Mathew 16:18
New International Version (http://niv.scripturetext.com/matthew/16.htm) (©1984) (http://biblica.com/)
And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

I am always dismayed when I here or see one Christian attack another over silly trivial things that should not and are not what we are truly about.

At least we should respect our differences as we are not the Judge. We act as the pharisees too often and not like the man who would not look up to heaven even, let alone act as if he knew what was best for everyone.
Luke 18
The Parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector
9 (http://bible.cc/luke/18-9.htm)To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everybody else, Jesus told this parable: 10 (http://bible.cc/luke/18-10.htm)“Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11 (http://bible.cc/luke/18-11.htm)The Pharisee stood up and prayed abouta (http://niv.scripturetext.com/luke/18.htm#footnotesa) himself: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other men—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. 12 (http://bible.cc/luke/18-12.htm)I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.’
13 (http://bible.cc/luke/18-13.htm)“But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God, have mercy on me, a sinner.’
14 (http://bible.cc/luke/18-14.htm)“I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.”

I am not saying that it is always the case here, but sometimes a stand needs to be made to correct errant doctrine. Read Galatians 2:11-21 and Acts 15:1-2.

This is precisely what I am saying , that you will say which is errant and you will Judge it as such. How many times have we been shown to be wrong. Maybe you want to tell Galileo again about how we are the center of everything and it is obvious that the sun goes around us like everything else according to doctrine.

Not to attack you Captain, only the arrogance of all who have come before and were wrong. We are unable to Judge. We must act like the tax collector and humble ourselves more than act as if we are experts at who is right.

They chased Jesus out of the temple when he said he was the Messiah, and they were correct according to doctrine. We can make the same type of mistakes and usually do if you want to be the Judge of doctrine.

What might seem trivial to you may not be trivial to others. We judge when we assume something is trivial yet it may not be to others

Not to attack you Captain, only the arrogance of all who have come before and were wrong. We are unable to Judge. We must act like the tax collector and humble ourselves more than act as if we are experts at who is right.

1 Corinthians 5

I agree that we should be more unified, however, sacrificing correct doctrine on the altar of unity is NOT what Jesus had in mind.

I agree that we should be more unified, however, sacrificing correct doctrine on the altar of unity is NOT what Jesus had in mind.

Howdy Urban Missionary :wave:

I hear ya, but it depends on what you refer to as "correct doctrine", the only "correct doctrine" I have is:
Mat 22:35
Then one of them, [which was] a lawyer, asked [him a question], tempting him, and saying,
Master, which [is] the great commandment in the law?
Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
This is the first and great commandment.
And the second [is] like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

I do not think I will be forsaking or sacrificing my "correct doctrine" and I hope that Father and His Son will not see it that way too, by me submitting to:
Matt 13:15 -through- Matt 13:30
and:
Matt 25:14 -through- Matt 25:33


Father bless.
EDIT: I am going now to read on Galatians 2:11-21 and Acts 15:1-2 as per your initial suggestion here.

The church is US - WE are living stones, creating a church not made with hands.

i may be a part of the threshold while someone like the good Captain is stained glass. We are all pieces of the whole - none more important that the other with the exception of the Keystone that holds it all together. And that would be Christ.
V

So, Jesus being God in the flesh, living a sinless life, being man's only way to heaven, and stuff like that is not important doctrines???

So, Jesus being God in the flesh, living a sinless life, being man's only way to heaven, and stuff like that is not important doctrines???
To whom was this addressed, kind Capitano?

Urban Missionary

RE: Galatians 2:11
Even though Peter was a teacher and an original elder in the church/body of Christ, Paul confronted his error as personal error and not a church or doctrinal error, unless I missed or misunderstand something in that NT reading.

RE: Acts 15:1
Again I see this as Paul personally confronting the individual church elders, and not a church or doctrinal error, unless I missed or misunderstand something in that NT reading.

IE: Paul was ESTABLISHING THE GENTILE CHURCH/body of Christ, he was not attending/gathering together with them unto Christ.

Maybe my issue is different than the topic of this thread ?
My issue is should I forsake what we call "church" what I call modern church or corporate church, forsake it over the division and strife I see from denominations in the church/body of Christ.


Thank you
Father bless.

Urban Missionary

RE: Galatians 2:11
Even though Peter was a teacher and an original elder in the church/body of Christ, Paul confronted his error as personal error and not a church or doctrinal error, unless I missed or misunderstand something in that NT reading.

RE: Acts 15:1
Again I see this as Paul personally confronting the individual church elders, and not a church or doctrinal error, unless I missed or misunderstand something in that NT reading.

IE: Paul was ESTABLISHING THE GENTILE CHURCH/body of Christ, he was not attending/gathering together with them unto Christ.

Maybe my issue is different than the topic of this thread ?
My issue is should I forsake what we call "church" what I call modern church or corporate church, forsake it over the division and strife I see from denominations in the church/body of Christ.


Thank you
Father bless.

Acts 15 is the Council of Jerusalem. Why would they send a letter out if it was simply personal?

22Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to choose some of their own men and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They chose Judas (called Barsabbas) and Silas, two men who were leaders among the brothers. 23With them they sent the following letter: The apostles and elders, your brothers, To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia: Greetings. 24We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said.

But, still: Paul was establishing the Gentile church/body of Christ, he was not attending/gathering together with them unto Christ.


Why do you say the Gentile church? There is only one church, the body of Christ. There is no Jew or Gentile Paul said. We are all part of the body.

NO. You should not forsake church. While what we know as church today is no doubt miles away from the early church, it is certainly biblical. Although church takes on many different forms, I STRONGLY encourage you to find a body of believers that is biblically based and "do not forsake the gathering."

Why do you say the Gentile church? There is only one church, the body of Christ. There is no Jew or Gentile Paul said. We are all part of the body.
When I said Gentile church it was/is because we were/are currently discussing Paul in the book of Acts establishing the Gentile church.

Acts 15 is the Council of Jerusalem. Why would they send a letter out if it was simply personal?

22Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to choose some of their own men and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They chose Judas (called Barsabbas) and Silas, two men who were leaders among the brothers. 23With them they sent the following letter: The apostles and elders, your brothers, To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia: Greetings. 24We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said.
Thank you again.
Ok, I stand corrected on Acts 15, somewhat.

But, still: Paul was establishing the Gentile church/body of Christ, he was not attending/gathering together with them unto Christ.

Maybe my issue is different from the topic of this thread ?
My issue is: Should I forsake what we call "church" what I call modern church or corporate church, forsake it over the division and strife that I see coming from the introduction and maintenance of denominations in the church/body of Christ.
I think maybe no because of these to chapters where these verses are found in our bible:
Matt 13:15 -through- Matt 13:30
and:
Matt 25:14 -through- Matt 25:33
Do you have an offering, suggestion or correction there for me ?



Father bless.

NO. You should not forsake church. While what we know as church today is no doubt miles away from the early church, it is certainly biblical. Although church takes on many different forms, I STRONGLY encourage you to find a body of believers that is biblically based and "do not forsake the gathering."

Thank you I am being led in that direction.
But, testing every step.


Father blesses.

Thank you I am being led in that direction.
But, testing every step.


Father blesses.

I encourage you to test every step. :D

Mathew 16:18
New International Version (http://niv.scripturetext.com/matthew/16.htm) (©1984) (http://biblica.com/)
And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

I am always dismayed when I here or see one Christian attack another over silly trivial things that should not and are not what we are truly about.

At least we should respect our differences as we are not the Judge. We act as the pharisees too often and not like the man who would not look up to heaven even, let alone act as if he knew what was best for everyone.
Luke 18
The Parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector
9 (http://bible.cc/luke/18-9.htm)To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everybody else, Jesus told this parable: 10 (http://bible.cc/luke/18-10.htm)“Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11 (http://bible.cc/luke/18-11.htm)The Pharisee stood up and prayed abouta (http://niv.scripturetext.com/luke/18.htm#footnotesa) himself: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other men—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. 12 (http://bible.cc/luke/18-12.htm)I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.’
13 (http://bible.cc/luke/18-13.htm)“But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God, have mercy on me, a sinner.’
14 (http://bible.cc/luke/18-14.htm)“I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.”
Howdy Sinful Hypocrite :wave:
The first thing I want to say in reply is: Amen !

I agree to "Jesus wanted one church. We should be together more" He did not just want that, He spoke it as an imperative.
My eyes have been blessed to see that topic is a BIG tree in my path between me and the what we call "church". I am disobedient if I present myself as forsaking the gathering of ourselves together unto Him.... even though I do not... my observable life and communication testifies that I do.

Most recently I have done my best/zealously in my communication to speak against that "big tree" in my path but I have to consider that Christ gave other instructions in our NT against speaking against it and the reasons why not to speak against it: 'harming His body/the church'
Matt 13:15 -through- Matt 13:30
and:
Matt 25:14 -through- Matt 25:33

I now honestly think because of those two chapters I ref here, that if I continue to speak against that "big tree" in my path, that that "big tree" will kill my flesh body and or Christ will take me out of His way for my knowing/aware disobedience to His instructions in Matt:13 and Matt:25.
So, very recently I have decided to tone-down my speaking against that "big tree" in my path, and actually submit myself to the error of the divisions and strife of denominations in His body/the church and humble my spirit and be gentle in the face of that
"big tree" in my path.
....So, what am I or we to do ? :dunno:
Be as the praying tax collector I suppose ? Luke 18:13

I hope that makes some kind of since to you and or the others reading my post.


Father bless.

The Thief on the cross next to Jesus was promised by the lord that he would see paradise that day.

He did not need all this bickering over trivial doctrine. He simply confessed his guilt and showed his faith in Jesus as the Savior.

All Christians, by believing in Jesus as the Savior and confessing we are sinners is all that is necessary, just as the man next to Jesus. God does the rest.

The Thief on the cross next to Jesus was promised by the lord that he would see paradise that day.

He did not need all this bickering over trivial doctrine. He simply confessed his guilt and showed his faith in Jesus as the Savior.

All Christians, by believing in Jesus as the Savior and confessing we are sinners is all that is necessary, just as the man next to Jesus. God does the rest.

Uh'mmm Ok. :hmm:


Father bless.

The Thief on the cross next to Jesus was promised by the lord that he would see paradise that day.

He did not need all this bickering over trivial doctrine. He simply confessed his guilt and showed his faith in Jesus as the Savior.

All Christians, by believing in Jesus as the Savior and confessing we are sinners is all that is necessary, just as the man next to Jesus. God does the rest.

So what do you consider trivial? The trinity, the resurrection, who people say Christ is, baptism, Church? These are not trivial

So what do you consider trivial? The trinity, the resurrection, who people say Christ is, baptism, Church? These are not trivial


Yes they are if you consider what the basic requirements that saved the man who was on the cross next to Jesus.
As part of my Greek orthodox heritage I have and continue to practice all of those things too.
My point is that those things are becoming stumbling blocks to us, not that I do not believe they are all good ways to show our respect to God.

But if they separate us as Christians we are not doing the right things that should unite us. We should be as one Church united. If Jesus were to return today I think he would love every Church equally that believes he died for our sins on the cross.

This is what he did for us all and all of the details afterward are done to glorify that defining moment.

We must humble ourselves as the Tax Collector. Luke 18

The Parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector

9To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everybody else, Jesus told this parable: 10“Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11The Pharisee stood up and prayed abouta himself: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other men—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. 12I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.’

13“But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God, have mercy on me, a sinner.’

14“I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.”

All we need to be saved right now is to confess we beleive in Jesus as our Savior, and admit we are sinners.

Too often I am confronted with someone disrespecting one Christian Church over another.
These arguments are over trivial details, If you both believe Christ as savior died for our sins and arose on the third day. That means we are Christians.

Those other problems amount to what the disciples argued over on more than one occasion right in front of Christ as to who was the best.Christ told us the lowest servant of all on Earth would be highest in Heaven.

My point is that we drive a spike into the heart of Christianity arguing the very things that Christ criticized the Pharisees for .

I Humbly confess I am the worst sinner of all and do not deserve redemption.Jesus Christ son of God have mercy on us.

All Christians, by believing in Jesus as the Savior and confessing we are sinners is all that is necessary, just as the man next to Jesus. God does the rest.The problem is that not all who would identify as 'christian' would agree with this. While I agree with the notion of putting aside our petty non-essential doctrinal differences in the name of unity, to extend that acceptance into the area of the essential Christian doctrine; that Jesus was divine, that it is by faith not works that we are saved, that Jesus is the only way to heaven, dangerously boarders an Oprah style 'all paths to God' theology. Scripture warns us that in the final days there will be false prophets who will wrap themselves in the highly marketable 'christian' wrapper:




A tree and its fruit

15"Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.

