Outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Ask Jesus : One Thread

From a careful study of history and religion I have come to believe that;
1. God exists as the Blessed Trinity. 2. Jesus Christ is part of the Blessed Trinity. 3. Jesus Christ incarnated, became man by being born of the Blessed Ever Virgin Mary, suffered and died for our sins and rose from the dead and established His Church and, 4. that His one and only Church is that Church which is commonly referred to today as the Roman Catholic Church.
I also believe that Jesus Christ is the sole and necessary gateway to heaven and that the Catholic Church is the sole and necessary gateway to Jesus Christ.
Many non-Catholic groups have some of the Truth; some of them have more of it than others. But Catholicism is the only fully legitimate form of Christianity.
I further understand that my above stated beliefs will be found to be offensive to many; but I also believe that the Truth must not be watered down because of some misguided sense of political correctness and that the absolute most ecumenical thing any Catholic can do is to be unmistakenly Catholic.

-- John Miskell (RomanRite@aol.com), January 17, 2004

Answers

hmmm....
Scriptures?

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), January 17, 2004.

John,
I also do not believe the Truth should be watered down. But Romanism DOES NOT have the truth. It is obvious from the unbiblical doctrines, and if you are a true Romanist you will be damned to Hell forever. Also not a nice thing for me to say right? But that is not my opinion, that is what God said.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), January 17, 2004.

There are plenty of verses to support all of what I said; but I would like to know first why you ask me to cite from the Scriptures.
Are the Scriptures the basis for all Christian doctrines?
Are the Scriptures the Word of God?
How do you know they are the Word of God? Who told you?
Who decided the canon of Scripture? When did they decide it?
What criteria did they use in selecting the books to be included in the canon? Is that criteria available today for us to look at?
Who decided that the canon of Scripture is closed? Is that deceision authorotative or can other books be added to the Bible? If you wanted to add a book to the Bible who says that you can't?
Thanks

-- John Miskell (RomanRite@aol.com), January 17, 2004.

I also do not believe the Truth should be watered down.
Good, I see the we at least have some common ground.
But Romanism DOES NOT have the truth.
Oh, I believe "Romanism" contains the fullness of Truth. Let's continue and see.
It is obvious from the unbiblical doctrines, and if you are a true Romanist you will be damned to Hell forever.
Let's begin with what you believe to be one unbiblical doctrine and hold it up to the light... which one?
Also not a nice thing for me to say right? But that is not my opinion, that is what God said.
Well, I'll grant you that it's certainly what you believe that God said.

-- John Miskell (RomanRite@aol.com), January 17, 2004.

"There are plenty of verses to support all of what I said;"
Nope, wrong again. You will only use these verses out of context.
"but I would like to know first why you ask me to cite from the Scriptures."
Because you cannot cite from "oral tradition" and CANNOT even give me a list of oral tradition.
"Are the Scriptures the basis for all Christian doctrines?"
The Scriptures are sufficient to equip a True Believer with the things necessary for justification and sanctification.
"Are the Scriptures the Word of God?"
The Scriptures are God Word.
"How do you know they are the Word of God? Who told you?"
There are many reasons to believe in the bible. I don't know why you use a double standard with Christians and Atheists. With the Christian, you try to promote doubt in their faith. Dialogue with an Athiest and suddenly the Bible is perfect, and the word of God and they are just stupid. No other book can compare to God's Word
"Who decided the canon of Scripture? When did they decide it?"
God decided it.
"What criteria did they use in selecting the books to be included in the canon? Is that criteria available today for us to look at?"
This is just a non-sense question. God decides the canon because it is his word.
"Who decided that the canon of Scripture is closed?"
God did.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), January 17, 2004.

"Good, I see the we at least have some common ground."
No we don't.
"Oh, I believe "Romanism" contains the fullness of Truth. Let's continue and see."
It is your fallible belief..
"Let's begin with what you believe to be one unbiblical doctrine and hold it up to the light... which one?"
Purgatory, Eucharist, Mary Mother of God (and all other Marian doctrines), The papacy, praying to saints (excuse me, asking the saints to pray for you ::in a sarcastic tone::) etc!
"Well, I'll grant you that it's certainly what you believe that God said."
God never said one had to be Romanist or part of the Roman organization to go to heaven. He said to believe on Jesus.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), January 17, 2004.

David, name a oral tradition and we will defend it. We have no need for a list.
KeV

-- kevin wisniewski (kez38spl@charter.nrt), January 17, 2004.

Why don't you name an oral tradition.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), January 17, 2004.

at the heart of this is this statement, which is applied in an unScriptural way -> "The Scriptures are sufficient to equip a True Believer with the things necessary for justification and sanctification. "
DO's statement derives from 2 Timothy 3:16 where we learn that the Bible is "useful"/ "profitable".
bit this Scriptural reference is then applied as: "The doctrine of Sola Sciptura or Scripture Alone merely says that all doctrine must be based solely upon the Word of God alone." this definition has been approved before here.
how can sola scriptura be a "doctrine" when nowhere in the Bible do you find such a doctrine whereas SS reuires doctrine to be Scriptural.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), January 18, 2004.

DAVID: No we don't.
JOHN: If you say so.
DAVID: It is your fallible belief..
JOHN: But your belief is infallible?
DAVID: Purgatory, Eucharist, Mary Mother of God (and all other Marian doctrines), The papacy, praying to saints (excuse me, asking the saints to pray for you ::in a sarcastic tone::) etc!
JOHN: Okay, and since I said to name one I’ll begin with the first one you named; Purgatory.
DAVID: God never said one had to be Romanist or part of the Roman organization to go to heaven. He said to believe on Jesus.
JOHN: But God did say that we must belong to His Church and I will show you that His only Church is the Roman Catholic Church
JOHN: Now, on to the topic of Purgatory. Purgatory is necessary because, as Scripture teaches, nothing unclean will enter the presence of God in heaven (Rev. 21:27) and, while we may die with our mortal sins forgiven, there can still be many impurities in us, specifically venial sins and the temporal punishment due to sins already forgiven.
When we die, we undergo what is called the particular, or individual, judgment. Scripture says that "it is appointed for men to die once, and after that comes judgment" (Heb. 9:27). We are judged instantly and receive our reward, for good or ill. We know at once what our final destiny will be. At the end of time, when Jesus returns, there will come the general judgment to which the Bible refers, for example, in Matthew 25:31-32: "When the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate them one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats." In this general judgment all our sins will be publicly revealed (Luke 12:2–5).
I’ll agree with you that the word Purgatory is nowhere found in Scripture. But that does not disprove the existence of Purgatory. The words Trinity and Incarnation aren’t in Scripture either, yet those doctrines are clearly taught in it. Scripture teaches that Purgatory exists.
If you believe that only heaven and hell can exist; that there can be no other place, then you have to sort through 1 Peter 3:19. This shows that there at least was at one time another place.
Christ refers to the sinner who "will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come" (Matt. 12:32), suggesting that one can be freed after death of the consequences of one’s sins. Also, Paul tells us that, when we are judged, each man’s work will be tried. And what happens if a righteous man’s work fails the test? "He will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire" (1 Cor 3:15). Now this loss, this penalty, can’t refer to consignment to hell, since no one is saved there; and heaven can’t be meant, since there is no suffering ("fire") there. The Catholic doctrine of Purgatory alone explains this passage.
Also, prayers for the dead and the consequent doctrine of Purgatory have been part of the true religion since before the time of Christ. Not only do we know that it was practiced by the Jews of the time of the Christ and before, but it has even been retained by Orthodox Jews today, who recite a prayer known as the Mourner’s Kaddish for eleven months after the death of a loved one so that the loved one may be purified. Jesus practiced His Judaism so there’s every reason to believe that He also prayed Kaddish. We certainly don’t see Him condemning the practice. It was not the Catholic Church that added the doctrine of Purgatory. Rather, any change in the original teaching has taken place in your Protestant churches, which rejected a doctrine that had always been believed by Jews and Christians. Jews, Catholics, and the Eastern Orthodox have always historically proclaimed the reality of the final purification. It was not until the Protestant Reformation in the sixteenth century that anyone denied this doctrine. As the quotes below from the early Church Fathers show, Purgatory has been part of the Christian faith from the very beginning.
Some people think that the Catholic Church has an elaborate doctrine of Purgatory worked out, but there are only three essential components of the doctrine: (1) that a purification after death exists, (2) that it involves some kind of pain, and (3) that the purification can be assisted by the prayers and offerings by the living to God. Other ideas, such that Purgatory is a particular "place" in the afterlife or that it takes time to accomplish, are speculations rather than doctrines.
So Señor Ortiz, while you may disagree with the Catholic doctrine of Purgatory if you like, the belief is well founded in history and Scripture. I have history and Scripture to support my position and you have “because I say-so” to support your position. In fact I’d like you to name just one Christian teacher, preacher or author who lived any time from the 2nd century AD until the 15th century AD who preached, taught or wrote AGAINST the doctrine of Purgatory. You need only fine one who lived during this 1,400 year period. I can probably quote at least one who supports Purgatory who lived during each of these same centuries.

-- John Miskell (RomanRite@aol.com), January 18, 2004.

DAVID: Nope, wrong again. You will only use these verses out of context.
JOHN: What makes your interpretation of Scripture any better than mine?
DAVID: Because you cannot cite from "oral tradition" and CANNOT even give me a list of oral tradition.
JOHN: I just posted an example of oral tradition. I’m sure you can’t show me in the Scriptures where we find the words “Rapture”, “Trinity” “Altar Call” or “Bible” but I bet you believe in those things.
DAVID: The Scriptures are sufficient to equip a True Believer with the things necessary for justification and sanctification.
JOHN: I challenge you here and now to show me exactly where the Bible says that the “Scriptures are SUFFICIENT to equip a True Believer with the things necessary for justification and sanctification.” Such an important teaching must be clearly taught in the Scriptures so it shouldn’t be difficult for you to cite such a verse……. Right? Or might you have to TWIST a verse to make it say something it doesn’t actually say?
DAVID: There are many reasons to believe in the bible. I don't know why you use a double standard with Christians and Atheists. With the Christian, you try to promote doubt in their faith. Dialogue with an Athiest and suddenly the Bible is perfect, and the word of God and they are just stupid. No other book can compare to God's Word
JOHN: First of all I’m not in dialog with an atheist. Secondly when I do dialog with atheists I never use the Scriptures to make my point since they reject the authority of the Scriptures anyway. My question stands; Why do you accept the Scritures etc…?
DAVID: This is just a non-sense question. God decides the canon because it is his word.
JOHN: It’s not a nonsense question. There was a time that the New Testament didn’t exist. There were many books claiming to be Scripture. The Book didn’t just fall from the sky… someone put it together. My question is who, when and what criteria was used?

-- John Miskell (RomanRite@aol.com), January 18, 2004.

In response to your 'canon' question.
"What advantage then hath the Jew: or what is the profit of circumcision? Much every way. First indeed, because the words of God were committed to them." Romans 3:1 / Douay-Rheims
You agree with your organization that "it compiled the new testament"?. Why do you flip flop and disagree with the text (the very own text you claim the Roman organization compiled) when it says the Old Covenant Scriptures were entrusted to the Jews? I am talking about the Apocrypha. You claim your organization compiled the N.T., and when that very own text claims the OT was entrusted to the scriptures you say its wrong and the Jews have the wrong scriptures. Are the Jews missing books too? They have kept the same OT for over hundreds of years, even before you organization came into existence.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), January 18, 2004.

Please read this thread for the topic of purgatory.
http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=00B9sA
or
Does the idea for "purgatory" have any basis in truth?

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), January 18, 2004.

John asks:
"Who decided the canon of Scripture? When did they decide it?"
David responds:
God decided it.
My question to you David is when did God decide the canon of Scripture and how did God reveal this canon to us?

-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), January 18, 2004.

David,
Several people incuding myself have repeatedly asked you the same questions; who decided the canon of Scripture, when was it decided, what criteria did they use to decide which books would be included, which books were examined, which books didn't make it, is the criteria they used still available for inspection today, and who said the canon is closed. For example, if you don't like the Epistle to Philemon can you take it out and replace it with a Letter from Billy Graham? Who's to say you can't?
Can we stick to one thing at a time please? There's plenty of time for mew to show you that the Old Testament canon as used by the catholic and orthodox Churches today is the same canon as used by Christ and the Apostles. But let's stick to the matter at hand; if you are able.

-- John Miskell (RomanRite@aol.com), January 18, 2004.

I have no time to read all these posts but David, i asked you to name a oral tradition and you tell me to list them.. i dont need to list them because i know what i beleave and jesus told us to fallow what we learn weather by the writings or tradition, i fallow him. I say again, name one and i will defend it.
p.s. sorry about typing i disloacted my shoulder and iam working with one arm hehe>8)
KeV

-- kevin wisniewski (kez38spl@charter.net), January 18, 2004.

Looks to me like the differences between Catholics and Protestants lie in their interpretation of what is basically the same Bible. I guess the big question I have is, how does anyone know your interpretation is the correct one? I can read a textbook in a class I'm taking, but unless my prof explains something to me I either get it wrong or don't get the complete story of what the book is trying to say. The passage from Acts, about Phillip and the Ethiopian makes sense to me. How can I understand what I'm reading unless someone instructs me?
Also, I recently looked at some of the early church writers from way back around 150-200 AD. Wasn't the church being persecuted back then? Specifically, I looked at Justin Martyr's First Apology, Ignatius of Antioch's Letter to Smyra, and Irenaeus of Lyons Against Heresies. What I read about the Eucharist in their writings sounds like they believed in the Real Presence. Anyone have any thoughts on this? Thanks.

-- Andy ("aszmere@earthlink.net"), January 19, 2004.

One more question for all you experts. Are the early church writers part of these traditions you are discussing? Or are these traditions based on their writings? Or are these writings proof of these traditions? I don't mean to offend or sound stupid. Just wondering. Thanks again.

-- Andy ("aszmere@earthlink.net"), January 19, 2004.

"sounds like they believed in the Real Presence"
indeed they did. the Apostles. and every Catholic since then.
read the Bible. its in there. you don't read to read St Justin to see this. you actually need to twist Scripture to deny Real Presence.
see this: http://www.scripturecatholic.com/the_eucharist.html
"Are the early church writers part of these traditions you are discussing? Or are these traditions based on their writings? Or are these writings proof of these traditions?"
Tradition means oral tradition: oral teaching received by the Apostles from Our Lord and from the Holy Ghost and handed down. it is oral Tradition because it is not recorded in Scripture. this may well have been recorded in the works of the Fathers. [it is most likely recorded in the Catechism.] The NT demonstrates the process of living Tradition. at the beginning, there was no NT.
have a look at this to see the Apostles reliance on oral tradition in action: ttp://www.scripturecatholic.com/oral_tradition.html#oral- III
much of the Church's teaching on The Blessed Virgin can be seen to flow from Tradition. for example, the Assumption.
" the differences between Catholics and Protestants lie in their interpretation of what is basically the same Bible."
not true. eg Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition vs Sola Scriptura; Faith and Works vs Faith Alone; Real Presence (soooo critical, sime protestants do respect Real Presence, others think it is funny - Christ in a wafer, they say)). there are vast differences, but also great sways of common ground. however, only the Catholic Church -- the one that Jesus founded whilst here on earth -- has the fullness of truth. it is the Ark of Salvation -- if you fall overboard, you are in big trouble.
"how does anyone know your interpretation is the correct one?"
there is only one interpretation of Scripture, and indeed Christian doctrine. the one provided by the Church.
admittedly, i do not believe that there's a dead simple way of showing this.
from my perspective, you need to look at all the facts, weigh them all up. the Unity of Faith that Our Lord wanted, His appointment of St Peter as his Vicar (St Peter being the first Pope), the consistency and constancy of Catholic teaching through the ages, the great good that has come from the Church, the historic compatibility,...., the plain common sense of it all. you can draw great inspiration from the Apparitions of the Blessed Virgin - Fatima, Lourdes, Garbandal, Knock, etc.
when you look at the protestant denominations -- and this is not to say that they are bad people, just mis-led -- you just wonder did Our Lord really want 30,000 different denominations. and, within these denominations, plenty of further division. look at the Anglican Church as it fractures over the ordination of practicing homosexual ministers/bishops.
PS i'm no expert.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), January 19, 2004.

"How can I understand what I'm reading unless someone instructs me? "
...such as the Holy Ghost
touche

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), January 19, 2004.

John wrote, "From a careful study of history and religion I have come to believe that;..."
It is obvious John that you have NOT read your bible for if you did, you would notice that the Catholic religion and her many false doctrines CANNOT be found ANYWHERE in the pages of the New Testament.
If you would have read your bible instead of studying history and religion, you would have had an opportunity to find the truth.
The TRUTH is NOT located in the Catholic Church and it never has been.
This FALSE CHURCH has been deceiving people for many centuries and will continue to do so until Jesus returns.
The Catholic Church CLAIMS that they are "successors to the apostles", but if you notice, the apostle Paul said in 2 Cor 11:14-15, "...Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also transform themselves into ministers of righteousness, whose end will be according to their works."
The TRUTH on how one can be saved is located in the pages of the New Testament and NOT in the Catholic Church.

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

Kevin
your post is a statement of what you believe. it is, however, devoid of substantive corroboration.
at least i tried to produce source materials and to explain myself.
maybe this is the opportunity to have a debate on any of the points that has been made above.
you choose.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), January 19, 2004.

hang on a moment!!! why don't we explore sola scriptura, the unscriptural doctrine.
1/ where does the Bible say that all doctrine must be in the Bible?
2/ to repeat a question posed above: "...when did God decide the canon of Scripture and how did God reveal this canon to us?"
dialogue, not diatribe.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), January 19, 2004.

I responded in my earlier post to the topic of this thread: "Outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation"
It is obvious Ian, that you have not changed from what caused you to be banned earlier from this forum for you make this statement of my last post when you said: "it is, however, devoid of substantive corroboration."
My post was directed to John, NOT Ian.

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

Thanks for the replies folks! Great stuff! The great dialogue here has made me think of something else and gives me a lot to pray about and reflect on. I believe truth does not change. So how can I determine if the denomination or religion I am following teaches the truth? For instance, there seem to be divisions among some Protestant denominations with regards to homosexual unions, abortion, and artificial contraception. In fact, I understand that Protestants did not accept artificial contraception until the Anglicans broke ranks in Lambeth around 1930. If a church changes its position on issues like these that seem to be based on a fundamental understanding of who God is and the role he plays in our lives, or if the Bible interpretation of different denominations leads to different conclusions about such issues, how can I know what church or denomination interprets the Bible correctly? Any ideas would be greatly appreciated. Thanks again for this great forum.

-- Andy ("aszmere@earthlink.net"), January 19, 2004.

[Andy],
You should stay away from any denomination that teaches homosexual behavior is right. They are terribly wrong.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), January 19, 2004.

Kevin:
i am well aware that you post purported to answer the original question. that is why it begins "John wrote" and not "Ian wrote".
but i am equally aware that it sits just after a sincere question from "[Andy]". i wanted to ensure that "[Andy]" appreciated that the message you posted was, as i say, "devoid of substantive corroboration".
at this point, i would ask David to confirm that this is a valid point for me to make.
Kevin make very serious anti-Catholic allegations, but K does not produce even a shred of an argument to substantiate his point.
David, you and I know this is not ad hom. it addresses squarely the content, or lack of content, of the message.
furthermore, i made the very constructive suggestion that K & I explore some of the baseless allegations that you make in yr post.
rather than trying to sully my character, why can't K enagage in a meaningful debate. if K feels so strongly about things, as the post suggests you do, then K must be able to have some kind of debate.
heres a thread that K might wish to respond to: http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=00Bgvi

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), January 20, 2004.

" how can I know what church or denomination interprets the Bible correctly?"
this is the point, "[Andy]".
in the protestant denominations, it is individual mean and women that decide the meaning of Scripture.
in the Catholic Church, it is the Holy Spirit that does the interpretation. this is clear from Scripture and Tradition. therefore, you are presented with an objective Truth, not a man- made "truth".
check out the Church's teaching on the issues you mention:homosexual unions, abortion, and artificial contraception. these teachings are immutable. the Church will not begin to support the marriage of gays, or the use of abortion, or the use of contraception.
the Holy Spirit will not allow it.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), January 20, 2004.

Kevin says:
“the Catholic religion and her many false doctrines CANNOT be found ANYWHERE in the pages of the New Testament. If you would have read your bible instead of studying history and religion, you would have had an opportunity to find the truth. The TRUTH is NOT located in the Catholic Church and it never has been. This FALSE CHURCH has been deceiving people for many centuries and will continue to do so until Jesus returns.” Scripture says:-
1 Tim. 3 [14] These things I write to thee, hoping that I shall come to thee shortly. [15] But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.Matt. 10, [19] But when they shall deliver you up, take no thought how or what to speak: for it shall be given you in that hour what to speak. [20] For it is not you that speak, but the Spirit of your Father that speaketh in you
St Luke 12
[11] And when they shall bring you into the synagogues, and to magistrates and powers, be not solicitous how or what you shall answer, or what you shall say; [12] For the Holy Ghost shall teach you in the same hour what you must say.
St Matthew 18
[17] And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican. [18] Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.
St John 16 [12] I have yet many things to say to you: but you cannot bear them now. [13] But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth. For he shall not speak of himself; but what things soever he shall hear, he shall speak; and the things that are to come, he shall shew you. [14] He shall glorify me; because he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it to you.
Kevin says: “The Catholic Church CLAIMS that they are "successors to the apostles", but if you notice, the apostle Paul said in 2 Cor 11:14-15, "...Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also transform themselves into ministers of righteousness, whose end will be according to their works."
Scripture says: Acts 1 [15] In those days Peter rising up in the midst of the brethren, said: (now the number of persons together was about an hundred and twenty:) [16] Men, brethren, the scripture must needs be fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost spoke before by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who was the leader of them that apprehended Jesus: [17] Who was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry. [18] And he indeed hath possessed a field of the reward of iniquity, and being hanged, burst asunder in the midst: and all his bowels gushed out. [19] And it became known to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem: so that the same field was called in their tongue, Haceldama, that is to say, The field of blood. [20] For it is written in the book of Psalms: Let their habitation become desolate, and let there be none to dwell therein. And his bishopric let another take. [21] Wherefore of these men who have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus came in and went out among us, [22] Beginning from the baptism of John, until the day wherein he was taken up from us, one of these must be made a witness with us of his resurrection. [23] And they appointed two, Joseph, called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. [24] And praying, they said: Thou, Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen, [25] To take the place of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas hath by transgression fallen, that he might go to his own place. [26] And they gave them lots, and the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.
Acts 13
[2] And as they were ministering to the Lord, and fasting, the Holy Ghost said to them: Separate me Saul and Barnabas, for the work whereunto I have taken them. [3] Then they, fasting and praying, and imposing their hands upon them, sent them away. [4] So they being sent by the Holy Ghost, went to Seleucia: and from thence they sailed to Cyprus.
Acts 15
[22] Then it pleased the apostles and ancients, with the whole church, to choose men of their own company, and to send to Antioch, with Paul and Barnabas, namely, Judas, who was surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren. [23] Writing by their hands: The apostles and ancients, brethren, to the brethren of the Gentiles that are at Antioch, and in Syria and Cilicia, greeting. [24] Forasmuch as we have heard, that some going out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls; to whom we gave no commandment: [25] It hath seemed good to us, being assembled together, to choose out men, and to send them unto you, with our well beloved Barnabas and Paul: [26] Men that have given their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. [27] We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who themselves also will, by word of mouth, tell you the same things.
Acts 6 [5] And the saying was liked by all the multitude. And they chose Stephen, a man full of faith, and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas, a proselyte of Antioch. [6] These they set before the apostles; and they praying, imposed hands upon them.
Acts 8 [17] Then they laid their hands upon them, and they received the Holy Ghost.
Acts 19 [6] And when Paul had imposed his hands on them, the Holy Ghost came upon them, and they spoke with tongues and prophesied. 2 Tim 1 [6] For which cause I admonish thee, that thou stir up the grace of God which is in thee, by the imposition of my hands. [7] For God hath not given us the spirit of fear: but of power, and of love, and of sobriety. [8] Be not thou therefore ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, nor of me his prisoner: but labour with the gospel, according to the power of God, [9] Who hath delivered us and called us by his holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the times of the world. Kevin says: “The TRUTH on how one can be saved is located in the pages of the New Testament and NOT in the Catholic Church. “
Scripture says:
St John 20 [30] Many other signs also did Jesus in the sight of his disciples, which are not written in this book.
St John 21 [25] But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written.
Acts 8 [30] And Philip running thither, heard him reading the prophet Isaias. And he said: Thinkest thou that thou understandest what thou readest? [31] Who said: And how can I, unless some man shew me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him. [32] And the place of the scripture which he was reading was this: He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb without voice before his shearer, so openeth he not his mouth.
2 St Peter 3 [16] As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction. [17] You therefore, brethren, knowing these things before, take heed, lest being led aside by the error of the unwise, you fall from your own steadfastness.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), January 20, 2004.

apologies, the last message was posted twice by mistake

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), January 20, 2004.

Ian,
If it was my intent to place anything of substance in my post towards John, then you would have been complaining about the length of my post which you have done in the past.
You have proven in the past that you have no desire to engage in any meaningful dialogue and this continues to this day.
The passages that you quoted do NOT prove that a "successor" of the apostles would continue to be handed down NOR does it prove that any of your Catholic doctrines are located in the word of God.
The ONLY way someone could be a successor to an apostle was to have WITNESSED the RESURRECTION OF JESUS CHRIST for this is exactly what Acts 1:21-22 teaches: "Therefore, of these men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John to that day when He was taken up from us, ONE OF THESE MUST BECOME A WITNESS WITH US OF HIS RESURRECTION."
There is NOT one Catholic (false) successor who has WITNESSED Jesus Christ RESURRECTION so these MEN (Catholic popes) have NO RIGHT to claim that they are successors to the apostles for NONE EXIST.
John,
NOT one passage that Ian quoted PROVES that any Catholic doctrine is the TRUTH according to the word of God. Ian claims that someone CANNOT have a private interpretation of scripture, but he EXPECTS you to INTERPRET the verses that he quoted!!!
God requires that we UNDERSTAND HIS WORD for He PLAINLY states in 2 Timothy 2:15, "Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." The "word of truth" is the Bible. (See John 17:17).
Would God command something that is impossible? "Therefore do not become foolish, but UNDERSTAND what the will of the Lord is." (Eph. 5:17). God wants ALL MEN to come to the KNOWLEDGE of the TRUTH (1 Tim. 2:4). The fact that God commands us to do these things shows that God Himself considers His word understandable.
Contrary to Catholic claims that one CANNOT understand His Word without an interpreter, God made the mind of man and is fully capable of addressing man in words which we can and DO UNDERSTAND without any need of anyone to interpret it for us.
The Bible which He delivered to man CAN BE UNDERSTOOD and to argue otherwise is to raise insult to God!!!
Is God desiring the impossible?
God will judge all men by the Scriptures (Rev. 20:12).
Will God judge men by a standard which cannot be understood?
I think not.

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), January 20, 2004.

Why does David O. say that "if you are a true Romanist you will be damned to Hell forever?" Is it because they believe in sacraments or is it because of something else? Are churches that claim to follow the Bible yet allow homosexual unions or abortion (or are silent on these issues) damned to Hell forever? Doesn't the Pill sometimes destroy human life by making it hard for a fertilized egg to implant in the womb? What makes this any different than abortion? Thanks for bearing with my questions.

-- Andy ("aszmere@earthlink.net"), January 20, 2004.

[Andy],
Please click the link below to find out how you can identify the true church.
Identifying the Church of the New Testament

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), January 20, 2004.

[Andy]
" Are churches that claim to follow the Bible yet allow homosexual unions or abortion (or are silent on these issues) damned to Hell forever?"
the only churches that purport to be Christian but " yet allow homosexual unions or abortion (or are silent on these issues)" are protestant. at the heart of this is private interpretation.
see the quotations i have provided above.especially these two:-
Acts 8 [30] And Philip running thither, heard him reading the prophet Isaias. And he said: Thinkest thou that thou understandest what thou readest? [31] Who said: And how can I, unless some man shew me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him. [32] And the place of the scripture which he was reading was this: He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb without voice before his shearer, so openeth he not his mouth.
2 St Peter 3 [16] As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction. [17] You therefore, brethren, knowing these things before, take heed, lest being led aside by the error of the unwise, you fall from your own steadfastness.
it is private interpretation that leads to Gene Robinson's delusion that he can be a practising gay bishop.
The Catholic Church is, and has always been very clear on the sinful nature of the homosexual act. specifically, it has openly and c;early desfcribed the act as gravely disordered.
similarly, the Church has been strident in its opposition to abortion. Catholic focus groups campaigned stenuously leading to the abolition of the heinous "partial abortion".
"Doesn't the Pill sometimes destroy human life by making it hard for a fertilized egg to implant in the womb? What makes this any different than abortion?"
Yes the Pill is a killer. especially the morning after pill. in any event the Catholic Church teaches that the use of contraception is wrong and against the natural order.
"Thanks for bearing with my questions."
i would advise you to look at the Scripture i have provided. it clearly provides for Apostolic Succession. this is where the bishops of the Church came from.
there is one especially specious statement in Kevin's response: "Ian claims that someone CANNOT have a private interpretation of scripture, but he EXPECTS you to INTERPRET the verses that he quoted!!!"
please bear in mind that, if private interpretation wasthe correct approach, then we would be in a real quandary. the reality is that interpretation is done by the Church. it always has been.
the protestant belief in the Trinity and the Divinity of Jesus were all settled by Catholic bishops and councils. these are accepted by protestants without question. however, had the Church not stood firm, such ideas would have evaporated into a puff of smoke due to the large number of heresies that were around in the early centuries of the Church.
utlimately, private interpretation means selective, biased interpretation. compare
(1) Kevin: "The Bible which He delivered to man CAN BE UNDERSTOOD and to argue otherwise is to raise insult to God!!! "
with
(2) Divine Inspiration, as in the quotes from Acts 8: 30 - 32 and 2 St Peter 3 16, that I posted above.
I believe that Kevin is treating me somewhat harshly -- NB to David, i have eschewed ad hom; Kevin has already hurled quite a few my way.
there is One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. then there are the manmade churches, most of which contain some element of the Truth (handed to them by Catholics) but all of which preach lies to some extent or other.
"It must be held as a matter of faith that outside the Apostolic Roman Church no one can be saved, that the Church is the only Ark of Salvation, and that whoever does not enter it will perish in the Flood.": Pius IX
ignore this at your peril.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), January 20, 2004.

Kevin, this specifically disproves what you say about Acts 1:21-22 i posted it above but i post more fully to help you.
Acts 6
[1] And in those days, the number of the disciples increasing, there arose a murmuring of the Greeks against the Hebrews, for that their widows were neglected in the daily ministration. [2] Then the twelve calling together the multitude of the disciples, said: It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables. [3] Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of good reputation, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business. [4] But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word. [5] And the saying was liked by all the multitude. And they chose Stephen, a man full of faith, and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas, a proselyte of Antioch. [6] These they set before the apostles; and they praying, imposed hands upon them. [7] And the word of the Lord increased; and the number of the disciples was multiplied in Jerusalem exceedingly: a great multitude also of the priests obeyed the faith. [8] And Stephen, full of grace and fortitude, did great wonders and signs among the people.
Holy Ghost; laying of hands, etc
this couldn't be clearer.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), January 20, 2004.

i repeat:
"[8] And Stephen, full of grace and fortitude, did great wonders and signs among the people. "

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), January 20, 2004.

Thanks all!

-- Andy ("aszmere@earthlink.net"), January 20, 2004.

Ian wrote, "Kevin, this specifically disproves what you say about Acts 1:21-22 i posted it above but i post more fully to help you."
We will see if what Ian posted has anything to do with "SUCCESSORS to the apostles" as he claims.
Ian quoted Acts 6:1-8 however what he FAILS to realize is that these were NOT apostles at all!!! This wasn't the apostles TRANSFERRING their AUTHORITY to SUCCESSORS. It was the APPOINTING of DEACONS to work in assisting in the daily distribution.
This scripture that Ian quoted, once again FAILS to prove the Catholic doctrine of successors to the apostles.
Let Ian provide the scripture references that PROVE that the apostles would CONTINUE to have SUCCESSORS.
To date, he has NOT provided even one verse that PROVES the Catholic Church doctrine that the pope is a successor to the apostles.
Neither will he provide any because NONE EXIST.

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), January 20, 2004.

[Andy],
Ian asked the question, "[Andy] Are churches that claim to follow the Bible yet allow homosexual unions or abortion (or are silent on these issues) damned to Hell forever?"
Then he said, "the only churches that purport to be Christian but " yet allow homosexual unions or abortion (or are silent on these issues)" are protestant. at the heart of this is private interpretation.
This is what Ian and the Catholic Church would like you to believe. They claim that one CANNOT have a private interpretation of scripture but yet he does NOT provide any verses which state that one cannot have their own interpretation. There is also NO MENTION in scripture ANYWHERE that someone else (the Catholic Church) is needed (or required) in order to make someone UNDERSTAND the bible. They CLAIM that WE are either too IGNORANT or too STUPID to be able to UNDERSTAND what we read.
The Catholic Church also CLAIMS that they do not support homosexual unions, however MANY of their priests are homosexual (as evidence by those who have been accused of molesting children) and the Catholic Church for MANY YEARS did NOTHING to these men except to move them someowhere else. They speak one thing and turn around and do just the opposite.
Ian continued, "see the quotations i have provided above.especially these two:-Acts 8 [30] And Philip running thither, heard him reading the prophet Isaias. And he said: Thinkest thou that thou understandest what thou readest? [31] Who said: And how can I, unless some man shew me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him. [32] And the place of the scripture which he was reading was this: He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb without voice before his shearer, so openeth he not his mouth. 2 St Peter 3 [16] As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction. [17] You therefore, brethren, knowing these things before, take heed, lest being led aside by the error of the unwise, you fall from your own steadfastness."
However if you will notice, NOT ONCE in these scriptures that he quoted does it say that one CANNOT have a private interpretation of scripture. The Ethiopian Eunuch in Acts chapter 8 did NOT have the luxury of having the New Testament available to him as we do today. Plus the gospel of Christ was FIRST taught ORALLY (as evidenced by the preaching of the apostles) and now it is WRITTEN down for us in the New Testament. The Ethiopian Eunuch had to have Philip "preach Jesus to him" because there were NO New Testament scriptures available for the Eunuch to use in order to UNDERSTAND what he was reading. We have the New Testament available for our use now, and we do NOT need an "interpreter" as IAN suggests.
As for 2 Peter 3:16-17, yes it is true there are some things that are hard to understand in the bible and there are some who TWIST the scriptures to their own destruction, but that does NOT mean that we CANNOT nor do these verses teach that one CANNOT have their own private interpretation of scripture as Ian would have you believe.
God said in Eph 5:17, "Therefore do not be unwise, but understand what the will of the Lord is."
Ian wrote, "it is private interpretation that leads to Gene Robinson's delusion that he can be a practising gay bishop."
No, it is TWISTING the scriptures to his own destruction that leads this man to believe that he can be a "gay bishop" for God PLAINLY states in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, NOR HOMOSEXUALS, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners WILL INHERIT THE KINGDOM OF GOD."
Ian wrote, "The Catholic Church is, and has always been very clear on the sinful nature of the homosexual act. specifically, it has openly and c;early desfcribed the act as gravely disordered."
With the exception that is of their "gay priests" (pedofiles).
Ian wrote, "similarly, the Church has been strident in its opposition to abortion. Catholic focus groups campaigned stenuously leading to the abolition of the heinous "partial abortion"."
This may be true however, the question that needs to be asked in light of the fact that some of their preists are pedofiles, how many of their clergy or nuns actually "practice what they preach"???
Ian wrote, "Doesn't the Pill sometimes destroy human life by making it hard for a fertilized egg to implant in the womb? What makes this any different than abortion? Yes the Pill is a killer. especially the morning after pill. in any event the Catholic Church teaches that the use of contraception is wrong and against the natural order."
The pill PREVENTS someone from getting pregnant, and therefore PREVENTS life from beginning in the first place so this CANNOT be the same as abortion.
I do agree with Ian about the "morning after pill" however, there is NOTHING wrong with a couple using contraception and not wanting to have a baby.
Ian wrote, "i would advise you to look at the Scripture i have provided. it clearly provides for Apostolic Succession. this is where the bishops of the Church came from."
[Andy], please go back and re-read the qualifications of bishops (elders) in the bible as stated in 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5-9. Once you read these passages, you will find that bishops (elders) MUST BE MARRIED for this is a condition that God has placed on these men who would watch over His people. Please also notice that Catholic bishops ARE NOT MARRIED nor are any of their popes married. God says that bishops MUST BE MARRIED. The pope says that they do not have to be married. You can either believe Ian and the Catholic Church, or you can believe what God has PLAINLY revealed in His word.
Ian wrote, "there is one especially specious statement in Kevin's response: "Ian claims that someone CANNOT have a private interpretation of scripture, but he EXPECTS you to INTERPRET the verses that he quoted!!!"
Then he said, "please bear in mind that, if private interpretation wasthe correct approach, then we would be in a real quandary. the reality is that interpretation is done by the Church. it always has been."
[Andy], please notice that Ian does NOT Provide any verses that state "the reality is that interpretation is done by the Church. it always has been." he just expects you to believe what he says. The TRUTH of the matter is God REQUIRES everyone to be able to UNDERSTAND and OBEY THE GOSPEL. The devil knows that it is the word of God that causes one to have faith (Romans 10:17), NOT the Catholic Church, and that is why he is so busy in trying to make sure that people are NOT SAVED. Go back and re-read the parable of the sower in Luke 8:4-8 and the explanation of this parable in Luke 8:11-15.
Ian wrote, "the protestant belief in the Trinity and the Divinity of Jesus were all settled by Catholic bishops and councils. these are accepted by protestants without question. however, had the Church not stood firm, such ideas would have evaporated into a puff of smoke due to the large number of heresies that were around in the early centuries of the Church."
Actually, belief in the three members of the Trinity and the Divinity of Jesus were settled by the Holy Spirit when He revealed this to the inspired men who wrote the New Testament. Catholic bishops and councils had NOTHING to do with this fact.
Ian wrote, "utlimately, private interpretation means selective, biased interpretation. compare (1) Kevin: "The Bible which He delivered to man CAN BE UNDERSTOOD and to argue otherwise is to raise insult to God!!! " with (2) Divine Inspiration, as in the quotes from Acts 8: 30 - 32 and 2 St Peter 3 16, that I posted above."
[Andy], please see my last response to Ian as I have already answered his quibble from these two scripture verses.
Ian wrote, "there is One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. then there are the manmade churches, most of which contain some element of the Truth (handed to them by Catholics) but all of which preach lies to some extent or other."
[Andy], yes there is ONE church, but it most certainly is NOT the Catholic Church for her FALSE DOCTRINES have NO BASIS in the word of God. If the church of Christ of which I am a member "preaches lies to some extent or other" as Ian claims, then it is up to Ian to PROVE that this is the case.
Ian wrote, "It must be held as a matter of faith that outside the Apostolic Roman Church no one can be saved, that the Church is the only Ark of Salvation, and that whoever does not enter it will perish in the Flood.": Pius IX"
This CLEARLY goes AGAINST what the Catholic Church teaches now. Now this FALSE CHURCH teaches that there are others "OUTSIDE the Apostolic Roman Church" who CAN BE SAVED. So their CLAIM that they NEVER preach anything DIFFERENT because the Holy Spirit will NOT let them is FALSE.
Ian wrote, "ignore this at your peril."
The Gospel is the POWER OF GOD to SALVATION. (Romans 1:16).
Not the Catholic Church.
God says in 2 Thessalonians 1:8-9 that Jesus will return, "in flaming fire TAKING VENGEANCE ON THOSE WHO DO NOT KNOW GOD, AND ON THOSE WHO DO NOT OBEY THE GOSPEL OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST. These shall be PUNISHED WITH EVERLASTING DESTRUCTION from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power."
Believe Ian and the Catholic Church at your peril.

