church of Christ" was founded as an offshoot of Methodism in Kentucky and surrounding areas, in the early 19th century. Like every Protestant denomination (including those which call themselves "non-denominational), it is an offshoot of an offshoot of an offshoot of Catholicism. Of course, the true "Church of Christ" was founded in the first century by Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and called itself the Holy Catholic Church before the end of that century. A church is Christian only by virtue of the Catholic doctrinal truth it maintains from its original roots.

[I also asked this question, "The Bible does not mention nor give authority for the following Catholic practices: a pope, a cardinal, a college of cardinals, metropolitans, patriarchs, councils, the Vatican, religious orders, parishes, dioceses,archdioceses, nuns, sacraments, original sin, infant baptism, sprinkling for baptism, confirmation, the mass, transubstantiation, rosaries, indulgences, etc. or a host of other things that make up the doctrines and practices of the Catholic Church.]

This "question" did not get an answer because it is such a run-on, disconnected, irrelevant listing of unrelated issues that it would take a small book to address them all. This is a favorite tactic of Catholic bashers - post an endless list of odds and ends, which would take thousands of words to answer properly, then complain that no-one took the several hours required to address each of the listed issues. Actually, a majority of the items you listed are described in scripture - the appointment of the first Pope, the first Council, dioceses, sacraments, original sin, Confirmation, the Mass, transubstantiation, indulgences, etc. However, you are not likely to recognize the biblical descriptions of such things unless you (1) know what each of these terms actually means, and (2) have access to accurate scriptural interpretation. Since you are lacking on both counts, it is no surprise that the relevant scriptures are meaningless to you. As for the other things you mentioned, they are simply organizational aspects of the church, forms of prayer, etc, which developed later. Why would they be found in the early writings of the Church, if they came later? Where in the Bible can I find altar calls mentioned? Or for that matter, denominations? But of course the most fundamental question - the one Protestants scramble to avoid, is - Where in the Bible does it say that all my beliefs and practices must be found in the Bible? The answer of course is - nowhere. Which means that all the Bible-related demands you throw at Catholics are based on a totally unbiblical tradition of men. Why would you expect us to honor such a tradition, when the Bible itself tells us to avoid such traditions?

[I also have not had a reply to the following question, "Please provide me a passage that states that someone else [the Catholic Church] must interpret the Bible for me?"]

The Bible says the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth. Those words are extremely descriptive. They precisely define the relationship between the Church and the truth. If you remove the foundation and pillars from a structure, it collapses. That's what the Bible tells you. If you seek the truth without the Church, you will find only a the fragmented remains of the truth - what remains of it after the collapse, and those fragments are called denominations. If you can't see this from the sorry state of doctrinal chaos found in Protestantism, then you simply don''t want to see it. None so blind as those who choose blindness.

[Limbo]

The idea of "Limbo" was a proposed explanation for the biblical teaching that baptism is necessary to enter the kingdom, and the idea did gain some popular support. However, it was never taught by the Church as official doctrine; therefore it has no relevance to the issue of the Church's infallible teaching of doctrine. Furthermore, the idea has never been renounced by the Church. So obviously there is no question of the Church's reversing itself on a doctrine since (1) it never was a doctrine, and (2) there never was a reversal.

[ The devil has problems when it comes to giving answers from the Word of God. The Word of God is sufficient to refute Catholic doctrine].

In fact, the devil has no problem whatsoever quoting from the Word of God, when he thinks it will cause confusion and untruth; and in denominationalism he has fertile ground in which to plant such confusion and untruth. He knows, even though Protestants don't seem to, that separation from the Pillar and Foundation of Truth is the fastest road to heresy.

[Satan has blinded [and continues to blind] people to the truth of the gospel]

Agreed! How else could there be thousands of conflicting sects, all claiming to follow Christ, all claiming to have the truth, and all claiming to be based on the Bible? Genuine truth cannot conflict with itself - which is why there are no denominations in the Catholic Church.

[The gospel contains facts to be believed, (1 Cor. 15:1-4) and commands to be obeyed. (Heb. 5:9). ]

No. The gospel contains statements which, if correctly interpreted, yield facts (that is, truth), but which, if misinterpreted, yield untruth. Otherwise how could there be so many contradictions in the beliefs of sola scriptura Christians?

[To claim that an infant is able to obey the gospel is just another of Satan's blatant lies against the truth of God's Word]

No-one makes such a claim. It is precisely because infants cannot reject the gospel that they are ready for the kingdom ("to such as these belongs the kingdom of God" - Jesus). And since they are ready for the kingdom, they obviously must also be ready for that which is required to enter the kingdom - baptism in water and in the Spirit ("unles ye be born of water and the Spirit, ye cannot enter the kingdom")

[Infants have NO sin, so they do NOT need to be baptized]

That wrongly assumes that forgiveness of sin is the sole purpose of baptism. It is not. Forgiveness of sin is an effect of baptism, but it is not the primary purpose of the sacrament, and no Christian ever thought it was until the beginning of manmade denominations a few hundred years ago.

[In order to obey the gospel, one must first hear, then believe, then repent, then confess, then be baptized for the forgiveness of sins. Until one complies with ALL of those prerequisites for salvation, one is NOT saved].