*21"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' 23Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'David Koresh, Jim Jones, Charles Manson all claimed to be christian. Are we to consider them Brothers?

So what do you consider trivial? The trinity, the resurrection, who people say Christ is, baptism, Church? These are not trivial


Yes they are if you consider what the basic requirements that saved the man who was on the cross next to Jesus.


AAAAAAAAAUUUUUUUUGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!

"Who Christ is" is trivial!!?!?!?!!? You have GOT to be kidding me. Please tell me you missed that part of the post.

Here is another scripture that needs addressing...

Titus 1:10 For there are many rebellious people, mere talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision group. 11They must be silenced, because they are ruining whole households by teaching things they ought not to teach—and that for the sake of dishonest gain. 12Even one of their own prophets has said, "Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons." 13This testimony is true. Therefore, rebuke them sharply, so that they will be sound in the faith 14and will pay no attention to Jewish myths or to the commands of those who reject the truth. 15To the pure, all things are pure, but to those who are corrupted and do not believe, nothing is pure. In fact, both their minds and consciences are corrupted. 16They claim to know God, but by their actions they deny him. They are detestable, disobedient and unfit for doing anything good.

Mathew 16:18
New International Version (http://niv.scripturetext.com/matthew/16.htm) (©1984) (http://biblica.com/)
And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

I am always dismayed when I here or see one Christian attack another over silly trivial things that should not and are not what we are truly about.

At least we should respect our differences as we are not the Judge. We act as the pharisees too often and not like the man who would not look up to heaven even, let alone act as if he knew what was best for everyone.
Luke 18
The Parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector
9 (http://bible.cc/luke/18-9.htm)To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everybody else, Jesus told this parable: 10 (http://bible.cc/luke/18-10.htm)“Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11 (http://bible.cc/luke/18-11.htm)The Pharisee stood up and prayed abouta (http://niv.scripturetext.com/luke/18.htm#footnotesa) himself: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other men—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. 12 (http://bible.cc/luke/18-12.htm)I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.’
13 (http://bible.cc/luke/18-13.htm)“But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God, have mercy on me, a sinner.’
14 (http://bible.cc/luke/18-14.htm)“I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.”

Unity is not uniformity; and those who keep pointing out that we aren't "one body" are probably the most divisive people of all. As long as we keep trying to be "together", it's never going to happen.

Yes they are if you consider what the basic requirements that saved the man who was on the cross next to Jesus.
As part of my Greek orthodox heritage I have and continue to practice all of those things too.
My point is that those things are becoming stumbling blocks to us, not that I do not believe they are all good ways to show our respect to God.

But if they separate us as Christians we are not doing the right things that should unite us. We should be as one Church united. If Jesus were to return today I think he would love every Church equally that believes he died for our sins on the cross.

This is what he did for us all and all of the details afterward are done to glorify that defining moment.

We must humble ourselves as the Tax Collector. Luke 18

The Parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector

9To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everybody else, Jesus told this parable: 10“Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11The Pharisee stood up and prayed abouta himself: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other men—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. 12I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.’

13“But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God, have mercy on me, a sinner.’

14“I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.”

All we need to be saved right now is to confess we beleive in Jesus as our Savior, and admit we are sinners.

Too often I am confronted with someone disrespecting one Christian Church over another.
These arguments are over trivial details, If you both believe Christ as savior died for our sins and arose on the third day. That means we are Christians.

Those other problems amount to what the disciples argued over on more than one occasion right in front of Christ as to who was the best.Christ told us the lowest servant of all on Earth would be highest in Heaven.

My point is that we drive a spike into the heart of Christianity arguing the very things that Christ criticized the Pharisees for .

I Humbly confess I am the worst sinner of all and do not deserve redemption.Jesus Christ son of God have mercy on us.greetings again Sinful Hypocrite,
please forgive my spelling on this post and my grammar, i do not have time to edit.

My last words here on this thread is not only directed at you but to all the members who have chose to post and share their thoughts on this subject, but specifically tailored by the spirit in me to you Sinful Hypocrite.

1st I hope you will not just read this next paragraph but also retain it. And yes it is going to portray you by your observable maturity (or lack thereof) in the light and truth of Christ AND who exactly He is:

He was while He walked and taught on earth with us; He was GOD in the flesh, Father said they/we will name Him/Christ Jesus of Nazareth, we will call/name Him 'Emanuel'- GOD with us.
God 'KNOWS' the hearts of men (their thoughts and motives) so your example of the sinner next to Christ hanging upon the cross as an example for us for as our path to salvation is faulty to say the least, meaning: Christ not only heard and understood that sinners spoken words BUT He saw and knew that sinners heart, enabling Christ to forgive and cover that sinners soul with His authority to forgive and redeem that sinner, BEFORE Christ even lay down/give up His life for that purpose, period !

2nd Now this next paragraph i tailored by the spirit in me to ALL who have posted here sharing their thoughts and also at the same time revealing their maturity in the light and truth of who Christ is, and His purpose. ALL, every one of you who has posted whether you realize it or not, you ONLY honor Him/Christ with you lips! because not one of you, no not one ! commented on the central teaching of Christ as to HIM BEING OUR DOCTRINE, period. HE/Christ taught when asked: (teacher which of the commandments/DOCTRINES is the GREATEST commandment/doctrine ?) Christ answered: (Love your Father in heaven with all of your heart, soul, strength and mind. AND the second is like unto it; Love your fellows, period.)Now maturity in Christ light and work would manifest this to the mature also: that the evidence of our love of GOD is our obedience to Him/GOD.
I did my best to present that here, apparently to no avail, so I will leave it here just before I dust my feet of this thread.
Mat 22:35
Then one of them, [which was] a lawyer, asked [him a question], tempting him, and saying,
Master, which [is] the great commandment in the law?
Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
This is the first and great commandment.
And the second [is] like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.
On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
And to read the evidence of our love being our obedience; read all/the entire books of the books of John and all of the book of Luke !

The only thing I agree with from your last post here Sinful Hypocrite is this: Father have mercy on us (all of us)
And the prayer of the tax collector.

The only thing that may offend here in this my last post on this thread is: the light and truth of Christ in me that saves lives and illuminates error, that I loosed to share here.
Shalom....

You seem to be confusing commandments and doctrines. They are totally different things. Further, I appreciate your "spirit tailored" judgement that I only serve Christ with lip service because I chose not to respond to something I agree with totally. Nice.

I agree that we should be more unified, however, sacrificing correct doctrine on the altar of unity is NOT what Jesus had in mind.

True, and to illustrate my own particular case, here's a little background.

I am an Anglican Catholic. We are not in communion with Roman Catholics. Do we consider them Christians? Yes, of course. Then why can't we have more unity with them?

1. Mariology. While the Mother of the Lord is, and should be, held in high esteem by all Christians, the doctrine of a "Co-Redemtrix" and "Mediatrix" in Mary is found neither in scripture nor in authentic sacred tradition.

2. "Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament". The doctrine of transsubstantiation has led to this somewhat bizarre practice of worshipping the consecrated bread as the Body of Christ, with the Catechism of the (Roman) Catholic Church expressly stating that within its fold is a "cult of adoration for the Blessed Sacrament". However, this idolatrous practice is authorized neither in scripture nor in authentic sacred tradition. As is written in the Anglican Canons, "The Lord instituted the Sacrament not to be gazed upon or marched about, but to be duly used."

3. Clerical celibacy. Yes, Paul was celibate, and recommended the same for those to be ordained into Holy Orders. Recommending and mandating are two separate things though. There is not the slightest hint in scripture or authentic tradition that married men should be denied Holy Orders if called by God. Futhermore there is no hint that men, once ordained, must refrain from marriage by mandate.

There are many other points that could be made, but I think these suffice when considering why perfect unity in the church cannot at this point in time be reached.

1 John 2 (New King James Version)

Do Not Love the World

15 Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him.

The rest of the passage;

1 John 2

1 My little children, these things I write to you, so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. 2 And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world.
The Test of Knowing Him

3 Now by this we know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments. 4 He who says, “I know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. 5 But whoever keeps His word, truly the love of God is perfected in him. By this we know that we are in Him. 6 He who says he abides in Him ought himself also to walk just as He walked.
7 Brethren,[a] I write no new commandment to you, but an old commandment which you have had from the beginning. The old commandment is the word which you heard from the beginning. 8 Again, a new commandment I write to you, which thing is true in Him and in you, because the darkness is passing away, and the true light is already shining.
9 He who says he is in the light, and hates his brother, is in darkness until now. 10 He who loves his brother abides in the light, and there is no cause for stumbling in him. 11 But he who hates his brother is in darkness and walks in darkness, and does not know where he is going, because the darkness has blinded his eyes.
Their Spiritual State
12 I write to you, little children,
Because your sins are forgiven you for His name’s sake.
13 I write to you, fathers,
Because you have known Him who is from the beginning.
I write to you, young men,
Because you have overcome the wicked one.
I write to you, little children,
Because you have known the Father.
14 I have written to you, fathers,
Because you have known Him who is from the beginning.
I have written to you, young men,
Because you are strong, and the word of God abides in you,
And you have overcome the wicked one.
Do Not Love the World

15 Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. 16 For all that is in the world—the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life—is not of the Father but is of the world. 17 And the world is passing away, and the lust of it; but he who does the will of God abides forever.
Deceptions of the Last Hour

18 Little children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that the[c] Antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come, by which we know that it is the last hour. 19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us.
20 But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and you know all things.[d] 21 I have not written to you because you do not know the truth, but because you know it, and that no lie is of the truth.
22 Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist who denies the Father and the Son. 23 Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father either; he who acknowledges the Son has the Father also.
[B]Let Truth Abide in You

24 Therefore let that abide in you which you heard from the beginning. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, you also will abide in the Son and in the Father. 25 And this is the promise that He has promised us—eternal life.
26 These things I have written to you concerning those who try to deceive you. 27 But the anointing which you have received from Him abides in you, and you do not need that anyone teach you; but as the same anointing teaches you concerning all things, and is true, and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you will[e] abide in Him.

AAAAAAAAAUUUUUUUUGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!

"Who Christ is" is trivial!!?!?!?!!? You have GOT to be kidding me. Please tell me you missed that part of the post.

That is obviously not what I believe if you read the entire post . We should be loving each other rather than attacking each other is all.

Jesus said the simple Lords Prayer is what God wants us to say , Too many lose sight of that with attitudes that they are right and others are wrong over doctrine that does not save you.

That is obviously not what I believe if you read the entire post . We should be loving each other rather than attacking each other is all.

Jesus said the simple Lords Prayer is what God wants us to say , Too many lose sight of that with attitudes that they are right and others are wrong over doctrine that does not save you.

So you really believe that who Christ is is a triviality? ("My point is that those things are becoming stumbling blocks to us, not that I do not believe they are all good ways to show our respect to God."). Or are you simply a victim of reading too quickly?

1st I hope you will not just read this next paragraph but also retain it. And yes it is going to portray you by your observable maturity (or lack thereof) in the light and truth of Christ AND who exactly He is:

He was while He walked and taught on earth with us; He was GOD in the flesh, Father said they/we will name Him/Christ Jesus of Nazareth, we will call/name Him 'Emanuel'- GOD with us.
God 'KNOWS' the hearts of men (their thoughts and motives) so your example of the sinner next to Christ hanging upon the cross as an example for us for as our path to salvation is faulty to say the least, meaning: Christ not only heard and understood that sinners spoken words BUT He saw and knew that sinners heart, enabling Christ to forgive and cover that sinners soul with His authority to forgive and redeem that sinner, BEFORE Christ even lay down/give up His life for that purpose, period !
You call me Immature from one post as if you know everything about me already. You want to be the judge rather than what the thread was started for -Discussion.
That god knows what is in our heart does not mean we do not have to confess it with our mouths. This is very precisely my point is that everyone wants to attack each other more than say we are saved together as sinners.

I believe in doctrine but I do not seek to benefit from it nor am I trying to be rude . I Simply say that if we are Christians then we are all one church as Jesus taught.

Our society finds it easier to say "Forget you" than "I love you."

It is this attitude towards other beliefs that I believe it is better to love your neighbor as yourself than to say you know where he is wrong. Our neighbor may be Jew or gentile and Jesus said to love them and be as children in order to be saved .

John 6:40 For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the ... (http://bible.cc/john/6-40.htm) For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall
have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day."

John 12:25 The man who loves his life will lose it, while the man ... (http://bible.cc/john/12-25.htm) The man who loves his life will lose it, while the man who hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life. ...