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), January 20, 2004.

Kevin,
I won'r repost all that has been said above. You went on and on about how "Scripture never says one CANNOT have private interpretation." Okay, fair enough; now would you please show me where Scripture SAYS that Scripture is left to the interpretaion of each individual? Chapter and verse please. Surely such an important doctrine is CLEARLY found in Scripture right?
Secondly; you said artificial birth control prevents conception and doesn't cause abortions. For your own edification I implore you to please first look up the definition of "abortifacient." Then do a little research and read what the manufacturers say about their own drugs in the package insert or in the PDR (Physicians Desk Reference).
Planned Parenthood is the worlds largest provider of abortion and across the counter birth control. Look at what their website has to say about the basics of birth control.
Combination pills usually work by preventing a woman's ovaries from releasing eggs (ovulation). Progestin-only pills also can prevent ovulation. But they usually work by thickening the cervical mucus. This keeps sperm from joining with an egg. Combination pills also thicken cervical mucus. BOTH types of pill can also prevent FERTILIZED EGGS from implanting in the uterus.
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/bc/YOU_AND_PILL.HTM#Basics
Please not their term; "Fertilized egg." You tell me, what is a "fertilized egg?"

-- John Miskell (RomanRite@aol.com), January 20, 2004.

John,
You wrote, "I won'r repost all that has been said above. You went on and on about how "Scripture never says one CANNOT have private interpretation." Okay, fair enough; now would you please show me where Scripture SAYS that Scripture is left to the interpretaion of each individual? Chapter and verse please. Surely such an important doctrine is CLEARLY found in Scripture right?"
Surely if such an important doctrine as "only the Catholic Church can interpret scripture" is the TRUTH according to the word of God, then you should have NO PROBLEM in giving me Book, Chapter and Verse where this is SPECIFICALLY STATED. Surely this doctrine as taught by the Catholic Church is also CLEARLY found in scripture right??
You wrote, "Secondly; you said artificial birth control prevents conception and doesn't cause abortions."
Please if you are going to quote me, please do it CORRECTLY. I said and I quote: "The pill PREVENTS someone from getting pregnant, and therefore PREVENTS life from beginning in the first place so this CANNOT be the same as abortion."
I am not an expert on the pill and have never claimed to be such. My whole take on the pill was that it "PREVENTS someone from getting pregnant" and that is ALL.

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), January 20, 2004.

John,
There are NO scriptures which state that "The catholic Church is our sole guide to the meaning of scriptures" and I challenge you to prove otherwise.
God says that we are to, "Test all things; hold fast what is good." (1 Thess 5:21, 1 John 4:1).
There is NO mention of an interpreter required in order to do this.
The truth can be known (See John 8:32).
There is NO mention of an interpreter required in order to do this.
God's word IS TRUTH. (John 17:17) and we are admonished to RIGHTLY DIVIDE the word. (2 Tim 2:15).
There is NO mention of an interpreter required in order to do this.
God says in Isaiah 66:2, "But on this one will I look: On him who is poor and of a contrite spirit, And who trembles at My word."
There is NO mention of an interpreter required in order to do this.
God created with us all the capacity to choose right or wrong, otherwise we would be robots. All the Catholic Church wants to do is control everyone just as though they WERE ROBOTS in telling their subjects what they are to believe.
Think about it!!!
Proverbs 2:1-5 states, "My son, if you receive my words, And treasure my commands within you, So that you incline your ear to wisdom, And apply your heart to understanding; Yes, if you cry out for discernment, And lift up your voice for understanding, If you seek her as silver, And search for her as for hidden treasures; Then you will understand the fear of the LORD, And find the knowledge of God."
There is NO mention of an interpreter required in order to do this.
God said in 2 John 9, "Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son. Those who do NOT abide in the doctrine of Christ do NOT have God."
The doctrine of Christ is located in the pages of the New Testament, NOT the Catholic Church.
We are told to UNDERSTAND what the will of the Lord is. (Ephesians 5:17)
For you to say that we cannot UNDERSTAND the will of the Lord without the Catholic Church to explain God's Word to us is just ludicrous.
This is what I expect someone to say who doesn't want to take responsibility for their own actions.
God says that we can UNDERSTAND His will (Matthew 13:23), but NO mention is made of having someone INTERPRET for us.

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), January 20, 2004.

KEVIN: I am not an expert on the pill and have never claimed to be such. My whole take on the pill was that it "PREVENTS someone from getting pregnant" and that is ALL.
JOHN: Okay, that's a big admission on your part and I applaud your honesty. Now you know that birth control pills do much more than just prevent conception and there is good grounds for the RCC to forbid their use for birth control.
Now, how about that verse(s) that clearly tells us that the interpretation of Scripture is left to each individual?

-- John Miskell (RomanRite@aol.com), January 20, 2004.

John,
I gave you some information on this in my last post, please go back and re-read it.
Here is some more information for you.
The truth CAN be known if one SEARCHES for it. (Proverbs 2:1-5).
The parable of the sower says that it is possible for us to UNDERSTAND the truth. (Matt. 13:18-23, Mark 4:13-20, Luke 8:11-15).
God says that His Word WILL NOT return to Him void. (Isa. 55:11).
We are BORN AGAIN through the Word of God. (1 Peter 1:23).
If you are forced to the conclusion that God's Word is not enough and the seed of the Kingdom will not do what God said it would do, this betrays pitiful ignorance of God's Word or a denial of inspiration, or both. If this is the case, then you are guilty of calling God a liar.
In teaching the Old Covenant in the Old Testament it was first the head of the household who was to teach his family concerning the things of God, then it was the judges, then the priests.
Concerning the New Covenant or New Testament, God said, "No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more." (Jeremiah 31:34)
And in the New Testament, "None of them shall teach his neighbor, and none his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.In that He says, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away." (Hebrews 8:11-13).
This New Covenant is WRITTEN down for us in the New Testament.
There is NO mention of the Church having to explain the NT to us.
The Catholic Church says we CANNOT understand His word.
God says that we CAN understand His word.
You believe the Catholic Church. I choose to believe God.
Now how about your verse that states that "only the Catholic Church can interpret scripture"???

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), January 20, 2004.

Kevin,
Again, you go on and on about an interpreter not being needed; Yet NONE of the verses you cited clearly states that interpretation of the Scriptures is left to the individual. You quoted liberally from both the Old and New Testaments without once showing such a verse.
You obviously know that the Jews had the Scriptures too since you claim that they didn’t need an interpreter. But read the following verses from the Book of Exodus.
“Moses answered him, "Because the people come to me TO SEEK GOD’S WILL. Whenever they have a dispute, it is brought to me, and I decide between the parties AND INFORM THEM OF GOD'S DECREES AND LAWS." (they didn’t just read the Scriptures and decide for themselves Moses' father-in-law replied, "What you are doing is not good. You and these people who come to you will only wear yourselves out. The work is too heavy for you; you cannot handle it alone. Listen now to me and I will give you some advice, and may God be with you. YOU MUST BE THE PEOPLE'S REPRESENTATIVE BEFORE GOD AND BRING THEIR DISPUTES TO HIM. ( Gee, there’s Moses acting as God’s Vicar) Teach them the decrees and laws, and show them the way to live and the duties they are to perform. But select capable men from all the people-men who fear God, trustworthy men who hate dishonest gain-AND APPOINT THEM AS OFFICIALS over thousands, hundreds, fifties and tens. HAVE THEM SERVE AS JUDGES FOR THE PEOPLE AT ALL TIMES, BUT HAVE THEM BRING EVERY DIFFICULT CASE TO YOU; THE SIMPLE CASES THEY CAN DECIDE THEMSELVES. ( And there’s Mose’s ORDAINING men to help in this task) That will make your load lighter, because they will share it with you. If you do this and God so commands, you will be able to stand the strain, and all these people will go home satisfied." Moses listened to his father-in-law and did everything he said. He chose capable men from all Israel and made them leaders of the people, officials over thousands, hundreds, fifties and tens. They served as judges for the people at all times. The difficult cases they brought to Moses, but the simple ones they decided themselves." [Exodus 18:15-26]
Did Moses interpret God’s Will for them or did they just read the Scriptures and decided for themselves?

-- John Miskell (RomanRite@aol.com), January 20, 2004.

KEVIN: Now how about your verse that states that "only the Catholic Church can interpret scripture"???
JOHN: When you can show me that someone other than the Catholic Church decided the canon of Scripture and decided that the canon of Scripture is closed I’ll try to find such a verse for you. If you accept the canon of Scripture then like it or not you accept it on the teaching authority of the Catholic Church.

-- John Miskell (RomanRite@aol.com), January 20, 2004.

Kevin
so far, you appear to have accepted two things:
1) the fact that an Apostle, appointed by Jesus, could be replaced by the other Apostles (acting under the Price of the Apostles (as in the case of Judas, see above)
2) the fact that ordination is a valid sacrament (Father Stephen, see above)
your acceptance of these matters (am i right that you accept them?) suggests that you see the Church structure that grew in the aftermath of the Resurrection.
trusting that you also accept the apostleship of St Paul, i think that we are well on the way to proving the Scriptural basis of the successorship of the bishops to the Apostles.
you must also accept that there would be no reason for the Apostles to ordain a priest if the structure of the Church was unnecessary.
i will follow up in more detail tomorrow.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), January 20, 2004.

It is also interesting that Matthew 23:2 Christ refers to "Moses Seat" preceding his scathing remarks toward the pharisees, but before he does this he tells the people "To do as they say". Notice, Christ honors the "seat" even though the seat occupiers were hypocrits and earned themselves easy entrance into the N.T.'s Hall of Shame. Notice also he does not refer them to scripture but in fact admonishes them to follow the oral commands of the "seat holders".
Gail
P.S. Moses "seat" in the Greek is kathedra meaning the "exalted seat occupied by men of eminent rank or influence." Kathedra, as in ex cathedra was NOT a new thing the Catholic Church invented but as you can see has it roots in the O.T. and established by God, and honored by Christ.

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 20, 2004.

John wrote, "Again, you go on and on about an interpreter not being needed; Yet NONE of the verses you cited clearly states that interpretation of the Scriptures is left to the individual. You quoted liberally from both the Old and New Testaments without once showing such a verse."
Really, is that what you gathered from your own "private interpretation", or did the Catholic Church have to tell you this to be true???
The TRUTH of the matter is you really didn't bother to read what I wrote now did you John??? It is obvious that you did not do any such thing for you dismissed what I provided without any clear rebuttal to the verses that I used to show that God CLEARLY expects us to UNDERSTAND His word WITHOUT the need for anyone to INTERPRET them for us. This reply of yours does not surprise me in the least John as you follow in the footsteps of those who are on the Catholic forum who did EXACTLY the same thing. John wrote, "You obviously know that the Jews had the Scriptures too since you claim that they didn?t need an interpreter. But read the following verses from the Book of Exodus."
Now John, I never said that those in the Old Testament didn't need an interpreter now did I??? Why do you feel the need to put words in my mouth when I never made such a ridiculous statement???
This is the second time that I have had to correct you in what I said. This is what I said: "In teaching the Old Covenant in the Old Testament it was first the head of the household who was to teach his family concerning the things of God, then it was the judges, then the priests."
So, your ranting about Moses in Exodus 18:25-26 is a MOOT POINT for I have already stated this to be true.
If you will also notice after I made that statement about those in the Old Testament, I also said this concerning the New Testament (which you conveniently IGNORED): "And in the New Testament, "None of them shall teach his neighbor, and none his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.In that He says, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away." (Hebrews 8:11-13)."

I have shown you verses that CLEARLY show that God EXPECTS us to UNDERSTAND His word WITHOUT the need of someone (the Catholic Church) to INTERPRET them for us and this you have REJECTED.
I wrote, "Now how about your verse that states that "only the Catholic Church can interpret scripture"???"
To which you replied, "When you can show me that someone other than the Catholic Church decided the canon of Scripture and decided that the canon of Scripture is closed I?ll try to find such a verse for you. If you accept the canon of Scripture then like it or not you accept it on the teaching authority of the Catholic Church."
Just answer the question that i posed to you, it is NOT that difficult a question that you cannot answer now is it John??? The answer that you gave me ""When you can show me that someone other than the Catholic Church decided the canon of Scripture and decided that the canon of Scripture is closed I?ll try to find such a verse for you." is not suprising for there are NO verses that teach that an INTERPRETER (the Catholic Church) is required nor does the New Testament even hint at such an absurd conclusion. You will search far and wide and not find this FALSE DOCTRINE in the pages of the NT.
Proverbs 14:8 says, "The wisdom of the prudent is to understand his way, But the folly of fools is deceit."
Proverbs 8:17 says, "I love those who love me, And those who seek me diligently will find me."
Hebrews 11:6 says, "But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him."
NO mention of an interpreter is required in any of those passages.
Why is that the case?
Jesus says "If you love me, keep my commandments." (John 14:15).
His commandments are WRITTEN down for us in the New Testament.
"I have written?By which?You may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ." Ephesians 3:3-4
"We are not writing any other things to you than what you read and understand." 2 Corinthians 1:13
Obviously the apostle Paul thought that the churches in Ephesus and Corinth could UNDERSTAND the word of God WITHOUT an interpreter.
The apostle John said in 1 John 2:4, "He who says, "I know Him," and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him."
This is explained in verse 5, "But whoever keeps His word, truly the love of God is perfected in him. By this we know that we are in Him."
Please notice it is "whoever KEEPS HIS WORD".
This word is WRITTEN down for us in the New Testament.
No interpreter is required NOR desired.
Ian wrote, "so far, you appear to have accepted two things: 1) the fact that an Apostle, appointed by Jesus, could be replaced by the other Apostles (acting under the Price of the Apostles (as in the case of Judas, see above)"
No, I have done NOTHING of the sort now have I Ian??? I have specifically stated that there was ONLY 1 case of where an apostle was replaced and gave the SPECIFIC instructions on how this was accomplished, i.e. they had to be a WITNESS to Jesus resurrection. There are NO 2,000 year old apostles around, so there are NO WITNESSES to Jesus resurrection, hence there are NO SUCCESSORS to the apostles today.
Ian wrote, "2) the fact that ordination is a valid sacrament (Father Stephen, see above)"
It is amazing how you can erroneously deduce from what I wrote above to what you imply in this post of yours. First, there is NO SUCH THING as ORDINATION, and I never made any statement concerning this in the first place. There is NO SUCH THING as "Father Stephen" as you erroneously suggest this is merely a FABRICATION of the Catholic Church.
Ian continued, "your acceptance of these matters (am i right that you accept them?) suggests that you see the Church structure that grew in the aftermath of the Resurrection."
No, you are WRONG in that I accept what you wrote for what I stated in my last post to you has NOTHING to do with Catholic Church structure at all. There are elders and deacons in the church, but there is NO SUCH THING as a separate priesthood in the New Testament for ALL CHRISTIANS are priests. (1 Peter 2:5).
Ian wrote, "trusting that you also accept the apostleship of St Paul, i think that we are well on the way to proving the Scriptural basis of the successorship of the bishops to the Apostles."
No, the apostle Paul was NOT a bishop for he could NOT have been one because he was NOT MARRIED.
Ian wrote, "you must also accept that there would be no reason for the Apostles to ordain a priest if the structure of the Church was unnecessary."
There is NO SUCH THING as a separate priesthood and since this is the case, then the structure of the Catholic Church FALLS.
Gail wrote, "It is also interesting that Matthew 23:2 Christ refers to "Moses Seat" preceding his scathing remarks toward the pharisees, but before he does this he tells the people "To do as they say". Notice, Christ honors the "seat" even though the seat occupiers were hypocrits and earned themselves easy entrance into the N.T.'s Hall of Shame. Notice also he does not refer them to scripture but in fact admonishes them to follow the oral commands of the "seat holders"."
Yes, Jesus did tell them in verse 3 to, "Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do." However this has absolutely NOTHING to do with the New Testament for Jesus was still alive when He made this statement.
When did the New Covenant come into effect Gail??? Gail wrote, "P.S. Moses "seat" in the Greek is kathedra meaning the "exalted seat occupied by men of eminent rank or influence." Kathedra, as in ex cathedra was NOT a new thing the Catholic Church invented but as you can see has it roots in the O.T. and established by God, and honored by Christ."
It is interesting that the New Testament is SILENT concerning this practice (ex cathedra) as this is NOTHING more than the figment of their (Catholic) imagination.
Let Gail provide the verses in the New Testament that state that anyone can make laws or legislate truth other than God???

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), January 20, 2004.

Kevin and Ian,
Thanks for all the great info. Your discussion and suggestions have really gotten me into the Bible (the Word of God). Kevin, I saw your point echoed in the link you gave about finding the real New Testament church. Thanks again for that.
I'm a little confused though. In Acts 1:20-22 KJV says, "20: For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take. 21: Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, 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. "
Is the office of "bishoprick" the same as an apostle? Isn't the Bible here showing the apostles ordaining someone "to be a witness of his resurrection?" To me "to be" says this is a guy who will stand as they are and proclaim that Christ is indeed resurrected. Does someone have to have wirnessed the resurrection to be a witness to the resurrection? Aren't all Chrsitians supposed to be witnesses to the resurrection? Mary Magdalene witnessed the resurrected Christ but she wasn't an apostle. Paul witnessed the resurrected Christ after he ascended to sit at the right of the Father and he calls himself an apostle in 1 Corinthians 9. He speaks with authority. Why wouldn't Christians call him a bishop other than he wasn't married? The verses in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 say that the bishop must have only one wife. Could Paul be saying that a bishop must not be a polygamist, nor a remarried widower. Does he mean singles need to apply? Why does he say "married to one wife" and not just "married?"
confused [Andy]

-- Andy ("aszmere@earthlink.net"), January 21, 2004.

[Andy]
you are getting close to the trust.
i am a bit stuck for time today, and therefore i may not be as active here. however, yesterday, we saw Kevin accept that ordination began (why, was it a one-off, how absurd, there was always going to be priests, its in scripture) and he also accepted (in a limited way, but i can further enlghten him) the creation of further apostles. Judas' replacement and St Paul.
there was a plan. it is alive today: Catholic bishops, priests, deacons etc.
you can approach SDcripture with an open mind, or you can make your mind up and twist Scripture this way and that.
it sounds like you are going about it in a positive way.
i expect a further hail of vitriol from Kevin on the back of this post. just be careful when you read.
the further point that any Christian MUST take on board is that scripture alone and private interpretation are NOT Scriptural. they are man made doctrine. if you see that, the whole thing is a pack of cards. if you do not, then you must believe that Our Lord had a very strange sense of humour: everyone in the world believeing something different. that wasn't in the plan, either.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), January 21, 2004.

The Acts of the Apostles - Chapter 1
[19] And it became known to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem: so that the same field was called in their tongue, Haceldama, that is to say, The field of blood.
[20] For it is written in the book of Psalms: Let their habitation become desolate, and let there be none to dwell therein. And his bishopric let another take.
[21] Wherefore of these men who have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus came in and went out among us,
[22] Beginning from the baptism of John, until the day wherein he was taken up from us, one of these must be made a witness with us of his resurrection.
[23] And they appointed two, Joseph, called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias.
two comments:
"And his bishopric let another take." the bishopric is an office, not personal property.
v21 & 22: does this amount to a rule that you have had to witness the Resurrection, or just an order from St Peter, the first Pope, that he considers them the best candidates. methinks the latter.
btw, St Paul did witness the resurrection, BUT he did not satisfy the criteria viz "of these men who have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus came in and went out among us, Beginning from the baptism of John, until the day wherein he was taken up from us," because he was busy murdering Christuians at the time.
However, you are right: St Paul was an Apostle:
Titus -- Chapter 1
[1] Paul, a servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of the elect of God and the acknowledging of the truth, which is according to godliness:

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), January 21, 2004.

seeker
your analysis on celibacy also makes complete sense.
if St Paul had insisted on bachelors, there would have been a very limited supply of priests and bishops to choose from.
there are plenty of references in Scripture that hionour those who practice celibacy. this is obvious when one considers the commitment that is required - to forego happied married family life for God. indeed, what a sacrifice.
Read St Matthew 19:29
1 Cor 7:7 - 9

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), January 21, 2004.

CLARIFICATION FOR KEVIN
+++++++++++++++++++++
Apostolic Succession
Kevin stated: ¡§The ONLY way someone could be a successor to an apostle was to have WITNESSED the RESURRECTION OF JESUS CHRIST for this is exactly what Acts 1:21-22 teaches: "Therefore, of these men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John to that day when He was taken up from us, ONE OF THESE MUST BECOME A WITNESS WITH US OF HIS RESURRECTION." ¡§
Ian wrote, "so far, you appear to have accepted two things: 1) the fact that an Apostle, appointed by Jesus, could be replaced by the other Apostles (acting under the Price of the Apostles (as in the case of Judas, see above)¡K¡K¡K.."
Kevin then claims: ¡§No, I have done NOTHING of the sort now have I Ian??? I have specifically stated that there was ONLY 1 case of where an apostle was replaced and gave the SPECIFIC instructions on how this was accomplished, i.e. they had to be a WITNESS to Jesus resurrection. There are NO 2,000 year old apostles around, so there are NO WITNESSES to Jesus resurrection, hence there are NO SUCCESSORS to the apostles today. ¡§
--„³>>>> Kevin is twisting what Ian had said. There was an Apostle appointed by the Apostles to replace an Apostle appointed by Jesus. Yes there was one case. That was my point, you accept the one case. That is progress, isn¡¦t it.
Add to this your misunderstanding as to the requirements of St Peter ¡V you erroneously think he required the Apostle to have witnessed the resurrection ¡V then you are I are home and dry.
+++++++++++++++++++++
Ordination
Kevin states: ¡§Ian quoted Acts 6:1-8 however what he FAILS to realize is that these were NOT apostles at all!!! This wasn't the apostles TRANSFERRING their AUTHORITY to SUCCESSORS. It was the APPOINTING of DEACONS to work in assisting in the daily distribution. ¡§
Ian wrote, " far, you appear to have accepted two things: ¡K¡K¡K..2) the fact that ordination is a valid sacrament (Father Stephen, see above)"
Kevin writes: ¡§It is amazing how you can erroneously deduce from what I wrote above to what you imply in this post of yours. First, there is NO SUCH THING as ORDINATION, and I never made any statement concerning this in the first place. There is NO SUCH THING as "Father Stephen" as you erroneously suggest this is merely a FABRICATION of the Catholic Church.¡§
---->>>> Kevin, this is what our priests are ordained to do and how they are commissioned to do it. You might not want to, but you are de facto recognizing Catholic practice in Scripture.
i am not sure there's much else i need to say on this one.
Other than please stop trying to twist what i say, it's not fair and i am not doing it to you.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), January 21, 2004.

KEVIN: God says that we are to, "Test all things; hold fast what is good." (1 Thess 5:21, 1 John 4:1). There is NO mention of an interpreter required in order to do this.
JOHN: I don’t see anything there that even hints at Scripture being self-interpreting. You cite 1 John 4:1 “This is how you can know the Spirit of God: every spirit that acknowledges Jesus Christ come in the flesh be longs to God” Does this say anything about Scripture being self-interpreting? No. I’ll have you know my friend, Catholics acknowledge Jesus has come in the Flesh and we have a daily encounter with His Flesh and Blood.
Look what else John said about the weight he put on the written Word versus face to face guidance;
“Although I have much to write to you, I do not intend to use paper and ink. Instead, I hope to visit you and to speak face to face so that our joy may be complete.” [2 John 12]
“I have much to write to you, but I do not wish to write with pen and ink. Instead, I hope to see you soon, when we can talk face to face.” [3 John 13-14]
The Apostle Paul says to the elders (presbyters) among the Corinthians;
“You yourselves are our letter of recommendation, written on your hearts, to be known and read by all men; and you show that YOU ARE A LETTER FROM CHRIST delivered by us, written NOT WITH INK BUT WITH THE SPIRIT OF THE LIVING GOD, NOT ON TABLETS OF STONE BUT ON TABLETS OF HUMAN HEARTS.” [2 Corinthians 3:2-3]
KEVIN: The truth can be known (See John 8:32). There is NO mention of an interpreter required in order to do this.
JOHN: Ummm… the people came to Him and He taught them… He didn’t write them a letter and say; “figure it out for yourself.”
KEVIN: God's word IS TRUTH. (John 17:17) and we are admonished to RIGHTLY DIVIDE the word. (2 Tim 2:15). There is NO mention of an interpreter required in order to do this.
JOHN: Catholics believe in the Word of God alone; not just the Bible alone.
KEVIN: God says in Isaiah 66:2, "But on this one will I look: On him who is poor and of a contrite spirit, And who trembles at My word." There is NO mention of an interpreter required in order to do this.
JOHN: God doesn’t say “on this one I shall write a letter”
KEVIN: God created with us all the capacity to choose right or wrong, otherwise we would be robots. All the Catholic Church wants to do is control everyone just as though they WERE ROBOTS in telling their subjects what they are to believe.
JOHN: Catholics believe in Free Will. It’s a powerful gift. But Jesus gave us a teaching Church.
KEVIN: Think about it!!!
JOHN: I did think about it and that’s exactly why I became Catholic.
KEVIN: Proverbs 2:1-5 states, "My son, if you receive my words, And treasure my commands within you, So that you incline your ear to wisdom, And apply your heart to understanding; Yes, if you cry out for discernment, And lift up your voice for understanding, If you seek her as silver, And search for her as for hidden treasures; Then you will understand the fear of the LORD, And find the knowledge of God." There is NO mention of an interpreter required in order to do this.
JOHN: Yes; “incline your ear to wisdom”…. It’s time you started listening and stopped self-interpreting. How is it that 33,830 different Protestant denominations have come to 33,830 different interpretations to the Scriptures when all 33,830 of them claim that they are led by the Holy Spirit in self-interpreting the Scriptures?
KEVIN: God said in 2 John 9, "Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son. Those who do NOT abide in the doctrine of Christ do NOT have God."
JOHN: Right you are. And Christ established the Catholic Church and insists that if you want to be saved that you must belong to it.
KEVIN: The doctrine of Christ is located in the pages of the New Testament, NOT the Catholic Church. We are told to UNDERSTAND what the will of the Lord is. (Ephesians 5:17)
JOHN: “Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the TRADITIONS which ye have been taught, whether by word, OR our epistle.” [2 Thess 2:15] Hmmmmmm.
KEVIN: For you to say that we cannot UNDERSTAND the will of the Lord without the Catholic Church to explain God's Word to us is just ludicrous.
JOHN Didn’t God guide men to write the Scriptures or did he just drop it in your lap from heaven?
KEVIN: This is what I expect someone to say who doesn't want to take responsibility for their own actions. God says that we can UNDERSTAND His will (Matthew 13:23), but NO mention is made of having someone INTERPRET for us.
JOHN: Matthew 13:23 says; “But the seed sown on rich soil is the one who HEARS the word and understands it, who indeed bears fruit and yields a hundred or sixty or thirtyfold." It doesn’t say anything about them reading the Word and deciding for themselve what it says.
Pope St. Peter asked me to pass this on to you; “FIRST OF ALL YOU MUST UNDERSTAND THIS, THAT NO PROPHECY OF SCRIPTURE IS A MATTER OF ONE'S OWN INTERPRETATION” [2 PETER 1:20]

-- John Miskell (RomanRite@aol.com), January 21, 2004.

Kevin, the N.T. says the Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth, not scripture.
Of course, there is no N.T. scripture that says man is free to create his own laws, nor is there any scripture that says man is free to interpret scripture however he likes and then form churches built around such beliefs.
But Christ did give the keys to Peter, and He did establish a church, and He did give that Church authority to forgive and retain sins, and He did create a church with the authority to set forth decrees, through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and He did give the Church the authority to RATIFY the N.T. canon.

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 21, 2004.

OFF

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), January 21, 2004.

KEVIN:
JOHN: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God.” [John 1:1]
I ask you Kevin, is John 1:1ff talking about a person or a book?

-- John Miskell (RomanRite@aol.com), January 21, 2004.

[Andy],
You wrote,
Thanks for all the great info. Your discussion and suggestions have really gotten me into the Bible (the Word of God).
I am glad to see that this discussion has got you reading the bible for that is what produces faith. (Romans 10:17).
You wrote, "Kevin, I saw your point echoed in the link you gave about finding the real New Testament church. Thanks again for that."
You are welcome.
You wrote, "I'm a little confused though."
Then you quoted Acts 1:20-22 and then asked the question, "Is the office of "bishoprick" the same as an apostle?"
Yes that is correct, if you read the New King James version, I think it says it better when it says in verse 20, "'Let another take his office.'"
You wrote, "Isn't the Bible here showing the apostles ordaining someone "to be a witness of his resurrection?" To me "to be" says this is a guy who will stand as they are and proclaim that Christ is indeed resurrected."
In order to be an "apostle", you had to be an "eyewitness" of Jesus resurrection.
You wrote, "Does someone have to have wirnessed the resurrection to be a witness to the resurrection?"
Today, we don't need an "eyewitness" to the resurrection because we have the very words of the apostles who were the "eyewitnesses" and it is THROUGH their words that we BELIEVE that Jesus Christ died, was buried and was resurrected on the third day. (See John 17:20).
You wrote, "Aren't all Chrsitians supposed to be witnesses to the resurrection?"
The ONLY "witness" we have today of Jesus resurrection are the INSPIRED words that were written down for us in the New Testament. This is why the apostle Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 12:3, "...no one can say that Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit."
You wrote, "Mary Magdalene witnessed the resurrected Christ but she wasn't an apostle."
This is a true statement and Mary Magdalene could NOT be an apostle of Christ, because this office was limited only to MEN, not WOMEN.
You wrote, "Paul witnessed the resurrected Christ after he ascended to sit at the right of the Father and he calls himself an apostle in 1 Corinthians 9. He speaks with authority."
True, Paul did call himself an apostle and indeed he was because God chose him for Ananias said in Acts 22:14-15, "Then he said, 'The God of our fathers has chosen you that you should know His will, and see the Just One, and hear the voice of His mouth. For you will be His witness to all men of what you have seen and heard."
You wrote, "Why wouldn't Christians call him a bishop other than he wasn't married?"
Paul was an apostle, NOT a bishop and he could NOT be a bishop becuase Paul was not married and ONLY those who were married could be bishops.
You wrote, "The verses in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 say that the bishop must have only one wife. Could Paul be saying that a bishop must not be a polygamist, nor a remarried widower. Does he mean singles need to apply?"
Singles NEED NOT APPLY.
You wrote, "Why does he say "married to one wife" and not just "married?"
That is a good question and I do not know why the Holy Spirit inspired those words. The question really boils down to the FACT that bishops in the church MUST BE MARRIED. It is that simple.

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

Ian wrote, "Kevin is twisting what Ian had said. There was an Apostle appointed by the Apostles to replace an Apostle appointed by Jesus. Yes there was one case. That was my point, you accept the one case. That is progress, isn¡¦t it."
Let's see if this is true that I am twisting what Ian had said.
Ian wrote, "so far, you appear to have accepted two things: 1) the fact that an Apostle, appointed by Jesus, could be replaced by the other Apostles (acting under the Price of the Apostles (as in the case of Judas, see above)"
The reason I said what I did was because Ian thinks that just because one apostle was replaced, this would PROVE the Catholic doctrine of "successors" to the apostles especially when he said, "(acting under the Price of the Apostles (as in the case of Judas, see above). I showed that he was indeed WRONG in his interpretation because the ONLY WAY to be a "successor" to an apostle was to have WITNESSED THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS CHRIST. Please notice that Peter had NOTHING to do with the replacement. It was the God who chose Judas replacement, NOT Peter. No twisting here!!!
Ian wrote, "Add to this your misunderstanding as to the requirements of St Peter ¡V you erroneously think he required the Apostle to have witnessed the resurrection ¡V then you are I are home and dry."
What requirements of Peter are you talking about??? Peter did NOT have anything to do with the replacement of Judas as this was PROPHESIED in the Old Testament that this very thing would happen. Ian wrote, "Kevin, this is what our priests are ordained to do and how they are commissioned to do it. You might not want to, but you are de facto recognizing Catholic practice in Scripture."
Sorry Ian, there is NO SUCH THING as a separate priesthood in the New Testament.
Ian wrote, "Other than please stop trying to twist what i say, it's not fair and i am not doing it to you."
Sorry Ian, I have shown you that I am NOT "twisting" what you say and you have yet to prove that I am indeed guilty of this very thing in which you falsely accuse me.