That's correct - one cannot be saved without being baptized. If one is a sinner, one also must repent, in order to become spiritually innocent again - that is, to become like a little child. Jesus told us we must become like little children in order to be saved. Obviously then, those who already ARE little childer do not have to take that step. They already are spiritually what we who are sinners must become. I might also point out that the means to salvation you listed above tell us we must "hear". They do not say "read". A clear indication that the spoken Word of God, not a book, was what Christians relied on for truth from the very beginning.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 23, 2002.

Wow Tom!

Are you sure you are repling to a post of mine? I didn't even bring up anything concerning most of the topics that you posted.

What post do you claim "your most recent post sounds more like hate. You need to ask yourself why you even come to this forum. Is it just to make people mad?" - I definitly don't hate Catholics and do not wish to just anger them.

Are you sure it wasn't a post from someone else here? I read through my post, and I don't see anything that could be hateful.

Let me know if this post was really meant for me and I will reply,

God Bless!

-- Tim, the Baptist (tlw97@cox.net), December 23, 2002.

Tim, be not alarmed!

Tom's great message and Paul's great message too were addressed to the troubled boy named "Kevin" (also known as "A Christian"). Tom either thought that you had left Kevin's post, or he thought that "Tim" and "A Christian" were one and the same person.

You and I have no trouble telling "Tim" and "A Christian" apart, though, do we, Tim? Even though you are both Protestants, your doctrines differ (most obviously on Baptism) -- and this proves one of the points we have been trying to make to you for weeks. It is the false principle called "sola scriptura" that prevents you and Kevin from being united in doctrine. Neither of you has an infallible magisterium (church teaching authority) to guide you -- nor an Apostolic Tradition to help you understand God's written word.

Tom, I almost agree with what you quoted from the Oxford reference work, but Paul had it right when he said that there are only (1) Catholicism, (2) Eastern schismatic churches, and (3) Protestantism. The Oxford folks, being centered in Anglicanism, want to believe in the "branch theory," whereby they put themselves on a par with Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy (separate from Protestantism). But the reality is that Anglicanism [Church of England] is part of Protestantism. Proof of this can be found within one section of the coronation oath taken by the sovereign of England. Here is what the Archbishop of Canterbury and Queen Elizabeth II said about fifty years ago [and you can find this at various places on the Internet]:

Archbishop: "Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel? Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law? Will you maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England? And will you preserve unto the Bishops and Clergy of England, and to the Churches there committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges, as by law do or shall appertain to them or any of them?" Queen: "All this I promise to do."

God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 23, 2002.

Greg wrote, "Whether he was "at this council or not" is not what determines the authority of Paul's words. Paul spoke with authority whenever he (a) spoke on matters of faith and morals *and* (b) spoke in union with the other bishops (elders) including Peter (or his successor). Paul spoke in this authoritative way a LOT - and much of it is recorded in the New Testament, which was collected and authorized (approved) by subsequent Church Councils. That's how YOU (even today) know what books (including St. Paul's letters) are inspired."

I still don?t see your logic that somehow Peter spoke with authority and Paul did not. Just because we do not have what Barnabus and Paul spoke does not mean that they did not speak with authority. All Peter did when he spoke was to remind them of what happened to the Gentiles when Peter spoke to Cornelius and his house and that they [Gentiles] would be saved in the same manner as the Jews. All Paul and Barnabus did was speak about how many miracles and wonders God had worked through them among the Gentiles [Confirming the Word with signs and miracles, See Mark 16:17-18]. So, since Peter only refreshed the Jews memory of what had been done among the gentiles and Paul showed how the Word of God was confirmed, how is it that you can continue to say that only Peter and James spoke with authority? We do not have all the miracles that Jesus performed, but do we dare say that they did not happen? (John 20:30-31). The reason they were not written down for us, was because the Holy Spirit did not deem it necessary to be put down into writing.

Yes, I understand that Paul and Barnabus brought the matter to the church, and they did bring it to the church in Antioch, but since the church in Antioch could not come to a consensus, they had to go down to Jerusalem. Why did they have to go down to Jerusalem? Not because Jerusalem was considered above all of the other churches, it is because all the apostles happened to be there. [See Acts 15:2]. Finally, it was James, the Apostles, the Elders AND the Holy Spirit who weighed in on the matter and NOT Peter ONLY as you claim.

Greg wrote, "It seems Jesus intended His Church to be UNIFIED (thus the bishops must act in union with one another) and AUTHORITATIVE (the Church even has the ability to bind and loose in heaven!). Are you arguing that this authority of the Church has been revoked (I'm just wondering where in the bible it says that)? ... Maybe you think this happened at the same time the Holy Spirit quite inspiring people? What year was that?"

Only Christ is the head of the church (Col. 1:18). Since Christ is the only head of the Church (Col. 1:18) then NO ONE but Christ can speak authoritatively as the head of the Church. For there is no doubt that Christ is the ONLY head of the Church for we are told, "And He (Christ) is the head of the body the church that in all things He might have the preeminence" (Col. 1:18).

If Christ is God, as he surely IS, and you put the Pope in His place and yield to Him as if he actually possesses the AUTHORITY to speak as the head of the church (who is Christ alone); then, you surely cannot avoid the charge of elevating the Pope to the "place" of God! Now can you? You most certainly should be able to understand how someone could draw the conclusion that you do in fact put the POPE in the PLACE of Christ!