Jesus Christ son of God have mercy on us

Don't you (generic you) think that a lot of times it has to do with where the Christian is in their growth? I did not know WHO Jesus was when I was first saved. I knew Him as my Savior but I had no idea He was God in the flesh. That all came later.

We WILL grow if the love of the Lord is our main focus. The more time you spent with someone the better you get to know them . The better you get to know them, the more you understand about the way they think, their motives, their goals.

It's a maturity/growth thing. While I can and will agree that a hard core Calvinist is my brother, I happen to disagree with him. A person who has studied the bible, prayed and whatnot saying they do not believe Jesus Christ is God the Son is a whole different ball game.

Not sure if this is making any sense or not...
V

Truth is that Jesus only has one church. The world has many churches. The true church is an organism not an organization. There is a diversity of members in the one true church that is the body of Christ. There is one true unifying factor in this church and that is Christ Himself. The blood of Christ as seen is Gods grace producing living members in the body. Each as unique as a snowflake yet each with an undeniable heritage.

God loves all men but I am His favorite.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

Don't you (generic you) think that a lot of times it has to do with where the Christian is in their growth? I did not know WHO Jesus was when I was first saved. I knew Him as my Savior but I had no idea He was God in the flesh. That all came later.

We WILL grow if the love of the Lord is our main focus. The more time you spent with someone the better you get to know them . The better you get to know them, the more you understand about the way they think, their motives, their goals.

It's a maturity/growth thing. While I can and will agree that a hard core Calvinist is my brother, I happen to disagree with him. A person who has studied the bible, prayed and whatnot saying they do not believe Jesus Christ is God the Son is a whole different ball game.

Not sure if this is making any sense or not...
V

Yes I think this makes sense as to what my thrust was in the first place. We should learn to grow together. And not allow ourselves to grow apart over details that do not help us keep the basic faith together.

This is why there are so many different Church denominations who basically beleive the same thing. We believe in Christ dying for our sins. We read the same Bible, it is the same story in all of them. But we are sinners who cannot agree on the rest. I am guilty but I will attend your Church and respect your ways as we all should try to humble ourselves more in this regard.

I have only returned here to clarify what was quoted of me.


Further, I appreciate your "spirit tailored" judgement that I only serve Christ with lip service because I chose not to respond to something I agree with totally. Nice.
I do not know you personally, so I misspeak.
Please allow me to rephrase now:
On this thread you have only serve God with your lips, the observable evidence is this, within the subject of this thread your motivation was self seeking because again within the subject of this thread 'one' who abides under Christ light and truth that 'one' would be moved to speak of or at least shed light on this:
(again, within the subject of this thread)
Mat 22:35
Then one of them, [which was] a lawyer, asked [him a question], tempting him, and saying,
Master, which [is] the great commandment in the law?
Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
This is the first and great commandment.
And the second [is] like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.
On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.




You seem to be confusing commandments and doctrines. They are totally different things.
There seems to be confusion I agree, but the confusion is that a command from on HIGH does mean at its very essence: Doctrine for us below !


Shalom

Yes I think this makes sense as to what my thrust was in the first place. We should learn to grow together. And not allow ourselves to grow apart over details that do not help us keep the basic faith together.

This is why there are so many different Church denominations who basically beleive the same thing. We believe in Christ dying for our sins. We read the same Bible, it is the same story in all of them. But we are sinners who cannot agree on the rest. I am guilty but I will attend your Church and respect your ways as we all should try to humble ourselves more in this regard.

Hypocrite, take Vhayes and I... We disagree on several points of theology. We even disagree PASSIONATELY about a few of them. Sometimes we have even got into heated discussions about such things as OSAS. It has NO bearing on our relationship. She is one of my closest friends, a tremendous resource for help, a much appreciated prayer partner, and a partner in ministry on this site. We are so close, we talk to each other almost daily on the phone, and I often refer to her as "Mom". We have something in common that unites us with an unbreakable bond, the love for our Savior, Jesus Christ.

(That bond is so tight, I don't even mind that she is wrong so much :lol:)

I said all of that to say this... disagreement and debate does not mean division.:D

By the way, your name makes me feel uncomfortable. Usually when I call someone "hypocrite" it is not nearly as nice as this conversation. :D

I have only returned here to clarify what was quoted of me.


I do not know you personally, so I misspeak.
Please allow me to rephrase now:
On this thread you have only serve God with your lips, the observable evidence is this, within the subject of this thread your motivation was self seeking because again within the subject of this thread 'one' who abides under Christ light and truth that 'one' would be moved to speak of or at least shed light on this:
(again, within the subject of this thread)
Mat 22:35
Then one of them, [which was] a lawyer, asked [him a question], tempting him, and saying,
Master, which [is] the great commandment in the law?
Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
This is the first and great commandment.
And the second [is] like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.
On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.




There seems to be confusion I agree, but the confusion is that a command from on HIGH does mean at its very essence: Doctrine for us below !


Shalom

I minister in everything from Anglican churches, to Baptist, to Neo-Pentecostal churches. In my church, at any given service you could easily see 30 or more denominations represented. I am not interested in the least what denomination people are, I just want to know one question, "Do you know Jesus?"

To try and dismiss sound biblical doctrine in exchange for two verses, or just a list of commands is doing yourself no favor.

Doctrine covers SOOOOOOO much more than commands, it covers who God is and what he has done for us.

Love that would ignore Truth is not Love.

Truth spoken at the cost of Love is not Truth.

Love that would ignore Truth is not Love.

Truth spoken at the cost of Love is not Truth.

Oh sure... go and get all "deep" on us. :D

Love that would ignore Truth is not Love.

Truth spoken at the cost of Love is not Truth.

:eek:

:huh:

Give a few hours to digest this very deep-deep-deep thought

:lol:

Hypocrite, take Vhayes and I... We disagree on several points of theology. We even disagree PASSIONATELY about a few of them. Sometimes we have even got into heated discussions about such things as OSAS. It has NO bearing on our relationship. She is one of my closest friends, a tremendous resource for help, a much appreciated prayer partner, and a partner in ministry on this site. We are so close, we talk to each other almost daily on the phone, and I often refer to her as "Mom". We have something in common that unites us with an unbreakable bond, the love for our Savior, Jesus Christ.

(That bond is so tight, I don't even mind that she is wrong so much :lol:)

I said all of that to say this... disagreement and debate does not mean division.:D

By the way, your name makes me feel uncomfortable. Usually when I call someone "hypocrite" it is not nearly as nice as this conversation. :D

Thanks for your helpful thoughts Captain, I agree, I am new to online forums like these but I have realized the same thing at another site and have become very friendly with some nice disagreeable people there just in the last month or so.

Guess I have to thank God that I have been blessed with all these great people to talk to. I do not expect us to agree any more than at my Greek Orthodox church that I have belonged all my life .

I have had similar conversations with my Priests over the years .I am not supposed to take communion at a Catholic church and I have argued this with him because I was best man at a Catholic church wedding for friends. He wont turn me away simply because of doctrine that says I am not supposed to do that.He really agrees that we should be together as one but as a ordained Orthodox priest he must follow the official doctrine.

I beleive that Jesus would enjoy both Churches.

I also have lifelong Jewish friends and we both go to each others celebrations . Me to their temple and them to our church. We have had lively discussion debating the differences between our religions but we also respect each other and enjoy seeing the different customs.

The real impetus though were posts I have read where people severely criticize Catholics ,not to mention Muslims and Jewish faiths. I believe God showed through Jesus that most Important is to love one another even if we disagree . And to be humble and not so puffed up and sure that we are right and that ours is the best way.

<< Matthew 18 >>
New International Version

The Greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven

1At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, “Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?”

2He called a little child and had him stand among them. 3And he said: “I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. 4Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

Jesus Christ son of God have mercy on us

The Bible says that iron sharpens iron. The only way that happens is through friction and sometimes it causes sparks. The thing we have to be careful of is making sure that our friction sharpens to a precise instrument and does not destroy the other piece of iron.

Ok. let's make plowshares out of the swords . All i need is a French chef's knife for chopping veggies.:lol:

By the way Captain, do you know why my Signature saying does not show at the bottom of the post's.

It does. Your signature is "Jesus Christ son of God have mercy on us". Let me look into why you cannot see it.

Can you see my signature? If not click on "Settings" in the top right corner of the screen. Once the page loads you will see a menu on the left hand side of the screen. Under "My account" you will see "General Settings". Click on it. Almost at the bottom, you will see these options...

Thread Display Options

Show Signatures
Show Avatars
Show Images (including attached images and images in [IMG] code)

Make sure "Show Signatures" is checked. Let me know if that works.

Ok thanx now i see you have some as well. I looked in there but I guess i missed it .Thanx again I hope i have not upset More mercy I was only hoping people would see how divisive they are when we really do not need to be .

I guess this is why there are so many denominations all saying they are better than each other. I do not look at it this way ,I try and see through the the differences and point out our common ground in Christ.

But I also have been brought up in it and have not had a recent conversion such as some one who spoke here.I can see them being wary of false teaching that would not effect me as much, or at least I think so.

Ok - I'll have to call you SH, cause I cannot call you hypocrite in good conscience - after all, it's YOUR conscience, not mine.

Having said that, I will tell you that what Captain Obvious (Urban Missionary) said is all true (except for the part about me being wrong most of the time). I DO love him like a son. That doesn't mean we are always in agreement. We talk, as he said, almost daily on the phone. We feel free to call each other no matter the hour, day or night, if we are in need of prayer.

One of my greatest pleasures is batting a bit if theology back and forth with him. He makes me think (although I seldom change my mind :-)) To look at things only through the eyes of your own perspective is being unwilling to challenge your mind and your heart. Debate or intense dialogue is fertilizer - seriously - it makes growth stronger and roots deeper. God prunes us through life's circumstances, trials and joys and yes, even through the people we meet. The pruning makes us more fruitful for Him.

Disagreement does not mean division necessarily. It CAN and I understand the pain that causes to some. But I gotta tell you, if I can't stand the heat, I need to stay out of the kitchen.

I hope that helps you understand my thoughts on this a bit better. And by the way - a late welcome to you.

V

Oh yeah, I forgot. I have known Vhayes for YEARS, and I have no idea at all what denomination she started in or is a part of. It just don't matter.

That doesn't mean we are always in agreement. We talk, as he said, almost daily on the phone. We feel free to call each other no matter the hour, day or night, if we are in need of prayer.

Oh man. What I wouldn't give to be a fly on the wall. That must be some great discussions.

Oh man. What I wouldn't give to be a fly on the wall. That must be some great discussions.
The most intense was the night Urban was ministering in the 'hood and he and his partner/elder were surrounded by angry men who had all intentions of beating them to death, It was a very tense time in his city. We talked for a couple of hours going through what had happened and what created the situation. How God delivered them safely through the storm.

The most "fun" was when he told me he had delivered a baby. The miracle of life.

Most of the time, we're boring.

This verse is a good example of Jesus showing why we should be wary of telling others that their Church is wrong and yours are right . Again I am speaking of small differences but if you look at the beginning of Luke 6 it can also apply to Muslims or Jews who do not believe, We are not to Judge them.

Luke 6

41“Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 42How can you say to your brother, ‘Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.

When any individual breaks away from the church and joins another church they are committing schism. This is the most wicked of all sins. Some here have stated that false teaching is an excuse to break away from the church and start another denomination, sect, or cult. In fact the reverse is true. Most schismatics invent heresies in order to justify their breaking away from the church. This was noticed as early as the 4th Century AD by Jerome who said "This distinction was drawn by St. Jerome and St. Augustine. "Between heresy and schism", explains St. Jerome, "there is this difference, that heresy perverts dogma, while schism, by rebellion against the bishop, separates from the Church. Nevertheless there is no schism which does not trump up a heresy to justify its departure from the Church"

So in fact schism and heresy go together like a horse and carriage. Imagine the church as our homeland and heresy as an invading army. Shall we abandon our homeland when we notice foul and evil enemies violating our land? No we stand our ground and fight and strive to drive out the imposter from our land. So too, the Church of the Living God is our inheritance and our treasure. We must stand our ground to defend the church against heretics. Abandoning the church and leaving it by schism is exactly what the enemy wants. So we must stay together in unity to defend the church against the wicked hordes of heresy.