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

John,
You wrote, "I don?t see anything there that even hints at Scripture being self-interpreting."
That is because you do NOT want to see it right John??? Please tell me how someone can "Test all things" if someone else has already done this for them??? You would rather have someone else tell you what to believe rather than investigate and understand for yourself right John??? That is what the Catholic Church tells you to do!!!
You wrote, "You cite 1 John 4:1 ?This is how you can know the Spirit of God: every spirit that acknowledges Jesus Christ come in the flesh be longs to God?
First off, the verse you quoted is NOT 1 John 4:1. This is 1 John 4:1, "Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world."
How can you "test the spirits" if this has already been done for you??? The ONLY way one can "test the spirits" is THROUGH THE WORD OF GOD!!! God says in 2 Corinthians 10:4-5, "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." The SWORD OF THE SPIRIT is the WORD OF GOD. (See Ephesians 6:17).
You wrote, "Look what else John said about the weight he put on the written Word versus face to face guidance; ?Although I have much to write to you, I do not intend to use paper and ink. Instead, I hope to visit you and to speak face to face so that our joy may be complete.? [2 John 12] ?I have much to write to you, but I do not wish to write with pen and ink. Instead, I hope to see you soon, when we can talk face to face.? [3 John 13-14]"
What will we be judged by John??? Will it be "face to face guidance" or will it be what has been written??? What did Jesus say??? (See John 12:48).
You wrote, "The Apostle Paul says to the elders (presbyters) among the Corinthians; ?You yourselves are our letter of recommendation, written on your hearts, to be known and read by all men; and you show that YOU ARE A LETTER FROM CHRIST delivered by us, written NOT WITH INK BUT WITH THE SPIRIT OF THE LIVING GOD, NOT ON TABLETS OF STONE BUT ON TABLETS OF HUMAN HEARTS.? [2 Corinthians 3:2-3]"
It is the WORD OF GOD that dwells in us and that is what Paul was teaching here in these verses. What was written on their hearts??? The apostles spoke with the Spirit, and that is why they were a LETTER FROM CHRIST that was DELIVERED BY US (the apostles) and indeed it was not written on tablets of stone (a reference to the ten commandments) but the words that the apostles spoke were written on their hearts. Get it???
I wrote, "The truth can be known (See John 8:32). There is NO mention of an interpreter required in order to do this."
To which you replied, "Ummm? the people came to Him and He taught them? He didn?t write them a letter and say; ?figure it out for yourself.?"
My reply: Ummm? originally the word of God was taught ORALLY because they did NOT have the WRITTEN New Testament. Now we have the WRITTEN New Testament, so there is NO NEED for someone else to teach them for we can all READ and UNDERSTAND for ourselves WITHOUT any need of an INTERPRETER.
I wrote, "God's word IS TRUTH. (John 17:17) and we are admonished to RIGHTLY DIVIDE the word. (2 Tim 2:15). There is NO mention of an interpreter required in order to do this."
To which you replied, "Catholics believe in the Word of God alone; not just the Bible alone."
My reply: You could NOT prove that Catholic Tradition was the word of God if your life depended on it?
I wrote, "God says in Isaiah 66:2, "But on this one will I look: On him who is poor and of a contrite spirit, And who trembles at My word." There is NO mention of an interpreter required in order to do this."
To which you replied, "God doesn?t say ?on this one I shall write a letter?"
My reply: The bible is the word of God am I correct John??? Since the bible IS the word of God, then God DOES look on those who TREMBLE at HIS WORD. God does NOT have to write a letter in order for someone to TREMBLE AT HIS WORD.
I wrote, "God created with us all the capacity to choose right or wrong, otherwise we would be robots. All the Catholic Church wants to do is control everyone just as though they WERE ROBOTS in telling their subjects what they are to believe."
To which you replied: "Catholics believe in Free Will. It?s a powerful gift. But Jesus gave us a teaching Church."
The statement that you made "Catholics believe in Free Will" is a LIE. Infants are baptized WITHOUT the opportunity for them to exercise their FREE WILL. Infants CANNOT decide for themselves whether or not they choose to be baptized, so this statement of yours is NOT THE TRUTH.
I wrote, "Think about it!!!"
To which you replied, "I did think about it and that?s exactly why I became Catholic."
My reply: Maybe you ought to rethink your decision!!!
I wrote, "Proverbs 2:1-5 states, "My son, if you receive my words, And treasure my commands within you, So that you incline your ear to wisdom, And apply your heart to understanding; Yes, if you cry out for discernment, And lift up your voice for understanding, If you seek her as silver, And search for her as for hidden treasures; Then you will understand the fear of the LORD, And find the knowledge of God." There is NO mention of an interpreter required in order to do this."
To which you replied, "Yes; ?incline your ear to wisdom??. It?s time you started listening and stopped self-interpreting. How is it that 33,830 different Protestant denominations have come to 33,830 different interpretations to the Scriptures when all 33,830 of them claim that they are led by the Holy Spirit in self-interpreting the Scriptures?"
My reply: Is this what the Catholic Church told you to say or is that your OWN personal interpretation. The Holy Spirit does NOT lead anyone in interpreting the scriptures for this is an invention of men. Yes, there are many Protestant denominations and I am NOT a member of a Protestant denomination. ALL of these Protestant denominations came from the Catholic Church. There is ONLY one church and it most certainly is NOT the Catholic Church.
I wrote, "God said in 2 John 9, "Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son. Those who do NOT abide in the doctrine of Christ do NOT have God."
TO which you replied "Right you are. And Christ established the Catholic Church and insists that if you want to be saved that you must belong to it."
My reply: It is interesting that there is NO MENTION of the Catholic Church in scripture. Hmmm? makes you wonder why this is the case???? Christ did establish HIS church, the church of Christ NOT the Catholic Church.
I wrote, "The doctrine of Christ is located in the pages of the New Testament, NOT the Catholic Church. We are told to UNDERSTAND what the will of the Lord is. (Ephesians 5:17)"
To which you replied, "?Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the TRADITIONS which ye have been taught, whether by word, OR our epistle.? [2 Thess 2:15] Hmmmmmm."
The traditions that they were taught are WRITTEN down for us in the New Testament. We will be judged by what is WRITTEN. (See Revelation 20:12). Hmmmmmmmmm.
I wrote, "For you to say that we cannot UNDERSTAND the will of the Lord without the Catholic Church to explain God's Word to us is just ludicrous."
To which you replied, "Didn?t God guide men to write the Scriptures or did he just drop it in your lap from heaven?"
My reply: Yes, God guided men to write the scriptures, but he does NOT require another man to INTERPRET them for us now does He???
I wrote, "This is what I expect someone to say who doesn't want to take responsibility for their own actions. God says that we can UNDERSTAND His will (Matthew 13:23), but NO mention is made of having someone INTERPRET for us."
To which you replied, "Matthew 13:23 says; ?But the seed sown on rich soil is the one who HEARS the word and understands it, who indeed bears fruit and yields a hundred or sixty or thirtyfold." It doesn?t say anything about them reading the Word and deciding for themselve what it says."
So, someone can read an instruction book UNDERSTAND it, and be able to DO what it says EXCEPT when it comes to the word of God right John??? Who can believe it??? Talk about not wanting to take responsibility for your OWN actions, you have to have someone else to TELL YOU what to believe right John???
You wrote, "Pope St. Peter asked me to pass this on to you; ?FIRST OF ALL YOU MUST UNDERSTAND THIS, THAT NO PROPHECY OF SCRIPTURE IS A MATTER OF ONE'S OWN INTERPRETATION? [2 PETER 1:20]"
Catholics ALWAYS quote this verse, but FAIL to quote the very next verse (2 Peter 1:21) which states, "for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit."
This verse does NOT teach that one CANNOT have their own PRIVATE INTERPRETATION. Catholics do a good job of claiming sole right of interpretation however, they always leave out verse 21.
The problem with this is it relieves men of the responsibility to think for themselves. The context itself shows that Peter is stating that Scripture does not come from the writer's own personal ideas or interpretation, but from the Holy Spirit's inspiration ONLY. To claim that this verse proves that we need an interpreter shows your ignorance of God's Word.

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

Gail,
You wrote, " Kevin, the N.T. says the Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth, not scripture."
Yes Gail the church is the pillar and ground of truth however, it DOES NOT have the power to ADD anything to word of God.
You wrote, "Of course, there is no N.T. scripture that says man is free to create his own laws, nor is there any scripture that says man is free to interpret scripture however he likes and then form churches built around such beliefs."
Go back and re-read the scriptures I provided to John concerning being able to UNDERSTAND what has been WRITTEN. There is NO scripture that says that God requires an interpreter to be able to UNDERSTAND His word NOR does He require one.
You wrote, "But Christ did give the keys to Peter, and He did establish a church, and He did give that Church authority to forgive and retain sins, and He did create a church with the authority to set forth decrees, through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and He did give the Church the authority to RATIFY the N.T. canon."
Christ did NOT only give the keys to Peter, the other apostles also had the power to "bind and loose". Yes Jesus established HIS church the church of Christ, but it was most certainly NOT the Catholic Church. He did NOT give the church the authority to "forgive and retain sins" have you not read, "Who can forgive sins but God alone? (Mark 2:7)." He also did NOT create a church with the authority to "set forth decrees" for anything other than what has been WRITTEN and I challenge you to prove otherwise.

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

Kevin,
Face it, they won't listen to anyone. "Sola Scriptura" is a brick wall with them, and you can quote the whole bible, but if you can't get them past this, they just won't listen. I recommend you buy the 3 volume set by David King and William Webster on Sola Scriptura.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), January 21, 2004.

Thanks again all, for sharing your thoughts.

-- Andy ("aszmere@earthlink.net"), January 21, 2004.

I think you'd be better off showing Roman Catholics on how their church picks and chooses what church 'history' they want. Like the Satan ransom theory Origeon believed...or that Ireanus believed Jesus was 50 years old.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), January 21, 2004.

"Face it, they won't listen to anyone."
Who knows, maybe there will be a lurker out there who will read what has been written and seek the truth in the word of God and do what it says!

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

Opps...sorry, didn't make my self clear on the last post. I ment to ask why didn't they believe Jesus was 50 years old like Iraenus did, or why don't they believe in the Satan Ransom theory as Origeon did.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), January 21, 2004.

...or, why some believed Jim Jones, David Koresh, Jimmy Swaggert, Benny Hinn, and on and on. Show the flip side, not just one side of that coin, David. Are you picking and choosing your coins?
........................................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 21, 2004.

Sorry rod, I don't base my beliefs or cut 'n' paste writings from them.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), January 21, 2004.

I mean I don't base my theology on them. Nor do I cut 'n' paste writings from them to prove 'the churh always beleived this'.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), January 21, 2004.

Well, let's hope that King James got it right, for your sake.
..........................................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 22, 2004.

Open Letter to a Catholic
(Here is a letter written to a Catholic priest in response to a two-page ad in the Caller Times ? a Corpus Christi newspaper. The writer of the letter describes himself as a "cornfield-preacher." He is a faithful member of the church. His letter is not a shot from the hip but is straight from the heart. It is worth reading. If it seems a little rough on its edges, remember it is from the cornfield (heart). Would God that more saints would speak out boldly in his name.)
Robstown, Texas Leonard Pivonlia Corpus Christi Cathedral Corpus Christi, Texas 78401
Sir:
I have no ill-will toward Catholics. I am truly interested in trying to help all men to better understand the truth.
"Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free" (John 8:32).
What is truth?
"Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth" (John 17:17).
Sir, the article you printed in the Caller Times (Sat., May 17, 1995) stated the Catholic church began on Pentecost A.D. 33.
I respectfully disagree.
There was a church that began on that date, but it was not the Catholic church. It was the church of Christ, which Jesus promised to build in Matthew 16:18. That church could not have been the Catholic Church, which did not appear until many years later.
Jesus told his apostles: "Behold, I send forth the promise of my Father upon you; but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem until ye be clothed with power from on high" (Luke 24:49).
They did this (Acts 2:1ff). You cannot read of the Catholic Church in there anywhere.
Jesus died to purchase his church (Eph. 4:4-6; 1:22-23; Col. 1:18).
This is the only church we read about in the New Testament. It was purchased with Jesus' blood (Acts 20:28). Christ is its foundation (Eph. 3:21). He is its head (Eph. 1:22-23). It is the only church with perfect and everlasting laws (James 1:25; Matt. 24:35), the one we read about in the New Testament.
Its members wear the greatest name ever known, in which alone salvation is promised (Acts 11:26).
I cannot find one thing about the Catholic church in the Bible. I searched for the word Catholic, but in vain. I searched for many things Catholics do in their worship, but to no avail.
I had to go to the library to find out about the Catholic church.
The doctrines of Romanism (Catholicism) originated over a period of 1,200 years. Including the doctrines of holy water, purgatory, penance, mechanical instruments of music in worship, transubstantiation, celibacy, indulgences, and sprinkling. These doctrines are foreign to the teaching of Christ.
Martin Luther protested against the wrong teaching of Roman Catholicism and started the Lutheran church. The Presbyterian church was founded in 1535. The Church of England began in 1552. The Baptist church originated in 1607. The Methodist church had its beginning in 1729 with John Wesley.
Churches started since 33 A.D. cannot be the one and only true church. Please read the following scriptures: Eph. 4:4-6; 1:22-23; Col. 1:18.
Many put GOD last. The Bible says we should put him first (Matt. 6:33).
Peter says plainly what is going to happen: "But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?" (2 Pet. 3:10-12).
Another doctrine of the Catholic church that is foreign to Bible teaching is the Pope. The first Pope was designated by Emperor Phocus in A.D. 606. He proclaimed the Pope to be infallible in his religious decisions.
Titles such as "Lord God the Pope," and "Another God on Earth," are applied to him. He is a mere man but claims to be infallible! God has never given such authority to men.
The apostle Paul warned of such departure from truth: "Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself, above all that is called God, or that is worshiped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God" (2 Thess. 2:3-4). Does this describe the pope?
I am thankful we will be judged by what God's Word says and not what some fallible man thinks! "He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day" John 12:48). "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts" (Isa. 55:8-9).
When God speaks, he says what he means, and means what he says. Man must conform to what he says. God cannot lie (Heb. 6: 18). "It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God" (Heb. 10:31).
All who do not obey God, are in for a great surprise. "And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, in flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ; Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power" (2 Thess. 1:7-9).

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

Kevin,
Of course your 'cornfield preacher' has no hatred for the Catholic Church. Oh, and I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.
Look, your 'Church of Christ' is not the Church of Christ of the New Testament. The real Church of Christ was promised by Christ to last forever. It didn't need to be 'restored' (re-invented) by two Protestant malcontents named Stone and Campbell in the 1800's. Even thier restoration movement has since fractured over and over with each splinter calling themselves the true Church and calling the other splinters heretics. There are the Churches of Christ (a cappella) and the Christian Churches (independent). There are the Disciples of Christ and the Christian Church Disciples of Christ. There are a dozen or more variations. Which of these is the TRUE Church of Christ; Yours, of course. Spare me.
But there is still only ONE, HOLY, CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLIC CHURCH. It's the one with the Pope.

-- John Miskell (RomanRite@aol.com), January 23, 2004.

In all fairness, I don't think even Catholics give titles such as "Lord God the Pope," and "Another God on Earth" to the pope. The Catholics I've talked to have never called him that.

-- Andy ("aszmere@earthlink.net"), January 23, 2004.

This is a sincere question I've been struggling with and I would like to hear anyone's thoughts on this matter. Is there anywhere in the Bible that says that artificial contraception is pleasing to God or that it is even allowed? Many places God says to be fruitful and multiply. Someone once pointed me to Onan as an example in Genesis 38:8-10 of contraception. In that case, it was displeasing to God and he slew Onan. I've heard the argument that God slew him not because of coitus interruptus but because he broke the law in Deuteronomy 25:5-10. But in there the penalty is not death, but something much less.
Also, why were many Christian churches against artificial contraception until after 1930? Before 1930, didn't many Christians push for laws to make it illegal to sell artificial contraceptives? If the church is truly based on the Bible, why would it change its position on something that seems to be so important to how we understand God's role in the creation of life?

-- Andy ("aszmere@earthlink.net"), January 23, 2004.

John wrote, "Of course your 'cornfield preacher' has no hatred for the Catholic Church. Oh, and I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you."
Do you really have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell me??? Give me a break.
John wrote, "Look, your 'Church of Christ' is not the Church of Christ of the New Testament. The real Church of Christ was promised by Christ to last forever."
What is the seed of the kingdom John??? Is it the Catholic Church???? Or is it the word of God??? (See the parable of the sower).
John wrote, "It didn't need to be 'restored' (re-invented) by two Protestant malcontents named Stone and Campbell in the 1800's."
The church of which I am a member was not "re-invented" as John states. The church of Christ has been around since A.D. 33. There are churches of Christ in England and I am sure that there are some all over the world that have had NOTHING to do with "Stone and Campbell".
John wrote, "Even thier restoration movement has since fractured over and over with each splinter calling themselves the true Church and calling the other splinters heretics."
The same thing happened in the first century didn't it John??? Just look at the churches in the book of Revelation chapters 2 and 3. How many faithful churches were there of the seven mentioned????
John wrote, "There are the Churches of Christ (a cappella) and the Christian Churches (independent)."
The Christian Churches are NOT part of the body of Christ.
John wrote, "There are the Disciples of Christ and the Christian Church Disciples of Christ."
These Churches are also NOT part of the body of Christ.
John wrote, "There are a dozen or more variations. Which of these is the TRUE Church of Christ; Yours, of course. Spare me."
Yes, there are dozens of churches however there is ONLY one church, and YES, my church IS the TRUE Church of Christ whether you choose to believe it or not. The Catholic Church CANNOT be the true church for her doctrines are FOREIGN to the New Testament. If my church is NOT the true church then I say to you PROVE IT!!! If what the church of Christ of which I am a member teaches FALSE DOCTRINE then I CHALLENGE YOU TO PROVE THIS TO BE TRUE!!!!
John wrote, "But there is still only ONE, HOLY, CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLIC CHURCH. It's the one with the Pope."
Yea, the Pope who is NOT even mentioned in the word of God!!! To claim that the Pope is the head of the church is NOT the TRUTH according to the word of God!!!

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

[Andy] wrote, "In all fairness, I don't think even Catholics give titles such as "Lord God the Pope," and "Another God on Earth" to the pope. The Catholics I've talked to have never called him that."
The Catholics that you have met may not have called him by these names, but that does not mean that he has not been called these names.
Take for example: The title "Lord God the Pope" - these words appeared in the Canon Law of Rome. "To believe that our Lord God the Pope has not the power to decree as he is decreed, is to be deemed heretical." (The Gloss extravagances of Pope John XXII Cum. Inter, tit XIV Ad Callem Sexti Decretalium, Paris, 1685)
Pope Innocent III (1198-1216) wrote: "We may according to the fullness of our power, dispose of the law and dispense above the law. Those whom the Pope of Rome doth separate, it is not a man that separates them but God. For the Pope holdeth place on earth, not simply of a man but of the true God." (1 Book of Gregory 9 Decret. c.3)
Thomas Newton quotes the following description of the pope that has been historically adopted regarding the "pontiff":
"Our Lord God the pope; another God upon earth, king of kings, and lord of lords. The same is the dominion of God and the pope. To believe that our Lord God the pope might not decree, as he decreed, it were a matter of heresy. The power of the pope is greater than all created power, and extends itself to things celestial, terrestrial, and infernal. The pope doeth whatsoever he listeth [wills], even things unlawful, and is more than God" (Dissertations on the Prophecies, London: B. Blake, Bell-Yard, Temple-Bar, 1831, p. 456).
These are only three examples there are more...

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

[Andy],
The word of God is SILENT concerning "artificial contraception".

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

Kevin: What is the seed of the kingdom John??? Is it the Catholic Church???? Or is it the word of God??? (See the parable of the sower).
John: “The field is the world, and the good seed stands for the sons of the kingdom.” [Matthew 13:38]
Kevin: The church of which I am a member was not "re-invented" as John states. The church of Christ has been around since A.D. 33.
John: Yes, MY ‘Church of Christ’ has been around since 33AD but YOUR Church of Christ was founded by two guys named Stone and Campbell in the 1800’s.
Kevin: There are churches of Christ in England and I am sure that there are some all over the world that have had NOTHING to do with "Stone and Campbell".
John: Really? Name three of them.
Kevin: The same thing happened in the first century didn't it John??? Just look at the churches in the book of Revelation chapters 2 and 3. How many faithful churches were there of the seven mentioned????
John: In addition to the Latin (Roman) Church there are an additional 21 faithful Churches that make up the Catholic Church. They are the Coptic, Ethiopian, Syrian, Maronite, Syro-Malankara, Armenian, Chaldean, Syro-Malabar, Byelorussian, Bulgarian, Greek, Hungarian, Italo-Albanian, Melkite, Romanian, Ruthenian, Slovak, Ukranian, Krizevei, Albanian and Russian Catholic Churches. All of these Churches are united in faith, Sacrament and leadership. All of the aforementioned are called ‘Churches’.
Within these Churches there are 13 Patriarchates, 2 Major Archeparchies, 517 Metropolitan Archdioceses (-eparchies), 79 Archdioceses (-eparchies), 2,129 Dioceses (eparchies), 49 Prelatures, 12 Territorial Abbeys, 19 Apostolic Exarchates, 8 Ordinariate, 35 Military Ordinariates, 77 Apostolic Vicariates, 46 Apostolic Prefectures, 9 Apostolic Administratures and 11 Mission ‘sui juris’. Each of these entities are also often referred to as “Churches” as well.
Have you come up with your three yet? Kevin: The Christian Churches are NOT part of the body of Christ.
John: I knew you’d say that. And they think you’re outside the Body as well.
Kevin: These Churches (Disciples of Christ and the Christian Church Disciples of Christ ) are also NOT part of the body of Christ.
John: More of the same.
Kevin: Yes, there are dozens of churches however there is ONLY one church, and YES, my church IS the TRUE Church of Christ whether you choose to believe it or not. The Catholic Church CANNOT be the true church for her doctrines are FOREIGN to the New Testament.
John: Heh, the New Testament was written by Divinely Inspired CATHOLICS.
Kevin: If my church is NOT the true church then I say to you PROVE IT!!!
John: History already proved it.
Kevin: If what the church of Christ of which I am a member teaches FALSE DOCTRINE then I CHALLENGE YOU TO PROVE THIS TO BE TRUE!!!!
John: That’s already been done on this thread in abundance. Let’s focus on just one non-Biblical CofC doctrine; SOLA SCRIPTURA. Can you prove sola scriptura to me? Surely such an important doctrine must be CLEARLY spelled out in the Bible. Does the Bible say; “All you need is the Bible”? I can’t seem to find that verse anywhere.
Kevin: Yea, the Pope who is NOT even mentioned in the word of God!!!
John: The word ‘father’ is not found in the Word of God? Surely you are mistake.
Kevin: To claim that the Pope is the head of the church is NOT the TRUTH according to the word of God!!!
John: No, it’s not the Truth as you see it; but the Pope being the head of the Church is in accord with the written as well as the oral Word of God.
Good night Mr. Stone… or is it Mr. Campbell?

-- John Miskell (RomanRite@aol.com), January 23, 2004.

Thanks for clearing that up.

-- Andy ("aszmere@earthlink.net"), January 23, 2004.

once again [Andy], you are peeling back the layers. indeed, the licity of contraception is a modern manmade thing. it did start in the 30's, i believe, invented by the Anglican Church.
you also point to the case of Onan, who was happy to accept the sexual pleasure, but unwilling to assume the possible effects of the act.
his punishment was not the usual one where some failed to continue the family line. it was so much more severe.
why?
there is a further issue here that again represents a flaw in the Scripture Alone/ Private Interpretation approach. if you want to believe in something, and you are reasonably clever about it, you can take the Scripture, complicated and voluminous as it is, and convince yourself of many heresies.
why did the Church have bishops? what was their purpose? whay did Our Lord appoint Apostles?
to keep us on the straight and narrow. to preserve the Tradition, written and oral.
to prevent heresy and apostasy.
they've been good at it because, after 2,000 years of temptation by satan, there are still 1,500,000,000 of us in the Church He founded.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), January 24, 2004.

Thanks Ian. That helps too.

-- Andy ("aszmere@earthlink.net"), January 24, 2004.

I wrote, "What is the seed of the kingdom John??? Is it the Catholic Church???? Or is it the word of God??? (See the parable of the sower)."
To which John replied, " "The field is the world, and the good seed stands for the sons of the kingdom." [Matthew 13:38]"
This says NOTHING about the Catholic Church. Pleae look at the previous verse, Matthew 13:37 which states, "He who sows the good seed is the Son of Man." The "good seeds" of verse 38 are those who "But these are the ones sown on good ground, those who hear the word, accept it, and bear fruit: some thirtyfold, some sixty, and some a hundred." (Mark 4:20).
Would you like to try again???
I wrote, "The church of which I am a member was not "re-invented" as John states. The church of Christ has been around since A.D. 33."
To which John replied, "Yes, MY ?Church of Christ? has been around since 33AD but YOUR Church of Christ was founded by two guys named Stone and Campbell in the 1800?s."
Sorry, the church of Christ began on the day of Pentecost A.D. 33 in JERUSALEM, NOT ROME.
I wrote, "There are churches of Christ in England and I am sure that there are some all over the world that have had NOTHING to do with "Stone and Campbell"."
To which John replied, "Really? Name three of them."
Please visit this link: History of the early churches of Christ, in England and Europe
I wrote, "The same thing happened in the first century didn't it John??? Just look at the churches in the book of Revelation chapters 2 and 3. How many faithful churches were there of the seven mentioned????"
To which John replied, "In addition to the Latin (Roman) Church there are an additional 21 faithful Churches that make up the Catholic Church. They are the Coptic, Ethiopian, Syrian, Maronite, Syro-Malankara, Armenian, Chaldean, Syro-Malabar, Byelorussian, Bulgarian, Greek, Hungarian, Italo-Albanian, Melkite, Romanian, Ruthenian, Slovak, Ukranian, Krizevei, Albanian and Russian Catholic Churches. All of these Churches are united in faith, Sacrament and leadership. All of the aforementioned are called ?Churches?."
Not one of these so-called Churches preaches the TRUTH according to the word of God. They may be "Catholic" Churches, but they are NOT the Lord's churches.
John wrote, "Within these Churches there are 13 Patriarchates, 2 Major Archeparchies, 517 Metropolitan Archdioceses (-eparchies), 79 Archdioceses (-eparchies), 2,129 Dioceses (eparchies), 49 Prelatures, 12 Territorial Abbeys, 19 Apostolic Exarchates, 8 Ordinariate, 35 Military Ordinariates, 77 Apostolic Vicariates, 46 Apostolic Prefectures, 9 Apostolic Administratures and 11 Mission ?sui juris?. Each of these entities are also often referred to as ?Churches? as well."
Pleae notice that NOT ONCE in the word of God will you find any church which ever had any "Patriarchates", "Archeparchies", "Metropolitan Archdioceses (-eparchies)", "Archdioceses (-eparchies)", "Dioceses (eparchies)", "Prelatures", "Territorial Abbeys", "Apostolic Exarchates", "Ordinariate", "Military Ordinariates", "Apostolic Vicariates", "Apostolic Prefectures", "Apostolic Administratures" or "Mission ?sui juris" ALL of which are Catholic in origin. I can assure you that Jesus NEVER authorized any of His churches to be so named and that is the TRUTH according to the word of God.
John wrote, "Have you come up with your three yet?"
See the link provided above.
I wrote, "The Christian Churches are NOT part of the body of Christ."
To which John replied, "I knew you?d say that. And they think you?re outside the Body as well."
Now John, who gave you this information??? Did this come from your extensive knowledge of the Christian Churches??? Or did a Catholic priest give you this information??? The Christian Churches do NOT think that we "churches of Christ" are outside of the body, that is a FALSE statement.
I wrote, "These Churches (Disciples of Christ and the Christian Church Disciples of Christ ) are also NOT part of the body of Christ."
To which John replied, "More of the same."
See my reply above. The same applies.
I wrote, "Yes, there are dozens of churches however there is ONLY one church, and YES, my church IS the TRUE Church of Christ whether you choose to believe it or not. The Catholic Church CANNOT be the true church for her doctrines are FOREIGN to the New Testament."
To which John replied, "Heh, the New Testament was written by Divinely Inspired CATHOLICS."
That's funny, the word of God does NOT mention this to be true. Book, chapter and verse please???
I wrote, "Kevin: If my church is NOT the true church then I say to you PROVE IT!!!"
To which John replied, "History already proved it."
Typical answer from someone who has no desire to PROVE his doctrines from the word of God. The ONLY thing that History has proven is that the apostle Paul spoke the TRUTH when he said in Acts 20:29-30, "For I know this, that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock. Also from among yourselves men will rise up, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after themselves." This is EXACTLY what happened when the elders (bishops) went from being more than one elder (bishop) in each church to one elder (bishop) over churches in many cities, and then finally one elder (bishop) over the entire Catholic Church. Don't you find it interesting that the Catholic Church FULFILLS the doctrine of the apostasy in 1 Tim 4:3 which states, "forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth."
Catholics FORBID their priests to be married and they abstain from certain foods during lent. The Catholic Church is NOT the TRUE CHURCH, they are a FALSE CHURCH who is leading many DECEIVED SOULS to suffer ETERNAL PUNISHMENT.
I wrote, "If what the church of Christ of which I am a member teaches FALSE DOCTRINE then I CHALLENGE YOU TO PROVE THIS TO BE TRUE!!!!"
To which John replied, "That?s already been done on this thread in abundance. Let?s focus on just one non-Biblical CofC doctrine; SOLA SCRIPTURA. Can you prove sola scriptura to me? Surely such an important doctrine must be CLEARLY spelled out in the Bible. Does the Bible say; "All you need is the Bible"? I can?t seem to find that verse anywhere."
This is a TYPICAL response from someone who does NOT have an answer to the TRUTH. Did God say in 2 Tim 3:16-17, "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work."
ALL SCRIPTURE means just what it says, ALL SCRIPTURE and that INCLUDES the New Testament. If Scripture makes the MAN OF GOD "complete" and THOROUGHLY "equipped" for EVERY GOOD WORK, please explain to everyone here what else is NEEDED???
You "CANNOT FIND" the doctrine of "sola scriptura" (as you Catholics call it) in your bible because YOU DO NOT WANT TO FIND IT!!! It is there and it is PLAIN AS DAY for anyone who is SEEKING THE TRUTH and willing to DO WHAT GOD PLAINLY REVEALS in His word what He requires one must do in order to be saved.
I wrote, "Yea, the Pope who is NOT even mentioned in the word of God!!!"
To which John replied, "The word ?father? is not found in the Word of God? Surely you are mistake."
I said the word Pope was NOT mentioned in the word of God and that is a TRUE STATEMENT. Jesus PLAINLY stated in Matthew 23:9, "Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven." I guess the Pope must have overlooked this verse.
I wrote, "To claim that the Pope is the head of the church is NOT the TRUTH according to the word of God!!!"
To which John replied, "No, it?s not the Truth as you see it; but the Pope being the head of the Church is in accord with the written as well as the oral Word of God."
There is NO SUCH THING as the "oral word of God" as John states. If there is such a thing, then I CHALLENGE John to PROVE that there is such a thing. Let John provide the EVIDENCE that there is such a thing and we will examine it to see for ourselves if this is true. If there is such a thing, then I am sure that John would have NO PROBLEM in providing it to us. There is NO MENTION in the word of God of ANY other "head of the church" EXCEPT for our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ for Ephesians 1:22-23 states, "And He put ALL THINGS under His feet, and gave Him to be HEAD OVER ALL THINGS TO THE CHURCH, WHICH IS HIS BODY, the fullness of Him who fills all in all."
This leaves NO ROOM for the Pope!!!

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), January 24, 2004.

Kevin wrote:
"Catholics FORBID their priests to be married".
Kevin, once again you show how little you know about the Catholic Church. The truth of the matter is that the Catholic Church actually has married priests. While it is also true that the majority (though not all) of latin rite catholic priests are celibate, many of the eastern churches have married priests. Perhaps you were unaware that Paul was unmarried and he suggested that being celibate was a preferred state for serving the Lord, because they would not have to keep their family obligations in mind.
Your post just shows how ignorant you are about the TRUTH of the Catholic Church. Might I offer a suggestion that you do a little real research before you post your misinformation.

-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), January 24, 2004.

I wrote, "Catholics FORBID their priests to be married".
To which James replied, "Kevin, once again you show how little you know about the Catholic Church. The truth of the matter is that the Catholic Church actually has married priests. While it is also true that the majority (though not all) of latin rite catholic priests are celibate, many of the eastern churches have married priests."
What "eastern churches" are you referring to here James??? Are you referring to the Eastern Orthodox churches which are NOT part of the Catholic Church???
James wrote, "Perhaps you were unaware that Paul was unmarried and he suggested that being celibate was a preferred state for serving the Lord, because they would not have to keep their family obligations in mind."
Paul was NOT a bishop and as a matter of FACT, he did give QUALIFICATIONS for those who would seek to be a bishop for he said in Titus 1:5-9, "For this reason I left you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are lacking, and appoint elders in every city as I commanded you-- if a man is blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of dissipation or insubordination. For a bishop must be blameless, as a steward of God, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, but hospitable, a lover of what is good, sober-minded, just, holy, self-controlled, holding fast the faithful word as he has been taught, that he may be able, by sound doctrine, both to exhort and convict those who contradict." Paul CLEARLY said that one had to be the "husband of one wife" PLUS they had to have "faithful children not accused of dissipation or insubordination" and since the MAJORITY of the Catholic Church has bishops that are NOT married, they do TRANSGRESS the law of God.
James wrote, "Your post just shows how ignorant you are about the TRUTH of the Catholic Church. Might I offer a suggestion that you do a little real research before you post your misinformation."
No James, I am not "ignorant of the TRUTH of the Catholic Church" as you FALSELY allege. As a matter of FACT, the TRUTH of the matter is the Catholic Church does have bishops who are NOT married and that goes against the TRUTH of God's word which states that bishops MUST BE MARRIED. The FACT that the Catholic Church has bishops that are NOT married PROVES my point!!!
This FALSE CHURCH has NO likeness to the church we read about in the New Testament!!!

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), January 24, 2004.

James wrote, many of the eastern churches have married priests.
Please forgive my error. James is correct however a Catholic website, http://www.catholic.org/question/archive-2.php?ID=15 which states: "Celibacy is a discipline, not a dogma. This means that the Church could change the rule. In fact, there are a few instances when the Church has allowed married clergy, such as with some Eastern rite clergy and in the case of some Protestant ministers who converted to the Faith. THESE, HOWEVER, ARE THE EXCEPTION."
The TRUTH of the Matter still STANDS the few exceptions aside, the Catholic Church teaches that their bishops are to be UNMARRIED.
I admit when I am wrong. Are you willing to do the same James???

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), January 24, 2004.