How else could he speak as the HEAD of the Church as Catholics claim? Catholics attempt to place the Pope in the "place of Christ" as the head of the church. The Pope can speak the truth with the same authority of any ordinary human being but he CANNOT speak as the HEAD OF THE CHURCH because ONLY Christ holds that position.

The apostles are the ONLY witness of Christ that have authority in the Church and they are still the ones who speak for Christ today through their inspired words. But none of the apostles spoke as Christ. None of them claimed to be the "head of the universal Church". They spoke as the spirit gave them utterance. (Acts 2:1-4). ALL OF THEM, not just Peter. There is NOT ONE PLACE in the scriptures where Peter claimed to "speak as the head of the Church". There is no indication whatsoever that he claimed any such thing as "papal infallibility". For that was an invention of the Vatican Council of 1870.

Your claims of primacy of Peter over the other apostles are greatly exaggerated. Even the Catholics have not always agreed about this matter. One of the arguments made against the infallibility of the pope at the Vatican council of 1870 was to condemn the idea that Peter had primacy among the apostles.

It was not until after the great apostasy predicted by Paul through the Holy Spirit that anyone pretended to be so bold as to claim to be the "head of the church" in Jesus place on this earth. But the Pope?s arrogance does not stop with his efforts to take the place of Christ and sit upon His throne. He actually claims infallibility for himself in matters of "faith and morals" when he attempts to usurp the very place of Christ and assume unto himself the very authority of Christ in the very pretentious act of "speaking as the head of the church." No one in all of the history of Christendom has ever shown a more rebellious spirit against the authority of Christ who is seated at God?s right hand. (2 Thess. 2:3-12).

Eugene writes, "He must not believe Jesus is God."

Please notice that Eugene can now read minds? How can he claim that I do not believe Jesus is God? That is an absurd conclusion and is another figment of Eugene?s imagination. Yes, Jesus is God, what does John 1:1 say?

Eugene writes, "The Bible is replete with Christ's promises to sustain the Church to the end of the world. He placed the obligation on His Church to persevere to the end; and would not have failed to provide us the spiritual guidance. He stated clearly the Advocate was coming after His return to the Father; His Church would be ''sanctified in the truth.'' John 17: 19 -- Next CASE, "

Did the Holy Spirit lead the apostles into ALL truth Eugene? Please notice that Jesus said that His word was truth. This truth is WRITTEN down for us in the NT. (See 2 Cor. 10:5).

Eugene writes, "First off, minister ''a'', what is in the bible is the Good News."

To which I say amen.

Then Eugene writes, "Not the blueprints for Chrsit's Holy Church."

God disagrees when He says, "The seed is the word of God." (Luke 8:11). (See James 1:21 and 1 Peter 1:23-25).

Eugene writes, "It'd quite sufficient for Christians to have the Bible record this: ''My Church,'' (Matt 16:18) with the name of Peter foremost in authority."

Just before our Lord ascended into the heavens he said, "All authority hath been given unto me in heaven AND ON EARTH." (Matthew 28:19-20). He did not say "I have authority in heaven and I have recognized Peter as the POPE and he has authority in my place on the earth!"

Eugene writes, "Developments such as convents, parishes, etc., are the work of the Holy Spirit. Very scriptural; read the 16th chapter of John."

I read the 16th chapter of John, and NO mention is made of any of the Catholic Church inventions such as convents, parishes and of such like. Eugene is just reading something into the text that is NOT there. You have to really have a vivid imagination to claim that John chapter 16 is speaking of such absurd developments.

Eugene writes, "You've had original sin explained. It's fully supported by the Bible; since not one human being lives today in the Garden of Eden, owing to Adam's disobedience; and all mortals are descended from him. Everything to do with Original Sin is explained in scripture. "

No, Original Sin is NOT explained in scripture, and is just another unbiblical invention of the Catholic Church.

Eugene writes, "So is the essence of Baptism, the first SACRAMENT; which is water and the Holy Spirit. NOT IN WATER; you won't find that ''refinement'' of the sacrament written down. If you do, you must show it. The only words Christ used specifically were: ''Born again of water and the Spirit.'' --You are attaching conditions on baptism that are totally unscriptural."

First off, the word SACRAMENT is another Catholic word that has no basis in the Word of God. What conditions am I guilty of attaching Eugene? I agree that one is born of water [which is the water of baptism] and the Spirit [which is the Word of God]. To claim anything else, is NOT what the Word of God teaches. Yes, baptism is IN WATER. If baptism does not mean [immersion in water and not sprinkling or pouring] please do tell Eugene why John the Baptist was "baptizing in Aenon near Salim, because there was much water there." (John 3:23) Why he required MUCH WATER. When Jesus was baptized, He came up out of the water. (Matt. 3:16). You can?t come up without going down. In Acts 8:38-39, Philip and the eunuch went DOWN into the water, and came UP out of the water. So, to claim anything else of baptism such as pouring or sprinkling is just not the truth according to the Word of God.

Eugene writes, "Rosaries are just PRAYERS & meditations centered on the outstanding biblical events and the GLORY of God through His divine Son Jesus Christ. This doesn't depart from any Bible teaching, rather it enhances our understanding."