When any individual breaks away from the church and joins another church they are committing schism. This is the most wicked of all sins. Some here have stated that false teaching is an excuse to break away from the church and start another denomination, sect, or cult. In fact the reverse is true. Most schismatics invent heresies in order to justify their breaking away from the church. This was noticed as early as the 4th Century AD by Jerome who said "This distinction was drawn by St. Jerome and St. Augustine. "Between heresy and schism", explains St. Jerome, "there is this difference, that heresy perverts dogma, while schism, by rebellion against the bishop, separates from the Church. Nevertheless there is no schism which does not trump up a heresy to justify its departure from the Church"

So in fact schism and heresy go together like a horse and carriage. Imagine the church as our homeland and heresy as an invading army. Shall we abandon our homeland when we notice foul and evil enemies violating our land? No we stand our ground and fight and strive to drive out the imposter from our land. So too, the Church of the Living God is our inheritance and our treasure. We must stand our ground to defend the church against heretics. Abandoning the church and leaving it by schism is exactly what the enemy wants. So we must stay together in unity to defend the church against the wicked hordes of heresy.

Modern precedents definition of "church" and the bibles definition of "church" are to be taken into account when in context of your posted position.


Father bless.

When any individual breaks away from the church and joins another church they are committing schism. This is the most wicked of all sins. Some here have stated that false teaching is an excuse to break away from the church and start another denomination, sect, or cult. In fact the reverse is true. Most schismatics invent heresies in order to justify their breaking away from the church. This was noticed as early as the 4th Century AD by Jerome who said "This distinction was drawn by St. Jerome and St. Augustine. "Between heresy and schism", explains St. Jerome, "there is this difference, that heresy perverts dogma, while schism, by rebellion against the bishop, separates from the Church. Nevertheless there is no schism which does not trump up a heresy to justify its departure from the Church"

Was the Eastern church inventing Heresies to justify its separation from the West? Did Luther invent heresies to justify his 'Reformation'? Did the church (i.e. the one 'ruled' by the Pope) admit its faults when the people so decried its scandals? How do you defend the church when the 'foul and evil enemies violating our land' aren't an invading army, but the authorities we've placed over ourselves?



So in fact schism and heresy go together like a horse and carriage. Imagine the church as our homeland and heresy as an invading army. Shall we abandon our homeland when we notice foul and evil enemies violating our land? No we stand our ground and fight and strive to drive out the imposter from our land. So too, the Church of the Living God is our inheritance and our treasure. We must stand our ground to defend the church against heretics. Abandoning the church and leaving it by schism is exactly what the enemy wants. So we must stay together in unity to defend the church against the wicked hordes of heresy.

Unity isn't uniformity...

When any individual breaks away from the church and joins another church they are committing schism. This is the most wicked of all sins. Some here have stated that false teaching is an excuse to break away from the church and start another denomination, sect, or cult. In fact the reverse is true. Most schismatics invent heresies in order to justify their breaking away from the church. This was noticed as early as the 4th Century AD by Jerome who said "This distinction was drawn by St. Jerome and St. Augustine. "Between heresy and schism", explains St. Jerome, "there is this difference, that heresy perverts dogma, while schism, by rebellion against the bishop, separates from the Church. Nevertheless there is no schism which does not trump up a heresy to justify its departure from the Church"

The MOST wicked? Tell that to the freshly sodomized altar boy. Wipe away his tears and console him with words like "well, at least nobody left your church". Maybe you could convince him to keep his mouth shut for the sake of unity.

Was the Eastern church inventing Heresies to justify its separation from the West?

Yes



Did Luther invent heresies to justify his 'Reformation'?

Yes


Did the church (i.e. the one 'ruled' by the Pope) admit its faults when the people so decried its scandals?

Yes


How do you defend the church when the 'foul and evil enemies violating our land' aren't an invading army, but the authorities we've placed over ourselves?

Pray.



Unity isn't uniformity...
Everybody believing the same thing is unity. That is why the Nicene Creed makes a point of saying "We believe" . It is our common confession which makes us united in belief.
1 Cor 1:10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing and that there be no schisms among you:

Everybody believing the same thing is unity. That is why the Nicene Creed makes a point of saying "We believe" . It is our common confession which makes us united in belief.
1 Cor 1:10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing and that there be no schisms among you:

Evidently the creed is NOT that which unites us, since by your standards I am a schismatic despite knowing and honoring the creed.

Yes

Which?



Yes

Which?



Yes

Which?



Pray.

What else? Because if you suggest we should only pray, then I will accuse you of apathy.



Everybody believing the same thing is unity. That is why the Nicene Creed makes a point of saying "We believe" . It is our common confession which makes us united in belief.
1 Cor 1:10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing and that there be no schisms among you:

Believing what same things? All of the same doctrines, or just the important ones? And, what are the important ones?

Reminder #1: The OP of this thread is "Jesus wanted one church. We should be together more."
Reminder #2: This is the "Apologetics and Evangelism" subforum; not the 'disunity and division' subforum.

With those two things in mind, let's get this thread back on task with the intent of the OP, and in the spirit of the intent of this subforum.

Growing Christ's kingdom through unity to reach the lost out there.

If that reminder is directed at me (or HisLeast), then two things:

1) This is an environment where two (or three) people, disagreeing, have come together to discuss those differences
2) In discussing these differences we will better understand why we aren't together more. Or at least we will see where our disagreements lie.

That, I think, is in the spirit of the OP.

If Jesus wanted one church, and we understand that to mean one church institution, then who's going to make all the concessions?
There are people here, on this forum, who believe that because I partake in the occasional beer, that I worship a God wholly and completely different from the God of the bible, and that it is a definable impossibility for me to be a "real" Christian.
There are people here, on this forum, who believe that because my wife grew up as a Catholic, that my salvation is now forfeit.
There are people here, on this forum, who believe that because I have not experienced something supernatural, that my salvation experience is illegitimate.

None of those people would fellowship with me, and frankly I wouldn't fellowship with them either. So who makes the concessions? Ultimately, it must be the person willing to enslave themselves to every crazy doctrine in existence who is the one expected to bring unity. This is why there never has been "unity" (assuming "unity" definition proposed above), and why there never EVER will be.

For myself, I gave up on unity ages ago. I value self sufficiency and self direction over cowing to a brother/sister with a messed up doctrine.

Evidently the creed is NOT that which unites us, since by your standards I am a schismatic despite knowing and honoring the creed.
Sorry, I am not with you there. What makes you think that I regard you a schismatic even though you know and confess the creed?
I gave some general principles as to what defines a schismatic. I never intended those generalities to be taken as personal judgements against anyone here. If my posts have pricked your conscience then that is between you and God and has nothing to do with me.

Sorry, I am not with you there. What makes you think that I regard you a schismatic even though you know and confess the creed?
I gave some general principles as to what defines a schismatic. I never intended those generalities to be taken as personal judgements against anyone here. If my posts have pricked your conscience then that is between you and God and has nothing to do with me.
Whether or not it was your intent, the consequence of your proposal is easy enough to extrapolate. Your view is that schism is the worst sin in existance (contrary to anything the Bible states), and given the way you accused Lady E in her thread about leaving her church, I can only imagine what you'd tell me: a man who has forsaken the fellowship entirely and has nothing but the utmost disdain for modern church culture.

If Jesus wanted one church, and we understand that to mean one church institution, then who's going to make all the concessions?


There was one Church long ago then there were two, East and West and they may soon become one again. About 1500's a man thought he knew better than centuries of Christians and started his own church now there are a million of these churches. Yet one real one remains and has been there from the beginning in unbroken succession

There was one Church long ago then there were two, East and West and they may soon become one again. About 1500's a man thought he knew better than centuries of Christians and started his own church now there are a million of these churches. Yet one real one remains and has been there from the beginning in unbroken succession

Are you saying that the Roman Catholic Church is the "one real" church?

Yes that it what I believe.

The one real church is not a building, and it's not a Roman organization. The real church, is His body. The body of believers. Rome just happened to adopt it under Constantine.

About 1500's a man thought he knew better than centuries of Christians and started his own church

Martin Luther didn't start his own church. He wanted to get Christianity back to it's pure roots. In Jesus, not in a system.

.... Yet one real one remains and has been there from the beginning in unbroken succession

Yes, this sentence is correct. The true church is every one who has trusted in Christ through Faith, and turned from their sin. Might contain some of the Roman Catholic persuasion, but sadly fewer then if it taught Christ and Him crucified...

Yes, this sentence is correct. The true church is every one who has trusted in Christ through Faith, and turned from their sin. Might contain some of the Roman Catholic persuasion, but sadly fewer then if it taught Christ and Him crucified...

Well said Amos. Right on point.

There was one Church long ago then there were two, East and West and they may soon become one again. About 1500's a man thought he knew better than centuries of Christians and started his own church now there are a million of these churches. Yet one real one remains and has been there from the beginning in unbroken succession

There have been multiple churches since the time when the gospels were originally written. That the new testament is mostly comprised of letters to these individual and independent churches is evidence to this fact. Now, I have no doubt that the gospel is preached within the Catholic church. I have no doubt that Catholics can be Christians just as easily as Protestants can, and with the same level of intensity. But what I don't believe is that the Church of Rome had been set aside as having dominance over all other churches of the era (and future).

Martin Luther didn't start his own church. He wanted to get Christianity back to it's pure roots. In Jesus, not in a system.

And he didn't do that. What he did do was made it alright to follow man instead of God

There have been multiple churches since the time when the gospels were originally written. That the new testament is mostly comprised of letters to these individual and independent churches is evidence to this fact. Now, I have no doubt that the gospel is preached within the Catholic church. I have no doubt that Catholics can be Christians just as easily as Protestants can, and with the same level of intensity. But what I don't believe is that the Church of Rome had been set aside as having dominance over all other churches of the era (and future).

In actuality the Church of the NT was one as demonstrated by the Jerusalem council; however Protestant assume they were individual and independent Churches.

And he didn't do that. What he did do was made it alright to follow man instead of God

How so? Up until then, the "church" was under the heavy hand of the pope. He is a man after all. How did Martin Luther make it alright to follow a man, if that's what Rome's been doing since the 4th century? And what man would you be referring to?

Yes, this sentence is correct. The true church is every one who has trusted in Christ through Faith, and turned from their sin. Might contain some of the Roman Catholic persuasion, but sadly fewer then if it taught Christ and Him crucified...

We know there are separated brethren in Protestantism because of God's great mercy and grace

We know there are separated brethren in Protestantism because of God's great mercy and grace

Separated? Or set free?

In actuality the Church of the NT was one as demonstrated by the Jerusalem council; however Protestant assume they were individual and independent Churches.

No doubt the churches came together and held council whenever they could, however practically speaking they were far more independent than we could imagine today, having no access to wire communication.
Even then, there's no evidence in the New Testament that the other churches recognized Rome as prime.

How so? Up until then, the "church" was under the heavy hand of the pope. He is a man after all. How did Martin Luther make it alright to follow a man, if that's what Rome's been doing since the 4th century? And what man would you be referring to?

Because Martin Luther instead of following Christ through His Church (which is the pillar and foundation of truth (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20tim%203:15&version=DRA)) decided that he knew what was the right way thus enabling people down through the centuries to forsake Christ and make Him as they want Him to be.

The Church was never just under the Pope, even though the myth is perpetuated through time. The Church rest upon Scripture, The Pope and the Magisterium, and Holy Tradition

No doubt the churches came together and held council whenever they could, however practically speaking they were far more independent than we could imagine today, having no access to wire communication.
Even then, there's no evidence in the New Testament that the other churches recognized Rome as prime.

At the time Jerusalem was prime, though it changed to Rome later

Separated? Or set free?

Nope, separated most definitely not set free

Whether or not it was your intent, the consequence of your proposal is easy enough to extrapolate. Your view is that schism is the worst sin in existance (contrary to anything the Bible states), and given the way you accused Lady E in her thread about leaving her church, I can only imagine what you'd tell me: a man who has forsaken the fellowship entirely and has nothing but the utmost disdain for modern church culture.

I did not accuse lady e. I gave a general principle that it was utterly wrong to break fellowship, I then gave a proviso that if a person was leaving one church to join the mother church from which that church split or to join another church which was more orthodox and closer to the root of Christianity then that might be a mitigating circumstance given that there are so many organisations which are not properly called churches. I made no judgment or accusation against her as to which of those situations she was in. It was not until she made it quite clear in a railing response to me that she belonged in the former camp that I gave her the dressing down that she most richly deserved. I know that there are many home-aloners out their who consider themselves Christian. However it is clear that leaving the church is apostasy. Which is now that you come to mention it probably is as wicked a sin as schism is.

Sorry I have to call a spade a spade. If we want to become one again then we have to do the opposite of breaking away in a protest from the church and reverse the process by going back to the church of our fathers.
Jeremiah 6:16 Thus saith the Lord, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein. 17 Also I set watchmen over you, saying, Hearken to the sound of the trumpet. But they said, We will not hearken.