REPLY TO IAN.
This is a bit long and it took a long time to prepare. I hope you prayerfully read it and respond.
1. Married Clergy / Bishops.
a. Was Jesus married? b. Did Jesus recommend celibacy to those who could accept it? c. Was the Apostle Paul married? d. Did the Apostle Paul recommend celibacy to the clergy?
In keeping with Scripture and Tradition Catholic priests and religious take a VOLUNTARY vow of celibacy. Nobody forces them to be celibate. Twenty of the twenty-one Eastern Catholic Churches in communion with Rome allow for a married clergy. Most of their priests are married not just a few.
IAN REPLIED TO JAMES: ‘What "eastern churches" are you referring to here James??? Are you referring to the Eastern Orthodox churches which are NOT part of the Catholic Church???’
JOHN SAYS: I provided you with a complete list of Eastern Churches. These ate not the Eastern Orthodox Churches. By the way; the word on the street is that the Ukranian, Romanian and Serbian Orthodox Churches will soon be reuniting with Rome. Praise Jesus.
IAN SAID: Paul was NOT a bishop…
JOHN SAYS; If Paul wasn’t a Bishop how could he ordain elders? (Acts 14:23) If Paul wasn’t a Bishop how could he have been an Apostle?
IAN SAID: and as a matter of FACT, he did give QUALIFICATIONS for those who would seek to be a bishop for he said in Titus 1:5-9,
JOHN SAYS; Saying that a prerequiset for a Bishop to be the husband of one wife no way means he MUST be married. We’ve always took it to mean that if he is or was married that he is or was married only once.
IAN SAID: I am not "ignorant of the TRUTH of the Catholic Church" as you FALSELY allege. As a matter of FACT, the TRUTH of the matter is the Catholic Church does have bishops who are NOT married and that goes against the TRUTH of God's word which states that bishops MUST BE MARRIED. The FACT that the Catholic Church has bishops that are NOT married PROVES my point!!!
JOHN SAYS; Okay here’s a question. If the wife of a Bishop in your church dies, MUST the Bishop remarry right away and must he resign if he doesn’t remarry? If he doesn’t have to remarry how does that square with your statement above that says; ‘bishops MUST BE MARRIED.”?
IAN SAID: http://homepages.enterprise.net/sisman/contents.html
JOHN SAYS: I’ll look through it. Just a quick scan though reveals problems. That website says Berengarius is an example of an early Cofc member. The fact is Berengarius was a Catholic priest and the first priest to openly question Transubstantiation. He writes sometime later that after having studied the doctrine in detail he retracts his prior doubt and he finished out his life saying the Holy Mass. I have a feeling I’ll find more on that website.
IAN SAID: Don't you find it interesting that the Catholic Church FULFILLS the doctrine of the apostasy in 1 Tim 4:3 which states, "forbidding to marry,
JOHN SAYS: What I find interesting is that you earlier admitted that you were wrong about priests being forced to be celibate but here you use the same old, tired accusation. It must be force of bad habit.
IAN SAID: and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth."
JOHN SAYS: The Bible clearly says we must pray AND fast.
IAN SAID: This is a TYPICAL response from someone who does NOT have an answer to the TRUTH. Did God say in 2 Tim 3:16-17, "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work." … ALL SCRIPTURE means just what it says, ALL SCRIPTURE and that INCLUDES the New Testament. If Scripture makes the MAN OF GOD "complete" and THOROUGHLY "equipped" for EVERY GOOD WORK, please explain to everyone here what else is NEEDED???
JOHN SAYS: Read it again. , "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is PROFITABLE for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work." Please note that it says Scripture is PROFITABLE (useful in some translations) to accomplish these ends. It doesn’t says that Scripture in of itself is SUFFICIENT to accomplish these ends. You’re trying to make the text say something that it doesn’t say. If we were building a house it would be profitable for us to have a hammer; but we can’t build a house using only a hammer. (solo hammerus)
IAN SAID: I said the word Pope was NOT mentioned in the word of God and that is a TRUE STATEMENT.
JOHN SAYS: Since ‘Pope’ simply is a term of endearment meaning ‘papa’ or ‘daddy’ you are quite wrong since the term father and daddy (Abba) appear often in Scripture.
IAN SAID: Jesus PLAINLY stated in Matthew 23:9, "Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven." I guess the Pope must have overlooked this verse.
JOHN SAYS: I’m sure you’d deny it to me but you call your biological father; ‘father.’ And why did you leave out the rest of the verse. Jesus also says “call no man ‘teacher’ or ‘master’. You had no teachers in school? Do you have a doctor? Do you know ‘doctor’ is Latin for ‘teacher’? Do you call anyone ‘mister’? Mister is an adaptation of ‘master.’ Oh you heathen.
Furthermore Jesus didn’t mean ‘call no man father…’ to be applied to be applied in all cases. It doesn’t exclude calling one’s ancestors "father," as is shown in Acts 7:2, where Stephen refers to "our father Abraham," or in Romans 9:10, where Paul speaks of "our father Isaac."
Second, there are numerous examples in the New Testament of the term "father" being used as a form of address and reference, even for men who are not biologically related to the speaker. There are, in fact, so many uses of "father" in the New Testament, your private interpretation of Matthew 23 (and the objection to Catholics calling priests "father") must be wrong, as I will show you.
Third, a careful examination of the context of Matthew 23 shows that Jesus didn’t intend for his words here to be understood literally. The whole passage reads, "But you are not to be called ‘rabbi,’ for you have one teacher, and you are all brethren. And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. Neither be called ‘masters,’ for you have one master, the Christ" (Matt. 23:8– 10).
The first problem is that although Jesus seems to prohibit the use of the term "teacher," in Matthew 28:19–20, Christ himself appointed certain men to be teachers in his Church: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations . . . teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you." Paul speaks of his commission as a teacher: "For this I was appointed a preacher and apostle . . . a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth" (1 Tim. 2:7); "For this gospel I was appointed a preacher and apostle and teacher " (2 Tim. 1:11). He also reminds us that the Church has an office of teacher: "God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teacher " (1 Cor. 12:28); and "his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teacher " (Eph. 4:11). There is no doubt that Paul was not violating Christ’s teaching in Matthew 23 by referring so often to others as "teachers."
The New Testament is filled with examples of and references to spiritual father-son and father-child relationships. Many people are not aware just how common these are, so it is worth quoting some of them here.
Paul regularly referred to Timothy as his child: "Therefore I sent to you Timothy, my beloved and faithful child in the Lord, to remind you of my ways in Christ" (1 Cor. 4:17); "To Timothy, my true child in the faith: grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord" (1 Tim. 1:2); "To Timothy, my beloved child: Grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord" (2 Tim. 1:2).
He also referred to Timothy as his son: "This charge I commit to you, Timothy, my son, in accordance with the prophetic utterances which pointed to you, that inspired by them you may wage the good warfare" (1 Tim 1:18); "You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus" (2 Tim. 2:1); "But Timothy’s worth you know, how as a son with a father he has served with me in the gospel" (Phil. 2:22).
Paul also referred to other of his converts in this way: ‘To Titus, my true child in a common faith: grace and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior’ (Titus 1:4); ‘I appeal to you for my child, Onesimus, WHOSE FATHER I HAVE BECOME IN MY IMPRISONMENT’ (Philem. 10). None of these men were Paul’s literal, biological sons. Rather, Paul is emphasizing his spiritual fatherhood with them.
‘I do not write this to make you ashamed, but to admonish you as my beloved children. For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your FATHER in Christ Jesus through the gospel’ (1 Cor. 4:14–15).
Peter followed the same custom, referring to Mark as his son: ‘She who is at Babylon, who is likewise chosen, sends you greetings; and so does my son Mark’ (1 Pet. 5:13). The apostles sometimes referred to entire churches under their care as their children. Paul writes, ‘Here for the third time I am ready to come to you. And I will not be a burden, for I seek not what is yours but you; for children ought not to lay up for their parents, but parents for their children’ (2 Cor. 12:14); and, ‘My little children, with whom I am again in travail until Christ be formed in you!’ (Gal. 4:19).
The Apostle John said, ‘My little children, I am writing this to you so that you may not sin; but if any one does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous’ (1 John 2:1); ‘No greater joy can I have than this, to hear that my children follow the truth’ (3 John 4). IN FACT, JOHN ALSO ADDRESSES MEN IN HIS CONGREGATIONS AS ‘FATHERS’ (1 JOHN 2:13–14).
‘I write unto you, FATHERS, because ye have known him that is from the beginning. I write unto you, young men, because ye have overcome the wicked one. I write unto you, little children, because ye have known the Father. I have written unto you, FATHERS, because ye have known him that is from the beginning. I have written unto you, young men, because ye are strong, and the word of God abideth in you, and ye have overcome the wicked one.’[1 John 2:13-14, King James Version]
Did John violate His command; “Call no man father”???????????????????????
IAN SAID: “There is NO SUCH THING as the "oral word of God" as John states. If there is such a thing, then I CHALLENGE John to PROVE that there is such a thing.”
JOHN SAYS: ‘Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, WHETHER BY WORD, OR OUR EPISTLE.’ [2 Thess 2;15]
Matt. 2:23 - the prophecy "He shall be a Nazarene" is oral tradition. It is not found in the Old Testament. This demonstrates that the apostles relied upon oral tradition and taught by oral tradition.
Matt 23:2 - Jesus relies on oral tradition of acknowledging Moses' seat of authority (which passed from Moses to Joshua to the Sanhedrin). This is not recorded in the Old Testament.
John 19:26; 20:2; 21:20,24 - knowing that the "beloved disciple" is John is inferred from Scripture, but is also largely oral tradition.
Acts 20:35 - Paul relies on oral tradition of the apostles for this statement ("it is better to give than to receive") of Jesus. It is not recorded in the Gospels.
1 Cor. 7:10 - Paul relies on the oral tradition of the apostles to give the charge of Jesus that a wife should not separate from her husband.
1 Cor. 10:4 - Paul relies on the oral tradition of the rock following Moses. It is not recorded in the Old Testament. See Exodus 17:1-17 and Num. 20:2-13.
Eph 5:14 - Paul relies on oral tradition to quote an early Christian hymn - "awake O sleeper rise from the dead and Christ shall give you light."
Heb. 11:37 - the author of Hebrews relies on oral tradition of the martyrs being sawed in two. This is not recorded in the Old Testament.
Jude 9 - Jude relies on the oral tradition of the Archangel Michael's dispute with satan over Moses' body. This is not found in the Old Testament.
Jude 14-15 - Jude relies on the oral tradition of Enoch's prophecy which is not recorded in the Old Testament.
WHEW!!!!!

-- John Miskell (RomanRite@aol.com), January 24, 2004.

John, I think you are replying to Kevin Walker? Did you mix up the names?

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), January 24, 2004.

Kevin,
Thank you for correcting your statement. You are right that our bishops are not married, however as John said, Titus 1:6 does not imply that a Bishop must be married.

-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), January 24, 2004.

John wrote, "1. Married Clergy / Bishops. a. Was Jesus married? b. Did Jesus recommend celibacy to those who could accept it? c. Was the Apostle Paul married? d. Did the Apostle Paul recommend celibacy to the clergy? In keeping with Scripture and Tradition Catholic priests and religious take a VOLUNTARY vow of celibacy. Nobody forces them to be celibate. Twenty of the twenty-one Eastern Catholic Churches in communion with Rome allow for a married clergy. Most of their priests are married not just a few."
A. Jesus was NOT married, so he could NOT be a bishop.
B. The apostle Paul did NOT recommend celibacy to the clergy as a matter of FACT, he did just the opposite. (See Titus 1:5-9).
There are two places within the scriptures where the qualifications of elders (or bishops) are given. The first one is in 1 Timothy 3:1?7, which says: "This is a faithful saying: If a man desires the position of a bishop, he desires a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach; not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, but gentle, not quarrelsome, not covetous; one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence (for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?); not a novice, lest being puffed up with pride he fall into the same condemnation as the devil. Moreover he must have a good testimony among those who are outside, lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil."
The second passage addressing the qualifications that must be met is in Titus 1:5?9: "For this reason I left you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are lacking, and appoint elders in every city as I commanded you; if a man is blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of dissipation or insubordination. For a bishop must be blameless, as a steward of God, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, but hospitable, a lover of what is good, sober-minded, just, holy, self-controlled, holding fast the faithful word as he has been taught, that he may be able, by sound doctrine, both to exhort and convict those who contradict."
These verses were not placed in scripture to be IGNORED as the Catholic Church is GUILTY of accomplishing, those who are appointed elders (bishops) MUST MEET these qualifications, BEFORE and DURING the time they are appointed.
Those who seek to be an elder (bishop) desire a good work, but they MUST have faithful children for God PLAINLY states in 1 Timothy 3:5, "(for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?)"
Scripturally, bishops are NOT rulers over the church, but SERVANTS of the church under Christ. The Catholic Church in Rome is one of the synagogues of Satan (Rev. 2), and is primarily in the business of paving the path to Hell for millions of souls. A thorough study of their teachings and practices over the past 1700 years in light of the simple teaching of Scripture makes this abundantly clear.
I wrote, "Paul was NOT a bishop?"
To which John replied, "If Paul wasn?t a Bishop how could he ordain elders? (Acts 14:23) If Paul wasn?t a Bishop how could he have been an Apostle?"
Because the apostles held a HIGHER OFFICE than the bishops for this is PLAINLY revealed in 1 Corinthians 12:28, "And God has appointed these in the church: first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, varieties of tongues."
I wrote, "and as a matter of FACT, he did give QUALIFICATIONS for those who would seek to be a bishop for he said in Titus 1:5-9,"
To which John replied, "Saying that a prerequiset for a Bishop to be the husband of one wife no way means he MUST be married. We?ve always took it to mean that if he is or was married that he is or was married only once."
Go back and re-read the text, not only in Titus 1:5-9, but the apostle Peter also gave the SAME qualifications in 1 Timothy 3:1-7. If husband of one wife "in no way means he MUST be married", then I suppose that homosexuals can be bishops. We know this CANNOT be true for God PLAINLY revealed that those bishops who are MARRIED must also have FAITHFUL CHILDREN.
I wrote, "I am not "ignorant of the TRUTH of the Catholic Church" as you FALSELY allege. As a matter of FACT, the TRUTH of the matter is the Catholic Church does have bishops who are NOT married and that goes against the TRUTH of God's word which states that bishops MUST BE MARRIED. The FACT that the Catholic Church has bishops that are NOT married PROVES my point!!!"
To which John replied, "Okay here?s a question. If the wife of a Bishop in your church dies, MUST the Bishop remarry right away and must he resign if he doesn?t remarry? If he doesn?t have to remarry how does that square with your statement above that says; ?bishops MUST BE MARRIED.??"
If the wife of a bishop in my church dies, the bishop MUST step down for he NO LONGER meets the qualifications of the office.
I gave a website, "http://homepages.enterprise.net/sisman/contents.html"
To which John replied, "I?ll look through it. Just a quick scan though reveals problems. That website says Berengarius is an example of an early Cofc member. The fact is Berengarius was a Catholic priest and the first priest to openly question Transubstantiation. He writes sometime later that after having studied the doctrine in detail he retracts his prior doubt and he finished out his life saying the Holy Mass. I have a feeling I?ll find more on that website."
This does not surprise me that John would ONLY look at this website to search for PROBLEMS. Instead of looking for the TRUTH, all John does is make accusations.
I wrote, "Don't you find it interesting that the Catholic Church FULFILLS the doctrine of the apostasy in 1 Tim 4:3 which states, "forbidding to marry,"
To which John replied, "What I find interesting is that you earlier admitted that you were wrong about priests being forced to be celibate but here you use the same old, tired accusation. It must be force of bad habit."
No, I admit when I am wrong, will you do the same John??? This is NOT the same "old, tired accusation", but this is what God PLAINLY reveals about the APOSTASY and I CHALLENGE YOU to PROVE ME WRONG!!!
I wrote, "and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth."
To which John replied, "The Bible clearly says we must pray AND fast."
This is true, but scripture NOWHERE tells us that any entity (the Catholic Church) has the authority to FORCE their people FAST!
I wrote, "This is a TYPICAL response from someone who does NOT have an answer to the TRUTH. Did God say in 2 Tim 3:16-17, "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work." ? ALL SCRIPTURE means just what it says, ALL SCRIPTURE and that INCLUDES the New Testament. If Scripture makes the MAN OF GOD "complete" and THOROUGHLY "equipped" for EVERY GOOD WORK, please explain to everyone here what else is NEEDED???"
To which John replied, "Read it again. , "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is PROFITABLE for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work." Please note that it says Scripture is PROFITABLE (useful in some translations) to accomplish these ends. It doesn?t says that Scripture in of itself is SUFFICIENT to accomplish these ends. You?re trying to make the text say something that it doesn?t say. If we were building a house it would be profitable for us to have a hammer; but we can?t build a house using only a hammer. (solo hammerus)"
I ask you again John, if the word of God is PROFITABLE for DOCTRINE, PROFITABLE for REPROOF, PROFITABLE for CORRECTION, PROFITABLE for INSTRUCTION IN RIGHTEOUSNESS, Please tell me what else is NEEDED??? Your analogy of a "hammer" is INCORRECT because the word of God IS the ONLY thing that is required for "INSTRUCTION IN RIGHTEOUSNESS" as a hammer by itself CANNOT build a house.
I wrote, "I said the word Pope was NOT mentioned in the word of God and that is a TRUE STATEMENT."
To which John replied, "Since ?Pope? simply is a term of endearment meaning ?papa? or ?daddy? you are quite wrong since the term father and daddy (Abba) appear often in Scripture."
Yes, that is TRUE, the word FATHER does appear in scripture however, you are WRONG to state that one can call the Pope father for Jesus told us PLAINLY to NOT do this very thing in Matthew 23:9.
I wrote, "Jesus PLAINLY stated in Matthew 23:9, "Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven." I guess the Pope must have overlooked this verse."
To which John replied, "I?m sure you?d deny it to me but you call your biological father; ?father.? And why did you leave out the rest of the verse. Jesus also says ?call no man ?teacher? or ?master?. You had no teachers in school? Do you have a doctor? Do you know ?doctor? is Latin for ?teacher?? Do you call anyone ?mister?? Mister is an adaptation of ?master.? Oh you heathen"
This is the USUAL Catholic quibble which states, "You call your paternal parent ?father?." Yes, and Jesus speaks of the earthly parent in that manner, but here it PLAINLY has a religious designation as the context shows. As a matter of FACT, I do NOT call my "biological father; father", I call him DAD. I did NOT intentionally leave out the rest of the verse as it was NOT necessary to defeat your FALSE DOCTRINE. Did Jesus CONTRADICT Himself when he said "Do NOT call anyone on earth your father"??? I can assure you He most certainly did NOT although you seem to think that He did.
I wrote, " There is NO SUCH THING as the "oral word of God" as John states. If there is such a thing, then I CHALLENGE John to PROVE that there is such a thing."
To which John replied, "?Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, WHETHER BY WORD, OR OUR EPISTLE.? [2 Thess 2;15]"
Please show me the Bible states this tradition will CONTINUE to be handed down?
Someone CANNOT even pass down one sentence from one person in a classroom and have it come back exactly the same as it was when it was first spoken. Give me a break. Yes, oral tradition was handed down in the first century, but NOW we have the WRITTEN word of God, so that is NO LONGER NECESSARY.
What did God say?
Go back and re-read Hebrews 8:11-13. What did the apostle Paul say in 1 Corinthians 13:9-10?
I believe what the apostles have WRITTEN down for us, you choose to ADD to their word by claiming oral tradition is also the word of God.
Since we have the PEFECT written testament of God, (1 Corinthians 13:10), we CAN KNOW what the truth is because this PERFECT LAW OF LIBERTY (James 2:12) [which is the NT] is what we will be judged by when Jesus returns. This is the reason we have the WRITTEN word of God for the apostle Paul said in Ephesians 4:14, "that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting,"
We have the WRITTEN word which is able to make us wise unto salvation, and DO NOT need any so called oral tradition which the Catholic Church claims was handed down. The Catholic Church has many Traditions which transgress the doctrine of Christ.
Will we be judged by oral tradition or by what is WRITTEN? (See John 12:48, Revelation 20:12).
Hello???
Truly God spoke well of the Pope and the Catholic Church who make the claim that they are successors to the apostles for He said in 2 Cor 11:13, "For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into apostles of Christ."
This is no wonder because Satan does the exact same thing, in verse 14!!!
Verse 15 gives us the rest of the story, "Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also transform themselves into ministers of righteousness, whose end will be according to their works."

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), January 24, 2004.

Keep it going guys, but this is my favorite statement so far:
"I ask you again John, if the word of God is PROFITABLE for DOCTRINE, PROFITABLE for REPROOF, PROFITABLE for CORRECTION, PROFITABLE for INSTRUCTION IN RIGHTEOUSNESS, Please tell me what else is NEEDED??? "
indeed, what else is needed?
it is "profitable" when baking a cake to have some dough, and some milk and sone water,...
what else is needed?
mmmmmm,...
a cooker,...
some pots,....
a recipe,...
i could go on.
in Scripture, we see the need for Tradition. in Trdition we see the need for Scripture and Tradition. voila.
but, of course, this is the real nub of the issue. this IS where the dreadful Gene Robinson comes from. he TRULY believes that he is right and that all us other Christians are narrow-minded, etc.
amusingly, Kevin says:-
"Truly God spoke well of the Pope and the Catholic Church who make the claim that they are successors to the apostles for He said in 2 Cor 11:13, "For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into apostles of Christ." "
some Questions:-
1) does that also apply to Robinson?
2) does that apply to everyone that disagrees with Kevin?
3) HANG ON -- sure, doesn't that apply to Kevin too?
well. i have an objective truth in my life. i know the answer to these questions.
so do 1.5 BILLION other Christians.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), January 25, 2004.

Agh, ok. Using Ian's belief, what about all those Roman priests that rape little childern? If that is what comes from a Church of Jesus then Christianity must be false. It is just sick what the Roman organization has allowed.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), January 25, 2004.

Ian, your logic is flawed.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), January 25, 2004.

David,
Amen and Amen to both of your statements!!!
Ian wrote, "it is "profitable" when baking a cake to have some dough, and some milk and sone water,..."
The cake does NOT supply all of the ingredients (the word of God certainly does) so Ian's logic is FLAWED.
Ian wrote, "what else is needed? mmmmmm,...a cooker,...some pots,....a recipe,...i could go on."
This is TYPICAL from someone who does NOT want to accept the TRUTH of God's word. If Ian's analogy were correct, we would need all sorts of other things besides the word of God and yet Ian and the Catholic Church make the ATTEMPT to CORRECT GOD and tell God that He really does NOT know what He is talking about when He said that His word was ALL that was required.
Ian wrote, "in Scripture, we see the need for Tradition. in Trdition we see the need for Scripture and Tradition. voila."
Sorry, this is FLAWED logic again. Ian could NOT prove Catholic Tradition was the word of God if his life depended on it...
Ian wrote, "but, of course, this is the real nub of the issue. this IS where the dreadful Gene Robinson comes from. he TRULY believes that he is right and that all us other Christians are narrow-minded, etc."
Yea, and this is where we get all of the Catholic GAY priests right Ian???
Ian wrote,
I wrote, "Truly God spoke well of the Pope and the Catholic Church who make the claim that they are successors to the apostles for He said in 2 Cor 11:13, "For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into apostles of Christ." "
To which Ian replied, "some Questions:-1) does that also apply to Robinson?"
Yes it does!!!
Ian continued, "2) does that apply to everyone that disagrees with Kevin?"
No, everyone who disagrees with God.
Ian continued, "3) HANG ON -- sure, doesn't that apply to Kevin too?"
You have YET to prove that I not speaking the TRUTH according to the word of God, so once again you make a FALSE ASSUMPTION.
Ian wrote, "well. i have an objective truth in my life. i know the answer to these questions."
Obviously Ian THINKS that he has "objective truth" in his life however, he has been DECEIVED.
Ian wrote, "so do 1.5 BILLION other Christians."
God said, "Enter by the narrow gate; for WIDE IS THE GATE and BROAD IS THE WAY THAT LEADS TO DESTRUCTION, and there are MANY WHO GO IN BY IT. Because NARROW IS THE GATE and DIFFICULT IS THE WAY WHICH LEADS TO LIFE, and THERE ARE FEW WHO FIND IT." (Matt 7:13-14).

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), January 25, 2004.

Kevin writes:
"The cake does NOT supply all of the ingredients (the word of God certainly does) so Ian's logic is FLAWED."
Where does it say in the Bible that the Bible alone is sufficient? It doesn't, all the Bible says that Scripture is profitable. Catholics couldn't agree more, Scripture is profitable, but it is not the sole rule of faith.

-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), January 25, 2004.

Ian wrote, "so do 1.5 BILLION other Christians."
Kevin writes: "God said, "Enter by the narrow gate; for WIDE IS THE GATE and BROAD IS THE WAY THAT LEADS TO DESTRUCTION, and there are MANY WHO GO IN BY IT. Because NARROW IS THE GATE and DIFFICULT IS THE WAY WHICH LEADS TO LIFE, and THERE ARE FEW WHO FIND IT." (Matt 7:13-14)."
Kevin: pls explain this one for me!!!!!!!!!
this goes from bad to worse.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), January 25, 2004.

"Agh, ok. Using Ian's belief, what about all those Roman priests that rape little childern? If that is what comes from a Church of Jesus then Christianity must be false. It is just sick what the Roman organization has allowed."
David, is this what it all boils down to for you? is this the best you can do?
(A) as you know, Gene Robinson has committed grave offenses against our Lord, AND his faith system has twisted Scripture to facilitate such offences
WHEREAS
(B) those that commit such offenses against Our Lord whilst purporting to be within the Church founded 2,000 years ago find no such consolation. make no mistake, David, the offense in such cases is by the individual -- just as our first Pope denied Our Lord -- BUT the Church continues to condemn any perverted acts. its does not use Sola Scriptura to "justify" perversion. this is what your fellow "SS-ists" are doing
heck, maybe you are perfect, David. maybe you have never sinned. BUT what we learned from ALL the Apostles is that to sin is to be human. and that the saint is the sinner that just keeps trying.
the Church has not changed its rules and NEVER will. whereas protestantism changes its rules as each personal whim comes along. schism, splits, divisions, splinters, chaos -- Satan at work?
i'm not sure. there are many good people in the world that just happen to be born into it. but they are not aboard the Ark of Salvation. they are in the Flood. the Lord may throw a lifeline, who knows. but if they were in the Ark, that would be unnecessary.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), January 25, 2004.

let me put it another way, David.
how's about St Thomas. remember the burden of proof under which he put Our Lord. remember the way in which Our Lord forgave him.
we are all sinners, David. like St Thomas. Like St Peter.....
those hideous perverts that infiltrate the Church are sinners all, BUT the Church does not change its teaching to suit them.
meanwhile, "scripture alone" is used to legitimise all sorts of calumny: abortion, contraception,......... that's why i would repeat the "Gene Robinson episode" time and again
---->> its not just another pervert, its the rendering of Scripture to apostasy. but its legitimate because these are his private interpretations. <<<----
you can't argue that point, btw, David: because I see that you and Kevin keep disagreeing on most things too. and you can never agree as to who is right.
so, who is right and who is wrong when it comes to private interpretation?
David, Kevin, Gene Robinson,.......,........,
Our Lord called for unity.
Catholics are united.
everyone else,......???

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), January 25, 2004.

Ian, the Roman priests use a 'infallible interpreter'. They rape little kids. Little girls, little boys. And the best you can do is, "well sola scriptura...blah" . If raping little boys and girls, and committing is what happens with an infallible interpreter, then Roman Catholicism MUST BE FALSE.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), January 25, 2004.

You say Romanists are united. Therefore the burden of proof is on you to prove it.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), January 25, 2004.

Just because me and Kevin don't agree on doctrines, doesn't automatically make you right.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), January 25, 2004.

Gene Robinson doesn't believe in the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. In fact, he is a heretic, believing most of the things Romanists believe. If he truly believed sola scriptura, he wouldn't be gay. All gays are going to hell. It is not my belief, it is God. Anyone who has a problem with my statement, ASK GOD ABOUT IT.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), January 25, 2004.

David, we shouldn't believe Christianity because David Koresh was a Christian who raped little girls.
You aren't looking at the truth; you're distorting reality.
..........................................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 25, 2004.

Yes exactly rod! We shouldn't believe Christianity because according to Ian's seriously flawed logic.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), January 25, 2004.

"Anyone who has a problem with my statement, ASK GOD ABOUT IT. "
Why should we ask God? You, David, seem to be His spokesman. You must be the angel Gabriel, hmmm.........
.............................................................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 25, 2004.

Whatever rod. I say what is in the bible, you seem to have a problem believing it. Settle it with God. And NO! Before you even start with the straw man arguement "David, you are not God", Yes I know that! I cannot send anyone to hell, but I know what it takes to get there because God said it.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), January 25, 2004.

Those bad priest or bad evangelists do not represent Christianity. A person must be extremely naive to think that such evil people could be trusted. Children fell victim to such evil men; we know better.
................................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 25, 2004.

No rod! We are talking about Ian's flawed logic!

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), January 25, 2004.

Ian is the one trying to refute God's Word and God's truth based on one heretic that claims to be a Christian (Gene Robinson). By his standards, look at the CORRUPT ROMAN PRIESTS. Can't you see that?

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), January 25, 2004.

David, if you include the rest of the Scriptures, you would also notice that we sinners are not any different than the "gay" sinners. God told us that we can all be gathered together as one group of sinners. So, before you go condemning "gays", we need to look at our own sins to see are own damnation.
....................................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 25, 2004.

Rod, read the bible.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), January 25, 2004.

A Christian CANNOT be a homosexual.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), January 25, 2004.

David try to understand the Bible when you read it. The Bible does speak of those who are not like the others in the sexual relations department. No, I'm not saying that it means "homosexuals", but I could be wrong. I do know that man and woman were created for each other as "one". Also, I know that sex between two members of the same sex is wrong or abnormal, according to Scriptures. It is considered a "sin" right along the other named sins.
.....................................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 25, 2004.

rod, you CLAIM (A Claim that only goes so far) that you like to view things at ALL angles. Then come the typical Romanists straw man arguments,"protestantism, slpinters, blah..Satans Work?" Well rod, if you DO see things at all angles, Why do you automatically shut out ANY IDEA that Satan would confuse people by making them seem united. You know, it is funny, a Roman Catholic can be compared to a person in an abusive relationship. Everyone else sees the problem, except the person in the relationship.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), January 25, 2004.

"A Christian CANNOT be a homosexual. "
Well, here then is the problem. A Christian cannot be a murderer, either. Yet, he has killed. Can a murderer be a Christian, ever? Hey, can a homicidal schizophrenic ever be a Christian (if no cure is ever available)? Can a non-engaging homosexual ever be a Christian (if no cure is ever available, as no cure is one perception)?
.............................................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 25, 2004.

No, A Christian will NOT murder someone. God will however forgive a murderer. Look at the apostle Paul.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), January 25, 2004.

Let me conform to your doctrine/theology for a moment to answer your issues:
Homosexuality is a sin.
Sin keeps one distant from Salvation.
Faith in Christ is all one needs for Salvation.
Christians have Faith.
Christians sin.
No one is without sin on earth.
Homosexuals and Christians sin.
Sin is Sin.
Homosexuals have faith, but they sin.
Christians have faith, buth they sin. Therefore, Christians are also damned to Hell.
David claims that all sins are the same, no such thing as Mortal or Venial sins.
Homosexuality is just as sinful as bearing false witness against another.
Do I have all of this correct, David?
....................................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 25, 2004.

Revelation 21:8 But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars–their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death."

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), January 25, 2004.

Revelation 21 8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death. KJV

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), January 25, 2004.

rod, you have seriously flawed logic.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), January 25, 2004.

I suggest you read the bible before you start "viewing things at all angles".

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), January 25, 2004.

David, that "flawed logic" is not mine, but yours. I merely repeated your Calvinism, which I disagree with for the majority of it. I believe in confession, repentance, and penance. I also believe in God's Divine Mercy. I also believe that all men sin, so while you go condemning sinners for God, it would be good to get your checklist out for your own sins.
........................................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 25, 2004.

Example of rod's seriously flawed logic:
"Christians have faith, buth they sin. Therefore, Christians are also damned to Hell"
God REFUTES rod in 1 John 2:1
"My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:"

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), January 25, 2004.

I also noticed that you avoided my points above. Why?
...................................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 25, 2004.

You had no points.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), January 25, 2004.

Once again, David. You are the one who told me that Man is depraved. Yet, you don't claim Calvinism. My earlier points are based on your previous discussions. It is your logic that we are trying to answer to, but you are very slow to answer. Why?
...........................................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 25, 2004.

Point out my 'flawed logic' rod. Also, I believe what God says. If Calvin believed them too, ok. But that does not make me a Calvinist.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), January 25, 2004.

Ok, David, I know why you can't answer. You can't. You know that you have no answers for the logic posted earlier.
Here we go again:
Let me conform to your doctrine/theology for a moment to answer your issues:
Homosexuality is a sin.
Sin keeps one distant from Salvation.
Faith in Christ is all one needs for Salvation.
Christians have Faith.
Christians sin.
No one is without sin on earth.
Homosexuals and Christians sin.
Sin is Sin.
Homosexuals have faith, but they sin.
Christians have faith, buth they sin.
Therefore, Christians are also damned to Hell.
David claims that all sins are the same, no such thing as Mortal or Venial sins.
Homosexuality is just as sinful as bearing false witness against another.
Do I have all of this correct, David?
...................................................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 25, 2004.

No you don't. Read my earlier post where I showed you where God REFUTES your flawed logic on one point.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), January 25, 2004.

Ok, David, you're in check, but you won't concede. I'll check the post tomorrow night, I guess.
......................................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 25, 2004.

I'm replying. just wait.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), January 25, 2004.

David
Rod is on the money so far as i am concerned.
BUT, David, from your perspective, what's the difference between:
(A) an active alcoholoc (ie drinking as if each day were his last); (B) an active drug-addict (ie shooting-up as if each day were his last); AND (C) an active homosexual (ie buggering as if each day were his last).
are they the same? all going to hell? no difference? all condemned?

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), January 25, 2004.

"Homosexuality is a sin."
Revelation 21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death
"Sin keeps one distant from Salvation."
Where did you get this from? Scriptures????
"Faith in Christ is all one needs for Salvation."
We are justified by faith, and not by works.
"Christians have Faith."
No man can come to the Father unless the Father draws them to him.
"Christians sin."
He who claims he is without sin is a liar.
"No one is without sin on earth."
Read above.
"Homosexuals and Christians sin."
There is no such thing as a Homosexual Christian.
"Sin is Sin."
Yes, in the eyes of God. (My statement is a figure of Speech, don't try any straw man arguments like "God has eyes?")
"Homosexuals have faith, but they sin."
Homosexuals have been decieved by this New-Age Jesus.
"Christians have faith, buth they sin. Therefore, Christians are also damned to Hell."
God already refuted you on this.
"David claims that all sins are the same, no such thing as Mortal or Venial sins."
Yes, are sins are hell deserving.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), January 25, 2004.

Yes, all condemned Ian.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), January 25, 2004.

Back to the original topic. I thought Vatican II said that there was Salvation outside the Romanist organization.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), January 25, 2004.

Eventually, David, you are gonna have to concede that faith without works is "dead". "Repentence" is a big deal, no matter what. Sanctification keeps us, well, sanctified and away from contant sinning. We kind of have to "work" at not sinning, keeping our soul "cleansed".
.............................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 25, 2004.

Why can't "SS" men think globally? My posts are very relevant to the topic. But, like all "SS" indoctrination, drawing meaning is very limited.
You continue to refute your calvinistic upbringing, yet you profess much of their doctrine. I suppose it is irritating being called a "Calvinist", much like being called a "Romanist".
........................................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 25, 2004.

rod, Calvin believed in Amillenialism, I do not. He believed in baptizing infants, I do not. He still held many Romanist doctrines. You follow the religion of Rome, and can be called a Romanist. I follow Christ, not Calvin.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), January 25, 2004.

Opps: I mean Postmillenialism. I think, I'm not sure now. Ask a Calvinist :-)

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), January 25, 2004.

By pointing out the fly in the milk and brushing it out, the drinker can see that anything that is outside of the milk is not worth drinking. Hmmm? by pointing out the calvinistic errors in the doctrine, one will see that anything outside the true doctrine is not worth believing. Relevant? I think so. Are you following my logic, David?
.........................................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 25, 2004.

James wrote, "Where does it say in the Bible that the Bible alone is sufficient? It doesn't, all the Bible says that Scripture is profitable. Catholics couldn't agree more, Scripture is profitable, but it is not the sole rule of faith."
Really now James, who told you that scripture is NOT the sole rule of faith??? Oh wait, it was the Catholic Church right??? Hmmm... Let's see if that is true... God said that His word is ABLE to make the MAN OF GOD COMPLETE, and since this is a TRUE STATEMENT, then NOTHING ELSE IS REQUIRED. If scripture is NOT the sole rule of faith and it will NOT do what God said that it will do, then you are calling God a LIAR.
The burden of PROOF rests on James and Catholics to PROVE that God didn't really mean what He said and that something else is required (besides the word of God) for one to be saved.
Ian wrote, "so do 1.5 BILLION other Christians."
To which I replied, "God said, "Enter by the narrow gate; for WIDE IS THE GATE and BROAD IS THE WAY THAT LEADS TO DESTRUCTION, and there are MANY WHO GO IN BY IT. Because NARROW IS THE GATE and DIFFICULT IS THE WAY WHICH LEADS TO LIFE, and THERE ARE FEW WHO FIND IT." (Matt 7:13-14)."
Ian reponded, "Kevin: pls explain this one for me!!!!!!!!! this goes from bad to worse."
It is NOT hard to understand, you gave a figure of 1.5 billion other Christians however, God said "NARROW IS THE GATE and DIFFICULT IS THE WAY WHICH LEADS TO LIFE, (please notice this next statement) and THERE ARE FEW WHO FIND IT."
That is NOT too hard to understand now is it Ian???

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), January 25, 2004.

1.5 Billion Romanists can hardly be called a few.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), January 25, 2004.

Ian, you keep bringing up Gene Robinson and I will keep bring up the God-less papists that rape little childern. That is just sick!

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), January 25, 2004.

For all you "Sola Fide" followers:
Sins distance you from Salvation. The more you sin, the less you keep your faith in Christ. The more and more your faith becomes diluted, the more you risk losing it altogether. Your life will become slave to sin and your master will be sin, Not God. So, sin leads to death.
For all of you "Once Saved, Always Saved" believers, read above over and over until it begins to sink in. Salvation can be lost when one slacks off a tiny bit, by tiny bit, until the light shines dimly into darkness.
.............................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 25, 2004.

DAVID:- Ian, the Roman priests use a 'infallible interpreter'. They rape little kids. Little girls, little boys. And the best you can do is, "well sola scriptura...blah" . If raping little boys and girls, and committing is what happens with an infallible interpreter, then Roman Catholicism MUST BE FALSE.
IAN: please provide some examples to substantiate yr SPURIOUS allegations. Rape? Come on David. Give me examples of this. Show me how they undermine the Church founded by Our Lord 2,000 yrs ago. It was the Church that civilized Rome. The Church has set the benchmark for morality since then.
You are confused. Behaviour of so-called Catholics does not necessarily follow God’s teaching. The Church herself is inviolable. Guided by the Holy Ghost (as per Scripture). Her teachings perfect and untouchable.
First pope, St Peter, the Rock.
.
DAVID: You say Romanists are united. Therefore the burden of proof is on you to prove it.

IAN: Look at any objective survey on the subject. 1,5 billion. David, the biggest protestant church amounts to 70 million and that’s the one that Gene Robinson and his boyfriend are currently splitting.
30,000 protestant denominations. Splitting all the time.
You and Kevin unable to agree on anything – or you and the Church, or Kevin and the Church. Don’t you see the irony?

DAVID: Just because me and Kevin don't agree on doctrines, doesn't automatically make you right.

IAN: indeed, but it swings both ways.
And, anyway, this has nothing to do with ME being “right”. 2,000 years ago, Our Lord founded a Church, He promised to stay with it until the end of time. The Holy Ghost guides the Church.
However, what David’s statement “Just because me and Kevin don't agree on doctrines, doesn't automatically make you right” does suggest is that private interpretation is absurd. Kevin argues that anyone can find the truth. But you and he cannot agree on the truth.
Do you think Kevin is going to hell?
If not, why not?

DAVID: Gene Robinson doesn't believe in the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

IAN: how do you know? How do I know that you do or don’t? He seems to think he does. The Anglican Communion seem to agree. It all comes down to interpretation, if you believe what they say. If I do not, why should I believe that you believe in SS.

Anyways, you have never once proved that SS is scriptural.
DAVD: In fact, he is a heretic,
IAN: how do you define that? Surely you’re the heretic by his personal standards of interpretation.
DAVID: ….believing most of the things Romanists believe.

IAN: how do you know that? Have you quizzed him? He is, so far as I know, an Anglican protestant. Ergo, he is way-off communion with the Church founded 2,000 years ago by Jesus.
The Church regards the homosexual act as gravely disordered.
It does NOT change its interpretation to accommodate such practices, in the way that sola scripturists do.
DAVID: If he truly believed sola scriptura, he wouldn't be gay.
IAN: Scripture? (or do you mean – he would never disagree with you; but, hey, Kevin does on most things,…)
Nonsense. If he was catholic, he would be kicked out. There is no such thing as an openly homosexual bishop.
But within protestantism, he is embraced and theology is amended to accommodate his fantasies.

DAVID: All gays are going to hell. It is not my belief, it is God. Anyone who has a problem with my statement, ASK GOD ABOUT IT.

IAN: Scripture?? Gay going to hell? What about chaste gays? No crime committed?? Are you sure about this??

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), January 25, 2004.

"1.5 Billion Romanists can hardly be called a few."
My point EXACTLY!!!!!

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), January 25, 2004.

KEVIN: Ian wrote, "so do 1.5 BILLION other Christians."
To which I replied, "God said, "Enter by the narrow gate; for WIDE IS THE GATE and BROAD IS THE WAY THAT LEADS TO DESTRUCTION, and there are MANY WHO GO IN BY IT. Because NARROW IS THE GATE and DIFFICULT IS THE WAY WHICH LEADS TO LIFE, and THERE ARE FEW WHO FIND IT." (Matt 7:13-14)."
Ian reponded, "Kevin: pls explain this one for me!!!!!!!!! this goes from bad to worse."
It is NOT hard to understand, you gave a figure of 1.5 billion other Christians however, God said "NARROW IS THE GATE and DIFFICULT IS THE WAY WHICH LEADS TO LIFE, (please notice this next statement) and THERE ARE FEW WHO FIND IT."
That is NOT too hard to understand now is it Ian???
_________________________________________________________________
IAN: yes it is. do you have a Scripture that quantifies the saved?
more to the point, do you have another purposive interpretation to hand thatsupports your view.
do you suppose that i assume that all Catholics are going to Heaven.
for your information, i doubt very, very much that i will make it. but i do my best.
how much less equipped i would be if i decided (a) to interpret Scripture myself and (b) to ignore the wealth of the Church's teaching.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), January 25, 2004.