What did Jesus say about vain repetitions. (See Matt. 6:7-8).

I wrote, "Please provide me a passage that states that someone else [the Catholic Church] must interpret the Bible for me?" To which Eugene replied, "Let me say there is ample proof you will be needing this interpretation, ''a''. Saint Paul is obviously talking about your inability to understand the Bible in Gal 1:6: ''You are so quickly . . .changing to another gospel; which is not another gospel except in this respect, that there are some who trouble you, and wish to pervert the gospel of Christ.''

Unfortunately for you Eugene, you have yet to prove that I am guilty of teaching another gospel. You claim that I am unable to understand the Bible, but that does not prove that I am teaching a false gospel. In order for you to make that claim, you must first prove that what I say someone must do to be saved is NOT in accordance with the Word of God, and then you must prove it by the Word of God and this is what you have not accomplished. You are good at making assertions, it is the area of proving them where you need a lot of work.

Eugene writes, "In fact, that's what happened to you in the 16th century. False doctrines were given to you, and you follow them today. If you only had been given true interpretations of scripture, you wouldn't have broken up into 30,000 lost, free-lance sects. You would be in the Holy Catholic Church founded on Peter and the apostles by Jesus. AND-- you wouldn't have to prop up your nonsense by scouring the Bible. That isn't what the Bible was written for. It was written to tell the truth to us, not to undermine Christ's glorious work in this world. You were supposed to HELP Him, not turn to Satan and his false prophets."

The truth of the matter is that the Catholic Church is the MOTHER of all division. To claim that following the Bible alone is what causes division is just not true. Jesus pleads for unity, but the only way true unity will be achieved will be for every Church to throw out their human creeds and traditions and go back to the Bible for all authority and practice in the Church.

When Paul warned of the great apostasy he described some of the false doctrines that would be taught and one of those was "forbidding to marry" and commanding to "abstain from meats." (1 Tim. 4:1). The Catholics teach both. The man of sin has been revealed, the son of perdition, He that opposes and exalts himself against all that is called God or that is worshipped; so that he sitts in the temple of God, setting himself forth as God. A better description of the Pope could not have ever been written!

Tom writes, "Tim, In the email I sent you, I said that I thought you just misunderstand Catholic doctrine. But your most recent post sounds more like hate. You need to ask yourself why you even come to this forum. Is it just to make people mad? You already know the answers to your question / accusations before you even ask. So why even ask? When you drive someone to anger or rage, you lead them into sin."

If Tom would only read who posted the message, he would see that Tim did not post the message, I did. No, the message that I posted was not hate, only the truth. If I make an accusation, I back it up with scriptural references. You on the other hand, say that "your most recent post sounds like hate", however, you fail to prove this is the case. Then you say, "When you drive someone to anger or rage, you lead them into sin." This is NOT the case at all. What does 1 John 4:1 say? The ONLY way to do that is through the Word of God. The Word of God is what? (See 2 Cor. 10:4-5).

Tom wrote, "He said to his disciples, "Things that cause sin will inevitably occur, but woe to the person through whom they occur. It would be better for him if a millstone were put around his neck and he be thrown into the sea than for him to cause one of these little ones to sin". (Lk. 17:1-2)"

Please do tell Tom how showing someone the error of their way and leading them to a knowledge of the truth causes someone to sin? What does James 5:20 say?

Tom continues, "YOU ARE A PROTESTANT. Why do protestants try to distance themselves from their own tradition? That's right, protestants use tradition. Ask yourself where you got that bible you read. It was handed down to you from generaions past, therefore it is tradition."

Sorry, I am NOT a protestant. A protestant is one who protested the Catholic Church. The true church of Christ was NEVER a part of the Catholic Church.

Tom writes, "The Oxford Collegiate Dictionary gives the definition of protestant: Any christian who is not a member of a Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, or Anglican Church."

Obedience to the gospel does not produce Protestants or Catholics, it ONLY produces Christians.

Tom writes, "The Catholic Church is the universal church; Eastern Orthodox Churches came from the Great Schism in the 12th century; the Anglican Church was started when King Henry VIII declaired himself head of the Church of Englan. ALL other churches began with the Protestant Revolt, or split from one of those churches. YOU ARE PROTESTANT. "

Sorry, you are wrong. I have obeyed the gospel, and I am a Christian and ONLY a Christian. I have never been a member of any protestant organization or denomination and the Lord?s church has never been a part of or offshoot of the Catholic Church.

Tom writes, "Nobody is running and hiding, as much as you want us to. If you want to know what the spoken Word of God is (a.k.a. Sacred Tradition), read the Catechism of the Catholic Church. The problem with your statement is that you don't have any authority to judge the Word of God. So, you can attack the Catachism as much as you want, but nobody is going to listen to you."

Sorry, but the Catechism of the Catholic Church is NOT the spoken Word of God or Sacred Tradition. You claim that I don?t have any authority to judge the Word of God however, I suggest that you re-read 1 Cor. 6:2. While you are at it, go back and re-read Psalm 149:5-9.

Tom writes, "You know that Scriptural support for the pope is found in Mt. 16. If you refuse to see the obvious, we cannot make you see it. The bible is clear in its presentation of the early church heirarchy. In the bible you have priest, deacons, bishops, and a pope."