Because Martin Luther instead of following Christ through His Church (which is the pillar and foundation of truth (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20tim%203:15&version=DRA)) decided that he knew what was the right way thus enabling people down through the centuries to forsake Christ and make Him as they want Him to be.

The Church was never just under the Pope, even though the myth is perpetuated through time. The Church rest upon Scripture, The Pope and the Magisterium, and Holy Tradition

See there in lies the problem. You are associating that scripture with Rome. The Church is not Rome. It's the body of Christ. We've done this dance before. I've said my peace. I'll leave it at that. For the record, I attend a RC church on a weekly basis as well as a protestant church. I have nothing against the RCC. I just don't like when people say outrageous statements that they are somehow part of the "one true church". Be careful. that's very cultish thinking.

At the time Jerusalem was prime, though it changed to Rome later

Scripture please? I'm sure with all that tradition, there must certainly be scripture to back that statement up.

At the time Jerusalem was prime, though it changed to Rome later
Sorry, I don't see anything in the NT explicitly stating Jerusalem's primacy either. No evidence of anyone but the apostles exercising authority that everyone else recognized and submitted to.
I understand that Orthodox churches contend that the authority was implicitly passed on, but I see no evidence of such a dynamic in scripture.

That being said, I want to be clear that I don't consider Catholic and other Orthodox churches "bad things". I sincerely appreciate the traditions (with few exceptions: mariology, etc) and think the liturgy is a powerfull weapon against heresy utterly forgotten by the protestant churches, but I can't find a credible reason to believe that Rome was placed in dominance over all other churches and believers.

I did not accuse lady e. I gave a general principle that it was utterly wrong to break fellowship, I then gave a proviso that if a person was leaving one church to join the mother church from which that church split or to join another church which was more orthodox and closer to the root of Christianity then that might be a mitigating circumstance given that there are so many organisations which are not properly called churches. I made no judgment or accusation against her as to which of those situations she was in. It was not until she made it quite clear in a railing response to me that she belonged in the former camp that I gave her the dressing down that she most richly deserved. I know that there are many home-aloners out their who consider themselves Christian. However it is clear that leaving the church is apostasy. Which is now that you come to mention it probably is as wicked a sin as schism is.
For me to be apostate would be to deny the principles that Christ outlined for being Christians. In none of these principles did Christ say "and obey Rome" (or whatever Orthodox "mother" church you belong to). I have done no such thing. However your commitment to label such people apostates illustrates exactly why I steer clear of fellowship to begin with. There's always something to keep someone from reaching any confidence of salvation. If its not the specific church you belong to, then its something else: circumcision, quantity of water baptisms, attitude towards alcohol, political affiliation, or exposure to miraculous experiences. If there is any one thing I have the utmost confidence and faith in, it is the church's (all churches, everywhere) cultural imperitive to cast doubt, fear, anxiety, and hopelessness into the hearts of its congregants.


Sorry I have to call a spade a spade. If we want to become one again then we have to do the opposite of breaking away in a protest from the church and reverse the process by going back to the church of our fathers.
Jeremiah 6:16 Thus saith the Lord, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein. 17 Also I set watchmen over you, saying, Hearken to the sound of the trumpet. But they said, We will not hearken.
No need to apologize if you're not sorry.

Scripture also tells us to gouge our eyes out and cut our hands off if they cause us to sin. In this case, I have done so for fellowship.

I did not accuse lady e. I gave a general principle that it was utterly wrong to break fellowship, I then gave a proviso that if a person was leaving one church to join the mother church....

If you refer to the RCC church here I shall borrow a term from a friend and say Horsefeathers!

I was delivered from the Roman Catholic Church after my questions about doctrine and scripture were met with hostility and a stern warning that "I should not study scripture for myself". The One True and Living creator of the universe is not threatened by my questions.... I later saw many significant (hindrances to salvation) doctrinal errors. I do not suggest that one can not come to Christ in the RCC, but will say that any who would follow Christ can find a much more sound assembly in which to do so.

Scripture please? I'm sure with all that tradition, there must certainly be scripture to back that statement up.

Not everything is in Scripture. The Protestant misconception is that Scripture trumps all it doesn't, Scripture does not stand alone in a vacuum

The Protestant misconception is that Scripture trumps all it doesn't, Scripture does not stand alone in a vacuum

That is a misconception of Protestantism. Though I do admit that many Protestants hold to it nevertheless.

Sorry, I don't see anything in the NT explicitly stating Jerusalem's primacy either. No evidence of anyone but the apostles exercising authority that everyone else recognized and submitted to.
I understand that Orthodox churches contend that the authority was implicitly passed on, but I see no evidence of such a dynamic in scripture.

That being said, I want to be clear that I don't consider Catholic and other Orthodox churches "bad things". I sincerely appreciate the traditions (with few exceptions: mariology, etc) and think the liturgy is a powerfull weapon against heresy utterly forgotten by the protestant churches, but I can't find a credible reason to believe that Rome was placed in dominance over all other churches and believers.

The fact that the Jerusalem Council was held and submitted to belies the fact that Jerusalem was the prime at the time. As I said not every little thing is in Scripture and the biggest problem is Protestants tend to dismiss historical documentation because it doesn't line up with their belief system.

If you refer to the RCC church here I shall borrow a term from a friend and say Horsefeathers!

I was delivered from the Roman Catholic Church after my questions about doctrine and scripture were met with hostility and a stern warning that "I should not study scripture for myself". The One True and Living creator of the universe is not threatened by my questions.... I later saw many significant (hindrances to salvation) doctrinal errors. I do not suggest that one can not come to Christ in the RCC, but will say that any who would follow Christ can find a much more sound assembly in which to do so.

I will say I was delivered from Protestantism away from the doctrines of men into the Church that Christ founded.

Not everything is in Scripture. The Protestant misconception is that Scripture trumps all it doesn't, Scripture does not stand alone in a vacuum

There in lies your biggest problem. Scripture does trump all. We can't just make up our own rules and traditions and have the audacity to say it stands side by side with scripture. That was one of Luther's issues.

There in lies your biggest problem. Scripture does trump all. We can't just make up our own rules and traditions and have the audacity to say it stands side by side with scripture. That was one of Luther's issues.

Yet look how many Protestant make up their own rules while shouting "Scripture trumps all". That excuse allows for multiple denominations in Protestant where each man answers to themselves pretending each is lead into their doctrines by the Spirit

Not everything is in Scripture. The Protestant misconception is that Scripture trumps all it doesn't, Scripture does not stand alone in a vacuum

Where protestants gain, is that where tradition conflicts with scripture, scripture is prime, not tradition, nor a pontifex speaking ex cathedra.
I believe both churches would gain by seriously re-evaluating each other in a positive light, but everyone is too commited to the separation to hope for such a thing

Yet look how many Protestant make up thier own rules while shouting "Scripture trumps all"

Like what? Give me an example? And by the way, I'm not saying Protestants are perfect. So you can't use that to prove your point. Those who make up their own rules are wrong regardless of what church they belong to.

Gentlemen, we've officially moved this conversation to Areopagus territory. Once there, RCC topics can be explored to your heart's content. Enjoy!

I discuss the issue of Church primacy on my blog :)

Gentlemen, we've officially moved this conversation to Areopagus territory. Once there, RCC topics can be explored to your heart's content. Enjoy!

Okay. I have a question, what does this word mean: Areopagus and how do you pronounce it? :)

Like what? Give me an example? And by the way, I'm not saying Protestants are perfect. So you can't use that to prove your point. Those who make up their own rules are wrong regardless of what church they belong to.

An example - look at the forum more focused the Baptism thread where it is clear from Scripture that one must repent and be baptized but many protestants bulk at.

For me to be apostate would be to deny the principles that Christ outlined for being Christians. In none of these principles did Christ say "and obey Rome" (or whatever Orthodox "mother" church you belong to). I have done no such thing. However your commitment to label such people apostates illustrates exactly why I steer clear of fellowship to begin with. There's always something to keep someone from reaching any confidence of salvation. If its not the specific church you belong to, then its something else: circumcision, quantity of water baptisms, attitude towards alcohol, political affiliation, or exposure to miraculous experiences. If there is any one thing I have the utmost confidence and faith in, it is the church's (all churches, everywhere) cultural imperitive to cast doubt, fear, anxiety, and hopelessness into the hearts of its congregants.

If you don't go to church then you are an apostate, its as simple as that. Now I know that some people kind of drift away from church, this is a kind of partial apostasy which is still very serious but not as serious as completely and willfully abandoning the faith. Your decision to deliberately abandon all fellowship with Christians is a very serious act of apostasy.

This grave sin of apostasy is not excused by the failings of weak men in the church. Just because other men sin does not give you or anyone else an excuse to sin.

Your Location tag which states that you are "one step closer to agnosticism every day" is hardly surprising. A steady loss of faith is the inevitable result of people who give away going to church and stay home alone.

Your situation serves as a serious warning to others on this site who may be tempted to forsake the assembling of ourselves together
Hebrews 10:25 Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.

The passage makes it clear that this is a wilful sin of such a serious nature that there remains no more sacrifice for sin.
26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,
This of course would be talking about a resolute and persistent refusal to go to church which extends for some years to the point that it becomes a hardening. Such a person becomes cast in stone and builds a wall of bitterness between themselves and the church which becomes impossible for them to cross. I have seen this happen in my own family. Its truly tragic.

If you refer to the RCC church here I shall borrow a term from a friend and say Horsefeathers!

I was delivered from the Roman Catholic Church after my questions about doctrine and scripture were met with hostility and a stern warning that "I should not study scripture for myself". The One True and Living creator of the universe is not threatened by my questions.... I later saw many significant (hindrances to salvation) doctrinal errors. I do not suggest that one can not come to Christ in the RCC, but will say that any who would follow Christ can find a much more sound assembly in which to do so.

Last time I checked the Catholic Church encouraged its people to read the scriptures. The Vatican 2 document Dei Verbum encourages the faithful to read the scriptures. However it is true that the church insists that the elders of the church need to teach the scriptures to new converts. The church wants people to be properly trained in the use of the scriptures. I'm sure that we all know of people who have come up with some really unbelievable crazy fantastic ideas from the scriptures. The church wants to avoid this kind of thing by giving good guidance to new readers of the scripture, to set them off on the right path right from the beginning.

Imagine a new employee coming into a factory with large complex and dangerous machines. Would the manager just throw the new employee a manual of how the machine works and leave him to it? No. He shows him how to operate the machine, shows him how to find details of how the machine works in the manual, stays with him for a while to ensure that he understands the workings of the machine and supervises his induction into the factory.

The Bible is a dangerous weapon. Perhaps the most dangerous weapon on the earth today as it says "The pen is mightier than the sword". In fact even the scripture states that the Word of God is sharper than a two edged sword. Now do you give a sword to a novice? No. He is likely to swing it around wildly and cut of his foot or worse. Obviously a novice swordsman needs to be trained in the use of the sword before he is let loose with it. In fact it would be wise for him to train with a wooden sword for a while, like a catechism or some tracts about the faith.

The truth is that some people are not ready to read the scripture, they are not in a teachable state and are convinced that they know better than their teachers in the church. Any holy thing misused becomes a curse and the enemy twists the scripture and deceives vulnerable minds. Such people are prone to come up with twisted and distorted interpretations of the scripture which are toxic to themselves and to others.

I'm not saying that you are like this because if I was then my post would be deleted. But I am confident that there are a great many people in this category, overblown with pride coming out of their ears, thinking that they know better than a 2000 year heritage of Christian doctrine. They think they know better than Iraneus, Ignatius, Augustine, Jerome, Tertullian, Bellarmine and all the great doctors and teachers of the church down through the vast ages.

My parents even said that "We have been around the block a few times you know. We know better than you" Well i can tell you that Iraneus, Ignatius, Augustine, Jerome, Tertullian , Bellarmine and all the great doctors and teachers of the church for 2000 years have been around the block a few more times than my parents or me or you. Therefore if we think that we are going to come up with some incredible inspiration of doctrine from the scriptures which is different than what those men taught then we are very seriously deluded by our own gushing sense of pride and self importance. Again I reiterate. I am not talking directly to you in any conceivable way, its just that your post has brought to mind a great many people who exhibit these symptoms of flyblown pride.

Nor am I giving an apologetic for the RCC. I am pointing people towards an orthodox belief of the faith which is held by a couple of protestant denominations (actually it might be one or none) and the eastern orthodox and the catholic church. These all have a great regard for the church fathers and the ancient interpretations of the scriptures.