"Ian, you keep bringing up Gene Robinson and I will keep bring up the God-less papists that rape little childern. "
David, that is no trade. you are talking about appples and pears.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), January 25, 2004.

Ian,
God says that we are to "Test all things; hold fast what is good." (1 Thess 5:21). The Catholic Church has been tested and found that they are EVIL and we are COMMANDED to "abstain from every form of evil" just as the very next verse states. To claim that the Catholic Church has not practised evil then you really have not read any type of history. The Catholic Church CANNOT be the TRUE church for God PLAINLY stated in Romans 13:10, "Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law." The Catholic Church has KILLED MANY PEOPLE, so they CANNOT be the TRUE CHURCH OF CHRIST.
I am not sure what question you are asking, but the passage that I gave DID state that there will be FEW who will be saved. My point is that you said there were 1.5 billion other Christians and that at ODDS with there will be FEW who will be saved.
If you are asking HOW I KNOW THAT I AM SAVED, the answer is provided in 1 John 2:3, "Now by this we know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments."
This is also how I KNOW that the word of God is the ONLY source of salvation for the apostle John said in speaking of the apostles in 1 John 4:6 stated, "We are of God. He who knows God hears us; he who is not of God does not hear us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error."
The apostles delivered the "faith which was once delivered to the saints (Jude 3) and Jesus PLAINLY stated Luke 10:16 when He spoke of the apostles and those who they would teach, "He who hears you hears Me, he who rejects you rejects Me, and he who rejects Me rejects Him who sent Me."
ALL of the apostles words (at least all of those that are required for faith in Jesus Christ - see John 20:30-31) are WRITTEN down for us in the New Testament.

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), January 25, 2004.

Kevin
once again the Scripture you quote is two-sided. well i have tested and i believe that there is no amount of objective (note the use of this word) "evil" amongst those Christians who blindly follow anti- Catholic propaganda and claim that the successor of St Peter is some kind of devil.
i am not going to second guess the kind of killings that you allege and i leave it to you to substantiate yr claim.
what i can do however is point you to a few things.
first, Pius XII activities during the Holocaust. some views from certain well known people:-
We share in the grief of humanity at the passing away of his Holiness Pope Pius XII. In a generation afflicted by wars and discords, he upheld the highest ideals of peace and compassion. When fearful martyrdom came to our people in the decade of the Nazi terror, the voice of the Pope was raised for the victims. The life of our times was enriched by a voice speaking out on the great moral truths above the tumult of daily conflict. We mourn a great servant of peace. --- Golda Meir
Only the Catholic Church protested against the Hitlerian onslaught on liberty. Up till then I had not been interested in the Church, but today I felt a great admiration for the Church, which alone has had the courage to struggle for spiritual truth and moral liberty --- Albert Einstein
next, St Peter, in the run up to the crucifiction:
St Matthew Chapter 26 [69] But Peter sat without in the court: and there came to him a servant maid, saying: Thou also wast with Jesus the Galilean.
[70] But he denied before them all, saying: I know not what thou sayest.
[71] And as he went out of the gate, another maid saw him, and she saith to them that were there: This man also was with Jesus of Nazareth.
[72] And again he denied with an oath, I know not the man.
[73] And after a little while they came that stood by, and said to Peter: Surely thou also art one of them; for even thy speech doth discover thee.
[74] Then he began to curse and to swear that he knew not the man. And immediately the cock crew.
now, do you blame the Catholic Church for denying Jesus? will you credit the Church for its intelligent and guided opposition to the Holocaust?
two men, Kevin. the acts of 2 men. not the Church.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), January 26, 2004.

"no amount"
read "a great amount"

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), January 26, 2004.

further clarification.
the ky word is "objective"
i am not judging you.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), January 26, 2004.

PS might it be a good idea if this thread was continued on/ dispersed among new threads.
my problem only maybe -- i have a crusty old internet access.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), January 26, 2004.

David,
This question that you asked, "Back to the original topic. I thought Vatican II said that there was Salvation outside the Romanist organization."
Still has not been answered by the Catholics here.

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), January 26, 2004.

Kevin "Salvation outside the Romanist organization"
is this a Pizza making collective
a trade body regulating the making of fine, thinly sliced, smoked ham
pasta and tomato based sauce
or what?
St Peter died in Rome. St Paul dies in Rome.
martyred for the faith. the Catholic faith that gave rise to every false Christian faith thereafter.
you can make fun of it.
shame on you.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), January 26, 2004.

"Yes, all condemned Ian."
"We believe in one god
the Ortiz almighty
,......"
David, do you understand addiction?
do you seriously believe that there is no difference between objecive evil and evil?
so all evil is totally voluntary and intended and meant?

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), January 26, 2004.

Ian,
How about just answering the question Ian instead of making fun of what David posted. It should not be that hard of a question to answer now should it???

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), January 26, 2004.

Ian wrote, "St Peter died in Rome. St Paul dies in Rome."
I agree that Paul died in Rome, but there is NO EVIDENCE that Peter was ever in Rome, NOR is there any evidence that he died there.
Ian wrote, "martyred for the faith. the Catholic faith that gave rise to every false Christian faith thereafter."
Yes, they were "martyred for the faith", but I can ASSURE YOU it most certainly was NOT the Catholic faith for this ecclesiastical body was NOT even around during the time of the apostles. The "mystery of lawlessness" was already at work, and when the Roman Emperor was finally taken out of the way, then the "lawless one" WAS REVEALED and that IS the Pope. (2 Thes. 2:1-12).

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), January 26, 2004.

Kevin,
Was Peter in Rome?
http://www.catholic.com/library/Was_Peter_in_Rome.asp

-- John Miskell (RomanRite@aol.com), January 26, 2004.

Kevin
i am not making fun of David. for david's sake, would he appreciate it if, in future, we all referred to Genists, or Robinsonists, or practising-gay-bishop-ists, instead of just protestants?
you too should know better. you know full well that St Peter and St Paul were martyred in Rome. but you try to belittle the Church that was found by Jesus and that has its See in Rome, courtesy of St Peter. Christianity is Romanist is you think in these banal terms.
and i will, btw, answer yr question. you have a few bits to address above, but i will not hold that against you.
there is no salvation outside the Church. that is what the Church has always taught. that's what it still teaches now. full stop.
now, ask me who is condemned. well i am reluctant to judge. you and David already have 1.5 billion souls in hell. david has added ALL drug-addicts, drunks, and homosexuals. [btw, David, the first two categories would send President Bush to Hell. is that what you believe.]
i am notmaking fun of you. you are doing it to yourselves.

St Luke 6:
[37] Judge not, and you shall not be judged....
that's Scripture, gents.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), January 26, 2004.

I agree with you, Kevin.
There is no evidence from the first century that Peter died in Rome.
This tradition originated by around 140 AD. It is found in the preaching of Peter.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/preachingpeter.html
A Syriac Preaching of Simon Cephas in the city of Rome (to be found in Cureton's Syriac Documents) has nothing in common with our book. Its gist is, briefly, this: A great assembly gathers to hear Peter. He speaks to them of the life and death of Jesus, and the call of the apostles, exhorts them to shun idolatry: reverts to the signs at the crucifixion, and the report of Pilate to Caesar and the senate, and warns them against Simon Magus. We then have the incident of the dead mean raised by Peter after Simon had failed. Peter's episcopate of twenty-five years, his martyrdom and that of Paul, Nero's death, and a famine which ensued after many years, are shortly told.
The Man of Yahweh

-- Elpidio Gonzalz (egonval@yahoo.com), January 26, 2004.

1 St Peter 5:13 - The church that is in Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you: and so doth my son Mark.
St Peter was in Babylon, ie Rome.
and its Scriptural!!!!
anyways, this is interesting:-
"The martrydom of both Peter and Paul in Rome...has often been questioned by Protestant critics, some of whom have contended that Peter was never in Rome. But the archeaological researches of the Protestant Historian Hans Lietzmann, supplemented by the library study of the Protestant exegete Oscar Cullman, have made it extremely difficult to deny the tradition of Peter's death in Rome under the emperor Nero. The account of Paul's martydom in Rome, which is supported by much of the same evidence, has not called forth similar skepticism." Jaroslav Pelikan, "The Riddle of Catholicism",
there's been a lot of digging up too.
it stacks up.
St Peter, the first Pope, was martyred in Rome.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), January 26, 2004.

KEVIN SAID: ‘There are churches of Christ in England and I am sure that there are some all over the world that have had NOTHING to do with "Stone and Campbell
JOHN SAID: Really? Name three of them
KEVIN SAID: Please visit this link: http://homepages.enterprise.net/sisman/early.html
JOHN: The very first sentence in that site says;
‘During the first few centuries of the church no central organisation was found.’
This flies in the face of known biblical and historical fact.
Gal.1:18 - Paul spends fifteen days with Peter privately before beginning his ministry, even after Christ's Revelation to Paul.
The Bible shows us that in addition to Apostle, there are three separate orders; namely Bishop (Episkopoi), Elder (Presbyteroi) and Deacon (Diaconoi).
1 Peter 5:1 - Peter acts as the chief bishop by "exhorting" all the other bishops and elders of the Church.
2 Peter 3:16 - Peter is making a judgment on the proper interpretation of Paul's letters. Peter is the chief shepherd of the flock.
Acts 20:17,28 - Paul refers to BOTH the elders or priests ("presbyteroi") and the bishops ("episkopoi") of the Church. Both are ordained leaders within the hierarchical structure of the Church.
Paul was not a Corinthian or a Galatian or a Thessalonian or an Ephesian but we clearly see in his writings that he had (central) authority over them.
Paul tells Timothy; ‘O Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you.’ (1 Tim 6:20)
Gal 2:9 - Peter John and James ORDAINED Paul and Barnabas and before sending them on their way they gave them further instruction; [
Gal 2:910 - Peter, John and James give further instructions about their mission to Paul and Barnabas
No central authority? You’ve got to be joking.

-- John Miskell (RomanRite@aol.com), January 28, 2004.

"No central authority" flies in the face of these passages as well.
Acts 16:4 Now while they were passing through the cities, they were delivering the decrees, which had been decided upon by the apostles and elders who were in Jerusalem, for them to observe.
Titus 1: 5 For this reason I left you in Crete, that you might set in order what remains, and appoint elders in every city as I directed you.
Notice the church leaders were not "voted in" by the congregation like Protestantism routinely does.

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 28, 2004.

Gail,
Excellent post; thanks for the support. These CCs and other Protestants must think the RCC just makes this stuff as we go along. They seem unable or unwilling (2 Cor 4:4?) to see that there is nothing that we do that conflicts with the Scriptures.

-- John Miskell (RomanRite@aol.com), January 28, 2004.

Oh John, right you are!
I was in the legal profession for many many years, working for some pretty tough litigators. Building cases on "precedent" is how big cases are won. Likewise, that is the beauty and strength of Catholocism; i.e., the PRECEDENT. Our Church is built together, tightly, on the precedent of our forefathers stemming from the teachings of the apostles. That is how she is an impenetrable fortress. Stone upon stone, precept upon precept, precedent upon precedent, like an intricate and beautiful mosaic design, all at the hands of the Father! Glory be to God!
Nice to meet your acquaintenance!
Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 28, 2004.

Gail is this forum's rose. The beauty is in her posts, but play right by her or you shall find that deserved thorn that all roses have when not handled properly.
I, on the other hand, am a cactus. Not too pretty, but tall and visible, one can't help but to feel the thorns no matter how gentle or clumsy one is around me. But, like all cacti, they do provide some shade, nurishment, and an occasional fruit of knowledge.
Hi, John. ...better late than never with my hello.
..........................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 28, 2004.

Ian wrote, "Judge not, and you shall not be judged....that's Scripture, gents."
This verse does NOT say that we CANNOT judge. God says, "Do not judge according to appearance, but JUDGE WITH RIGHTEOUS JUDGMENT." (John 7:24). That is scripture also Ian.
Ian wrote, "1 St Peter 5:13 - The church that is in Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you: and so doth my son Mark." St Peter was in Babylon, ie Rome. and its Scriptural!!!!
There is NO mention that Peter was in Rome at all in this verse. This verse is a greeting to the CHURCH that is in Babylon, however there is NO Mention that Peter is there at all. Remember, Peter was WRITING to the churches that were in "...Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia..." (1 Peter 1:1).
John quoted the first sentence of the site that I directed him to which said, "During the first few centuries of the church no central organisation was found."
Then he said, "This flies in the face of known biblical and historical fact. Gal.1:18 - Paul spends fifteen days with Peter privately before beginning his ministry, even after Christ's Revelation to Paul."
No, actually it does NOT. The church of Christ (NOT the Catholic Church) BEGAN on the day of Pentecost A.D. 33 IN JERUSALEM and there is NO MENTION in the word of God that this is the HEADQUARTERS of the church. If this is the case, then please let John EXPLAIN when the headquarters was CHANGED from Jerusalem to ROME???
John wrote, "The Bible shows us that in addition to Apostle, there are three separate orders; namely Bishop (Episkopoi), Elder (Presbyteroi) and Deacon (Diaconoi)."
No, that is also NOT true. The bible shows us the order and there were NOT 3 separate orders as John alleges, the office of Bishop and Elder are the SAME OFFICE.
There are three passages in the New Testament which uses the terms "presbyter" (elder) and "bishop" (overseer) interchangeably Titus 1:5 9; Acts 20:17, 28; 1 Pet. 5:1 2. The terms refer to the SAME OFFICE which God placed in the local churches, and without exception there were ALWAYS MORE THAN ONE IN EACH CHURCH.
John and the Catholic Church teach that the term and office of "priest" is derived from the same Greek word "bishop however, the Greek word "presbyter" does NOT mean "priest" but simply means "an older one, an elder" (See Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, by W.E. Vine, p. 20; Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, by Joseph Thayer, p. 535).
John quoted, "1 Peter 5:1 - Peter acts as the chief bishop by "exhorting" all the other bishops and elders of the Church."
Please notice that John is ASSUMING that Peter is the "chief bishop" however the ACTUAL text says NO SUCH THING. The apostle Paul "EXHORTED" the Ephesian elders in Acts 20:17-38 so John's claim that Peter was the "chief bishop" is NOT the TRUTH according to the word of God.
John quoted, "2 Peter 3:16 - Peter is making a judgment on the proper interpretation of Paul's letters. Peter is the chief shepherd of the flock."
Once again John ASSUMES that "Peter is the chief shepherd of the flock" and ONCE AGAIN there is NOTHING in the text of 2 Peter 3:16 that even remotely suggests that this is the case.
John quoted, "Acts 20:17,28 - Paul refers to BOTH the elders or priests ("presbyteroi") and the bishops ("episkopoi") of the Church. Both are ordained leaders within the hierarchical structure of the Church."
See my earlier comment about the office of Bishop and Elder being the SAME OFFICE.
John wrote, "Paul was not a Corinthian or a Galatian or a Thessalonian or an Ephesian but we clearly see in his writings that he had (central) authority over them."
Paul was an APOSTLE, that is HOW he had "authority over them". There was NOTHING "central" about it for God clearly stated in 1 Corinthians 12:28 that the apostles were "first" in the church. Once again John is NOT speaking the truth.
John said, "Paul tells Timothy; ?O Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you.? (1 Tim 6:20)"
Once again, there is NO MENTION of a type of "central authority" Paul AS AN APOSTLE, gave Timothy INSTRUCTION on how to FEED the church of Christ and that is ALL. His INSTRUCTION to Timothy was to, "2 Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching." (2 Timothy 4:2).
This is the REASON that Paul "exhorted" Timothy to do the above for he said in the next two verses (2 Timothy 4:3-4), "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables."
John wrote, "Gal 2:9 - Peter John and James ORDAINED Paul and Barnabas and before sending them on their way they gave them further instruction; Gal 2:910 - Peter, John and James give further instructions about their mission to Paul and Barnabas"
There is NO MENTION in the text that Peter "ORDAINED" anything. Being "ordained" and giving "the right hand of fellowship" are NOT even remotely close to what John is IMPLYING. As a matter of FACT, Peter was an apostle to the JEWS and Paul was an apostle to the GENTILES. This is PROOF that Peter did NOT have first place in anything NOR was he the "chief apostle" for this does NOT exist except in the imagination of Catholics who CLAIM that Peter was the first Pope.
John wrote, "No central authority? You?ve got to be joking."
Yes, there was "NO CENTRAL AUTHORITY" and I have SHOWN that John really does NOT know what he is talking about.
"No central authority" flies in the face of these passages as well.
We will see if Gail is speaking the TRUTH.
Gail quoted, "Acts 16:4 Now while they were passing through the cities, they were delivering the decrees, which had been decided upon by the apostles and elders who were in Jerusalem, for them to observe."
Just because the apostles and elders were in JERUSALEM, does NOT mean that this was the "central authority". If this is the case, then let Gail and other Catholics PROVE that this "central authority" place was MOVED from Jerusalem to Rome.
Gail quoted, "Titus 1: 5 For this reason I left you in Crete, that you might set in order what remains, and appoint elders in every city as I directed you.
Please notice that it was the apostle Paul (not Peter) who left Titus in Crete in order to appoint ELDERS (bishops) in every city. This does NOT mean that there was any place of "central authority" at all. If Gail is implying that Paul was the "central authority" then this is something that she must PROVE. There is NO MENTION of any "central authority" in this passage.
Gail wrote, "Notice the church leaders were not "voted in" by the congregation like Protestantism routinely does."
True, church leaders are NOT "voted in" by the congregation however, the deacons are first to be "TESTED" (1 Timothy 3:10) and MEET THE QUALIFICATIONS of 1 Timothy 3:8-13. The elders are to MEET THE QUALIFICATIONS of 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5-9 before they can be APPOINTED by the congregation to serve as elders.
John wrote, "Excellent post; thanks for the support. These CCs and other Protestants must think the RCC just makes this stuff as we go along."
Yes they do "make this stuff" up as they go along, the Catholic Church has MANY DOCTRINES that are NOT in accordance with the word of God.
John wrote, "They seem unable or unwilling (2 Cor 4:4?) to see that there is nothing that we do that conflicts with the Scriptures."
Right...one Catholic doctrine that CONFLICTS WITH THE SCRIPTURES is the idea that infants can be BAPTIZED. There is NO MENTION in the word of God that infants are capable of obeying the gospel, so the Catholic Church does INDEED teach FALSE DOCTRINE.

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), January 28, 2004.

KEVIN SAYS: Right...one Catholic doctrine that CONFLICTS WITH THE SCRIPTURES is the idea that infants can be BAPTIZED. There is NO MENTION in the word of God that infants are capable of obeying the gospel, so the Catholic Church does INDEED teach FALSE DOCTRINE.
JOHN REPLIES: You’re quite right when you say that there is no mention that infants are capable of obeying the gospel (or capable of obeying anything else for that matter) but you’re very wrong in your assertion that the idea that infants can be baptized is absent in the Scriptures.
As has been well established and agreed upon by virtually all sides here is that the Old Covenant prefigures that which is coming in the New Covenant.
‘Throughout the ages, EVERY male among you, when he is EIGHT DAYS OLD, shall be circumcised, including houseborn slaves and those acquired with money from any foreigner who is not of your blood. Yes, both the houseborn slaves and those acquired with money must be circumcised. Thus my covenant shall be in your flesh as an everlasting pact. IF A MALE IS UNCIRCUMCISED, THAT IS, IF THE FLESH OF HIS FORESKIN HAS NOT BEEN CUT AWAY, SUCH A ONE SHALL BE CUT OFF FROM HIS PEOPLE; HE HAS BROKEN MY COVENANT.’ [Genesis 17-12-14]
‘On the eighth day, the flesh of the boy's foreskin shall be circumcised…’ [Leviticus 12:3]
Here we plainly see that even infants were required to be circumcised; otherwise they would be cut off from the covenant. An eight day old infant could hardly choose one way or another therefore the responsibility fell upon his parents.
‘‘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. For the promise is made to you AND TO YOUR CHILDREN and to all those far off, whomever the Lord our God will call.’ ’’ [Acts 2:38-39]
Note here that this promise (the gift of the Holy Spirit) includes children; no age requirements are stated. The only requirement stated is every one whom the Lord our God calls to Him ; NOT whoever is old enough to accept Jesus. .
And just who does the Lord call to Him?
People were bringing EVEN INFANTS to him that he might touch them, and when the disciples saw this, they rebuked them. Jesus, however, called the children to himself and said, "Let the children come to me and do not prevent them; for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. [Luke 18:15-17; also see Matt 11:25]
WHY DO YOU HINDER THE CHILDREN KEVIN? WHY DO YOU DISOBEY THE WORD OF GOD?
Getting back to baptism being prefigured in the Old Testament, Paul tells the Colossians the following; In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not administered by hand, by stripping off the carnal body, with the circumcision of Christ. [Colossians 2:11]
So just how were they circumcised with a circumcision not administered by hand…? Well, he tells us how in the next two verses; You were buried with him IN BAPTISM, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead. And even when you were dead (in) transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, he brought you to life along with him, having forgiven us all our transgressions [Colossians 2:12-13]
Paul equates baptism with circumcision and circumcision was practiced on infants. Paul doesn’t exclude infants. He’s writing to people who understand what circumcision is all about. Paul doesn’t say baptism is only for adults. There are so many more Bible verses supporting the Catholic position. Even most Protestant denominations have come to the same clear conclusion.
My question to you is this; WHERE DOES THE BIBLE SPECIFICALLY STATE THAT INFANTS CANNOT BE BAPTIZED? I’d like you to offer a clear verse in this regard. Something like; ‘Baptism is only for adults’ or ‘Baptism must not be given to infants’. or ‘she and her entire household excluding her children were baptized’, etc…
The ball is in your court.

-- John Miskell (RomanRite@aol.com), January 29, 2004.

Gail / rod,
I'm glad I found this little forum and glad to meet you both. Kevin and Ian too. :)
I can see from my last posting that I have to brush up on my html.

-- John Miskell (RomanRite@aol.com), January 29, 2004.

Circumsision was only for males.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), January 29, 2004.

David says: Circumsision was only for males.
John Replies: Yes circumsision was only for males. But Jesus and Peter says baptism is for all and Paul teaches that baptism replaces circumsision.
The Old Covenant was only for the Jews but the New Covenant is open to everyone.
The Jewish priesthood of all believers was reserved to Jews but is now open to everyone.

-- John Miskell (RomanRite@aol.com), January 29, 2004.

Why is everything showing up in italics when I haven't used any html tags?

-- John Miskell (RomanRite@aol.com), January 29, 2004.

Sometimes a tag will stay open from a previous post or the poster may have forgotten to close the tag or the poster was using a Mac Computer, which will do goofy things with the carriage return. That's why I type a bunch of dots before I close my post, so that my sentences won't get chopped and short changed.
......................................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 29, 2004.

I fixed John's mistake. He forgot to close a couple of tags

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), January 29, 2004.

John wrote, "You?re quite right when you say that there is no mention that infants are capable of obeying the gospel (or capable of obeying anything else for that matter) but you?re very wrong in your assertion that the idea that infants can be baptized is absent in the Scriptures."
No John, I am CORRECT when I said that infants CANNOT be baptized for this very reason. God said that "faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God." (Romans 10:17). An infant is NOT CAPABLE of having faith, so they CANNOT BE BAPTIZED. God said in Hebrews 11:6, "But WITHOUT FAITH IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO PLEASE HIM, for HE WHO COMES TO GOD MUST BELIEVE THAT HE IS, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him." Since an infant CANNOT HAVE FAITH, God SPECIFICALLY says it is "IMPOSSIBLE TO PLEASE HIM" for "HE WHO COMES TO GOD MUST BELIEVE THAT HE IS". Since an infant CANNOT have faith, they CANNOT come to God. John wrote, "As has been well established and agreed upon by virtually all sides here is that the Old Covenant prefigures that which is coming in the New Covenant. 'Throughout the ages, EVERY male among you, when he is EIGHT DAYS OLD, shall be circumcised, including houseborn slaves and those acquired with money from any foreigner who is not of your blood. Yes, both the houseborn slaves and those acquired with money must be circumcised. Thus my covenant shall be in your flesh as an everlasting pact. IF A MALE IS UNCIRCUMCISED, THAT IS, IF THE FLESH OF HIS FORESKIN HAS NOT BEEN CUT AWAY, SUCH A ONE SHALL BE CUT OFF FROM HIS PEOPLE; HE HAS BROKEN MY COVENANT.' [Genesis 17-12-14] ?On the eighth day, the flesh of the boy's foreskin shall be circumcised?? [Leviticus 12:3] Here we plainly see that even infants were required to be circumcised; otherwise they would be cut off from the covenant. An eight day old infant could hardly choose one way or another therefore the responsibility fell upon his parents."
Sorry, the circumcision in the Old Testament is NOT the same thing as in the New Testament. I know this is TRUE because God said in Romans 2:28-29, "For he is NOT a Jew who is one OUTWARDLY, nor is circumcision that which is OUTWARD IN THE FLESH; but HE IS A JEW WHO IS ONE INWARDLY; and CIRCUMCISION IS THAT OF THE HEART, IN THE SPIRIT, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God." An infant CANNOT be a Jew INWARDLY because they are NOT capable of having faith.
John quoted Acts 2:38-39 then said, "Note here that this promise (the gift of the Holy Spirit) includes children; no age requirements are stated. The only requirement stated is every one whom the Lord our God calls to Him ; NOT whoever is old enough to accept Jesus."
Once again John, you do ERR, NOT knowing the TRUTH. No, this promise does NOT include children, there is NO MENTION in Acts 2:38-39 of infants being baptized. Please explain how infants would be able to UNDERSTAND that they were GUILTY of CRUCIFYING the Saviour Jesus Christ??? The could NOT UNDERSTAND, nor do they have any guilt to bear because they CANNOT UNDERSTAND. Infants do NOT need to obey the gospel, for they are safe and have NO SIN. Sin is the transgression of God's law and infants are NOT CAPABLE of sinning.
John wrote, "And just who does the Lord call to Him? People were bringing EVEN INFANTS to him that he might touch them, and when the disciples saw this, they rebuked them. Jesus, however, called the children to himself and said, "Let the children come to me and do not prevent them; for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. [Luke 18:15-17; also see Matt 11:25]"
Once again John you are mistaken. To claim that one can be baptized (an infant) with NO faith in the gospel of Christ is NOT in accordance with NT teaching. Go back and re-read Hebrews 11:6. To claim that one can be baptized to have their sins washed away and then later come to faith in Jesus one has to be ignorant of Biblical teaching on this subject. Faith ONLY comes by hearing God's word. (Rom 10:17).
John wrote, "WHY DO YOU HINDER THE CHILDREN KEVIN? WHY DO YOU DISOBEY THE WORD OF GOD?"
The Bible NEVER contradicts itself, and Jesus PLAINLY said in Mark 16:16, "He who BELIEVES and is baptized WILL be saved. Jesus did NOT say, "He who does NOT believe and is baptized will be saved." Baptizing infants is WITHOUT scriptural basis. There are NO commands OR examples of infant baptism anywhere in the Word of God. Since the prerequisites of faith AND repentance AND confession are BEYOND the infant's capability, they are NOT suitable candidates for baptism.
John wrote, "Getting back to baptism being prefigured in the Old Testament, Paul tells the Colossians the following; In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not administered by hand, by stripping off the carnal body, with the circumcision of Christ. [Colossians 2:11] So just how were they circumcised with a circumcision not administered by hand?? Well, he tells us how in the next two verses; You were buried with him IN BAPTISM, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead. And even when you were dead (in) transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, he brought you to life along with him, having forgiven us all our transgressions [Colossians 2:12-13]"
Please explain John how an INFANT is capable of KNOWING that we are "raised with Him through faith in the power of God,"???? Yes, we are BURIED WITH CHRIST IN BAPTISM and that is how our sins are WASHED AWAY however, since an infant does NOT have any "transgressions", they have NO SIN to wash away. Please do not waste your time in trying to come back and say that there is such a thing as "original sin" for this FALSE DOCTRINE is also NOT taught in the word of God. Please go back and re-read Ezekiel 18:20.
John wrote, "Paul equates baptism with circumcision and circumcision was practiced on infants. Paul doesn?t exclude infants. He?s writing to people who understand what circumcision is all about. Paul doesn?t say baptism is only for adults. There are so many more Bible verses supporting the Catholic position. Even most Protestant denominations have come to the same clear conclusion."
Yes, this was a "circumcision made without hands" and from READING the text it PLAINLY states that one MUST have FAITH. Since it is the GOSPEL that is "the power of God to salvation" (Romans 1:16), please explain to me John how an infant is CAPAPBLE of OBEYING THE GOSPEL??? (See 2 Timothy 1:10).
John wrote, "My question to you is this; WHERE DOES THE BIBLE SPECIFICALLY STATE THAT INFANTS CANNOT BE BAPTIZED? I?d like you to offer a clear verse in this regard. Something like; ?Baptism is only for adults? or ?Baptism must not be given to infants?. or ?she and her entire household excluding her children were baptized?, etc?"
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 (Luke 24:47), 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 message that Peter preached in Acts 2.
To claim that INFANTS can be saved 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).
Since Catholics claim that one can be baptized as an infant who is WITHOUT FAITH in the gospel of Christ, then they are NOT confessing that Jesus has come in the flesh and are therefore "a deceiver and an ANTICHRIST." (2 John 4:7).
John wrote, "The ball is in your court."
Back at you...

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), January 29, 2004.

Something EVERY Catholic should read: CATHOLICISM AGAINST ITSELF

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), January 29, 2004.

They should read it, but Gail (as others will WITHOUT EVEN READING IT) will say,"they quote things out of context".

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), January 29, 2004.

"they quote things out of context".
Oops! I should have read the write-up.
............................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 29, 2004.

Hey, I visited that site, Kevin. They left out a bunch of stuff:
Sasquach
UFOs
George the Rabbit
Pyramid Scams
Catholics aren't gonna take that site seriously.
....................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 29, 2004.

David,
You were right, of course all rod can do is make fun of it. The funny thing is he didn't even bother to read it when he made his last post on what was left out of the book!!! Simply Amazing!!!

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), January 29, 2004.

John Says: You still have cited the verse that specifically forbids infants from being baptized.
Kevin Says: Once again John, you do ERR, NOT knowing the TRUTH. No, this promise does NOT include children...
John Says: But the Scripture clearly says; ‘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. The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off--for all whom the Lord our God will call’ [Acts 2:37-39]
And who does the Lord call?
‘And they brought unto him also infants, that he would touch them: but when his disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them unto him, and said, ‘’Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein.’‘’ [Luke 18:15-17]
Nowhere does Christ say before one is baptized they must stand up and make a public declaration of faith. Nowhere does Christ forbid children from being baptized. On the contrary; when men such as yourself rebuked people for bringing their little children to Jesus, He in turn rebuked the rebukers and said ‘let the children come to Me, DO NOT HINDER THEM.’ Of course this make me wonder why men such as yourself, who seem to earnestly follow His Word ignore it when it is so plain. The people brought infants to Jesus that he might touch them. This proves that the receipt of grace is not dependent upon the age of reason.
Paul tells us; ‘For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.’ [2 Thessalonians 3:10] DO YOU BELIEVE BABIES SHOULD STARVE BECAUSE THEY CANNOT WORK?
It’s occurred to me that we Catholics generally take the literal interpretation when it comes to our doctrines but you Protestants (and yes the Churches of Christ are just one of a plethora of Protestant denominations no matter how loudly they say they aren’t) always make a stretch of things to make your core beliefs fit.
Kevin Says: There are NO commands OR examples of infant baptism anywhere in the Word of God.
John Says: Now pay close attention please. In Acts 2:38 Peter says to the multitude, ‘Repent and be baptized…’ You’re trying to use this verse to prove one must be a believer (not an infant) to be baptized. But the Greek translation literally says, ‘If you repent, then each one who is a part of you and yours must each be baptized.’ Check it out. This is also confirmed in the very next verse.
Acts 2:39 - Peter then says baptism is specifically given to children as well as adults. God's covenant family includes children. The word "children" that Peter used comes from the Greek word teknon which also includes infants.
Luke 1:59 - this proves that teknon includes infants. Here, John as a teknon (infant) was circumcised. See also Acts 21:21. So baptism is for infants as well as adults.
Acts 10:47-48 - Peter baptized the entire house of Cornelius, which generally included infants and young children. There is not one word in Scripture about baptism being limited to adults.
Acts 16:15 - Paul baptized Lydia and her entire household. The word "household" comes from the Greek word oikos which is a household that includes infants and children.
Acts 16:15 Furthermore, Paul baptizes the household based on Lydia's faith, not the faith of the members of the household. THIS DEMONSTRATES THAT PARENTS CAN PRESENT THEIR CHILDREN FOR BAPTISM BASED ON THE PARENTS' FAITH, NOT THE CHILDREN'S FAITH.
Acts 16:33 - Paul baptized the jailer and his entire household (which had to include children). Baptism is never limited to adults and those of the age of reason.
Rom. 5:12 - sin came through Adam and death through sin. Babies' souls are affected by Adam's sin and need baptism just like adult souls.
Rom. 5:15 - the grace of Jesus Christ surpasses that of the Old Covenant. So children can also enter the new Covenant in baptism. From a Jewish perspective, it would have been unthinkable to exclude infants and children from God's Covenant kingdom.
1 Cor. 1:16 - Paul baptized the household ("oikos") of Stephanus. Baptism is not limited to adults.
Eph. 1:1; Col. 1:2 - Paul addresses the "saints" of the Church, and these include the children he addresses in Eph. 6:1 and Col. 3:20. Children become saints of the Church only through baptism.
Eph. 2:3- we are all by nature children of wrath, in sin, like all mankind. Infants are no exception.
Matt. 9:2; Mark 2:3-5 - the faith of those who brought in the paralytic cured the paralytic's sins. This is an example of the forgiveness of sins based on another's faith, just like infant baptism. The infant child is forgiven of sin based on the parents' faith.
Joshua 5:2-7 - God punished Israel because the people had not circumcised their children. This was based on the parent's faith. The parents play a critical role in their child's salvation. John FINALLY Says: Do you know why I cite so much of the Bible to support my position? Because the Catholic Church IS

-- John Miskell (RomanRite@aol.com), January 29, 2004.

Kevin wrote:"Simply Amazing!!! "
Hey, those are my patent pending words, Kevin. Are you mocking me?
I'm just kidding, Kevin.
....................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 29, 2004.

Allow me to complete John's post:
"Do you know why I cite so much of the Bible to support my position? Because the Catholic Church IS [the one and only true Church of God]."
..................................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 29, 2004.