Please, there is NO scriptural support for a pope in Matthew 16. Please read Mark 8:27-30. In Mark?s gospel [the same account as in Matthew 16] tells us of this same event without mentioning anything about the "rock" or the "keys" or the establishment of the church that are found in the account given by Matthew. He mentions the question concerning the identity of Christ that was put to the disciples and the answers given by men as opposed to the answer that was given by God through Peter. Men had varying opinions concerning the identity of Christ but God, through Peter, gave the correct answer. That answer was that Christ is the Son of God. Mark clearly shows us what the central matter under discussion was when Christ talked with his disciples in Caesarea Philippi. The central thought is Christ is the Son of God. Mark, who, incidentally, was a companion of Peter, gave this account. If this were the place where the primary subject under discussion was the "Primacy of Peter" then surely he would have been sure to make that clear. But he does not even mention the establishment of the church much less Peter as being the foundation of the church or the universal pope of the church. This neglect to mention the "pope" would be strange for one who had been a companion to the "pope" to just completely ignore, when discussing the events surrounding the appointment of the "pope" to even mention the "pope" or his appointment.

Tom wrote, "The Vatican? Come on, you cannot be serious. Where is your church named specifically in the bible? Thought so. "

What does Romans 16:16 say? There is NO mention of the Catholic Church in the Bible is there? Thought so.

Tom wrote, "Holy Orders: Just one example from the bible Do not neglect the gift you have, which was conferred on you through the prophetic word with the imposition of hands of the presbyterate. (1Tim 4:14) "

This passage speaks nothing of Holy Orders? This speaks of how the elders laid their hands on Timothy to ordain him as an evangelist and nothing more. As for gift that was given to him by prophecy, go back and re-read Eph. 4:11-12.

Tom wrote, "A parish is just what Catholics call the local church. a diocese is a group of local churches. Your denomination has a local church too. The one you go to on Sunays. You just don't call it a parish. "

Yep, another name that the Catholic Church uses which is NOT in the Bible. The New Testament church was NEVER called a parish.

Tom wrote, "Nuns? You have a problem with someone who wants to remain a virgin and spend her life in prayer? How do you call yourself a christian? There were communities of virgins and widows in the first century. Mary lived in one of these communities after Jesus' Assention."

I never said that I had a problem with someone who desires to remain a virgin, please don?t put words in my mouth. Are you a mind reader like Eugene? This is just another of many false accusations that Catholics throw out with no proof offered. There is no such thing nor any reference to Nuns in the Word of God. This is another invention of the Catholic Church.

Tom writes, "Baptism - I am baptizing you with water, for repentance, but the one who is coming after me is mightier than I.I am not worthy to carry his sandals. He will baptize you with the holy Spirit and fire. (Mt. 3:11)"

Holy Spirit baptism was only given twice, first on Pentecost and then on Cornelius. Please notice that both times it happened [Holy Spirit baptism] those on whom the Holy Spirit fell on spoke in tongues. Now there is only one baptism, See Eph. 4:5.

Tom wrote, "Jesus answered, "Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit. (Jn. 3:5) Peter (said) to them, "Repent and be baptized, * every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the holy Spirit. (Acts 2:38) But when the kindness and generous love of God our savior appeared, not because of any righteous deeds we had done but because of his mercy, he saved us through the bath of rebirth and renewal by the holy Spirit, (Titus 3:4-5)"

I agree with every one of these passages of scripture. In John 3:5 Water = baptism; Spirit = Word of God.

John 3:5 ? Spirit ? Water ? Kingdom.

1 Cor. 12:13 ? Spirit ? Baptism ? Body.

Eph. 5:26 ? Word ? Water ? Cleansed.

Titus 3:5 ? Holy Spirit ? Washing ? Saved.

The first column = How the Spirit operates in conversion. The second column = Water is identified as Baptism. The third column = those cleansed by their obedience, having entered into the body of the kingdom [which is the church] and are saved from their past sins.

Tom writes, "The Eucharist - So Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, it was not Moses who gave the bread from heaven; my Father gives you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is that which comes down from heaven and gives life to the world." So they said to him, "Sir, give us this bread always." * Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me will never hunger, and whoever believes in me will never thirst. But I told you that although you have seen (me), you do not believe. (Jn. 6:32-36) Jesus told the Jews that although they saw him, they would not believe. Protestants fall into the same folly."

What did Jesus say in John 6:63? Catholics do not quote this verse, because it puts to rest the ignorant notion that Jesus literal body and blood are present when someone partakes of the Lord?s supper. Go back and read verse 35. Jesus is speaking of faith in this verse, and if you fast forward to verse 45 once again, one can be taught by God if one reads the New Testament which produces faith. What does Romans 10:17 say? What is the victory? Go back and re-read 1 John 5:4-5. So to claim that this passage speaks of the Eucharist [another unbiblical term] is just false.

Tom wrote, "Original Sin - Read Gen.3 True, I was born guilty, a sinner, even as my mother conceived me. (Ps. 51:7)"

Hello, how about reading this passage in context. David was speaking of his sin against God when he committed adultery with Bathsheba. To claim that Ps. 51:7 is clear proof of original sin you are really twisting the Word of God to get Original Sin out of this passage. What does Ezek. 18:20 say?