Where protestants gain, is that where tradition conflicts with scripture, scripture is prime, not tradition, nor a pontifex speaking ex cathedra.
I believe both churches would gain by seriously re-evaluating each other in a positive light, but everyone is too commited to the separation to hope for such a thing

This pretty much says it for me as well. While we should indeed value the Early Church Fathers, they should not be placed in a position where we rely more on them than we do on Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter or Paul.

I would also agree with the statement that each could learn a whole lot from the other(s) if respect was the norm and not the typical need to prove their denomination "right".

Which?

Which?

Which?

What else? Because if you suggest we should only pray, then I will accuse you of apathy.

Believing what same things? All of the same doctrines, or just the important ones? And, what are the important ones?

I'm still waiting for a reply to this.


I'm not saying that you are like this because if I was then my post would be deleted. But I am confident that there are a great many people in this category, overblown with pride coming out of their ears, thinking that they know better than a 2000 year heritage of Christian doctrine. They think they know better than Iraneus, Ignatius, Augustine, Jerome, Tertullian, Bellarmine and all the great doctors and teachers of the church down through the vast ages.

I think that is because in specific instances they do know better. To provide an example, I think we all know better than Iraneus, Augustine and Jerome when they more-or-less advocate lifetime celibacy, virginity and marriage / sex as something tolerated but sinful (sneaky Gnosticism. You know, those inferior women!). Or, as I believe Origin put it, something only instituted after the fall and therefore not really 'good', but more a curse. I quite enjoy the church fathers, but I wouldn't place them on such a high pedastal.



My parents even said that "We have been around the block a few times you know. We know better than you" Well i can tell you that Iraneus, Ignatius, Augustine, Jerome, Tertullian , Bellarmine and all the great doctors and teachers of the church for 2000 years have been around the block a few more times than my parents or me or you. Therefore if we think that we are going to come up with some incredible inspiration of doctrine from the scriptures which is different than what those men taught then we are very seriously deluded by our own gushing sense of pride and self importance. Again I reiterate. I am not talking directly to you in any conceivable way, its just that your post has brought to mind a great many people who exhibit these symptoms of flyblown pride.

Actually, I think you're 'exhibiting' symptoms of 'flyblown pride', except it's pride in tradition and the church fathers. You think it unthinkable that they could be wrong - but why?



Nor am I giving an apologetic for the RCC. I am pointing people towards an orthodox belief of the faith which is held by a couple of protestant denominations (actually it might be one or none) and the eastern orthodox and the catholic church. These all have a great regard for the church fathers and the ancient interpretations of the scriptures.

Could you explain for us why it's impossible for the church fathers to be wrong, when they were quite obviously mistaken in their views of virginity, celibacy, marriage, women, etc.?

If you don't go to church then you are an apostate, its as simple as that. Now I know that some people kind of drift away from church, this is a kind of partial apostasy which is still very serious but not as serious as completely and willfully abandoning the faith. Your decision to deliberately abandon all fellowship with Christians is a very serious act of apostasy.
If I deny Christ I am apostate (interestingly enough, that's something Peter, the grand high pontif of all pontifs actually did three times). I see no scriptural law mandating church attendance in either the Old Testament or New. While the New Testament makes a pretty clear suggestion that we should assemble and encourage / exhort each other, so long as assembly presents a personal risk and a guaranteed path to depression, anxiety, and hopelessness then I will forgo the suggestion in favor of a second, more emphatic suggestion found all over the Bible: If your eye causes you to sin, gouge it out. If your hand causes you to sin, chop it off.


This grave sin of apostasy is not excused by the failings of weak men in the church. Just because other men sin does not give you or anyone else an excuse to sin.
You have not established that schism is apostasy.


Your Location tag which states that you are "one step closer to agnosticism every day" is hardly surprising. A steady loss of faith is the inevitable result of people who give away going to church and stay home alone.
It was worse, far, far worse before I forsook assembly.


Your situation serves as a serious warning to others on this site who may be tempted to forsake the assembling of ourselves together
And the church's worship of itself serves as a warning to why people like me flee its influence every day. I'm just glad I live in a time where the church can no longer round my family and I up and physically torture us into submission... though I'm certain many of the "mother" churches would love to have that power back.

I think that is because in specific instances they do know better. To provide an example, I think we all know better than Iraneus, Augustine and Jerome when they more-or-less advocate lifetime celibacy, virginity and marriage / sex as something tolerated but sinful (sneaky Gnosticism.

Certain men and women take a vow of celibacy to devote their lives to the service of the Lord. The scripture teaches that the celibate virginal state is a higher calling to the married state. I can show you from the scripture where this is approved and highly favoured by God. Start a new thread if you are interested. This in no way indicates that marriage and sex in marriage is sinful. The church has never taught that. Start a new thread if you like and prove from citations that the fathers taught that marriage is sinful.



You know, those inferior women!). Or, as I believe Origin put it, something only instituted after the fall and therefore not really 'good', but more a curse.

Please provide evidence that Origen taught this.
Here is a quote from Origen to show what he actually taught.

Since God has joined them together (a man and a woman in marriage), for this reason there is a gift for those joined together by God. Paul knowing this declares that equally with the purity of the holy celibacy is marriage according to the Word of God a gift, saying, "But I would that all men were like myself; howbeit, each man has his own gift from God, one after this manner, and another after that" (1 Cor. 7:7). Those who are joined together by God obey in thought and deed the command "Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also the Church" Eph 5:25.

I quite enjoy the church fathers, but I wouldn't place them on such a high pedastal.

The church fathers are not there for your amusement but for your instruction. The reason that you don't put them on a high pedestal is because you want to do and believe what you like and extrapolate anything you want to from the scriptures.



Actually, I think you're 'exhibiting' symptoms of 'flyblown pride', except it's pride in tradition and the church fathers. You think it unthinkable that they could be wrong - but why?

I did not say that. Only the scriptures are free from error. All I was saying was that these godly and holy men of great skill and wisdom with the scriptures are more likely to come to a correct understanding of the scriptures than I am. The whole body of the Church affirmed and praised their exegesis of the scriptures.



Could you explain for us why it's impossible for the church fathers to be wrong, when they were quite obviously mistaken in their views of virginity, celibacy, marriage, women, etc.?
Again, I did not say that it was impossible for them to be wrong, but I do think that the church is infallible because it preaches an authoritative and correct interpretation of the scripture. From time to time people within the church will teach false teachings, even great teachers like Origen may teach incorrectly. However any defect in his teaching is exposed by the general assembly of the church and in particular the teaching magisterium of the church. We have faith that this is so because Christ said that the gates of hell would never prevail against the church. The apostle Paul said (as christseeker pointed out) that the church is the pillar and ground of truth. Therefore if anybody seeks the truth outside the church they will not find it, or else they will find corrupted and twisted versions of the truth.

If anybody leaves the church which is the pillar and ground of truth, then they will fall into error, as surely as night follows day.

Certain men and women take a vow of celibacy to devote their lives to the service of the Lord. The scripture teaches that the celibate virginal state is a higher calling to the married state. I can show you from the scripture where this is approved and highly favoured by God.

If you wish to maintain that virginity and celibacy are a 'higher calling', then I will ask you to show that from Scripture. Namely, I will ask you to reconcile that with the creation accounts (Gen. 1-2). I am especially interested in you providing support if you believe virginity and celibacy are 'more' pure than marriage.



Start a new thread if you are interested. This in no way indicates that marriage and sex in marriage is sinful. The church has never taught that. Start a new thread if you like and prove from citations that the fathers taught that marriage is sinful.

I'll stick to this thread, thanks. You are correct to point out the use of my word 'sinful', I shouldn't have used it. Rather, I should have used the word impure. I apologize for that, so take that as my amended view.

And by the way, you still have not answered my previous questions.



Please provide evidence that Origen taught this.
Here is a quote from Origen to show what he actually taught.

Origen surely said as much. However, he also said the following:

God has allowed us to marry wives, because not everyone is capable of the superior condition, which is to be absolutely pure. (Against Celsus 8:55)

Do not think that just as the belly is made for food and food for the belly, that in the same way the body is made for intercourse. It was made that it should be a temple to the Lord. Adam had a body in Paradise, but in Paradise he did not know Eve. (Fragment, 1 Cor. 29).

You'll find these views are consant with what he expressed in the third book of De Principiis, namely that marriage was a result of the Fall (as I said above), carnal, etc. While Origen allowed for marriage, as your quote shows, he likewise held it to be essentially impure. In other words, what Origen is expounding is more Gnostic than Scriptural.



The church fathers are not there for your amusement but for your instruction. The reason that you don't put them on a high pedestal is because you want to do and believe what you like and extrapolate anything you want to from the scriptures.

You throw around some serious accusations - I would ask that you please refrain, lest you condemn yourself. Also, I'm sure you've already read my user name, but just in case, read it again. (Having a church father as my username would seem to indicate my respect for them, though I do not regard them as especially holy, sacred, infallible, etc.)



I did not say that. Only the scriptures are free from error. All I was saying was that these godly and holy men of great skill and wisdom with the scriptures are more likely to come to a correct understanding of the scriptures than I am. The whole body of the Church affirmed and praised their exegesis of the scriptures.

You don't say it, but you sure seem to imply it (I've questioned Origen and look what you've done). Let's quickly recap. I said I don't place the church fathers on a pedastal, your reply was to say, "you don't put them on a high pedestal... because you want to do and believe what you like..." (and so on and so forth). You are saying a lot more than you claim. And that, I think demonstrates your pride in the church fathers.



Again, I did not say that it was impossible for them to be wrong, but I do think that the church is infallible because it preaches an authoritative and correct interpretation of the scripture. From time to time people within the church will teach false teachings, even great teachers like Origen may teach incorrectly. However any defect in his teaching is exposed by the general assembly of the church and in particular the teaching magisterium of the church. We have faith that this is so because Christ said that the gates of hell would never prevail against the church. The apostle Paul said (as christseeker pointed out) that the church is the pillar and ground of truth. Therefore if anybody seeks the truth outside the church they will not find it, or else they will find corrupted and twisted versions of the truth.

Sure and I agree with that. But what you aren't doing is answering my original question - where did Luther 'make up' heresies? Where did the Eastern church 'make up' heresies, etc.



If anybody leaves the church which is the pillar and ground of truth, then they will fall into error, as surely as night follows day.

Depending on what you mean by 'church,' of course.

The church - pillar of truth and morality. Why would anyone want to leave a place like this?

http://www.cuttingedge.org/Inquisition_5.jpg


http://www.cuttingedge.org/Inquisition_9_Anal_Torture.jpg

Before I reply, let me say that I have brothers and sisters in the RCC. I do not have any malice for them, but I greatly hope the Lord will lead them from it's clutches as He did me....


Last time I checked the Catholic Church encouraged its people to read the scriptures.This is an interesting statement. You can say it is true, because the (extremely limited) context of the statements that follow give some support to the idea... read? Yes... study? Absolutely not. Even in the more liberal parishes, groups like the neocuminal studies are VERY strictly regulated... no place for laity to study, and certainly not teach unless it is pre-approved, canned stuff with Rome's 'seal of approval'.:rolleyes:..


....Imagine a new employee coming into a factory with large complex and dangerous machines. Would the manager just throw the new employee a manual of how the machine works and leave him to it?......

NO! Which is exactly why the believer is given the Spirit of Truth to dwell within them and lead them in the Truth!...


The Bible is a dangerous weapon.... Now do you give a sword to a novice? No..... This is exactly the wrong minded attitude that separates men from the very words of life, and gives them a substitute that is not fit...


....In fact it would be wise for him to train with a wooden sword for a while, like a catechism or some tracts about the faith.....

Yes, help them take a faulty understanding into scripture, and convince him that he is being 'enlightened'. Then tell him his questions show a lack of faith... and use guilt to control him...

... who's church is this you are talking about?...


The truth is that some people are not ready to read the scripture, they are not in a teachable state and are convinced that they know better than their teachers in the church....

...I have unlearned a grat many things in the decades I have walked with the Lord. I agree that pride does hinder one's being teachable. So also, does reliance on a man made system...


I am not talking directly to you in any conceivable way, its just that your post has brought to mind a great many people who exhibit these symptoms of flyblown pride.

Well, just to be clear. I know Christ, and Him crucified... I am learning a great many things (and shall continue to learn until I am home)... Scripture is sufficient, as quickened by the Spirit of the Lord... thank you. The rest is just dead men's bones.


Nor am I giving an apologetic for the RCC. I am pointing people towards an orthodox belief of the faith which is held by a couple of protestant denominations (actually it might be one or none) and the eastern orthodox and the catholic church. These all have a great regard for the church fathers and the ancient interpretations of the scriptures.