Infant Baptism
Many churches practice infant baptism. Millions have been 'christened' as infants.
Infant baptism is performed in the name of the Lord, but does the Lord authorize it? Is it of human origin or divine? The child has no choice in the matter. Do parents have the right to have their infants baptized? Let us examine infant baptism in the light of the Word of God.
Terms defined.
By 'infant' we mean a baby or small child who is too young to make a decision. Infant baptism is usually performed by sprinkling or pouring. Sometimes it is done by immersion, but most who read this will be familiar with the practice of sprinkling or pouring.
Infant baptism is not of divine origin.
I say this without fear of successful contradiction. Jesus said: "He who believes and is baptized will be saved" (Mark 16:16). Peter, led by the Holy Spirit, said: "Repent and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins" (Acts 2:38). Truth is always in harmony with truth. Scriptural baptism is preceded by faith and repentance. Infant baptism is preceded by neither. To practice baptism before there is faith and repentance is to pervert the gospel. Anyone who preaches a different gospel is accursed (Galatians 1:6-9). When one practices infant baptism he is going beyond the doctrine of Christ (2 John 9).
The first recorded case of affusion was in the year 251. The first law for sprinkling was in 752. It was made by a pope who had to flee Rome (Edinburgh Encyclopedia, Article on Baptism).
Infant baptism nullifies the law of God.
Jesus accused the religious people of His day of "making the Word of God of no effect" through their tradition (Mark 7:13). That is exactly what this man-made practice does. It makes the law of Christ of no effect. Jesus taught that every creature is to believe and be baptized, but they who advocate infant baptism nullify this command of Christ. They supplant it by a human law.
Jesus is to be obeyed. This the Scriptures teach: "And having been perfected, He became the author of eternal salvation to all who obey Him " (Hebrews 5:9). Every one who practices and endorses infant baptism is guilty, either wilfully or ignorantly, of supplanting the divine law of believers' baptism. Are you, my dear reader, guilty?
What about household baptisms?
Some try to justify infant baptism on the basis of New Testament examples of household baptisms. It is argued that infants must have been included when whole households were baptized.
In most passages, however, where household baptisms are reported, hearing and believing are also mentioned, which infants are unable to do. Cornelius "feared God with all his household" (Acts 10:2). His household was saved as a result of hearing the gospel (Acts 11:14; 10:44,46). Paul told the Philippian jailer: "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household" (Acts 16:31).
Did this include infants? Can infants believe? We read further: "Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house" (Acts 16:32). What was the response? "And immediately he and all his [family] were baptized" (Acts 16:33). That infants were not included is further indicated by what follows: "He rejoiced, having believed in God with all his household" (Acts 16:34).
Crispus "believed on the Lord with all his household. And many of the Corinthians, hearing, believed and were baptized" (Acts 18:8). To teach that infants were included in household baptisms is going beyond what is written. Furthermore, this human addition to the word of God is clearly contrary to what is written. It is to accuse the apostles of sinning by violating the terms of the Great Commission! God forbid. The 'household baptism' argument is simply a case of a drowning man grasping at a straw. If you, my friend, insist on going the way of rebellion do not try to take Peter and Paul with you!
Paul says we were buried with Christ in baptism, in which we also were raised with Him "through faith in the working of God" (Colossians 2:12). This shows that the baptism he practiced was not infant baptism.
Let the children come.
"But Jesus said, 'Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of heaven'" (Matthew 19:14). Perhaps this verse is used more than any other to support infant baptism. But does it say one word about it? Is there in all the chapter even one reference to baptism? Does not this verse teach that children are alright as they are? Jesus says "of such" is the kingdom of heaven. They are alright as they are! What good will a human ordinance do them? Some say: "Well, it will not hurt them." It certainly may! They might think they have been baptized when in reality they have only obeyed the command of men and not the command of God.
Is it harmless to take the name of God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit in vain? For that is what is done every time a child is christened. If I do something in a man's name when he has not authorized it, I am taking his name in vain. Every case of infant baptism in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is a forgery.
You who practice infant baptism, how are you going to answer to God for having changed His law, for having put a human law in its place? I know you love your children, then how dare you deceive them, how dare you make them think this human ordinance can take the place of the divine command of believers' baptism?
Baptism and circumcision.
Figuratively, baptism is compared with circumcision (Colossians 2:11,12). Because infants were circumcised in Old Testament times, some try to justify infant baptism by this comparison. In many points, however, baptism is different than circumcision. Who was circumcised? Israelites. Do those who practice infant baptism only baptize Israelites? Only boys were circumcised. Do those who practice infant baptism sprinkle only boys? Were not the Jews required to believe and be baptized?
Finally.
If you have trusted in this human practice, renounce it at once. If you have taught it to your children, take your Bible and show them that you have been mistaken. Baptism is connected with salvation (1 Peter 3:21). Salvation is too important for one to be satisfied with a human substitute that will not save. Let me quote again the language of Jesus: "He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned" (Mark 16:16).
J. C. Bailey
Published in The Old Paths Archive (http://www.oldpaths.com)

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), January 29, 2004.

John wrote, "Nowhere does Christ say before one is baptized they must stand up and make a public declaration of faith."
Let's see if this is true. Jesus said in Matthew 10:32, "Therefore whoever confesses Me before men, him I will also confess before My Father who is in heaven."
God said in Romans 10:10, "For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth CONFESSION IS MADE UNTO SALVATION." Please notice that confession is made "UNTO SALVATION".
The specific phrase, "Obey the gospel" is found three times in the New Testament and it is quite interesting to notice how it is used.
The first time is Romans 10:16 in the midst of the passage that explains CALLING ON THE NAME OF THE LORD to be saved (Romans 10:13-18). Here he states, "But they have not all obeyed the gospel, for Esaias said, Lord, who hath believed our report." In verse 18 he asks, "Have they not heard? Yea, verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words to the ends of the world." It was not a matter of people not hearing the gospel but of not obeying the gospel that kept them from being saved. How to obey the gospel is explained in Romans 6.
The facts of the gospel are the death, burial and resurrection of Christ (1 Corinthians 15:1-4). Paul preached it to them and told them they could be saved by it if they kept it in memory. These Roman Christians were told, "But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness." (Romans 6:17-18).
How they obeyed the form of the death, burial and resurrection of Christ is shown in Romans 6:3-4 in these words, "Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life." When the believer turns from his sinful ways, confesses Christ and is buried in the waters of baptism he has obeyed the first principles of the gospel and is freed from his sins.

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), January 29, 2004.

rod, You forgot to add something..."Do you know why I cite so much of the Bible to support my position? Because the Catholic Church IS [NOT the one and only true Church of God]."

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), January 29, 2004.

Here is a website that REFUTES the false doctrine of infant baptism:
Infant Baptism and the Bible: Should Babies Be Baptized?

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), January 29, 2004.

Here is a link that proves that every man-made doctrine is correct and true: Click here.
.......................................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 30, 2004.

John wrote: "Nowhere does Christ say before one is baptized they must stand up and make a public declaration of faith."
Kevin said: Let's see if this is true. Jesus said in Matthew 10:32, "Therefore whoever confesses Me before men, him I will also confess before My Father who is in heaven."
John Replies: Exactly where are the words ‘baptism’ and ‘infant’ found in that verse? Apples vs. oranges.
Kevin said: God said in Romans 10:10, "For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth CONFESSION IS MADE UNTO SALVATION." Please notice that confession is made "UNTO SALVATION".
John Replies: Are you saying that Confession (a profession of faith) is an ABSOLUTE REQUIREMENT FOR SALVATION… NO EXCEPTIONS?

-- John Miskell (RomanRite@aol.com), January 30, 2004.

John wrote: "Nowhere does Christ say before one is baptized they must stand up and make a public declaration of faith."
To which I replied, "Let's see if this is true. Jesus said in Matthew 10:32, "Therefore whoever confesses Me before men, him I will also confess before My Father who is in heaven."
Then John replied, "Exactly where are the words ?baptism? and ?infant? found in that verse? Apples vs. oranges."
Is there a "public declaration of faith" in Matthew 10:32??? Yes or No??? If no, please explain why. Please explain to me where the word "infant" is found when you said, "Nowhere does Christ say before one is baptized they must stand up and make a public declaration of faith."??? I didn't see it there, that is why there was NOTHING mentioned about "infants" in my reply. There is only "Apples" in this verse, NO "oranges"!!!
I wrote, "God said in Romans 10:10, "For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth CONFESSION IS MADE UNTO SALVATION." Please notice that confession is made "UNTO SALVATION"."
To which John replied, "Are you saying that Confession (a profession of faith) is an ABSOLUTE REQUIREMENT FOR SALVATION? NO EXCEPTIONS?"
God said in 1 Timothy 6:12 "Fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on eternal life, to which you were also called and HAVE CONFESSED THE GOOD CONFESSION IN THE PRESENCE OF MANY WITNESSES." John said in 1 John 4:15-16, "Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God."
What is the good confession???
When Philip "preached Jesus" to the Ethiopian Eunuch, he responded IN FAITH by saying in Acts 8:37, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."
Philip, after hearing the man confess his faith in Christ, was willing to assist the sinner in completing his OBEDIENCE: "So he commanded the chariot to stand still. And both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him." (Acts 8:38). Would Philip have baptized the eunuch without that confession? I think not.

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), January 30, 2004.

Kevin,
Come on now, quit the tap-dancing. Do you believe that a profession of faith is an ABSOLUTE requirement for salvation or don't you? Please let you yes mean yes or your no mean no.
John Miskell

-- John Miskell (RomanRite@aol.com), January 30, 2004.

John,
I thought from my last post that I implied this however, since you seem to think that I am "tap-dancing", let me spell it out for you more CLEARLY: YES, one MUST CONFESS the FACT that Jesus is the Son of God WITHOUT EXCEPTION in order to be saved.

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), January 30, 2004.

Kevin Said:I thought from my last post that I implied this however, since you seem to think that I am "tap-dancing", let me spell it out for you more CLEARLY: YES, one MUST CONFESS the FACT that Jesus is the Son of God WITHOUT EXCEPTION in order to be saved.
John Replies: Thank you for your clear answer. Since you believe that all must make a profession of faith to be saved 'WITHOUT EXCEPTION' tell me what you think happens to those who die who were unable to make such a profession; namely infants and the retarded. Since you stipulate 'WITHOUT EXCEPTION' do you simply consign the poor buggers to hell?

-- John Miskell (RomanRite@aol.com), January 30, 2004.

John, an infant that dies in his/her infancy goes to hell because they don't know Christ. If they went to heaven, you should promote abortion, which would be the greatest evangelism tool there is.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), January 30, 2004.

John,
Infants and those who are retarded are NOT capable of obedience to the gospel, and since they have NO SIN, they have no reason to be baptized.
Sin is the transgression of God's law and infants and those who are retarded are NOT capable of transgressing something that they have NO knowledge of in the first place.
If infants and those who are retarded have "original sin" as you and the Catholic Church promote, please explain to me WHY the Jews did NOT have to do anything to get rid of this "original sin" NOR was it ever mentioned that anyone had to be cleansed of this in the Old Testament??? The Jews did NOT believe in this FALSE DOCTRINE back then, and they still do NOT believe that it is true today.

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), January 30, 2004.

If there was another biblical way to get to heaven, rather than through Christ alone (John 14:6), then show me.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), January 30, 2004.

Kevin,
the gospel was preached to Abraham...

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), January 30, 2004.

Jesus said in Matthew 19:14, "Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven". He also said in Matthew 18:4, "Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven."
Jesus admonished those to be converted and become as "little children" because little children have NO SIN.
Infants are sinless, they are innocent, and there is NO discernment of sin and consequently NO GUILT (and thus they are not accountable). So, how could an infant be baptized for the remission of sins. There are none to be remitted.

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), January 30, 2004.

David,
Yes, the gospel was preached to Abraham and your point is???

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), January 30, 2004.

Kevin Said: [To be saved] CLEARLY: YES, one MUST CONFESS the FACT that Jesus is the Son of God WITHOUT EXCEPTION in order to be saved.
Kevin Then Said: Infants and those who are retarded are NOT capable of obedience to the gospel, and since they have NO SIN, they have no reason to be baptized.
John Replies: Oh, so there IS an exception for children and the retarded or anyone else who is not capable of obedience to the gospel???????

-- John Miskell (RomanRite@aol.com), January 30, 2004.

David Adds:John, an infant that dies in his/her infancy goes to hell because they don't know Christ. If they went to heaven, you should promote abortion, which would be the greatest evangelism tool there is.
John Replies In Shock: Good grief David, so much for 'Let the children come to me, for to such as these belongs the Kingdom of God.' Obviously you and Kevin are poles apart on this issue too (which is normal for Protestantism).
Not far from my home is the ‘Second Presbyterian Church.’ First Presbyterian is one block away, and the two exist because of a split that had occurred nearly 150 years ago over whether a particular baby who had died unbaptized was going to heaven or hell. The pastor and half the congregation voted for hell; the dissenting half voted for heaven and left to form their own congregation a block away. (Which group was right, how does one determine this, and were they correct in splitting over this issue? Catholics know the answer to solving this problem).
Within easy walking distance of these two now speaking yet still divided Presbyterian congregations sits a United Methodist Church (which originally was an EUB church before the merger), a Lutheran Church (now ELCA), an Episcopalian Church, a small Free Methodist Church, a Baptist Church (ABC), a Salvation Army Church, and an Independent Bible Church with a name like "Christian Fellowship Church." Is this collection of divided voices what Jesus hoped and prayed for?
The only thing that I see that most non-Catholics have in common is their dislike or distrust of all things Catholic. Many try to cover up this apparent disunity by claiming that denominationalism is some how God's plan, almost as if a form of 'transubstantiation' has occurred in the Church itself: under the appearance of disunity exists the real substance of an invisible unity. Just check out the AOL Christian chat room to see what I mean. How do Kevin and David explain their disunity? Yet, Jesus said that the unity of his followers would be VISIBLE in the apostles and their disciples, and especially in their love for one another (Jn. 13).
Why are there so many divergent Christian groups, especially when most of them are founded on the idea that the Bible alone is sufficient to lead us into all truth? Again let's don't blame the inspired Word of God for this confusion. I think the problem stems from the fact that the words of Scripture are very powerful and preachable. Sometimes a great blessing when misused can lead to a curse! One can take a verse like John 3:16__ ‘For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whosoever believes in him will not perish but have everlasting life’-- and preach it! If the preacher is particularly skilled at preaching, is ‘pleasing to the eyes;’ if what he or she has to say seems to be food for an ailing soul and full of wisdom (Gen. 3:6), people will follow in droves. The sad thing is that some self-proclaimed preachers take the fact that people are following as a confirmation that what they have preached must be true. The history of Christianity is deluged with preachers who have put together their own collection of Bible verses and consequently preached themselves and their followers into a new denomination or sect.
Put together a specific collection of apocalyptic verses and John Darby helps to establish a whole new strand of Protestantism that believes for the first time in Christen history of an impending rapture. Put together another set of verses that emphasize ‘by his stripes we are healed’ and ‘whatever you ask in my name I will do for you,’ and this preaches quite nicely into a large and growing sect that believes if you have faith you should be healthy and rich. I see several such ‘Holiness, Gospel’ churches in poor black neighborhoods here in Philadelphia. These poor guys can’t rub two dimes together but they all drive a Jag or a Mercedes so they can show how holy they are.
Put together another set of verses that focuses only on our responsibility to reach out in love to the poor, and this preaches quite powerfully into the social gospel. Put together another collection of carefully chosen verses that emphasize the total depravity of all mankind and the Sovereignty of God, and this, quite convincingly preaches thousands of people into Lutheranism or Calvinism.
Using the SAME inspired Bible, Methodists, Baptists, Churches of Christ, Pentecostals, Assemblies of God, Nazarenes, Congregationalists, Episcopalians, and Four-Square Gospelites have each emphasized their own selection of key verses and preached themselves into independent existence, each of these groups and more agreeing that the Bible is the ONLY God given source of truth, yet NONE can get their preaching together.
It seems obvious that just because something is preachable doesn't make it true, yet the average person with all their needs and usual feelings of spiritual hunger can easily be swayed to believe otherwise.
In high school I played a part in the musical "The Music Man." In this play we see this same phenomenon occuring but instead of it being a preacher it comes to us in the form of a musical instruments salesman. How does one sell something to someone they neither need nor want? The music man convinced an entire town that there was not only ‘trouble in River City’ but that what he had to sell was the very answer to what they needed. Before he was done every parent had purchased a musical instrument AND a uniform. And even in the end when the beauty of the uniforms couldn't cover up the fact that the kids couldn't play a lick, his charismatic preaching was able to convince them that all that mattered was that their children LOOKED GREAT IN UNIFORMS. There are thousands, no, millions of sincere people who have followed very charismatic ‘music men’ into aberrant forms of Christianity because what these very winsome preachers had formulated on their own from Scripture was convincingly preachable. Kevin and David are classic examples of just two of these sincere people. I pray that they prayfully continue their journey to the Truth.
What is so dangerous about this ‘music man’ phenomenon is that the preacher himself can become so convinced and excited about what he has discovered that he can become blind to the fact that what he is preaching is totally brand new with only slight connection to the truth Jesus delivered to his apostles. The ‘King of Kool Aide,’ Rev. Jim Jones comes to mind
Kevin and David agree that baptism should be withheld from infants but just like the folks in the 1st and 2nd Presbyterian churches in my neighborhood they disagree on what happens to those who die without baptism. How does one reconcile such differences? (Again, Catholics know the answer to this question). Do Kevin and David recognize each other as fellow Christians? Evidently not. Both base their belief on the Scriptures. Both claim the Holy Spirit is guiding them to the correct interpretation yet they come to DIFFERENT CONCLUSIONS! How can that be possible?
If we were to gather a sample today's main Protestant denominations, we would have among them Calvinists who believe that Baptism is a Sacrament, and Baptists who do not; Lutherans who call Mary the Mother of God, and Evangelicals who do not; Episcopalians who believe that man has free will, and Presbyterians who do not; Pentecostals who say true believers will speak in tongues, and Methodists who do not. There are Protestants who believe in the Trinity and other Protestants who do not. We would even find some who call themselves, "Born-Again Believers" who believe that Jesus is God, and others claiming to be "Born-Again" who are just as sincere about following the Bible but do not believe that Jesus is God, based upon their study of the Bible.
Could the Holy Spirit be leading these groups to different truths? Could the Spirit be guiding each of them to conflicting interpretations of the same verses of Scripture? Could it be that He would tell some groups that Baptism is necessary for salvation, and tell others that Baptism isn't necessary for salvation? Would the Spirit of Truth say to one that Jesus is God but to another that Jesus isn't God? Could the Holy Spirit tell Kevin that unbaptised babies go to heaven but tell David that unbaptised babies go to hell? THIS ISN'T POSSIBLE!
I appeal to you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no dissensions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment." [1 Cor 1:10; RSV].
Yet ALL OF THEM including our Kevin and david claim to be led by the Holy Spirit. God cannot be the author of this confusion.
For God is not a God of confusion but of peace. As in all the churches of the saints [1 Cor 14:33; RSV].
In spite of the doctrinal confusion, about 60% of the world's Christian population are still Catholic. Another 16% are Eastern Orthodox. The Orthodox aren't in full communion with the Catholic Church, mostly because of discord which is more political in nature than theological, but they are recognized by the Catholic Church as having valid Sacraments and Bishops. That makes 76% of Christians throughout the world who agree with one another on essentially every matter of faith. THE REMAINING 24% ARE FRACTURED INTO OVER 30,000 DIFFERENT PROTESTANT DENOMINATIONS. All of them were started by men or women and all of these men or women claimed to be led by the Holy Spirit to a different truth. THAT'S IMPOSSIBLE.

-- John Miskell (RomanRite@aol.com), January 30, 2004.

John wrote, "Oh, so there IS an exception for children and the retarded or anyone else who is not capable of obedience to the gospel???????"
God says in Mark 16:16, "He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned." Jesus placed BELIEF before BAPTISM. One CANNOT be saved without obedience to the gospel however, infants and those who are retarded are NOT capble of belief so are they CONDEMNED??? Catholics seem to think that they are if they are not baptized. Since we will be judged by our works, please tell everyone here John what works will CONDEMN the infants and the retarded???
John gives the oft repeated Catholic argument that there are so many denominations and so many conflicting beliefs and he states that they all come from the same word of God and wonders how this can be so???
I will tell you WHY this is the case John, it is because of their CREEDS that is WHY there is so much division today. The CREEDS and CATECHISMS of MEN are what keep everyone from being one.
Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 14:33, "For God is not the author of confusion but of peace." God desires that there be unity and peace, not division and confusion.
Jesus prayed that all professed believers be united as one. He prayed that there would be no religious confusion.
He said to the Father in John 17:20-21: "I do not pray for these alone but also for those who will believe in me through their word; that they all may be one, as you, Father, are in me, and I in you; that they also may be one in us, that the world may believe that you sent me."
God is not responsible for all the religious bigotry and confusion throughout the world. Christ is not the cause of religious division. No, it isn't God - nor is it the Bible.
Instead MAN is the cause for this confusion.
Man is responsible for the division and bedlam in religion and in the churches of Christ not only in the First century, but today as well.
It is man who says, "We must use only one cup, etc."
1 Corinthians 1:11 says, "For it has been declared to me concerning you, my brethren, by those of Chloe's household, that there are contentions among you."
There were division and confusion at Corinth, from where did it arise? Were these contentions from God? Was God responsible for the confusion in Corinth? Was this a FALSE church of Christ?
Paul tells us the reason for all this religious chaos in Corinth in verse 12: "Now I say this, that each of you says, I am of Paul, or I am of Apollos, or I am of Cephas, or I am of Christ." Do you see this? This confusion and division was resulting from "each of you." That is, INDIVIDUALS were the cause of this confusion, not God.
The wishes of God are expressed when Paul says in 1 Corinthians 1:10, "Now I plead with you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment."
Here is the FINAL ANSWER: Paul told Timothy in 1 Timothy 4:16, "Take heed to yourself and to the doctrine. Continue in them, for in doing this you will save both yourself and those who hear you."
Here is GOD's PROMISE to the faithful: "To him who overcomes I will grant to sit with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne." (Revelation 3:21).
Here is GOD's PROMISE to the unfaithful: "If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned." (John 15:6).
How many faithful churches of Christ were there in the First century?
The Catholic Church and ALL of the denominations which came from her are the cause of all of this religious confusion in the world and they are the reason that people are being DECEIVED.
God says in 2 Peter 2:1, "But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction."
It is possible for people to be deceived.
God also said in 2 Timothy 3:12-13, "But evil men and impostors will grow worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived."
The word of God teaches that it is possible for someone to be deceived.
ONLY by ABIDING in God's word will we remain God's disciples. Jesus said in John 8:31-32, "If you abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed. And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free."

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), January 30, 2004.

Yes, Kevin. It is man's own fault for all of the confusion, but I would also include the interference provided by Satan.
..............................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 30, 2004.

Check out this website: The Bible vs. Denominational Creeds?

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), January 30, 2004.

Yes rod that is correct however, he is using his FALSE CHURCH the Catholic Church -- and his FALSE APOSTLE the Pope (the LAWLESS ONE) with all of his signs and lying wonders to DECEIVE those who do NOT love the TRUTH.

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), January 30, 2004.

Kevin,
The Churches of Christ (and the Independent Baptists etc.)can claim all they want that they aren't a denomination but that would be like a Martian claiming he isn't a Martian. He might even believe he's not a Martian but a Martian he is. The CofC's have a code to abide by and places where their ministers are trained to CofC standards. Just because you insist you aren't a denomination doesn't make it so.
The CofC didn't exist until the Stone-Campbell movement... that's the bottom line and a historical fact.

-- John Miskell (RomanRite@aol.com), January 31, 2004.

John M.
I agree with you that The Churches of Christ, the independant Baptists are denominations,
so is the Roman Catholic Church and The Catholic Orthodox denominations of the Catholic Church.
Why? because legally, it was a double excomunication in 1054. The Pope exomunicated the Orthodox, the Patriarch excomunicated the Pope.
The Catholic Church is a denomination of the Way (see Acts), the original name of the Church.
So in essence all are churches on their own right, but denominations of other Churches from a historical evolution.
The Man Of Yahweh

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), January 31, 2004.

Kevin can you find any of my posts that include any evidence of what you have just hurled at me? For an "SS" guy, you have added between the lines of my sentences. You really don't know where I stand on most of your allegations, because I haven't ever revealed them. You are still fishing where there ain't no fish.
You guys are so anti-Catholic that you can't really identify my real faith and assume so many things about me. Perhaps I am Catholic, will you guys represent me when I go back to my birth Church?
......................................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 31, 2004.

Protestantism, or any sect outside of the Catholic Church, has no remedy for the issues brought forth in John's maginificent post above. The confusion and mayhem within Protestantism is the fruit of the Reformation, and will surely be its deathblow.
Christ said, "A house divided against itself shall not stand." Yet He says that His house will stand, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. There is only one house, one institution, one religion, under one head, that has fullfilled this prophesy . . . only one. She is the oldest institution known to man. She has navigated throughout history throughout almost every country, and under every sort of political system, in the entire world. She suffered the wickedness of many evil men within her own ranks. She suffered the torments, confusion, and raging wars of the Middle Ages, and yet she rose victorious!
David and Kevin are believers in Christ, to be sure, but they are hanging on to a twig that is dangling from a branch that is loosely connected to the trunk. Then with axe in hand, they hang from the tip of that twig and begin chopping, not at the branch that is vicariously holding them connected to the trunk, but they chop at the trunk itself. What utter folly!
Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 31, 2004.

Elpidio,
The Greek Patriarch had no authority to excommunicate the Pope. And it's not like it was the first time the Eastern Churches ran afoul with Rome. Just 33 years after the 451 A.D. Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon, which condemned the heresy of Monophysism, Acacius, Bishop of Constantinople, persuaded Eastern Emperor Zeno to issue the 'Henoticon' ('Act of Union'), which appeased the Monophysites by overturning the teachings of Chalcedon and presenting a doctrinal compromise. In response, Pope Felix III excommunicated both Acacius as well as the Patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, with all their communicants --in essence, excommunicating the ENTIRE EAST!
This state of affairs continued for 34 years, until 519 A.D., when the Orthodox Eastern Emperor Justin I assumed the throne of Constantinople, sending 2,500 Eastern bishops to Rome to sign the Libellus Hormisdae, and BEG to be re-admitted to communion with the See of Peter.
In this, the 2,500 ADMITTEDLY-HERETICAL and schismatic Eastern bishops write ... 'In the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been kept undefiled and her holy doctrine proclaimed. Desiring, therefore, not to be in the least degree separated from the faith and doctrine of that See, we hope that we may deserve to be in the one communion with you which the Apostolic See preaches, in which is the entire and true solidity of the Christian religion: promising also that the names of those who are cut off from the communion of the Catholic Church, that is, not consentient with the Apostolic See, shall not be recited during the Sacred Mysteries (i.e., the Mass). This is my profession, I have subscribed with my own hand, and delivered to you, Hormisdas, the holy and venerable Pope of the city of Rome.' (Formula Hormisdae Episc. Orient. Praescript Denzinger's Enchird. p. 42, ed. 1874) in Charles F.B. Allnatt, ed., Cathedra Petri --Titles and Prerogatives of St. Peter, London: Burns & Oates, 1879, 92)

-- John Miskell (RomanRite@aol.com), February 01, 2004.

Gail.
Thank you for your kind comment. Your analogy reminds me of the prediction of Christ when He said;
They will put you out of the synagogues; indeed, the hour is coming when whoever kills you will think he is offering service to God. And they will do this because they have not known the Father, nor me. [John 16:1-3]
I liken Protestants to the rebellious son who gets angry with his father and takes his stuff outside to the backyard and sets up a tent. He brings his blankets and pillows, some snacks, flashlight, boom-box, stuff to read and invites his friends to visit. He's out there seemingly having a great time.
But EVERYTHING in his tent that is good came out of his father's house. But not everything in his father's house is out there in the tent. The son doesn't have a sturdy structure with a roof and windows. He doesn't have the furnace, the air-conditioning, the electricity, the stove, refridgerator and microwave oven. He doesn't have the bathtub, the shower, sink and toilet so he's out there in the backyard getting sweaty and smelly (we have the sacrament of reconciliation to wash us clean). He doesn't have the beds or the furniture or the plumbing or the cable TV. The son only has part of what was in his father's house.
A passer-by on the street might see the son out there in the backyard with his buddies and on the face of it conclude that the son is having more fun than are the people in the house. It can seem that way sometimes when we pass by some Protestant churches with their lively music and dancing. But the fullness and the unity is found only in the catholic Church.

-- John Miskell (RomanRite@aol.com), February 01, 2004.

I think I forgot to close an html tag again; sorry.

-- John Miskell (RomanRite@aol.com), February 01, 2004.

John,
You can continue to believe what you want to believe about the churches of Christ, but that is NOT the truth and I challenge you to prove that my church is a denomination.
The ONLY historical FACT that matters is the TRUTH that the Roman Catholic Church did NOT begin on the day of Pentecost in 33 AD as Catholics allege however this PAGAN Church began in 606 AD when the Boniface III assumed the title as UNIVERSAL BISHOP and he became the FIRST Pope of the Catholic Church.

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), February 02, 2004.

rod,
I call a "spade" a "spade" and if you are NOT a Catholic, your posts sure do come across that you are indeed a Catholic. If you are NOT a Catholic, then you would NOT have gone running over to the Catholic forum to get some of your buddies to come over here and cause TROUBLE!!!
To claim that you are NOT a Catholic is just pure NONSENSE. Anyone with any kind of brain can PLAINLY see that ALL of your posts are CATHOLIC and there has NOT been one that I have seen to date that disproves my allegations.
You continue to post your NONSENSE on this board especially when it has been shown to you that you are WRONG, you continue to BLINDLY follow the teachings of the Catholic Church. I noticed on another thread where you used my name in speaking to David and I will go to that thread and respond to you. I am still waiting for you to SHOW ME on the Mary thread where Mary has ANYTHING to do with our salvation??? It seems that when Catholics don't have an answer to a question, they simply DROP or CHANGE the subject and hope that nobody else notices.
David,
Please forgive me for this getting off topic, but I am tired of these Catholics making ALLEGATIONS that they could NOT prove if their lives depended on it...

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), February 02, 2004.

Kevin, your post won't get deleted, mine will.
Here is a clue that you will enjoy seeing:
If I go taday to the Catholic Church, I will not be allowed to take the Eucharist. This is an extremely big deal to me. This is what kills my Catholic identity. This is why I'm not Catholic. Some will argue to differ this conclusion, but this is my only decisive factor.
You happy?
You'll never guess my current church, my holding pattern.
BTW, I'll be posting very rarely from now on. I think I know where my faith is , now.
....................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), February 02, 2004.

Kevin: You can continue to believe what you want to believe about the churches of Christ, but that is NOT the truth and I challenge you to prove that my church is a denomination.
John: Let’s see; Webster’s says; Denomination: Function: noun; a religious organization uniting local congregations in a single legal and administrative body.
Hmmmm.
From Wikipedia Free Encyclopedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
‘The Churches of Christ can be traced to the Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement of the 1800’s. In 1906 the Church of Christ split from the Disciples of Christ over many issues that run back to the Campbell-Stone Union in 1824. After the Church of Christ split from the Disciples of Christ they found that many of the churches could not agree on any issues except the issues which started the split from the Disciples of Christ.
‘Since the Church was organized as a series of independent churches loosely associated there was no method or process to handle disagreements in doctrine. Between 1920 and 1960 over 20 sects within the Church had formed. The Church of Christ had become a series of Denominations within a Denomination.
‘The most notable sects were
a. The one-cuppers, who believe that the use of only one cup during the lords supper is acceptable.
b. The non-Sunday school group, who believe that Sunday School, not mentioned in the Bible, was wrong.
c. Premillennialist Faction
‘The largest Schism, which ultimately split the Church of Christ was the Crossroads Movement which started in the 1960s and 1970s.
‘Three modern religious groups trace their heritage back to roots in the Stone-Campbell Restoration movement:
a. The Christian Churches (Disciples of Christ) b. The Independent Christian Churches/Churches of Christ c. The Church of Christ (non-instrumental) d. International Churches of Christ The Crossroads/Boston Movement.’
Which of these do you belong to Kevin? Do you recognize any of the others as valid Churches of Christ? ‘There’s trouble in River City’
I’ll address your absurd contention that the Catholic Church began in 606 AD in my next post.

-- John Miskell (RomanRite@aol.com), February 02, 2004.

rod,
Being unable to receive Communion in no way prevents one from fully worshipping at Mass with his brothers and sisters in Christ. There are many who cannot receive for one reason or another yet they come... many of them for years and years, and they are fed spiritually nonetheless.
God bless

-- John Miskell (RomanRite@aol.com), February 02, 2004.

rod,
Who said anything about being "happy"???
When Christians partake of the Lord's Supper, we are to examine OURSELVES, not have someone else examine us. (1 Corinthians 11:28-32).

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), February 02, 2004.

John wrote, John: Let?s see; Webster?s says; Denomination: Function: noun; a religious organization uniting local congregations in a single legal and administrative body."
Please notice that a "denomination" unites local congregations in a "single legal and administrative body". The church of Christ of which I am a member is NOT united in a "single legal and administrative body" so your contention that the church of Christ is a "denomination" is FALSE.
You wrote, "Hmmmm."
Exactly...
John wrote, "From Wikipedia Free Encyclopedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page then quoted the article 'The Churches of Christ...'"
Please notice that this article does NOT address the churches of Christ that were here LONG BEFORE these men came to America and established the church of Christ. The SEED of the kingdom (the church) IS the word of God and when it is sown and obeyed in good and honest hearts, the kingdom of God is established.
John wrote, "Which of these do you belong to Kevin? Do you recognize any of the others as valid Churches of Christ? ?There?s trouble in River City?"
Please explain to everyone here John which churches of Christ in the first century that taught false doctrine (See the 7 churches in Revelation chapters 2 and 3) were really VALID churches of Christ???

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), February 02, 2004.

John wrote, "with his brothers and sisters in Christ".
Sorry, there are NO "brothers and sisters in Christ" in the Catholic Church.
The ONLY "brothers and sisters in Christ" in the Catholic Church are those brothers and sisters who have DEPARTED from the faith.

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), February 02, 2004.

Kevin: The ONLY historical FACT that matters is the TRUTH that the Roman Catholic Church did NOT begin on the day of Pentecost in 33 AD as Catholics allege however this PAGAN Church began in 606 AD when the Boniface III assumed the title as UNIVERSAL BISHOP and he became the FIRST Pope of the Catholic Church.
John: Boniface was the first to assume the title Universal Bishop in 606 AD? I’ll tell you what. I’m going to quote ten Catholics who lived before 606 AD who wrote that they believed the Bishop of Rome was the Universal Bishop of the Church.
<1st Century AD: Pope St. Clement; Letter to the Corinthians 80 AD
‘Owing to the sudden and repeated calamities and misfortunes which have befallen us, we must acknowledge that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the matters in dispute among you, beloved; and especially that abominable and unholy sedition, alien and foreign to the elect of God, which a few rash and self-willed persons have inflamed to such madness that your venerable and illustrious name, worthy to be loved by all men, has been greatly defamed. . . . Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobey the things which have been said by him [God] THROUGH US (the bishop of Rome) [i.e., that you must reinstate your leaders], let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger. . . . You will afford us joy and gladness if being obedient to the things which we have written through the Holy Spirit, you will root out the wicked passion of jealousy’ (Letter to the Corinthians 1, 58–59, 63 [A.D. 80]).
2nd Century AD: St. Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch 110 AD
‘Ignatius . . . to the church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the Father… You [the church at Rome] have envied no one, but others you have taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force’ (Letter to the Romans 1:1 [A.D. 110]).
3rd Century AD: St. Clement of Alexandria 200 AD
‘[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly grasped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? ‘Behold, we have left all and have followed you’ [Matt. 19:27; Mark 10:28]’ (Who Is the Rich Man That Is Saved? 21:3–5 [A.D. 200]).
4th Century AD: Pope St. Damasus I, 382 AD
‘Likewise it is decreed . . . that it ought to be announced that . . . the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it’ (Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]).
4th Century AD: St. Jerome, 387 AD
‘This, most blessed Pope, is the faith that we have been taught in the Catholic Church. If anything therein has been incorrectly or carelessly expressed, we beg that it may be set aright by you who hold the faith and see of Peter. If however this, our profession, be approved by the judgment of your apostleship, whoever may blame me, will prove that he himself is ignorant, or malicious, or even not a Catholic but a heretic’
4th Century AD: St. John Cassian, 389 AD
‘That great man, the disciple of disciples, that master among masters, who wielding the government of the Roman Church possessed the principle authority in faith and in priesthood. Tell us, therefore, we beg of you, Peter, prince of Apostles, tell us how the Churches must believe in God’ (Cassian, Contra Nestorium, III, 12, CSEL, vol. 17, p. 276).
5th Century AD: St. Augustine, 411 AD
‘Among these [apostles] Peter alone almost everywhere deserved to represent the whole Church. Because of that representation of the Church, which only he bore, he deserved to hear ‘I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven’ (Sermons 295:2 [A.D. 411]).
5th Century AD: Pope St. Leo I, 445 AD
‘Although bishops have a common dignity, they are not all of the same rank. Even among the most blessed apostles, though they were alike in honor, there was a certain distinction of power. All were equal in being chosen, but it was given to one to be PREEMINENT over the others. . . . [So today through the bishops] THE CARE OF THE UNIVERSAL CHURCH WOULD CONVERGE IN THE ONE SEE OF PETER, AND NOTHING SHOULD EVER BE AT ODDS WITH THIS HEAD’ (Letters 14:11)
6th Century AD: Libellus Hormisdae; Signed by 2,500 Eastern Bishops, 519 AD
‘In the Apostolic See (Rome) the Universal religion has always been kept undefiled and her holy doctrine proclaimed … Desiring, therefore, not to be in the least degree separated from the faith and doctrine of that See, we hope that we may deserve to be in the one communion with you which the Apostolic See preaches, in which is the entire and true solidity of the Christian religion: promising also that the names of those who are cut off from the communion of the Catholic Church, that is, not consentient with the Apostolic See, shall not be recited during the Sacred Mysteries.’
7th Century AD: St. Maximos the Confessor, 605 AD
‘For he only speaks in vain who thinks he ought to persuade or entrap persons like myself, and does not satisfy and implore the blessed Pope of the most holy Catholic Church of the Romans, that is, the Apostolic See, which is from the incarnate of the Son of God Himself, and also all the holy synods, according to the holy canons and definitions has received UNIVERSAL AND SUPREME DOMINION, AUTHORITY, AND POWER OF BINDING AND LOOSING OVER ALL THE HOLY CHURCHES OF GOD THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE WORLD.’ (Maximus, Letter to Peter, in Mansi x, 692).
Now, there we have ten Catholics who believed the Pope was the Universal Bishop of the Universal Church and who lived in each of the centuries from the time of Christ up to the time that you said the idea of ‘Universal Bishop’ was invented in 606 AD.
So here’s a challenge and I’ll make it easy for you. I named ten Catholics who believed the Pope was the Universal Bishop of the Universal Church and who lived in each of the centuries from the time of Christ up to the time that you said the idea of ‘Universal Bishop’ was invented in 606 AD.. Can you name just ONE preacher, teacher or author who lived at ANY TIME between the years 80 AD and 606 AD who SPECIFICALLY wrote, taught or preached that the Bishop of Rome DOES NOT hold the Prime position in the Church?

-- John Miskell (RomanRite@aol.com), February 03, 2004.

For neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops, nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience; since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another. But let us all wait for the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the only one that has the power both of preferring us in the government of His Church, and of judging us in our conduct there." - The Seventh Council of Carthage (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0508.htm)

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), February 03, 2004.