Tom wrote, "infant baptism, sprinkling for baptism, confirmation, the mass, transubstantiation - OK, Mister Sola Scriptura, I have shown the case for baptism. Now show me where it says NOT to baptize infants, or that you MUST be submerged during baptism. Now we will see some running and hinding, because these things are not said anywhere in the Bible."

There are NO examples in the NT of any infants being baptized. One had to be taught the Word of God [the gospel] and were told to obey the gospel. Infants are not capable of obeying the gospel, so they are NOT candidates for baptism. The theory that Baptism doesn?t mean "Immersion" in Water is completely contrary to what the Bible tells us.

Take a look at what it clearly says about the Baptism of Jesus (Matt. 3:16) and also of the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:35-39). These Scriptures make it very clear that baptism requires going down into the water and coming back up out of the water. The word "baptize" found in scriptures is translated from the Greek word "baptizo" which literally means "to dip" or "to immerse." The Greek word for "sprinkle" is "rhantizo, " and the Greek word for "pour" is "cheo. " These two words are NEVER associated with baptism. No running and hiding here.

Tom wrote, "The Mass - The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because the loaf of bread is one, we, though many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf. Look at Israel according to the flesh; are not those who eat the sacrifices participants in the altar? So what am I saying? That meat sacrificed to idols is anything? Or that an idol is anything? No, I mean that what they sacrifice, (they sacrifice) to demons, not to God, and I do not want you to become participants with demons. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and also the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and of the table of demons. (1Cor. 10:16-21)"

The scriptures above most definitely speak of the Lord?s supper and nothing of another unbiblical term "The Mass".

Tom wrote, "The Rosary is obviously not in the Bible. But, your arguement is futile. You already know that we don't fallow the doctrine of Sola Scriptura."

For a change, a true statement, "The Rosary is obviously not in the Bible". No, my argument is NOT futile. What does Jesus say? "If you abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed. And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." (John 8:31-32).

Tom wrote, "In response to your plea for a passage that says that someone else needs to interpret Scripture for you; I say, "Turn to Scripture." Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, (2Pet. 2:20)."

First off, the scripture reference is 2 Peter 1:20. Go back and re-read 1 Peter 2:21. Catholics ALWAYS neglect to point out this verse. This DOES NOT say that one CANNOT have a private interpretation. This is another gross twisting of the Word of God to justify false Catholic doctrine.

Tom wrote, "And consider the patience of our Lord as salvation, as our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, also wrote to you, 16 speaking of these things * as he does in all his letters. In them there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction, just as they do the other scriptures. (2Pet. 3:15-16)."

Yep, some people do twist the Scriptures even today, but this is not a passage that proves that we CANNOT interpret the Word of God without any assistance from the Catholic Church.

Tom writes, "The Spirit said to Philip, "Go and join up with that chariot." Philip ran up and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet and said, "Do you understand what you are reading?" He replied, "How can I, unless someone instructs me?" So he invited Philip to get in and sit with him. (Acts 8:29-31)."

Another Catholic attempt to twist scripture. Did the eunuch have at his disposal the New Testament? How could he understand since the New Testament which contains the Word of God was not available to him? This is why Philip needed to preach Jesus to him.

Tom wrote, "Trust in the LORD with all your heart, on your own intelligence rely not; In all your ways be mindful of him, and he will make straight your paths. Be not wise in your own eyes, (Prov. 3:5-7a)"

A true statement. What did Jesus say? Go back and re-read Luke 4:4 and Luke 8:21. Tom wrote, "The example you give of a supposed mistake in the Baltimore Catechism is irrelivant. The U.S. Bishops are not protected from teaching false doctrin; but the Catholic Church (i.e. - all the bishops in communion with the pope) is protected from teaching false docrtrine."

No, it is NOT irrevelant. The U.S. Bishops taught false doctrine and there is NO getting around this fact. You do speak with a forked tongue when you say "The U.S. Bishops are not protected from teaching false doctrin; but the Catholic Church (i.e. - all the bishops in communion with the pope) is protected from teaching false docrtrine."

Why were the U.S. Bishops not excommunicated for teaching false doctrine? If the U.S. Bishops are NOT in communion with the pope as you allege, then according to your reasoning, the Catholic Church does not exist in the United States. Error begets error.

Tom wrote, "The last few paragraphs of your post are the ones you should ask for forgiveness for. You go on a rant, spewing non-biblical hate. You need to humble yourself and not be so assured of yourself. You cannot accuse us of the same thing, because we do humble ourselves and submit to the authority of Christ's Church. You read the bible and interpret it to mean whatever you want it to mean. Why waste your time? You already know what you are going to make it say."

Why apologize for something that is true? Just because you say what I posted was non-biblical hate does not make it a true statement now does it?

"Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God and keep His commandments, for this is man's all. For God will bring every work into judgment, Including every secret thing, Whether good or evil. (Eccl 12:13-14)."

-- A Christian (--@---.net), December 23, 2002.

"A Christian" wrote: "Catholics attempt to place the Pope in the 'place of Christ' as the head of the church. The Pope can speak the truth with the same authority of any ordinary human being but he CANNOT speak as the HEAD OF THE CHURCH because ONLY Christ holds that position."