Again to be clear. ANY organization, denomination, or religion that seeks to be a surrogate for a direct and personal relationship with Christ is not of Him. It is unfortunate that men seek such substitutes, I am quite sure there shall be no place in Glory for anything of the sort. ...

If you wish to maintain that virginity and celibacy are a 'higher calling', then I will ask you to show that from Scripture. Namely, I will ask you to reconcile that with the creation accounts (Gen. 1-2). I am especially interested in you providing support if you believe virginity and celibacy are 'more' pure than marriage.

1 Cor 7:1Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. 2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

1 Cor 7:7 For I would that all men were even as I myself (celibate). But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that. 8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. 9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.

32He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord:33 But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife. 34 There is difference also between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband. 35 And this I speak for your own profit; not that I may cast a snare upon you, but for that which is comely, and that ye may attend upon the Lord without distraction.

38 So then he that giveth her in marriage doeth well; but he that giveth her not in marriage doeth better.

Revelation 14:4 These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were redeemed from among men, being the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb.

Because celibate men are dedicated to the Lord moreso than the married; therefore the church has made a policy to select priests from their number because they are highly favoured. The religious also make vows of celibacy so that they can care for the things of the Lord all of their lives. Not every man is capable of such a choice because God has given different gifts to different men. However as according to the words of Paul the unmarried state is closer to God. In fact the word celibate comes from the Latin word caelis which means heavenly or in heaven to reflect the spirituality of the virginal state. It is sad that in our society we do not value virginity. But in all Christian and Jewish ages ago the virgin was highly valued.



I'll stick to this thread, thanks. You are correct to point out the use of my word 'sinful', I shouldn't have used it. Rather, I should have used the word impure. I apologize for that, so take that as my amended view.

I don't think impure is right either. Married people are not at all impure. The verse in Rev 14 I believe relates to men who have made vows of celibacy and who have not broken their vows. But men who marry are not defiling themselves.

Marriage is pure but celibacy is purer. That is probably a fair way of putting it.



And by the way, you still have not answered my previous questions.

I did not want the thread to get derailed into a rehash of the reformation doctrines. I even wanted to avoid this subject of celibacy because it is not specifically related to the thread; but you were insistent.




Origen surely said as much. However, he also said the following:

God has allowed us to marry wives, because not everyone is capable of the superior condition, which is to be absolutely pure. (Against Celsus 8:55)

Please provide a citation. The one you gave does not state that Origen taught that marriage and sex were a curse from the fall. Please retract your ridiculous accusation against Origen. Nor do I believe that Origen said what you cited here. Here is the link http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/04168.htm which does not say what you claim Origen said; nevertheless I do not disagree with the quote which is in line with what I said before; provided we are not claiming an interpretation that there is any kind of impurity in marriage. That is not church teaching.



Do not think that just as the belly is made for food and food for the belly, that in the same way the body is made for intercourse. It was made that it should be a temple to the Lord. Adam had a body in Paradise, but in Paradise he did not know Eve. (Fragment, 1 Cor. 29).

I might have led you astray providing a link to that Coptic web site. Those citations seem to be very unreliable. I cannot confirm them from any other reliable source. Nevertheless I do not object to what it says. It is certainly true that Adam lived for some time without a wife. There is also no reason to doubt Origen by imagining that Adam knew Eve in the biblical sense in the Garden of Eden. But the point he is making (assuming he did actually make it) is that sex is not an irresistable appetite in the way that food is; and that God made mankind in his pure state, capable of existing without sex. Thousands of celibate priests which have lived throughout the millenia are proof of this. Jesus also was a celibate man; as if we needed a better example.




You'll find these views are consant with what he expressed in the third book of De Principiis, namely that marriage was a result of the Fall (as I said above), carnal, etc. While Origen allowed for marriage, as your quote shows, he likewise held it to be essentially impure. In other words, what Origen is expounding is more Gnostic than Scriptural.

Where do you get this stuff. I have read through book 3 of De Principiis and can find nothing like this expressed. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/04123.htm Could you please retract your allegations which you have made against Origen. Sometimes these kinds of things get written on an atheist web site somewhere and they get repeated without checking them and suddenly an urban myth develops and people actually start believing the gossip about someone.




You throw around some serious accusations - I would ask that you please refrain, lest you condemn yourself. Also, I'm sure you've already read my user name, but just in case, read it again. (Having a church father as my username would seem to indicate my respect for them, though I do not regard them as especially holy, sacred, infallible, etc.)

Well you are not showing much respect for Origen. Making him out to say something which the church never taught and it would seem almost certain (for lack of evidence) that he said no such thing.

They are holy. On my better days I regard myself as holy and sacred (a temple of the Holy Spirit) but I esteem these men higher than myself. They are after all canonised by the church. Origen is not a saint and it is clear that he did teach a heresy apokatastasis which we call today universalism. The church rejected his teaching which just shows that the church fathers were not infallible in the way that you accuse me of believing. However many of the fathers are canonised as Saints. They are therefore affirmed by the church to be entirely trustworthy in their doctrine and entirely worthy as examples for us to follow. Athanasius is a Saint and if we were to exalt our own understand over Athanasius (not this member but the Saint I mean) then it would be an act of great pride and arrogance.


Sure and I agree with that. But what you aren't doing is answering my original question - where did Luther 'make up' heresies? Where did the Eastern church 'make up' heresies, etc.
Depending on what you mean by 'church,' of course.
I'm not going to answer you because I don't want to derail the thread. You know as well as I do what doctrines differ between protestantism and catholicism. Just pick one and start a thread on it and I will respond. The Eastern Orthodox are almost identical in belief to the catholics, but there is one major difference which they have from the Catholic church and that too is a heresy which they invented to justify their schism. But I don't want to be drawn on that subject either as it will derail the thread. Raise another thread if you want.

Before I reply, let me say that I have brothers and sisters in the RCC. I do not have any malice for them, but I greatly hope the Lord will lead them from it's clutches as He did me....

This is an interesting statement. You can say it is true, because the (extremely limited) context of the statements that follow give some support to the idea... read? Yes... study? Absolutely not. Even in the more liberal parishes, groups like the neocuminal studies are VERY strictly regulated... no place for laity to study, and certainly not teach unless it is pre-approved, canned stuff with Rome's 'seal of approval'.:rolleyes:..

There is a wide difference between what the church in Rome desires for the global church; and what get's disseminated to the rank and file. As one famous Catholic apologist once said. "That which get's disseminated to the rank and file is rank and vile". But your statement that it is all canned stuff from Rome is merely hearsay. You cannot rely upon that as evidence. You must read the catechism and the Vatican 2 documents and the various encyclicals from the Pope to know the truth. In fact as we speak the Pope has just issued the most important church document about the Scriptures since 1965 when Dei Verbum was written. I have not read it all yet as it is a large document, but it reaffirms that the proper setting for interpretation of the scripture is WITHIN the church.
He says Here we can point to a fundamental criterion of biblical hermeneutics: the primary setting for scriptural interpretation is the life of the Church. This is not to uphold the ecclesial context as an extrinsic rule to which exegetes must submit, but rather is something demanded by the very nature of the Scriptures and the way they gradually came into being.

What he means by this is that the command to interpret the scriptures within the life and context of the church is not given in order to uphold the clergy and subjugate the layman; but rather is a command directly from the scriptures themselves. 2 Pet 1:20-21
Heres some more:

Consequently, “since sacred Scripture must be read and interpreted in the light of the same Spirit through whom it was written”,87 exegetes, theologians and the whole people of God must approach it as what it really is, the word of God conveyed to us through human words (cf. 1 Th 2:13). This is a constant datum implicit in the Bible itself: “No prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God” (2 Pet 1:20-21). Moreover, it is the faith of the Church that recognizes in the Bible the word of God; as Saint Augustine memorably put it: “I would not believe the Gospel, had not the authority of the Catholic Church led me to do so”.88 The Holy Spirit, who gives life to the Church, enables us to interpret the Scriptures authoritatively. The Bible is the Church’s book, and its essential place in the Church’s life gives rise to its genuine interpretation.

Saint Jerome recalls that we can never read Scripture simply on our own. We come up against too many closed doors and we slip too easily into error. The Bible was written by the People of God for the People of God, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Only in this communion with the People of God can we truly enter as a “we” into the heart of the truth that God himself wishes to convey to us.89 Jerome, for whom “ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ”,90 states that the ecclesial dimension of biblical interpretation is not a requirement imposed from without: the Book is the very voice of the pilgrim People of God, and only within the faith of this People are we, so to speak, attuned to understand sacred Scripture. An authentic interpretation of the Bible must always be in harmony with the faith of the Catholic Church. He thus wrote to a priest: “Remain firmly attached to the traditional doctrine that you have been taught, so that you may exhort according to sound doctrine and confound those who contradict it”.91

What Jerome is alluding to is the prophecy of
[I]2 Tim 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; 4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
People are no longer going to want to hear the traditional doctrine of the church; they are going to burn with lust for new novel teachings. Heap up teachers. And they will TURN AWAY. This turning away is apostasy, leaving the church, leaving the traditional doctrines of the church, then ultimately leaving the faith altogether.



NO! Which is exactly why the believer is given the Spirit of Truth to dwell within them and lead them in the Truth!...
This is exactly the wrong minded attitude that separates men from the very words of life, and gives them a substitute that is not fit...
Yes, help them take a faulty understanding into scripture, and convince him that he is being 'enlightened'. Then tell him his questions show a lack of faith... and use guilt to control him...

You are just puffing smoke. You have no idea that the church is faulty in its understanding of the scripture. It is just as likely that you have been deceived by wicked men and spirits to believe a contorted and twisted interpretation of the scriptures. Of course nobody believes that they are deceived. That is the very nature of deception itself. Our proclivity to be deceived is almost infinite, whereas we have the promise of Christ that the church can never fail. He said the "gates of hell shall never prevail against it". I know that I was deceived and that when I submitted to the church the scales of deception fell away from me. Praise the Lord.



[FONT="Comic Sans MS"][SIZE="3"][COLOR="navy"]...I have unlearned a grat many things in the decades I have walked with the Lord. I agree that pride does hinder one's being teachable. So also, does reliance on a man made system...

How do you know what is a man-made system and what is a God-made system. What criteria do you apply to come to this decision?
Or do you just choose what system you like and then make out in your head that the one you have chosen is the God-made system?




Well, just to be clear. I know Christ, and Him crucified... I am learning a great many things (and shall continue to learn until I am home)... Scripture is sufficient, as quickened by the Spirit of the Lord... thank you. The rest is just dead men's bones.

If scripture were sufficient then we would all be united together as one. It's when Luther threw away the authority of the church and let every man and his dog choose for himself what the Scriptures taught that the floodgates opened, and now we have tens of thousands of denominations, sects, cults, splinter groups, independents, all with their own set of doctrines and beliefs. And in this cacophony of confusion each man believes that "scripture is sufficient" and that he has the authoritative interpretation of the scripture.

How do you know what is a man-made system and what is a God-made system. What criteria do you apply to come to this decision?
Or do you just choose what system you like and then make out in your head that the one you have chosen is the God-made system?

The evidence that the RCC doctrine is man made is very much evident in your posts. I went through Catholic school, and then RCIA so I DO have a high level of awareness as to what is taught. Man made religion is always going to have an appeal to men. The structure, and the approach that Catholicism use is very appealing to the natural man.

When we stand before the Throne, the Lord shall not ask us of the Pope and his opinions. Trust in Horses, chariots, or fallible men to give me the answers is misplaced.

My trust is in Christ, not in the myths of other men.

I hope you might be loosed from this bondage as well.

The structure, and the approach that Catholicism use is very appealing to the natural man.I will tell you that Protestantism is the one that appeals to the natural man (that's what kept me there in it's tentacles so long). In Protestantism one can believe how they like and say "the Holy Spirit told me so" and you may disagree but you can't really come against another because as a Protestant anyone may believe any way they so choose. There is no authority higher than the individual in Protestantism. I know you'll come back and say Scripture is the only authority you all follow but the reality is you must interpret each thing and in the end make up your own mind. That is why there are 30,000 plus denominations and growing every hour, because everyone can decide what to believe and you bet that is very appealing to the natural man. No one to tell one how to believe or what to do is the essence of Protestantism yet make he excuse that he Holy Spirit has led you there.

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

All "you" are generic you

Please provide a citation. The one you gave does not state that Origen taught that marriage and sex were a curse from the fall. Please retract your ridiculous accusation against Origen. Nor do I believe that Origen said what you cited here. Here is the link http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/04168.htm which does not say what you claim Origen said; nevertheless I do not disagree with the quote which is in line with what I said before; provided we are not claiming an interpretation that there is any kind of impurity in marriage. That is not church teaching.