"I feel no doubt but that you will approve my resolution and will exult in the church's victory. For we have cut down with the prophet's sickle certain wicked fanatics...It is our desire, if possible, to guard in our days not only the Catholic faith and the rules of the church, but the people committed to our charge, and to give a quietus to all strange doctrines." (Jerome's Letter 87)

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), February 03, 2004.

"You coax as a father, you teach as a master, you enjoin as a bishop. You come to me not with a rod and severity but in a spirit of kindness, gentleness, and meekness....Hear me, I beg you with patience and do not take truthfulness for flattery. Is any man reluctant to communicate with you? Does any turn his face away when you hold out your hand? Does any at the holy banquet offer you the kiss of Judas? At your approach the monks instead of trembling rejoice. They race to meet you and leaving their dens in the desert are fain to master you by their humility. What compels them to come forth? Is it not their love for you? What draws together the scattered dwellers in the desert? Is it not the esteem in which they hold you? A parent ought to love his children; and not only a parent but a bishop ought to be loved by his children....Why do they use the name of your holiness to terrorize us, when your letter--strange contrast to their harsh and menacing words--breathes only peace and meekness? For that the letter which Isidore the presbyter has brought for me from you does make for peace and harmony I know by this, that these insincere professors of a wish for peace have refused to deliver it to me." (Letter 82:1, 82:3, 82:8)
"Jerome to the most blessed pope Theophilus. The letter of your holiness has given me a twofold pleasure, partly because it has had for its bearers those reverend and estimable men, the bishop Agatho and the deacon Athanasius, and partly because it has shewn your zeal for the faith against a most wicked heresy. The voice of your holiness has rung throughout the world, and to the joy of all Christ's churches the poisonous suggestions of the devil have been silenced. The old serpent hisses no longer, but, writhing and disembowelled, lurks in dark caverns unable to bear the shining of the sun. I have already, before the writing of your letter, sent missives to the West pointing out to those of my own language some of the quibbles employed by the heretics. I hold it due to the special providence of God that you should have written to the pope Anastasius [bishop of Rome] at the same time as myself, and should thus without knowing it have been the means of confirming my testimony. Now that you have directly urged me to do so, I shall shew myself more zealous than ever to recall from their error simple souls both near and far. Nor shall I hesitate, if needful, to incur odium with some, for we ought to please God rather than men: although indeed they have been much more forward to defend their heresy than I and others have been to attack it. At the same time I beg that if you have any synodical decrees bearing upon the subject you will forward them to me, that, strengthened with the authority of so great a prelate, I may open my mouth for Christ with more freedom and confidence. The presbyter Vincent has arrived from Rome two days ago and humbly salutes you. He tells me again and again that Rome and almost the whole of Italy owe their deliverance after Christ to your letters. Shew diligence therefore, most loving and most blessed pope, and whenever opportunity offers write to the bishops of the West not to hesitate- in your own words -to cut down with a sharp sickle the sprouts of evil." (Letter 88)

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), February 03, 2004.

John forgets that the apostle Paul prophesied a DEPARTURE from the faith when he said in Acts 20:29-30, "For I know this, that after my departure SAVAGE WOLVES WILL COME IN AMONG YOU, not sparing the flock. ALSO FROM AMONG YOURSELVES MEN WILL RISE UP, speaking perverse things, TO DRAW AWAY THE DISCIPLES AFTER THEMSELVES."
This HAPPENED with the ELDERSHIP and RESULTED in the Catholic Church - ONE MAN RULE - the Pope.
We are to TRUST Catholics and their FABRICATED history??? They have used FABRICATED documents in the past to gain influence and who is to say that they did not FABRICATE their own history???

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), February 03, 2004.

Kevin,
Okay.... since you cannot refute my last post that showed ten different Catholics writing about the Pope prior to 606 AD then would you at least do this?
EXACTLY (the year) when did the Catholic Church become apostate and EXACTLY what doctrine was introduced by them that made them become apostate. Earlier you mentioned 606 AD but I showed you that the idea of the Universal Bishop of Rome was not introduced at that time.
Secondly; what are the names of any of the 'TRUE Christians' who were living and teaching at that time and where were they located? Are any of their non-biblical writings available to read today?

-- John Miskell (RomanRite@aol.com), February 03, 2004.

Kevin: I believe you make lies with this statement...
" I call a "spade" a "spade" and if you are NOT a Catholic, your posts sure do come across that you are indeed a Catholic. If you are NOT a Catholic, then you would NOT have gone running over to the Catholic forum to get some of your buddies to come over here and cause TROUBLE!!! "
You must have divine abilities if you can read my mind and heart, Kevin. The "TROUBLE" was started by your vicious anti-Catholic remarks. Had the remarks been anti-Church of Christ, I would have called in the "CC" men. You seem to favor a one-sided debate with the other side tied and bound with a gag. I merely evened the playing field, as any "righteous" player would have. You must fear the calvary so much to continue rubbing my face in it, again. Now, stop with you lies about my motives. I thought you were obedient? Bearing false witness is a sin, but are you of the divine nature?
Faith Buster, you almost had me snared.
....................................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), February 03, 2004.

Kevin wrote:
" To claim that you are NOT a Catholic is just pure NONSENSE. Anyone with any kind of brain can PLAINLY see that ALL of your posts are CATHOLIC and there has NOT been one that I have seen to date that disproves my allegations. "
Caugh it up, Kevin church of Christ man. Your apology for 1) your false accusation, and 2) for not acknowledging by previous post about me not "being" a Catholic because of the one decisive factor--The Holy Eucharist. Even Paul M. made it clear in one of his posts about thinking of and being a Catholic are two different things. You see, Kevin "Divine", you or I may think that I am Catholic, but it is really up to the Church to determine if I am or not. And, by any "brains" around, we can pretty much pack it up and hit the road cuz this guy has lost his "get in for free" card. It doesn't matter how much I wish to be Catholic--you guys do consider me a Christian and the Church sure doesn't consider me a Catholic--there is a list of things that need "correcting". I wonder if there is amnesty day in the Catholic Church? That would be cool, wrong, but still rather cool.
Let's see if you are man--Christian--enough to apologize, Kevin. Uh, I won't hold my breath or anything. I used to disappointments. I did like the picture you sent me along time ago. Your congregation looked very pleasant and faithful. Oh, well....
...................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), February 03, 2004.

Answer to Catholic #1: 1st Century AD: Pope St. Clement; Letter to the Corinthians 80 AD
Please notice this does NOT give the bishop of Rome any place over any other bishop ? there is also NO MENTION of reinstating their leaders.
John ASSUMES what he must PROVE.
Answer to Catholic # 2: 2nd Century AD: St. Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch 110 AD
Please notice that this presidency is in the location of the COUNTRY OF THE ROMANS and there is NO MENTION that ROME has PRIMACY over any other church location outside of Rome.
Once again, John ASSUMES what he must PROVE.
Answer to Catholic #3: 3rd Century AD: St. Clement of Alexandria 200 AD
Again, John ASSUMES what he must PROVE. There is NO PROOF that Peter was PREEMINENT among the disciples. Obviously the apostles did NOT know that Peter was FIRST for they disputed among themselves who was the greatest. (See Luke 22:24). It is pure FANTASY to suggest that Peter was PREEMINENT among the disciples.
Answer to Catholic # 4: 4th Century AD: Pope St. Damasus I, 382 AD
As the churches began to drift FARTHER and FARTHER from the TRUTH, men begin to EXALT one church over the other. Let John explain WHY the bishop of Rome did NOT call any of the early Church councils???
There is NO PROOF offered from the word of God that Peter ever had PRIMACY over the other apostles.
Answer to Catholic # 5: 4th Century AD: St. Jerome, 387 AD
It is amazing that there is NO PROOF from the word of God that there is even such an office as POPE.
No scriptural support for this office.
Answer to Catholic # 6: 4th Century AD: St. John Cassian, 389 AD
No PROOF from the word of God that what this MAN alleges is true.
Answer to Catholic # 7: 5th Century AD: St. Augustine, 411 AD
Again, NO PROOF from the word of God.
Answer to Catholic # 8: 5th Century AD: Pope St. Leo I, 445 AD
Once again, NO PROOF from the word of God that the Roman bishop is PREEMINENT over the others.
Answer to Catholic # 9: 6th Century AD: Libellus Hormisdae; Signed by 2,500 Eastern Bishops, 519 AD
Again, NO PROOF is offered from the word of God where the Roman bishop has authority over any other bishop or church for that matter.
Answer to Catholic # 10: 7th Century AD: St. Maximos the Confessor, 605 AD
Number 10 still does NOT PROVE that the Roman bishop is head over any of the other bishops.
John wrote, Now, there we have ten Catholics who believed the Pope was the Universal Bishop of the Universal Church and who lived in each of the centuries from the time of Christ up to the time that you said the idea of ?Universal Bishop? was invented in 606 AD.
One might as well wait 500 years and believe what Jim Jones or David Koresh or any other lunatic wrote than what these UNINSPIRED MEN wrote.
John could NOT prove these men were speaking the TRUTH because he has NO SCRIPTURAL support to back up what these men CLAIM.

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), February 03, 2004.

Ah! there's my wishful thinking again.
Correction:
"--you guys do not> consider me a Christian and the Church sure doesn't consider me a Catholic"
.............................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), February 03, 2004.

rod wrote, "Kevin: I believe you make lies with this statement..."
Let's see if that is a true statement rod.
I wrote, "I call a "spade" a "spade" and if you are NOT a Catholic, your posts sure do come across that you are indeed a Catholic. If you are NOT a Catholic, then you would NOT have gone running over to the Catholic forum to get some of your buddies to come over here and cause TROUBLE!!!"
To which you replied, "You must have divine abilities if you can read my mind and heart, Kevin."
I NEVER said that I could "read your mind" or your "heart" now did I rod??? I merely stated a FACT that you did INDEED ask for help from your Catholic buddies. Is this a TRUE statement. Yes it is! No lie here.
You wrote, "The "TROUBLE" was started by your vicious anti-Catholic remarks."
I make "anti-Catholic remarks" because this FALSE CHURCH has been DECEIVING and MURDERING many hundreds of thousands if not millions of INNOCENT Christians throughout the centuries. If my remarks are "vicious" to you it is because it is the "word of God" that CUTS DOWN your FALSE Catholic doctrines. Once again, NO lie here. God said that His word is TRUTH.
You wrote, "Had the remarks been anti-Church of Christ, I would have called in the "CC" men."
This is also NOT true. ALL of your remarks with FEW exceptions, Sola Scriptura, infant baptism, adoration of Mary etc... have been "anti-Church of Christ" becuase they have NO basis in the word of God.
You wrote, "You seem to favor a one-sided debate with the other side tied and bound with a gag. I merely evened the playing field, as any "righteous" player would have."
Who said anything about "favoring a one sided debate"??? Can you read minds now rod??? I merely called a "spade a spade". It is interesting how you mention a "righteous" player. Are you saying that you are "righteous" rod??? Especially since you CLAIM that you are NOT in communion with the Catholic Church???
You wrote, "You must fear the calvary so much to continue rubbing my face in it, again."
I have NO fear of the "calvary" that you brought over here rod. If you haven't noticed already. I do not and will not sit by idly and let these so called Catholic-Christians LIE about the TRUTH of God's word. If I wanted to "rub your face in it, again", I would not hesitate to remind you of this at every opportunity. This I have NOT done.
You wrote, "Now, stop with you lies about my motives."
Did I strike a chord with you rod??? It is obvious that I have for it seems that when someone gets close to the TRUTH with Catholics, the ONLY recourse they have is to LASH out at those who OPPOSE them. I have shown you above that I have NOT lied about your motives.
You wrote, "I thought you were obedient?"
I try to do the best that I can however I am NOT perfect. Even after all I have to obey God, all I can say is, I am an UNPROFITABLE SERVANT. (Luke 17:10).
You wrote, "Bearing false witness is a sin, but are you of the divine nature?"
You most certainly have NOT shown that I have LIED about you so your statement is NOT TRUE. No, I am NOT of the "divine nature".
You wrote, "Faith Buster, you almost had me snared."
If you mean this in the sense that I am a CATHOLIC "Faith Buster", then I would most certainly agree.

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), February 03, 2004.

rod,
Please forgive me for my IGNORANCE.
I did NOT know that if Catholics did NOT take the Eucharist, then they were NOT considered Catholics.
Please accept my APOLOGY.
Yes, I do apologize when I am WRONG.
Are you willing to do the same???

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), February 03, 2004.

Twisty post you've provided, Kevin. Very slippery indeed I might add. No, not a Faith Buster in Catholicism. Faith Buster in Christianity, which also encompasses Catholicism. I can't understand how many diverse beliefs can call themselves "Christian"? God wants us together as one in His Church. This isn't gonna happen anytime soon. Something is definately wrong.
No, Kevin, I don't run and hide from the truth. I go looking for it. I do run and hide from hateful actions and hateful situations.
I'm telling that I didn't bring "TROUBLE" to this forum. I brought answers to your accusations.
So, how much obedience is needed to enter the Kingdom of God, Kevin? Even your doctrine has the hint of fallibility. All doctrines are tainted with its manly fallibility and , guess what?, your church has a doctrine. All churches have doctrines even if they aren't called "doctrine".

..........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), February 03, 2004.

Kevin, yes of course I accept your apology. Believe this or not, there once was a moment of decision to investigate the church of Christ near me. It sounded like something.
I have this tremendous pain for not being in the Catholic Church, but things can't change for me.
I look at all sides of the coin, even the flip side has to have its day.
............................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), February 03, 2004.

rod,
The reason that we have all of these different churches out here and different faiths is that the devil is the one who is causing all of this mayhem. Don't you think that he is behind all of this madness and differing doctrines for all those who claiim to be Christians???
The truth can be found if one searches diligently for it and obeys what God says in His word. There is no measured set amount of obedience that one can attain. If one sincerely seeks to obey God, then that person will do ALL that He requires one to do in order to be saved.
We are human and we ALL stumble and fall however, the key is to do our best after we have become Christians to be ACCEPTABLE to God by growing in grace and knowledge and doing our best to show the fruit of the Spirit in our lives.
If after we have obeyed the gospel, we remain faithful until we die, then we have the hope of heaven to look forward too!!!

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), February 03, 2004.

rod,
As long as you are alive on this earth, there is a chance for you to be saved.
After reading my posts on this forum, there should be No doubt in your mind what you must do in order to be saved. The responsibility rests on YOUR shoulders on whether or not you choose to obey or disobey what God has plainly revealed in His word.
I am sure that it pains you to not be in the Catholic Church, but I can ASSURE YOU that there is NO salvation in the Catholic Church NOR will anyone be saved who is a member of this Church.

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), February 03, 2004.

My apologies, Kevin, for my overly sensitive reactions and rather brutish approach towards you.
For me, I doesn't make much sense to attend the mass if I am not allowed to partake in the Holy Eucharist. I may as well attend a non-Catholic service, 6 of those or half dozen of the other kind of deal.
I once had a discussion with Elpidio in reference to my use of the term "Church". I will always believe in the "Church"--the Early Church that God made. I have spent many hours, days, weeks, and years making the connection with the Catholic Church and my understanding/comprehension of the Early Church. In order to find things out, I must throw things into the mix and learn. Even if this makes me a heretic, so what? The truth is the truth, no matter what.
...........................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), February 03, 2004.

rod,
Apology accepted. :-)
Yes, the truth is the truth however, the ONLY truth worth submitting to is the word of God. What did Jesus say? (see John 17:17).

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), February 03, 2004.

Kevin / rod,
It is incorrect to say that because a person cannot receive the Eucharist he is no longer Catholic.

-- John Miskell (RomanRite@aol.com), February 04, 2004.

Kevin,
YOU made the assertion that the idea of Papal Primacy was INVENTED in 606 AD. I showed you 10 examples of Catholic people who believed in Papal Primacy BEFORE 606 AD. And what is your response?
There is NO PROOF that Peter was PREEMINENT among the disciples.
There is NO PROOF offered from the word of God that Peter ever had PRIMACY over the other apostles.
It is amazing that there is NO PROOF from the word of God that there is even such an office as POPE.
No scriptural support for this office.
No PROOF from the word of God that what this MAN alleges is true.
Again, NO PROOF from the word of God.
Once again, NO PROOF from the word of God that the Roman bishop is PREEMINENT over the others.
Again, NO PROOF is offered from the word of God where the Roman bishop has authority over any other bishop or church for that matter.
In other words you don’t care what Christians wrote prior to 606 AD, you’re just going to stick to your false assertion and when evidence to the contrary is offered you resort to your mantra about it not being in the Word of God. That’s pretty lame Kevin
The fact is we Catholics believe the primacy of Peter is abundantly clear in the Word of God and you don’t. So what makes YOUR interpretation of Scripture better than the interpretation of the Catholic Church?

-- John Miskell (RomanRite@aol.com), February 04, 2004.

"In other words you don?t care what Christians wrote prior to 606 AD"
You took the words right out of my mouth.
EXACTLY!!!

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), February 04, 2004.

"The fact is we Catholics believe the primacy of Peter is abundantly clear in the Word of God and you don?t."
The word of God is CLEAR that Peter did NOT have any "primacy" over the other apostles. Catholics take ONE passage and TWIST it to make it say something that it does NOT say. The church of Christ is NOT built upon Peter, but on the CONFESSION that "Jesus Christ is the Son of God"!!!
"So what makes YOUR interpretation of Scripture better than the interpretation of the Catholic Church?"
For the simple reason that my interpretation AGREES with what God has PLAINLY stated in His word. Catholics say that interpretation of God's word is IMPOSSIBLE without an interpreter. However, God said that it IS POSSIBLE to UNDERSTAND the Scriptures WITHOUT an interpreter.

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), February 04, 2004.

KEVIN: For the simple reason that my interpretation AGREES with what God has PLAINLY stated in His word.
JOHN: In other words it is so because you say it is so. I on the other had believe that MY interpretation AGREES with what God has PLAINLY stated in His Word. Do the Scriptures plainly tell us how we can overcome this difficulty?
KEVIN: Catholics say that interpretation of God's word is IMPOSSIBLE without an interpreter.
JOHN: Not an interpreter but a guide to proper interpretation. When you leave each chapter and verse up to the individuals own interpretation you end up with a half-dozen CC’s and another 30,000 Protestant sects all claiming as you do to have the interpretation that ‘AGREES with what God has PLAINLY stated in His word.’ David Ortiz has come to his (misguided) beliefs based upon his interpretation of the Word. You have come to your beliefs based upon your interpretation of the Word. If both of you claim the guidance of the Holy Spirit in understanding the Word then why don’t you believe exactly alike? How could it be that David so sincerely follows what he believes to be the guidance of the Holy Spirit in determining what the Word of God says to us while you do not even consider him a Christian based upon your own understanding of the same Scriptures? Seems a bit problematic.
KEVIN: However, God said that it IS POSSIBLE to UNDERSTAND the Scriptures WITHOUT an interpreter.’
JOHN: Yes it is; and it’s best to have a guide to ensure you stay on the mark.
And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest? And he said, How can I, EXCEPT SOME MAN SHOULD GUIDE ME? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him. [Acts 8:30-31, KJV]

-- John Miskell (RomanRite@aol.com), February 05, 2004.

JOHN: In other words you don’t care what Christians wrote prior to 606 AD
KEVIN: You took the words right out of my mouth. EXACTLY!!!
JOHN: On January 22nd Kevin said; The first Pope was designated by Emperor Phocus in A.D. 606.
JOHN: On February 2nd Kevin said; The ONLY historical FACT that matters is the TRUTH that the Roman Catholic Church did NOT begin on the day of Pentecost in 33 AD as Catholics allege however this PAGAN Church began in 606 AD when the Boniface III assumed the title as UNIVERSAL BISHOP and he became the FIRST Pope of the Catholic Church.
JOHN: YOU were the one who introduced the year 606 into the debate and then you brought it up again when you thought it would serve your purposes.
In other words YOU COULD NOT DEFEND YOUR POSITION USING THE BIBLE ALONE!
And only after I DESTROYED your bizzar assertion that the papacy was invented in 606 AD by using historical facts against you NOW you retract and say it doesn’t matter.
Up until this point I thought maybe you were sincere about exchanging ideas with me (although I was getting suspicious long ago) I see now that you are either not interested in the truth or you just can’t see the truth. You’re arguing just for the sake of arguing. Either way the result is the same. I therefore declare victory; shake the dust from my feet; and I will follow the advice given in Titus 3:10. Be assured of my prayers.

-- John Miskell (RomanRite@aol.com), February 05, 2004.

I wrote, "For the simple reason that my interpretation AGREES with what God has PLAINLY stated in His word."
To which John replied, "In other words it is so because you say it is so. I on the other had believe that MY interpretation AGREES with what God has PLAINLY stated in His Word. Do the Scriptures plainly tell us how we can overcome this difficulty?"
Paul taught by inspiration that we are not to remain unwise, but understand what the will of the Lord is (Ephesians 5:17). A true student of the Bible is required by God to "prove all things" and hold fast to the truth (1 Thessalonians 5:21). The apostle John told us that we could KNOW the "spirit of truth" and the "spirit of error" for he PLAINLY stated in 1 John 4:6, "We are of God. HE WHO KNOWS GOD HEARS US; HE WHO IS NOT OF GOD DOES NOT HEAR US. BY THIS WE KNOW THE SPIRIT OF TRUTH AND THE SPIRIT OF ERROR."
Those who HEAR the APOSTLES WORDS are those who are said to be of the "spirit of truth". Jesus also AGREED with this statement when He said in Luke 10:16, "He who hears YOU hears Me, he who rejects YOU rejects Me, and he who rejects Me rejects Him who sent Me."
Those who LISTEN and OBEY the words of the apostles and inspired men who wrote the Bible are those who are of the TRUTH.
Your (and the Catholic Church) interpretation does NOT agree with the word of God on MANY subjects so the Catholic Church MUST BE the "spirit of error".
I wrote, "Catholics say that interpretation of God's word is IMPOSSIBLE without an interpreter."
To which John replied, "Not an interpreter but a guide to proper interpretation. When you leave each chapter and verse up to the individuals own interpretation you end up with a half-dozen CC?s and another 30,000 Protestant sects all claiming as you do to have the interpretation that ?AGREES with what God has PLAINLY stated in His word.? David Ortiz has come to his (misguided) beliefs based upon his interpretation of the Word. You have come to your beliefs based upon your interpretation of the Word. If both of you claim the guidance of the Holy Spirit in understanding the Word then why don?t you believe exactly alike? How could it be that David so sincerely follows what he believes to be the guidance of the Holy Spirit in determining what the Word of God says to us while you do not even consider him a Christian based upon your own understanding of the same Scriptures? Seems a bit problematic."
Please notice that NOT ONCE did John provide one scripture verse to substantiate his claim that a "guide to proper interpretation" is REQUIRED for one to become a Christian. The ONLY thing "problematic" I see here is those who REFUSE to OBEY the TRUTH of the GOSPEL when it is presented to them for it is the GOSPEL (Romans 1:16), that is God's POWER to salvation and NOT the Catholic Church.
I wrote, "However, God said that it IS POSSIBLE to UNDERSTAND the Scriptures WITHOUT an interpreter."
To which John replied, "Yes it is; and it?s best to have a guide to ensure you stay on the mark."
There is NO MENTION of a "guide" needed NOR required in order to UNDERSTAND the word of God.
John wrote, "And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest? And he said, How can I, EXCEPT SOME MAN SHOULD GUIDE ME? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him. [Acts 8:30-31, KJV]"
Please notice that John gives the "oft repeated" argument that since the Ethiopian Eunuch required someone to teach him to understand that we ALL require someone to teach us to understand the word of God. What John and those who teach this erroneous doctrine FAIL to tell you is that the New Testament was NOT around back in those times for the Eunuch to refer to in order to understand what he was reading in the book if Isaiah. When the church began on the day of Pentecost, the early Christians did NOT have the Bible to rely on, they had the Apostles who gave them the word of God ORALLY. Now that we have NO more Apostles alive to give the word of God ORALLY, we must RELY on the words that they and those who were inspired to write down for us ALL that God required for us to know in order to be saved and prepared for every good work.
John wrote, "YOU were the one who introduced the year 606 into the debate and then you brought it up again when you thought it would serve your purposes. In other words YOU COULD NOT DEFEND YOUR POSITION USING THE BIBLE ALONE!"
Please explain to everyone here John where the title of "Pope" appears in BIBLE??? If it does NOT appear there, then this "office" is of MEN and NOT of God. One CANNOT defend something that is NOT in the Bible to begin with...
John wrote, "And only after I DESTROYED your bizzar assertion that the papacy was invented in 606 AD by using historical facts against you NOW you retract and say it doesn?t matter."
This is a nice ASSERTION "And only after I DESTROYED..." but once again, your words do NOT speak the TRUTH for you did NOT destroy anything for those men that you quoted did NOT one time reference the word of God NOR did they make an attempt to PROVE from the Bible that the office of Pope was head over the church that Jesus built.
I didn't RETRACT and say it "doesn't matter". If you are going to quote me, please get it right. Here is what you said, "In other words you don't care what Christians wrote prior to 606 AD" to which I replied, "You took the words right out of my mouth." Then I said, "EXACTLY!!!" Please explain where the RETRACTION is in these words of mine??? John wrote, "Up until this point I thought maybe you were sincere about exchanging ideas with me (although I was getting suspicious long ago) I see now that you are either not interested in the truth or you just can?t see the truth."
The TRUTH most certainly does NOT reside in the Catholic Church. This CORRUPT organization has NO resemblance to the church we read of in the New Testament and her FALSE DOCTRINES are leading many people on the broad path that leads to destruction.
John wrote, "You?re arguing just for the sake of arguing. Either way the result is the same. I therefore declare victory; shake the dust from my feet; and I will follow the advice given in Titus 3:10. Be assured of my prayers."
No, I am NOT "arguing just for the sake of arguing" as you once again ASSERT with NO PROOF offered. I am doing the best that I can to "persuade men" (2 Corinthians 5:11) that they should OBEY THE GOSPEL. (2 Thessalonians 1:7-9). You can "declare victory" all that you want however that is NOT the TRUTH for you have NOT even PROVEN that the office of Pope was ever listed in the Bible so how you can "declare victory"???
Hello???

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), February 06, 2004.

Okay Kevin, even though I said I was done with you I’ll bite.
You go on a long diatribe that does NOTHING to show why your interpretation is any better than mine. Sure you say what a true student of the Bible… must do and of course by your reckoning you are the true student of the Bible. Of course you still can’t show us what it is that makes YOUR interpretations any better than mine. Or for that matter why is YOUR interpretation any better than that of a Baptist?
A funny thing is that in your attempt to prove you are that true student of the Bible… that you claim to be you use verses that say things like; We are of God. HE WHO KNOWS GOD HEARS US; HE WHO IS NOT OF GOD DOES NOT HEAR US……. Those who HEAR the APOSTLES WORDS are those who are said to be of the spirit of truth… and He who hears YOU hears Me… and you say Those who LISTEN and OBEY the words of the apostles and inspired men who wrote the Bible are those who are of the TRUTH.
Notice the absense of the words; ‘He who READS our words…’ The emphasis is placed upon LISTENING to their guides.
You go on to say; Your (and the Catholic Church) interpretation does NOT agree with the word of God on MANY subjects so the Catholic Church MUST BE the spirit of error. To which I respond by saying that I believe the Catholic interpretation is absolutely correct and that you haven’t presented an iota of evidence to the contrary.
Then you go on to say; Please notice that NOT ONCE did John provide one scripture verse to substantiate his claim that a ‘guide to proper interpretation’ is REQUIRED for one to become a Christian…
You attribute to me something that I did not say so you’re either being dishonest or ignorant. Which is it? I said a guide is necessary to properly understand the Scriptures, not that having a guide is required to be a Christian. An illiterate person who cannot read the Bible certainly could be a Christian. Does your interpretation of the Bible ever conflict with the elders of your church? Do they help you understand the Bible? Don’t the CC’s train their elders to a certain standard?
Then you go on to say Please notice that John gives the "oft repeated" argument that since the Ethiopian Eunuch required someone to teach him to understand that we ALL require someone to teach us to understand the word of God.
Kevin, can you cite a verse that says ANYONE can fully understand Scripture without a guide. After all, the story of the Ethiopian Eunuch says that a guide is needed. You try to explain this difficulty away by saying; What John and those who teach this erroneous doctrine FAIL to tell you is that the New Testament was NOT around back in those times for the Eunuch to refer to in order to understand what he was reading in the book if Isaiah. Here again I see you using selective reasoning. Earlier you tried using 2 Timothy 3:15-17 to make your case for sola-scriptura. …and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus…
Now WHICH Scriptures was Paul writing to Timothy about? The Old Testament; these were the only Scriptures Timothy could have known since his childhood. So if we extend your logic, all we need to know Jesus is the Old Testament. You cannot have it both ways.
And finally you say Please explain to everyone here John where the title of "Pope" appears in BIBLE??? To which I will respond one more time. The word ‘Pope’ is an Italo-Latin word meaning FATHER…. Does the word FATHER appear anywhere in the Bible Kevin?
Webster’s says:
POPE: Pronunciation: 'pOp Function: noun Etymology: Middle English, from Old English pApa, from Late Latin papa, from Greek pappas, papas, title of bishops, literally, papa.
In Spanish, Pope is rendered; El Papa, French, Le Pape, Italian, Il Papa, Portuguese, O Papa, all meaning papa or father.
The following are just a few examples from the King James Version.
As he spake to our FATHERS, to Abraham Luke 1:55 The oath which he sware to our FATHER Abraham Luke 1:73 And he said, Nay, FATHER Abraham Luke 16:30 Your FATHER Abraham rejoiced to see my day John 8:56 The God of glory appeared unto our FATHER Abraham Acts 7:2 What shall we say then that Abraham our FATHER Romans 4:1 Was not Abraham our FATHER justified by works James 2:21 Fill ye up then the measure of your FATHERS Matthew 23:32 [T]o turn the hearts of the FATHERS to the children Luke 1:17 As he spake to our FATHERS Luke 1:55 To perform the mercy promised to our FATHERS Luke 1:72 [F]or in the like manner did their FATHERS unto the prophets Luke 6:23 [S]o did their FATHERS to the false prophets. Luke 6:26 Our FATHERS worshipped in this mountain John 4:20 Our FATHERS did eat manna in the desert John 6:31 Your FATHERS did eat manna in the wilderness John 6:49 [N]ot because it is of Moses, but of the FATHERS John 7:22 For Moses truly said unto the FATHERS Acts 3:22 And he said, Men, brethren, and FATHERS Acts 7:2 Men, brethren, and FATHERS, hear ye my defence Acts 22:1 And, ye FATHERS, provoke not your children to wrath Ephesians 6:4 FATHERS, provoke not your children to anger. Colossians 3:21 I write unto you, FATHERS 1 John 2:13 I have written unto you, FATHERS 1 John 2:14
So Kevin, does the title Pope appear in the Bible? You betcha.

-- John Miskell (RomanRite@aol.com), February 07, 2004.

OFF

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), February 07, 2004.

Yikes, I really messed that one up..... sorry

-- John Miskell (RomanRite@aol.com), February 07, 2004.

John wrote, "Okay Kevin, even though I said I was done with you I'll bite."
This reply sure doesn't sound like someone who has "declared victory" now does it???
John wrote, "You go on a long diatribe that does NOTHING to show why your interpretation is any better than mine."
Of course John does NOT bother to PROVE that what I said was not correct, all he does is complain about my "long diatribe that does NOTHING..." This does NOT surprise me in the least.
John wrote, "Sure you say what a true student of the Bible? must do and of course by your reckoning you are the true student of the Bible. Of course you still can?t show us what it is that makes YOUR interpretations any better than mine. Or for that matter why is YOUR interpretation any better than that of a Baptist?"
Once again, NOTHING from John to CORRECT what I wrote. John has to rely on the Catholic Church to tell him what to believe!!! They don't need God, they have the Catholic Church!!! John, you can NEVER question the Catholic Church's authority, because they are "infallible" is this a TRUE statement??? The Church is the People, not some institution like the Catholic Church. Who are we mere men to think that we can question what God has PLAINLY revealed in His word? Only the Catholic Church makes such boastful claims that they are infallible, or they alone can interpret, etc. I believe that when God speaks he means what He says. What is the God's power to salvation John??? Is it the Catholic Church, or can the gospel be found in the word of God??? I don't need an interpreter to tell me what to believe and neither does anyone else who has a brain that can think for themselves.
John wrote, "A funny thing is that in your attempt to prove you are that true student of the Bible? that you claim to be you use verses that say things like; then he quoted my words and said, "Notice the absense of the words; ?He who READS our words?? The emphasis is placed upon LISTENING to their guides."
Here John FINALLY gets around to making an attempt to show that I did not know what I was talking about in my last post. However, please NOTICE that John states that "The emphasis is placed upon LISTENING to their guides." There is NO MENTION of having to "LISTEN" to any guides??? The apostles words are WRITTEN down for us in the New Testament and it is OUR responsibility to UNDERSTAND what they wrote. Faith comes by what??? (see Romans 10:17).
I wrote, "Your (and the Catholic Church) interpretation does NOT agree with the word of God on MANY subjects so the Catholic Church MUST BE the spirit of error."
To which John replied, "To which I respond by saying that I believe the Catholic interpretation is absolutely correct and that you haven?t presented an iota of evidence to the contrary."
Okay John, let's take a look at the gospel and see if the Catholic Church's interpretation is correct. Please explain to me what is the gospel and what one must do in order to obey the gospel according to the Catholic Church and we will see if that is in accordance with what God has SPECIFICALLY stated in His word. If I can show you that you are WRONG will you CHANGE your beliefs??? I have REPEATEDLY and will CONTINUE to say that if someone can show me how my own interpretation does NOT agree with the word of God, then I will CHANGE my beliefs.
John wrote, You attribute to me something that I did not say so you?re either being dishonest or ignorant. Which is it? I said a guide is necessary to properly understand the Scriptures, not that having a guide is required to be a Christian. An illiterate person who cannot read the Bible certainly could be a Christian. Does your interpretation of the Bible ever conflict with the elders of your church? Do they help you understand the Bible? Don?t the CC?s train their elders to a certain standard?
No, I was NOT trying to be dishonest NOR am I ignorant as you claim. I notice that you did NOT bother to comment when you did NOT quote my words accurately. I did NOT call you dishonest or ignorant. The FACT of the matter is that the Catholic Church CLAIMS to be the sole INTERPRETER of scripture and since this is the case, then the Catholic Church DICTATES (by their OWN INTERPRETATION) what someone MUST DO in order to become a Christian and there is NOTHING dishonest or ignorant of my claim. No, my interpretation has NOT conflicted with the elders of my church and NO, there is NO certain standard of training for elders and since the elders are teachers, YES they do help us understand the Bible.
The Catholic Church doctrine of an "infallible interpreter" or "guide" as you say is a LIE that you choose to believe that has NO scriptural support.
It implies that the people are too ignorant to understand the Word of God.
Was God in His infinite wisdom unable to make us clearly understand His Word without an interpreter? I think not.
The Bible teaches that each individual is responsible for himself and is not to blindly follow religious leaders. Jesus said in Matthew 7:15, "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves"
The Bible NOWHERE implies that one is dependent on the Catholic Church for interpretation, it commands the individual Christian to test every teacher by the written word (1 John 4:1, Acts 17:11, 1 Thessalonians 5:21).
When the Jews relied on their priests to interpret the word of God, this ultimately led them to CRUCIFY the Son of God.
John wrote, "Kevin, can you cite a verse that says ANYONE can fully understand Scripture without a guide."
When we read the things the apostles and inspired men wrote, WE CAN UNDERSTAND their knowledge in the mystery of Christ (Ephesians 3:3-4).
The apostle Paul certainly thought that what was WRITTEN could be UNDERSTOOD.
"Therefore do not be unwise, but understand what the will of the Lord is." (Ephesians 5:17).
ALL things of the will of Christ are recorded in the Written NT of Christ (2 Timothy 3:16-17; 2 Peter 1:3).
John wrote, "After all, the story of the Ethiopian Eunuch says that a guide is needed. You try to explain this difficulty away by saying; What John and those who teach this erroneous doctrine FAIL to tell you is that the New Testament was NOT around back in those times for the Eunuch to refer to in order to understand what he was reading in the book if Isaiah. Here again I see you using selective reasoning."
No, this is NOT "selective reasoning" as John ASSERTS. I wish I had a quarter for every time a Catholic made an ASSERTION without offering any PROOF. Was the New Testament around when the Eunuch was reading the book of Isaiah??? A simple yes or no would have sufficed however John does NOT bother to PROVE that I was wrong in what I wrote, he merely makes a TYPICAL Catholic DODGE and does NOT answer the point that I made.
John wrote, "Earlier you tried using 2 Timothy 3:15-17 to make your case for sola-scriptura. ?and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus?Now WHICH Scriptures was Paul writing to Timothy about? The Old Testament; these were the only Scriptures Timothy could have known since his childhood. So if we extend your logic, all we need to know Jesus is the Old Testament. You cannot have it both ways. "
Paul told Timothy, "For from thy infancy thou hast known the Sacred Writings, which are able to instruct thee unto salvation by the faith which is in Christ Jesus." (2 Timothy 3:15). Consequently, according to an inspired apostle, one can save his soul just by the Scriptures. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 says, "All Scripture is inspired by God and useful for teaching, for reproving, for correcting, for instruction in justice, that the man of God may be perfect, equipped for every good work."
Please take note of this as Paul's own writings are included as "SCRIPTURE" as shown by Peter (2 Peter 3:15-16). So to claim that the "Old Testament; these were the only Scriptures Timothy could have known since his childhood" is NOT true.
The Scriptures contain EVERYTHING that is necessary to equip the man of God for EVERY good work. There is not a solitary good work that the Christian can do which is not provided in the Scriptures.
If men are doing things which are not revealed in the Scriptures, they cannot be good works in God's sight.
John 20:30-31 says, "Many other signs also Jesus worked in the sight of his disciples, which are not written in this book, but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name."
The apostle John clearly shows that the things which he wrote were given to produce the faith which brings life in the name of Jesus. Life in the name of Jesus refers to eternal life and it is obtained by belief in the things written by the apostles and inspired writers.
I wrote, "Please explain to everyone here John where the title of "Pope" appears in BIBLE???"
To which John replied, "The word 'Pope' is an Italo-Latin word meaning FATHER?. Does the word FATHER appear anywhere in the Bible Kevin?"
Please explain to everyone here John WHY the translators of the Bible did NOT translate the word "FATHER" to appear in the Bible as "POPE"???
John wrote, "So Kevin, does the title Pope appear in the Bible? You betcha."
Matthew 23:9 expressly FORBIDS calling any man "FATHER" as a title of religious honor. Yet the word "Pope" originally meant "Father" as John claims.
Catholic Popes and Priests wear the very title that Jesus FORBADE!!
This is TYPICAL for the Catholic Church who has NO RESPECT for the word of God.