Christ is undoubtedly the head of the Church (the WHOLE Church). When Jesus was preparing to leave this earth in his bodily form, He organized His followers into a Church. And He placed Peter at the head of that Church ON EARTH (as a kind of "prime minister"). That's so clearly written in scripture ("keys to the kingdom", Peter's preeminence in Acts and elsewhere in scripture), history (Peter's papacy), and writings of the early Church fathers (see Gail's post from Dec 13 in this very thread).

Now just because he's the head of Christ's Church ON EARTH (and on EARTH only!) does not mean that the Pope is perfect, sinless, or superhuman. Rather, it means that he CAN (not always DOES, but CAN) speak authoritatively (infallibly) under certain conditions. Keep in mind that the Holy Spirit protects Christ's Church on earth by keeping Popes from leading Christ's worldwide faithful into error.

1. He must speak from his position as head of Christ's Church on earth (not just private theologian, just the bishop of Rome, etc.).

2. He must be clearly defining a doctrine, conclusively defining the doctrine final and definitive.

3. The doctrine must be about faith and morals. The Pope cannot speak infallibly on whether fried or scrambled eggs taste better.

4. His pronouncement must be to the universal (worldwide) Church, not just one part of the world (e.g., North America, or Asia).

See http://net2.netacc.net/~mafg/magist02.htm for an article discussing this very topic.

Notice that these conditions these conditions exist PRECISELY BECAUSE the Pope is just a man. When he speaks authoritatively, he speaks not relying on his own power, but relying on the power and authority of Christ Himself. We should all be able to understand that ALL true authority comes not from us but from God Himself. As a father, I exercise true authority within my family only when my words and actions rely on Christ's authority rather than my own. Likewise, as our spiritual father here on earth, the Pope exercises true authority only when his words and actions rest on Christ's authority rather than his own. Christ Himself is behind every authoritative action of the Pope... He should also be behind every authoritative action I take as father to my children.

As we prepare to celebrate the feast of Christmas, I've been (and will continue to be) meditating a lot on St. Joseph's role in the Holy Family.

Wishing you all a blessed Christmas...

-- Greg Adas (gadas@familink.com), December 24, 2002.

Tom wrote: "The Spirit said to Philip, 'Go and join up with that chariot.' Philip ran up and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet and said, 'Do you understand what you are reading?' He replied, 'How can I, unless someone instructs me?' So he invited Philip to get in and sit with him. (Acts 8:29-31)."

Then "a Christian" wrote: "Another Catholic attempt to twist scripture. Did the eunuch have at his disposal the New Testament? How could he understand since the New Testament which contains the Word of God was not available to him? This is why Philip needed to preach Jesus to him. "

No, the eunuch did NOT have the NT. Nor did Philip. Nor did ANYone for hundreds of years more. After awhile the writings *existed* - along with a great deal MORE writings that were later deemed NOT inspired by God. Again I wonder, how do you today know that your NT contains the Word of God? We Catholics know it because it was the Church (the *Catholic* Church) that brought the inspired books together and collected them into a canon. In the process, the Church (the *Catholic* Church) sifted out a great deal more books that She deemed NOT inspired writings. The bible did not gather together the Church... rather, the Church gathered together the bible. The Church was formed by a much more authoritative source: Christ Himself.

I'm beginning to see why some have levelled the charge "bibliolatry" on some of these threads. Taken to its extreme, apparently one of the sentiments of "Sola Scriptura" is to deny the movement of the Holy Spirit in our world today. To twist Christ's words when he promised to send the Advocate to be with us until the end of days. To raise the Word of God (actually in this case only the Protestant rendition of the NT) above the movement of the Holy Spirit in our world is very problematic. In Catholic theology, we understand that the genuine movement of the Holy Spirit never contradicts the Word of God (scripture). It's a whole lot more logical claim than to say that the Spirit has simply abandoned us [or at least abandoned us between the death of the last apostle and prior to the collection of the NT into canon].

-- Greg Adas (gadas@familink.com), December 24, 2002.

Tim,

A Thousand appologies to you!!! How embarressing! I had intended my post to be addressed to 'A Christian'. I have only been coming to this forum for about a week, and I wasn't awaire that there was more than one protestant in here. Sorry 'bout that. :P

---

John,

I agree with you and Paul that there are only three kinds of christians. I was trying to use a 'non-biased' source for my definition.

---

'A Christian'

Do you call it vain repetition when Jesus prayed the same prayer three consecutive times, just before he was betrayed?

He left them and withdrew again and prayed a third time, saying the same thing again. (Mt. 26:44)

You have used another favorite tactic of protestants; taking verses out of context. Jesus was really talking about pagan repetitious prayer.

In praying, do not babble like the pagans, who think that they will be heard because of their many words. Do not be like them. Your Father knows what you need before you ask him. (Mt. 6:7-8)

See 1Kings ch. 18 for a description of this type of prayer. No Catholic ever did anything like that.

'A Christian' tries to make Jesus look like he is contradicting himself in Jn. 6. Why would Jesus say to eat his flesh and drink his blood, and then, a couple of paragraphs later, say the flesh is of no avail? He obviously is not talking about the same thing in v63. The Eucharistic discourse ended with v58. In v61-65 Jesus is talking about faith. How could Jesus say that His flesh is of no avail? He is obviously telling the Jews to look with the eyes of faith, and not the eyes of flesh.