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), February 07, 2004.

Kevin goes on the usual diatribe around the scripture that says "call no man father". If find it funny that Kevin sets himself up as the sole infallible authority as to what verses should be interpreted literally and what verses are not literal. For example, he would argue that John 6:53 "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life within you" is only symbolic.
Now getting back to Kevin's point, one can argue that Jesus was speaking figuratively and telling people not to exalt themselves and seek places and titles of honor. I would rather call a humble priest father than an arogant baptist pastor Charlie. But given Kevin's argument I want to point out an inconsistency that I see. I have been in many so called "bible believing" churches where the pastor has been referred to as Doctor so and so. This is clearly against scripture no matter how we interpret it. First of all, the same verse say's call no man teacher, and doctor is latin for teacher. Second, many people use the title doctor to lord it over other people. The use the title to suggest that they are more intellegent or have more wisdom than other, to set themselves apart and above the crowd. So Kevin, if you are going to rail against calling people father I hope you will be consisent and not call people doctor either.

-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), February 08, 2004.

The pastor's habit of wearing his suit and tie is another tradition that will engrave itself in the culture. There are other icons to be found in the non-Catholic rituals. We could call them "parts of the service". Perhaps some are found in Scriptures, but some are also man-made. Just because these rituals are modern-day practices and look and feel touchy-feely is no reason to accept them over real traditional rituals, which the Catholic Church has maintained. People should stand back and have a strong look at what they are actually doing in their worship routines, then they should compare them to the rituals they criticize.
...................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), February 08, 2004.

rod, traditions are ok, as long as they go with the Word of God. The traditions of Rome DO NOT go with the Word of God.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), February 08, 2004.

I have heard America referred to as "The New Babylon". America is the land of the free, which also includes the freedom of religion. That religion may be true or false. So, which traditions are ok? Are those traditions that are not Catholic the only ones that are ok to have?
It would be kind of interesting to have a list of all the traditions related to the different denominations and faith systems in order to learn of their validity or folly. Would you agree, David?
..................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), February 08, 2004.

James wrote, "Kevin goes on the usual diatribe around the scripture that says "call no man father"."
The ONLY "diatribe" here is that I showed SCRIPTURE that CLEARLY REFUTES the Catholic Church in that they DISOBEY God's COMMAND to "call no man father."
James wrote, "If find it funny that Kevin sets himself up as the sole infallible authority as to what verses should be interpreted literally and what verses are not literal."
Please explain to everyone here James what causes one to THINK that this verse should be interpreted "figuratively" and not "literal"???
James wrote, "For example, he would argue that John 6:53 "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life within you" is only symbolic."
Because this verse IS SYMBOLIC for the very reason that Christians are NOT CANNIBALS. We are COMMANDED to "abstain from blood" Acts 15:20 and Catholics claim that the Eucharist LITERALLY becomes Jesus body and blood. This CLEARLY goes against scripture once again and PROVES that Catholics have NO REGARD for the words of God. The Lord's Supper is a MEMORIAL and that is ALL. We are commanded to partake of the Lord's Supper ONLY to REMEMBER Jesus death for Paul said in 1 Corinthians 11:26, "For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you PROCLAIM THE LORD'S DEATH TILL HE COMES."
Catholics CLAIM that John 6:53 is LITERAL, but IGNORE other verses which PLAINLY refute this IGNORANT claim. Jesus CLEARLY REFUTES the idea that we are to LITERALLY eat His body and blood in John 6:63 when he states, "It is THE SPIRIT WHO GIVES LIFE; THE FLESH PROFITS NOTHING."
James wrote, "Now getting back to Kevin's point, one can argue that Jesus was speaking figuratively and telling people not to exalt themselves and seek places and titles of honor."
Once again, let James PROVE that Jesus was speaking "figuratively" in this verse.
James wrote, "I would rather call a humble priest father than an arogant baptist pastor Charlie."
James does NOT give ANY scriptural references that give us ANY AUTHORITY to call a priest "father". Much less to PROVE that Catholic priests are "humble". He calls baptist pastors "arrogant" but does not give ANY justification for his view. This is TYPICAL of Catholics who make a lot of ASSERTIONS but very seldom do they bother to PROVE their accusations.
James wrote, "But given Kevin's argument I want to point out an inconsistency that I see. I have been in many so called "bible believing" churches where the pastor has been referred to as Doctor so and so. This is clearly against scripture no matter how we interpret it."
If a "pastor" in a church has EARNED the TITLE of DR by going to COLLEGE and EARNING his degree, there is NOTHING WRONG with being called DR now is there James??? This does NOT go against scripture and I CHALLENGE you James to PROVE that this is indeed the case. The title of DR has NOTHING to do with the title "father" and all James is trying to do is CONFUSE those who don't know any better. Let's let James EXPLAIN how someone can go to school, earn their doctorate and not have someone use this in their name. Readers, there is NOTHING WRONG with using the TITLE of DOCTOR in your name, especially if you have taken the time to EARN this degree.
James continued, "First of all, the same verse say's call no man teacher, and doctor is latin for teacher."
Now James makes an attempt to use a LATIN word to EXPLAIN an English word. This is TYPICAL of Catholics who CANNOT prove their doctrines from the word of God. They have to go search for something that will PROVE their doctrine that is OUTSIDE of scripture.
James wrote, "Second, many people use the title doctor to lord it over other people. The use the title to suggest that they are more intellegent or have more wisdom than other, to set themselves apart and above the crowd."
Once again, let's let James PROVE that "many people" use the title of "doctor" to "lord it over other people". He makes another ASSERTION, but does LITTLE in the way of offering any PROOF.
James wrote, "So Kevin, if you are going to rail against calling people father I hope you will be consisent and not call people doctor either."
If a person has EARNED the title of "DOCTOR", there is NOTHING WRONG with using it when speaking to them.

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

I earned the title "Hey You".
....................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), February 10, 2004.

The question is whether the passage that says "call no man father" is to be taken literally or figuratively. According to Kevin's logic only the english version of father is prohibited. Therefore, I may not call my pastor Father Tim, but Padre Tim would be appropriate. I guess it would probably be illegal to call him Padre Tim if we were in a Spanish speaking country, but then I guess Father Tim would then be appropriate. This is logical argument of Kevin's reasoning regarding call no man doctor.
Doctor is latin for teacher, the Bible says call no man teacher. Either you believe that the Bible is true or you don't. If we are to call no man teacher then it would seem appropriate not to use the word teacher in any language. So, yes Kevin there is something very wrong with calling a pastor Doctor, the Bible says not too. If you are going to interpret that passage literally, then interpret it literally. You can't have it both ways, you can't say that calling someone Father is bad, but calling someone Teacher is good. Make up your mind.
Kevin says:
"Let's let James EXPLAIN how someone can go to school, earn their doctorate and not have someone use this in their name. "
Let me give you a personal illustration. I have an earned doctorate, it is a Ph.D in economics. Most people at my church do not even know that I have a doctorate, it is not something that I choose to advertise. The reason I do this is because I've seen too many people, today and in all of my days as a student who use the title doctor to puff themselves up. One of the messages that Jesus tries to tell us in the gospel is that we are to conduct our affairs with humility. I don't necessarily think it is wrong if someone calls me doctor, because Jesus was talking figuratively in that passage, but for those people who insist that the passage should be literal, they should be consistent.
Kevin says:
Once again, let's let James PROVE that "many people" use the title of "doctor" to "lord it over other people".
Since I teach in a university with a lot of other Ph.D's all I can say is that I find very little humility among our doctors. Many people get visibly offended if you don't call them doctor. From my experience, and I don't have quantitative evidence, some of the dumbest people I know have Ph.D's and some of the wisest never completed high school. A lot of the people I know use the title doctor to set themselves above the crowd and there can be a subtle form of intimidation that is used here. After all, if I am a doctor I must know what I am talking about. I wish you could point me to a bunch of humble people with doctorates, because I know very few of them.
Let me also correct a mistake, I didn't mean to imply that all Catholic priests are humble and all Baptist pastors are arogant. I apologize for the confusion. My point was that we are to conduct our affairs with humility and the titles we use are not necessarily related to the titles we use. Even though I don't use the title doctor, I still can be arogant at times. The title is not as important as the condition of our soul.

-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), February 10, 2004.

KEVIN: The ONLY "diatribe" here is that I showed SCRIPTURE that CLEARLY REFUTES the Catholic Church in that they DISOBEY God's COMMAND to "call no man father."
JOHN: Does the apostle John disobey the Word of God when he writes?; I have written unto you, FATHERS, because ye have known him that is from the beginning. [1 John 2:14, KJV]
If not, why not?
KEVIN: If a person has EARNED the title of "DOCTOR", there is NOTHING WRONG with using it when speaking to them.
JOHN: You offered no PROOF from the Word of God that there is nothing wrong with calling a person doctor if he has earned the title doctor.
KEVIN: Now James makes an attempt to use a LATIN word to EXPLAIN an English word. This is TYPICAL of Catholics who CANNOT prove their doctrines from the word of God.
JOHN: The earliest manuscripts of the Bible written in ENGLISH?

-- John Miskell (RomanRite@aol.com), February 10, 2004.

James,
If "doctor" = "teacher", then please explain why the translators of the Bible did NOT translate the word "teacher" as "doctor"??? Yes, I agree the word of God says that we are to call no man "teacher" however, this does NOT mean that we CANNOT call men "doctor". The term "doctor" is a TITLE that men EARN by going to school, and it does NOT INFER that these people are "teachers" according to the word of God.
For your information James, I did NOT say that ONLY the "english version of father is prohibited" now did I??? My point to you is that the translators did NOT translate the word "father" to mean "pope" and once again you are trying to CONFUSE people. Does the Catholic Bible have the word "Pope" in it??? I am sure that your Catholic translators did NOT translate the word "father" to mean "pope" OR "teacher" to mean "doctor", so your argument FALLS flat on it's face.
I wrote, "Let's let James EXPLAIN how someone can go to school, earn their doctorate and not have someone use this in their name."
To which James replied, "Let me give you a personal illustration. I have an earned doctorate, it is a Ph.D in economics. Most people at my church do not even know that I have a doctorate, it is not something that I choose to advertise."
Congrats James, not very many people earn this title.
James wrote, "The reason I do this is because I've seen too many people, today and in all of my days as a student who use the title doctor to puff themselves up."
Just becuase you have "seen too many people" "puff themselves up" does NOT make the use of this title WRONG. Yes, there are people in the world who are very PRIDEFUL however that is NO JUSTIFICATION to completely FORBID the use of this TITLE. Your example PROVES that there are people in this world who do NOT use this title to "puff themselves up".
James wrote, "One of the messages that Jesus tries to tell us in the gospel is that we are to conduct our affairs with humility. I don't necessarily think it is wrong if someone calls me doctor, because Jesus was talking figuratively in that passage, but for those people who insist that the passage should be literal, they should be consistent."
Once again, you make a distinction between "doctor" and "teacher" when the translators of the Bible did NO SUCH THING. I know of NO reputable translation that translates the words "teacher" to mean "doctor" do you???
I wrote, "Once again, let's let James PROVE that "many people" use the title of "doctor" to "lord it over other people"."
To which James replied, "Since I teach in a university with a lot of other Ph.D's all I can say is that I find very little humility among our doctors. Many people get visibly offended if you don't call them doctor. From my experience, and I don't have quantitative evidence, some of the dumbest people I know have Ph.D's and some of the wisest never completed high school. A lot of the people I know use the title doctor to set themselves above the crowd and there can be a subtle form of intimidation that is used here. After all, if I am a doctor I must know what I am talking about. I wish you could point me to a bunch of humble people with doctorates, because I know very few of them."
Thank you James for expounding on your earlier statement. Yes, some people who earn their doctorate do "lord it over" other people, however that is NO justification that one CANNOT use this term when greeting these people especially since they have EARNED IT.
John wrote, "Does the apostle John disobey the Word of God when he writes?; I have written unto you, FATHERS, because ye have known him that is from the beginning. [1 John 2:14, KJV] If not, why not?"
No the apostle John does NOT "disobey the Word of God" in this passage because he is NOT talking about "fathers" in a religious sense now is he John???
I wrote, "If a person has EARNED the title of "DOCTOR", there is NOTHING WRONG with using it when speaking to them."
To which John replied, "You offered no PROOF from the Word of God that there is nothing wrong with calling a person doctor if he has earned the title doctor."
Since the term "doctor" CANNOT be found in the word of God, then there is NOTHING WRONG with using this term now is there John??? Hello???
I wrote, "Now James makes an attempt to use a LATIN word to EXPLAIN an English word. This is TYPICAL of Catholics who CANNOT prove their doctrines from the word of God."
To which John replied, "The earliest manuscripts of the Bible written in ENGLISH?"
I NEVER said that the earlies manuscripts of the Bible were written in "ENGLISH" now did I John???

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), February 10, 2004.

KEVIN: No the apostle John does NOT "disobey the Word of God" in this passage because he is NOT talking about "fathers" in a religious sense now is he John???
JOHN: Ummm, Kevin, he’s referring to the elders of the Church as fathers so yes he is talking about fathers in a religious sense. Sheesh.
Also, Acts 7:2: Peter called the elders of the Church ‘fathers’
Philippians 2:22 Paul calls himself Timothy’s ‘father’
1 Thess. 2:11 Paul describes himself as their father.
Throughout the Bible Abraham is called father. Is Abraham’s title used in a religious or biological sense
KEVIN: Since the term "doctor" CANNOT be found in the word of God, then there is NOTHING WRONG with using this term now is there John??? Hello???
JOHN: Hello??? ‘Doctor’ is used in a religious sense in the KJV New Testamsnt on three occasions. The first is in Luke 2:46; (Now pay attention please)
‘And it came to pass, that after three days they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the DOCTORS, both hearing them, and asking them questions.’ [Luke 2:46. KJV]
According to Strong’s Concordance the Greek word that the KJV translators render as ‘doctors’ in this verse is didaskalos meaning a TEACHER.
The word didaskalos is found 10 times elsewhere in the NT; John 3:2…. Acts 13:1… Romans 2:20… 1 Corinthians 12:28… 1 Corinthians 12:29… Ephesians 4:11… 1 Timothy 2:7… 2 Timothy 1:11… 2 Timothy 4:3… and Hebrews 5:12.
Oddly enough the KJV translators render didaskalos as TEACHER in those 10 verses.
So you see Kevin even according to the King James Bible, the words DOCTOR and TEACHER are INTERCHANGEABLE.
Furthermore in Luke 5:17 and Acts 5:34 of the KJV we read the following;
‘And it came to pass on a certain day, as he was teaching, that there were Pharisees and DOCTORS of the law sitting by, which were come out of every town of Galilee, and Judaea, and Jerusalem: and the power of the Lord was [present] to heal them.’ [Luke 5:17, KJV]
‘Then stood there up one in the council, a Pharisee, named Gamaliel, a doctor of the law, had in reputation among all the people, and commanded to put the apostles forth a little space’ [Acts 5:34, KJV]
According to Strong’s, the Greek word that the KJV translators render as ‘doctor’ in these two verse is; nomodidaskalos or in English; a TEACHER and interpreter of the law; among the Jews
Also note that in 1 Timothy 1:7 (KJV) the Greek nomodidaskalos is not rendered as ‘doctor of the law’ but as ‘teacher of the law’
‘Desiring to be TEACHERS OF THE LAW; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm.
The Word of God is CLEAR. Doctor and Teacher mean the SAME THING. So this can only mean one of two things.
1. Either you are wrong about it being okay to call people doctor if they earned the title doctor and therefore you disobey the Word of God.
Or
2. The admonition to ‘call no man father….’ is not to be taken as an absolute but is to be applied only in certain circumstances.
I think you owe James an apology.

-- John Miskell (RomanRite@aol.com), February 10, 2004.

John,
You sure know how to do your homework. I am amazed!

-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), February 10, 2004.

John wrote, "Ummm, Kevin, he?s referring to the elders of the Church as fathers so yes he is talking about fathers in a religious sense. Sheesh."
Ummm, John there is NO MENTION of where the apostle John was "referring to the elders of the Church" as "fathers" in this passage of scripture. Hello???
John wrote, "Also, Acts 7:2: Peter called the elders of the Church ?fathers?"
Again, there is NO MENTION of the term "fathers" referring to the "elders of the Church" in this passage of scripture either.
John wrote, "Philippians 2:22 Paul calls himself Timothy?s ?father?"
Paul was NOT an elder in the church, so this argument FALLS flat. John wrote, "1 Thess. 2:11 Paul describes himself as their father."
Again, Paul was NOT an elder in the church, so his argument once again does NOT work. John wrote, "Throughout the Bible Abraham is called father. Is Abraham?s title used in a religious or biological sense"
We are NOT arguing about "Abraham" now are we John??? I wrote, "Since the term "doctor" CANNOT be found in the word of God, then there is NOTHING WRONG with using this term now is there John??? Hello???"
To which John replied, "Hello??? ?Doctor? is used in a religious sense in the KJV New Testamsnt on three occasions. The first is in Luke 2:46; (Now pay attention please) ?And it came to pass, that after three days they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the DOCTORS, both hearing them, and asking them questions.? [Luke 2:46. KJV]"
Let us see if that is TRUE. I use the NKJV which states, "Now so it was that after three days they found Him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the TEACHERS, both listening to them and asking them questions."
There is NO MENTION of the word "DOCTORS" in my version of the Bible. Let John explain how the word "teachers" back in that day correspond to the way we use "doctors" in our day.
John wrote, "According to Strong?s Concordance the Greek word that the KJV translators render as ?doctors? in this verse is didaskalos meaning a TEACHER. The word didaskalos is found 10 times elsewhere in the NT; John 3:2?. Acts 13:1? Romans 2:20? 1 Corinthians 12:28? 1 Corinthians 12:29? Ephesians 4:11? 1 Timothy 2:7? 2 Timothy 1:11? 2 Timothy 4:3? and Hebrews 5:12. Oddly enough the KJV translators render didaskalos as TEACHER in those 10 verses. So you see Kevin even according to the King James Bible, the words DOCTOR and TEACHER are INTERCHANGEABLE."
Oddly enough, the word "TEACHER" that was used back then has NOTHING TO DO with the way that we use the word "DOCTOR" today. Since this is TRUE, once again your argument FALLS flat. John wrote, "Furthermore in Luke 5:17 and Acts 5:34 of the KJV we read the following; ?And it came to pass on a certain day, as he was teaching, that there were Pharisees and DOCTORS of the law sitting by, which were come out of every town of Galilee, and Judaea, and Jerusalem: and the power of the Lord was [present] to heal them.? [Luke 5:17, KJV]"
The NKJV says, "Now it happened on a certain day, as He was teaching, that there were Pharisees and TEACHERS OF THE LAWsitting by, who had come out of every town of Galilee, Judea, and Jerusalem. And the power of the Lord was present to heal them."
Let John EXPLAIN how the "TEACHERS OF THE LAW" are the SAME THING as our "DOCTORS" today.
John wrote, "?Then stood there up one in the council, a Pharisee, named Gamaliel, a doctor of the law, had in reputation among all the people, and commanded to put the apostles forth a little space? [Acts 5:34, KJV]"
The NKJV says, "Then one in the council stood up, a Pharisee named Gamaliel, a TEACHER OF THE LAW held in respect by all the people, and commanded them to put the apostles outside for a little while."
Once again, here is Gamaliel a "TEACHER OF THE LAW" that does NOT correspond to anything even remotely close to what we call our "DOCTORS" today.
John wrote, "According to Strong?s, the Greek word that the KJV translators render as ?doctor? in these two verse is; nomodidaskalos or in English; a TEACHER and interpreter of the law; among the Jews"
Do we even HAVE any "interpreters of the law" today John??? John wrote, "Also note that in 1 Timothy 1:7 (KJV) the Greek nomodidaskalos is not rendered as ?doctor of the law? but as ?teacher of the law? ?Desiring to be TEACHERS OF THE LAW; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm."
Once again, here is a "teacher of the law". Let us let John explain HOW the "doctors" of today are "teachers of the law".
John wrote, "The Word of God is CLEAR. Doctor and Teacher mean the SAME THING. So this can only mean one of two things. 1. Either you are wrong about it being okay to call people doctor if they earned the title doctor and therefore you disobey the Word of God. Or 2. The admonition to ?call no man father?.? is not to be taken as an absolute but is to be applied only in certain circumstances. I think you owe James an apology."
I have just shown that John does NOT know what he is talking about. Let John PROVE that a "teacher of the law" which is what most of these verses are talking about = a "DOCTOR" we have today? No apology is necessary for I have not said anything that is deserving of one. When I am wrong, I am quick to apologize and in this case, I am NOT wrong.

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), February 10, 2004.

Kevin you say:
"I know of NO reputable translation that translates the words "teacher" to mean "doctor" do you???"
John showed you that the King James Version translate TEACHER as DOCTOR. So know you are suggesting that the King James Version is not reputable?
Let's face it Kevin, you are wrong on this one.

-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), February 11, 2004.

Kevin:
Here are two translations that use DOCTORS instead of TEACHERS. The verse is Luke 2:46
Wycliffe New Testament
And it befell [And it was done], that after the third day they found him in the temple, sitting in the middle of the doctors, hearing them and asking them.
KJV
And it came to pass, that after three days they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the doctors, both hearing them, and asking them questions.
Doctor still means teacher, after all a large fraction of people who are called doctor are teachers. Just because some people may not know doctor is teacher does not make it less sinful. If that is your argument, then someone who commits adultery is safe as long as they never read the Bible. So therefore, if you insist on a literal interpretation of Matthew 23:9, then calling someone doctor is just as sinful as calling someone father.
I want to acknowledge my intellectual debt to John for pointing out the KJV version of Luke 2:46. The fact that the KJV uses DOCTORS and the other versions use TEACHERS is further proof of their interchangeability.

-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), February 11, 2004.

KEVIN: We are NOT arguing about "Abraham" now are we John???
JOHN: Ummmm, yes we are talking about Abraham; you just want to avoid it. In the same verse that says call no man your teacher it also says call no man your father. It admonishes us to call only God our father. Is Abraham God or is he a man?
KEVIN: Oddly enough, the word "TEACHER" that was used back then has NOTHING TO DO with the way that we use the word "DOCTOR" today. Since this is TRUE, once again your argument FALLS flat.
JOHN: So the university Ph.D isn’t a teacher? You’re really tap-dancing now Kevin.
KEVIN: Let John EXPLAIN how the "TEACHERS OF THE LAW" are the SAME THING as our "DOCTORS" today.
JOHN: You never heard of a Juris Doctor? Or a Doctor of Canon Law?
KEVIN: Do we even HAVE any "interpreters of the law" today John???
JOHN: Yes we do. In the secular world we have Juris Doctors who interpret the law. The most famous of them are the seven who sit in Washington, DC and are known as the United States Supreme Court. In the Church they are known as the Magisterium. You have a very narrow view as to what a doctor is.
JOHN: Now to the term ‘teacher’ being used in a religious sense in your NKJV.
Now in the church that was at Antioch there were certain prophets and TEACHERS [Acts 13:1, NKJV]
Was the Church in Antioch disobedient to the Word of God by calling some ‘teacher’?
And God has appointed these in the church: first apostles, second prophets, third TEACHERS…[1 Corinthians 12:28, NKJV]
Was Paul being disobedient to the Word of God when he tells us that there are TEACHERS in the Church?
And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers… [Ephesians 4:11, NKJV]
Was Paul being disobedient to the Word of God AGAIN when he tells us that there are TEACHERS in the Church?
I was appointed a preacher, an apostle, and a TEACHER of the Gentiles… [2 Timothy 1:11, NKJV]
Oh my!!!! Paul calls HIMSELF (a mere man on earth) a TEACHER!!!!!!
For though by this time you ought to be TEACHERS [Hebrews 5:12, NKJV]
Mere men. Hmmmmm HELLO?????????
You should apologize to James.

-- John Miskell (RomanRite@aol.com), February 11, 2004.

First the argument was that the word "father" = the word "pope". Then when John could NOT prove where this was the case, then he moved on to another word "doctor" = "teacher". Since they CANNOT prove their doctrines from the word of God, they have to use these silly little word games to try and prove their doctrines.
I wrote, "We are NOT arguing about "Abraham" now are we John???"
To which John replied, "Ummmm, yes we are talking about Abraham; you just want to avoid it. In the same verse that says call no man your teacher it also says call no man your father. It admonishes us to call only God our father. Is Abraham God or is he a man?"
I was NOT the one who brought up the subject of "Abraham", you did so "we" were NOT talking about Abraham. Do you call Abraham "father"??? Is Abraham still around where we can call him "father"??? No he is not and since this is the case, your argument is NOT valid.
I wrote, "Oddly enough, the word "TEACHER" that was used back then has NOTHING TO DO with the way that we use the word "DOCTOR" today. Since this is TRUE, once again your argument FALLS flat."
To which John replied, "So the university Ph.D isn?t a teacher? You?re really tap-dancing now Kevin."
I did NOT say that a "university Ph.D" is NOT a teacher. I asked you to PROVE that the word "TEACHER" that was used back then corresponds to the TITLE that we give "DOCTORS" today and this you have NOT DONE. A university Ph.D has NOTHING to do with being a "teacher of the law" now does he John?
I wrote, "Let John EXPLAIN how the "TEACHERS OF THE LAW" are the SAME THING as our "DOCTORS" today."
To which John replied, "You never heard of a Juris Doctor? Or a Doctor of Canon Law?"
No, I have NEVER heard of such a thing and there is NO such office in the church of Christ and since this is the case, once again your argument is NOT VALID.
As a matter of FACT, the Israelites in the OT had "teachers of the law" which were the priests who had to TEACH them the law because the law was NOT in the hands of the people it was in the hands of the LEVITES.
This is NOT the case in the NT because in Hebrews 8:11, God says, "None of them shall teach his neighbor, and none his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for ALL SHALL KNOW ME, from the least of them to the greatest of them."
I wrote, "Do we even HAVE any "interpreters of the law" today John???"
To which John replied, "Yes we do. In the secular world we have Juris Doctors who interpret the law."
There is NO SUCH THING as "Juris Doctors" in the NT as we are ALL required to INTERPRET the Bible for ourselves. There is NO MENTION of one needing an INTERPRETER in order to understand the word of God.
John wrote, "The most famous of them are the seven who sit in Washington, DC and are known as the United States Supreme Court. In the Church they are known as the Magisterium. You have a very narrow view as to what a doctor is."
We are speaking of "teachers of the law" as SPECIFIED in the word of God and there is once again NO MENTION of such a thing as a "Magisterium" as John claims. This is another INVENTION of the Catholic Church which has NO BASIS in the TRUTH of the word of God.
John wrote, "Now to the term ?teacher? being used in a religious sense in your NKJV."
John goes on to quote 5 verses in the NKJV however, NOT ONCE in any of these verses does it say that they were "TEACHERS OF THE LAW", no NOT ONCE. This does NOT surprise me as John is grasping at straws to try to prove me wrong. Once again he has FAILED to PROVE that I need to give James an apology however, I will give him an E for effort.

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), February 11, 2004.

About the 'father' argument:
I just came from a Roman CCD class and that topic came up. I don't know what to think of the 'father' topic. I do oppose calling the Pope "Holy Father" though.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), February 11, 2004.

"I do oppose calling the Pope "Holy Father" though."
The Pope CANNOT be a "father" for he is NOT married.

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), February 11, 2004.

Kevin says:
"Since they CANNOT prove their doctrines from the word of God, they have to use these silly little word games to try and prove their doctrines."
Kevin who is it that is playing silly little word games. First of all, you ask for a reputable translation that uses doctor for teacher. I gave you two. Your argument then becomes the word doctor does not mean the same today that it did during biblical times. What do you think the word doctor means?
We give you clear evidence that if you call someone doctor you violate the word of God, and you choose to ignore it. That is your choice, but it seems to be hypocritical to argue that it is wrong to use the term father but doctor is perfectly appropriate.

-- James (Stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), February 12, 2004.

Kevin enters the discussion with a shoe box under his arm. After making one or two baseless assertions he hunkers down and braces for the storm of solid logic to blow his way. The storm is withering so Kevin takes shelter behind the Protestant tree of irrational thought just long enough to open the shoe box set before him. He knows his time has run out; there is nothing more to support is precarious position. Kevin opens the box to reveal his last and most powerful weapon; a pair of sparkling tap-dancing shoes. These are the very shoes once worn by Bartone Stone and Alexander Campbell as they tap- danced their way across America starting what we know today as four seperate Protestant denominations; 1. The Churches of Christ), or 2. The Disciples of Christ), or 3. The Christian Church) , or 4. The International Churches of Christ (Boston Movement)
James and John have closed in; Kevin is surrounded. The situation looks hopeless. Kevin quickly scans a few tracts from the World Bible Society for last minute instructions. He strips off his old Nike's and laces up his shiney tap-dancing shoes. He feels a new power begining to surge. Although still weak from the assault of Romanist logic he staggers to his feet. Kevin closes his eyes and following the instructions from the World Bible Society tracts he clicks his heels together and says There's no place like Rome, there's no place like Rome... SHAZAM!!!!!!!
Kevin has new power.... new energy. He pulls off his street clothes to reveal the super-hero costume underneath with the letter's SC (Stone-Campbell) boldly emblazoned across his chest. He springs from behind the Protestant tree of irrational thought. With his leather- bound copy of the New King James Version complete with ribbons and thumb-tabs securely in his hand he begins to tap.... slowly at first and a little unsteady but soon he finds his rhythem and he picks up the pace.... tap, tap, tap.... yes he's got it now.... tap, tap, tappity, tap... Kevin screams with delight.... tap, tap, tap, tap, tappity, tap, tap, tapitty, tap, tap, tap... You Papists can't stop me now tap, tap, tap, tap, tappity, tap, tap, tapitty, tap, tap, tap... I don't care what you say tap, tap, tap, tap, tap, I don't care what your proof is tap, tap, tappity, tappity, tap, tap, tap, I follow my minister and call it the word of God, tap, tap, tap, tap, tappity, tap, tap, tapitty, tap, tap, tap... Kevin declares victory.
The sons of thunder, one of them a doctor and the other a teacher, look on in disbelief. They enjoyed the entertainment. It's not often they see such an able tap-dancer at work. They smile and pray; and they watch Kevin dance.
tap, tap, tap, tap, tappity, tap, tap, tapitty, tap, tap, tap... tap, tap, tap, tap, tappity, tap, tap, tapitty, tap, tap, tap... tap, tap, tap, tap, tappity, tap, tap, tapitty, tap, tap, tap... tap, tap, tap, tap, tappity, tap, tap, tapitty, tap, tap, tap... tap, tap, tap, tap.

-- John Miskell (RomanRite@aol.com), February 12, 2004.

Amen John!

-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), February 12, 2004.

Oh my! I'm dying over here! I've never laughed so hard! Thanks for making my day, John!
Keep up the good work!
May God bless you. FGC

-- FGC (FGCC4@yahoo.com), February 12, 2004.

top class Mr Miskell
its just like trying to catch an eel with yr bare hands.
the bit that always amuses me is -- THE way THAT every SECOND word IS written IN uppercase JUST in CASE you ARE deaf.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 12, 2004.

The only "tap dancing" that is done around here is how these Catholics do NOT answer questions.
I have repeatedly asked for them to PROVE "how the "TEACHERS OF THE LAW" are the SAME THING as our "DOCTORS" today."
The response that I got was something that does NOT even have any relation to being a "teacher of the law".
This is a typical Catholic response and when they don't have the correct answer, they usually resort to ad hominem attacks. Instead of attacking the argument, they attack the person and engage in some sort of character assasination. This is sad, but TRUE.
I wrote, "As a matter of FACT, the Israelites in the OT had "teachers of the law" which were the priests who had to TEACH them the law because the law was NOT in the hands of the people it was in the hands of the LEVITES. This is NOT the case in the NT because in Hebrews 8:11, God says, "None of them shall teach his neighbor, and none his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for ALL SHALL KNOW ME, from the least of them to the greatest of them."
To which I did NOT receive a reply. This also does not surprise me as I did not expect an answer from someone who has already declared victory and yet he accuses me of "arguing"??? Who is the one who came back ONLY to "argue"????
James wrote, "Kevin who is it that is playing silly little word games. First of all, you ask for a reputable translation that uses doctor for teacher. I gave you two. Your argument then becomes the word doctor does not mean the same today that it did during biblical times. What do you think the word doctor means?"
Very well James, you did answer one of my questions that I did not respond to please forgive my oversight. Yes there are several translations that show that the word teacher=doctor however this does NOT prove that the word "doctor" or "teacher" = the TITLE that we give our "doctors" today. The "doctors" (or teachers) in the NT were "teachers of the law" and since we are required to interpret the NT for ourselves, there is NO SUCH THING as a "teacher of the law" today.
James wrote, "We give you clear evidence that if you call someone doctor you violate the word of God, and you choose to ignore it. That is your choice, but it seems to be hypocritical to argue that it is wrong to use the term father but doctor is perfectly appropriate."
No, I do NOT choose to "ignore it" as you so state for the word of God does NOT say that one CANNOT use the term "doctor" or "teacher" and I have already explained this to you and it is YOU who IGNORE what I have written concerning this subject. You claim that I am a "hypocrite" and I have CLEARLY shown you that this is NOT the case. I have said and will continue to say that there is NOTHING WRONG with using the terms "doctor" and "father" for this is what the NT teaches. The PROBLEM lies in when someone uses the term "father" in a religious sense and that is EXACTLY what Jesus admonished us NOT to do.

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), February 13, 2004.

KEVIN TAPPED: The "doctors" (or teachers) in the NT were "teachers of the law" and since we are required to interpret the NT for ourselves, there is NO SUCH THING as a "teacher of the law" today.
JOHN: Where does the NT identify the teachers in the Church as being teachers of the law?
Secondly; where EXACTLY does the NT tell us that we are REQUIRED to interpret the NT for ourselves? It seems to me that such an important doctrine would be very clearly spelled out in the Scriptures so help us out here okay?
Also, does this requirement mean that we need a teacher of the law is required to help interpret the OT for us or are we now required to interpret the OT for ourselves too?
Kevin please tell us; does the following verse identify the ‘teachers’ in the church as being ‘teachers of the law’ or just as ‘teachers’?
And God has appointed these in the church: first apostles, second prophets, third TEACHERS [1 Coritnians 12:28, NKJV]

-- John Miskell (RomanRite@aol.com), February 13, 2004.

I think I need to point out here that what we have is a changing standard of proof. Kevin starts out by strongly defending the notion that doctor does not mean teacher and that there are no reputable bibles that translate teacher as doctor. In a fine piece of expository work, John refutes that claim.
What does Kevin then do, does he concede defeat. Of course not, he then goes on to say that doctor means "teachers of the law". And then goes on to argue that we have no teachers of the law today, so we can go ahead and call people doctor. Of course, John also refutes the idea that we have interpreters of the law but of course Kevin won't accept that.
What Kevin of course conveniently ignores here is the virtue of humility that Jesus stresses throughout the gospels. Teachers of the law used their position to control other people, think of the parable of the good samaritan. The priest passed by the samaritan because by touching him, he would have been unclean. The "doctors" pronouncements had an effect on people's behavior and they often tended to abuse their power.
Let me ask Kevin another question however. Aren't pastors or elders to some extent teachers of the law? They are required to teach the Word of God. If an athiest becomes a member of the Church of Christ today, can he preach the sermon on Sunday? If everyone can interpret the Scriptures for himself, why should we prevent anyone from getting up in front of the congregation and giving his interpretation?

-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), February 13, 2004.

John and James,
I am not going to continue to play any more word games with you. I will end this discussion as it is apparent that it is going nowhere and really does NOT matter one way or the other.
It appears that you want me to admit that I was wrong, and there is a possibility that I could be wrong, but the evidence that you have provided has not been sufficient to change my mind.

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), February 13, 2004.

One more thing. If I am wrong (and have been on many occasions), I do not hesitate to apologize.

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), February 13, 2004.

Kevin,
Okay, fair enough. It was an interesting and sometimes humorous exchange but now it's time to let bygones be bygones. I assure you that I hold no ill will and that I will offer you and your intentions up in my prayers.

-- John Miskell (RomanRite@aol.com), February 13, 2004.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