'A Christian' still fails to give scriptural evidence that immersion is reqired for baptism.

'A' corrects my typo, it is 2Peter ch.1 v.20 that tells that you cannot interpret the bible. Then he offers v.21 in rebuttal.

for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God. (1Pet. 1:21)

How does this verse advocate self-interpretation? All it is saying is that Scripture is the Word of God, inspired by the Holy Spirit, and written down by human hands. Talk about twisting scripture.

Then 'A' accuses me of speaking with a forked tongue. Let me try to explaine a little clearer for those of us who are a little slow. THE U.S. CATHOLIC BISHOPS DO NOT SET CATHOLIC DOCTRINE. THE MAGESTARIUM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH DOES. I AM CATHOLIC, DOES THAT MEAN I AM PROTECTED FROM TEACHING FALSE DOCTRINE? NO. IF ALL CATHOLICS HAD THIS GIFT OF INFALLIBILIY, THERE WOULD BE NO OTHER CHURCHES; BECAUSE THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NO HERESIES, NO GREAT SCHISM, AND NO PROTESTANT REVOLT. THE SAME PRINCIPAL APPLIES TO ANY GROUP OF CATHOLICS TEACHING ANYTHING THAT HAS NOT BEEN APPROVED BY THE POPE. WAS THAT SLOW ENOUGH FOR YOU?

Thank you for that last verse. It is a good endorsement for the Catholic Church doctrine of 'Justified by grace, through faith and works.' Let's take it one piece at a time.

Fear God - If you are a protestant, and you know you are going to heaven, no matter what sin you commit, you have no reason to fear God. If you are a Catholic, and condemn yourself as a sinner, knowing that you deserve eternal damnation, you have every reason to fear God.

Keep his commandments - If you are protestant, and you know you are going to heaaven, no matter what sin you commit, you have no reason to keep His commandment. If you are a Catholic, knowing that faith without works is dead (Jam. 2:17), you have every reason to keep His commandments.

God will bring every work into judgement - If you are protestant, you are saved by faith alone. If you are Catholic, you realize that faith and works are both gifts from God, through grace. If you have grace, you will have faith and works. If you do not have God's grace, you will be missing one or both of these signs.

God bless,

-- Tom (tjb2_99@yahoo.com), December 24, 2002.

''a'' Is bitterly determined to ignore every reasonable challenge to his ''biblical wisdom''. It's just this human failing which God says is folly.

Here he tries once more to subvert the written words of the Bible to his private interpretation: --''We do not have all the miracles that Jesus performed, but do we dare say that they did not happen? (John 20:30-31). The reason they were not written down for us, was because the Holy Spirit did not deem it necessary to be put down into writing.''

That is supposed to mean, you and other protestants have a list of all the things the Holy Spirit didn't care to insert in the pages of the Bible??? Deemed by yourselves not necessary to write down? All these are revealed, as well as the written ones. Not only Jesus' miracles, His commandments too. But not deemed ''necessary to put down in writing.''

+ + + + +

He's correct! The Holy Spirit has revealed them infallibly and preserved them for Christians in Sacred Tradition, kept forever by the Holy Spirit, alive and inspired in the Catholic Church !

Yes, ''a''-- all that John spoke of here: John 20: 30-31; is well-known to the Holy Spirit, and to Christ's apostolic Church. But NOT to free-lance heretical Bible Christians ! Can this be proven? Yes! Jesus Christ told His Church, (John 14:26) --''But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit whom the Father will send in my name, He will teach you all things and bring to your mind whatever I have said to you.''

(Not, ''write in the Bible whatever I have said to you--) ''bring to your mind--'' in the Church for all the ages. (John 16:12, :13) ''Many things I have to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. But, when He, the Spirit of Truth has come, He will teach you all the truth''. Next, I single out your other mistake:

--''Only Christ is the head of the Church (Col. 1:18). Since Christ is the only head of the Church (Col. 1:18) then NO ONE but Christ can speak authoritatively as the head,'' etc., WELL-- John 13:20 says:

''Amen, amen I say to you (the Church) He who receives anyone I send, receives me; and he who receives me, receives Him who sent me.'' --and, chapter 17, John :18, ''Even as Thou hast sent me, so I also have sent them into the world''.

Catholics know Christ called Peter to be pastor of the whole Church, and gave Peter all His own authority, and Paul relays that also to his own disciple Timothy, to name just one: ''Command and teach these things.'' All with Christ's power and authority. --The same power and authority lives on in the world as the Catholic Church.

Yes, ''a''. In the same Church living on until now and forever: the Church of the Holy Apostles. This is scriptural proof enough for those who love Jesus Christ. We really do keep all His commandments, and you do not. Because you've rejected His apostles as you reject the Church. You've turned down the Advocate whom Christ sent to His Church; the Holy Spirit. You've accepted a gospel tained by human wisdom; and cannot be trusted to tell anyone the meaning of Holy Scripture. --Merry Christmas, O helpless blind one, following the blind!

May the Star of Bethlehem pierce this darkness of yours, and help you see your errors. Before it's too late. Allelujah!

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 24, 2002.