I'm getting ready for church, so I'll address the rest of your reply in a bit. In the mean time, this is the quote from New Advent:

But God has allowed us to marry, because all are not fit for the higher, that is, the perfectly pure life; and God would have us to bring up all our children, and not to destroy any of the offspring given us by His providenceBook 8, chapter 55 - just as I cited. Now I'm no philosopher (*cough*), but it seems to me that the claim "the virgin / celibate life is the most pure life" is at odds with marriage. It is a bit like saying, "marriage is pure, but virginity is purer". We could rephrase as follows, "compared to virginity, marriage is impure". In any case, I'll ask you to re-read the cited portion of De Principiis again (you may also try looking at 1.5 and 2.8). It does provide textual 'proof' that Origen believed marriage to have been instituted after - and because - of the fall. This isn't church teaching, and that's my point. There are areas where the church fathers were wrong, and as such we aren't all trying to 'do our own thing' when we question them.

I'm getting ready for church, so I'll address the rest of your reply in a bit. In the mean time, this is the quote from New Advent:

But God has allowed us to marry, because all are not fit for the higher, that is, the perfectly pure life; and God would have us to bring up all our children, and not to destroy any of the offspring given us by His providenceBook 8, chapter 55 - just as I cited. Now I'm no philosopher (*cough*), but it seems to me that the claim "the virgin / celibate life is the most pure life" is at odds with marriage. It is a bit like saying, "marriage is pure, but virginity is purer". We could rephrase as follows, "compared to virginity, marriage is impure". In any case, I'll ask you to re-read the cited portion of De Principiis again (you may also try looking at 1.5 and 2.8). It does provide textual 'proof' that Origen believed marriage to have been instituted after - and because - of the fall. This isn't church teaching, and that's my point. There are areas where the church fathers were wrong, and as such we aren't all trying to 'do our own thing' when we question them.
No you are wrong. The scripture says that the Lord was made perfect through suffering. Does that mean he was imperfect before he suffered? No of course not. We are talking about degrees of excellence. To say that something is more pure than something else does not infer that the thing which is less pure than the other is impure.

All men vary in their holiness. I believe that Mary McKillop (now St. Mary of the Cross) was holier than I am. Does that mean that I am unholy because I am not as holy as St. Mary of the Cross. No of course not. Origen did not say that marriage was instituted after the fall. Not even the wildest twisting of his Chapter 55 could lead the reasonable man to believe so. You are merely do a contortionist act because it is too hard for you to admit that you are flat out wrong. Please retract your outrageous and outlandish accusations against Origen.

What makes one "holy"?

No you are wrong. The scripture says that the Lord was made perfect through suffering. Does that mean he was imperfect before he suffered? No of course not. We are talking about degrees of excellence. To say that something is more pure than something else does not infer that the thing which is less pure than the other is impure.

All men vary in their holiness. I believe that Mary McKillop (now St. Mary of the Cross) was holier than I am. Does that mean that I am unholy because I am not as holy as St. Mary of the Cross. No of course not.

I suspected you would reply along this line of argument. When we speak of virginity as a 'more excellent purity' than marriage, especially when we speak of virginity as the 'desired' state, we likewise speak of marriage as something we tolerate. In this 'sense' we tolerate it because while we disagree with it, we see it as something necessary for those who don't have "the gift". In this way marriage isn't a 'degree of excellence' in relation to virginity / celibacy that we may have different degrees of perfection. Otherwise if this was our concern, we would all eschew marriage / sex(uality) / etc. To say otherwise is tantamount to teaching that we may sin to be holy, and that is a contradiction in terms. (The difficulty is found in relation to perfection - God expects complete perfection, nothing less. To speak of virginity as more pure is to call it more perfect, thus one must do away with marriage as a legitimate option - it is a child of the fall, the result of sin, etc. That Origen did not think this through is neither here nor there, but it is the case.)



Origen did not say that marriage was instituted after the fall. Not even the wildest twisting of his Chapter 55 could lead the reasonable man to believe so.

Which is why I directed you to De Principiis book 1 chapter 5, book 2 chapter 8 and book 3. I am not impressed that you are disagreeing with me but aren't able to read the citations I've given you.



You are merely do a contortionist act because it is too hard for you to admit that you are flat out wrong. Please retract your outrageous and outlandish accusations against Origen.

Are you aware of the 'controversy' between Origen and St. Peter of Alexandria? The latter - also a Pope - disagreed with Origen in many areas, and rightly so. One of those areas relates to this topic, it concerns the state of the body in relation to the Fall. What you consider my 'outrageous and outlandish accusations' have been repeated in history countless times.

When I have more time I'll quote to you from De Principiis, as it seems reading for yourself is beyond you. Until then this is all rather silly (and uninformed).

Please retract your outrageous and outlandish accusations against Origen.

Why ask? Why not get the Inquisition to knock down his door, imprison him until he confesses to devil worship, then hand him over to the torturers? Perhaps they'll leverage The Pear of Anguish, just like the "mother" church used to.

Hello all,

I have some comments I would like to throw into this discussion (and not that anyone has to reply to them).

I can’t help but notice that when Jesus called disciples, and chose the 12 and then even the inner 3, that he did not use marital status as a condition. And I don’t believe He anywhere stated the spiritual superiority of the unmarried over the married. Paul himself claims the right to marry as the other apostles (1Cor. 9:5), but for the sake of the gospel (the hardships of being an apostle on the road to the gentiles) he waved that right. That was his choice, but not that God told him that such a choice would have made him less spiritual. And I can not help but also consider that Christ came to earth to procure a bride for Himself. So if marriage is less spiritual, why then did Jesus give His life for His future bride? And if the marriage bed is undefiled, how then can a married person be considered less holy because of marriage? A different calling, yes; a more spiritual calling by definition, no. If it was otherwise, Paul could have, and I believe would have, used it to claim superiority over the other apostles.

Yes, this sentence is correct. The true church is every one who has trusted in Christ through Faith, and turned from their sin. Might contain some of the Roman Catholic persuasion, but sadly fewer then if it taught Christ and Him crucified...

Wow...if there ever was a thing they got RIGHT, it is Christ and Him crucified. Ever seen that thng on the wall in every good Catholics home!!

all the best...

I suspected you would reply along this line of argument. When we speak of virginity as a 'more excellent purity' than marriage, especially when we speak of virginity as the 'desired' state, we likewise speak of marriage as something we tolerate. In this 'sense' we tolerate it because while we disagree with it, we see it as something necessary for those who don't have "the gift". In this way marriage isn't a 'degree of excellence' in relation to virginity / celibacy that we may have different degrees of perfection. Otherwise if this was our concern, we would all eschew marriage / sex(uality) / etc. To say otherwise is tantamount to teaching that we may sin to be holy, and that is a contradiction in terms. (The difficulty is found in relation to perfection - God expects complete perfection, nothing less. To speak of virginity as more pure is to call it more perfect, thus one must do away with marriage as a legitimate option - it is a child of the fall, the result of sin, etc. That Origen did not think this through is neither here nor there, but it is the case.)



Which is why I directed you to De Principiis book 1 chapter 5, book 2 chapter 8 and book 3. I am not impressed that you are disagreeing with me but aren't able to read the citations I've given you.



Are you aware of the 'controversy' between Origen and St. Peter of Alexandria? The latter - also a Pope - disagreed with Origen in many areas, and rightly so. One of those areas relates to this topic, it concerns the state of the body in relation to the Fall. What you consider my 'outrageous and outlandish accusations' have been repeated in history countless times.

When I have more time I'll quote to you from De Principiis, as it seems reading for yourself is beyond you. Until then this is all rather silly (and uninformed).

I quoted the scriptures. Could you please comment on them. Somehow we have got fixated on Origen and have not discussed the scriptures which teach celibacy.

As for De Principiis I really think you are reading something different to what I am reading. The passages you have referenced don't even mention marriage or sex. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/04123.htm Could you cut and paste the passages which you believe that teach that sex is impure and is tolerated since the fall?

Hello all,

I have some comments I would like to throw into this discussion (and not that anyone has to reply to them).

I can’t help but notice that when Jesus called disciples, and chose the 12 and then even the inner 3, that he did not use marital status as a condition. And I don’t believe He anywhere stated the spiritual superiority of the unmarried over the married. Paul himself claims the right to marry as the other apostles (1Cor. 9:5), but for the sake of the gospel (the hardships of being an apostle on the road to the gentiles) he waved that right. That was his choice, but not that God told him that such a choice would have made him less spiritual. And I can not help but also consider that Christ came to earth to procure a bride for Himself. So if marriage is less spiritual, why then did Jesus give His life for His future bride? And if the marriage bed is undefiled, how then can a married person be considered less holy because of marriage? A different calling, yes; a more spiritual calling by definition, no. If it was otherwise, Paul could have, and I believe would have, used it to claim superiority over the other apostles.
Maybe less holy is not quite what I am trying to convey. A lesser calling is far better. Thanks.

Perhaps "different calling"? After all, if all first century Christians had been celibate, it would have all ended pretty quickly.

Perhaps "different calling"? After all, if all first century Christians had been celibate, it would have all ended pretty quickly.
Still not happy? I think the apostle Paul uses the word "gift" in 1 Cor 7.
"1 Cor 7:7 For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that. 8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. 9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn."


So perhaps I better just stick with "gift" and "better".

I would agree that being single is a gift. It takes a special person to be able to go through life without a helpmate. And I am being very sincere when I say that.

Better? In some circumstances, most assuredly. In others, not so much, at least to me. Also, Paul said it was better to marry than to burn. I don't know Greek but I would think he was referring to burning with lust.

I would agree that being single is a gift. It takes a special person to be able to go through life without a helpmate. And I am being very sincere when I say that.

Better? In some circumstances, most assuredly. In others, not so much, at least to me. Also, Paul said it was better to marry than to burn. I don't know Greek but I would think he was referring to burning with lust.
He also says it is better not to marry and that it is better to stay celibate.

1 Cor 7:38 So then he that giveth her in marriage doeth well; but he that giveth her not in marriage doeth better.


He goes on to say that it is better for widows to not remarry but to live celibate lives.
39 The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord. 40 But she is happier if she so abide, after my judgment:

Of course everybody has their various opinions and judgements on this matter which have various degrees of merit.
However Paul point out
"and I think also that I have the Spirit of God."


So I don't think we should discount or read over what Paul says on this matter.

Let's look at the section in I Corinthians:
1 - Now concerning the things about which you wrote, it is good for a man not to touch a woman.

2 - But because of immoralities, each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband.

3 - The husband must fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband.

4 - The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.

5 - Stop depriving one another, except by agreement for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer, and come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

6 - But this I say by way of concession, not of command.

7 - Yet I wish that all men were even as I myself am. However, each man has his own gift from God, one in this manner, and another in that.

8 - But I say to the unmarried and to widows that it is good for them if they remain even as I.

9 - But if they do not have self-control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

10 - But to the married I give instructions, not I, but the Lord, that the wife should not leave her husband

11 - (but if she does leave, she must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband should not divorce his wife.

12 - But to the rest I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he must not divorce her.

There is nothing more pure or better about being celibate. Paul WISHES some were as he, single. Paul even states in one instance that he himself says and not the Lord. He was very careful about the manner in which he wrote those sentences. He goes on to say in verse 17:

Only, as the Lord has assigned to each one, as God has called each, in this manner let him walk And so I direct in all the churches.

There is nothing more pure or better about being celibate. Paul WISHES some were as he, single. Paul even states in one instance that he himself says and not the Lord. He was very careful about the manner in which he wrote those sentences. He goes on to say in verse 17:

Only, as the Lord has assigned to each one, as God has called each, in this manner let him walk And so I direct in all the churches.
Where have I said any different, of course God calls each man to his vocation. Some to a religious or celibate life, others to a married life. I have said this all along.

The Lord does not say that it is better not to marry, Paul does. And he claims to be led by the Holy Spirit.
"1 Cor 7:38 So then he that giveth her in marriage doeth well; but he that giveth her not in marriage doeth better."

Paul even says why "34 There is difference also between a wife and a virgin"
Now read this carefully. You are reading right over this.
" The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit"

Therefore there is a holiness about an unmarried woman who cares for the things of the Lord that is in some way different from that of the married woman. I and others have used the word "more pure". I got corrected earlier in this thread for using the term "more holy" (which is the very word Paul uses here), and even attract contention when I say "better calling". So perhaps you would like to have a go at describing what it is about the celibate virgin that gives him or her holiness in both body and spirit which the married women seems to lack?

I'm happy to hear suggestions.

I utterly agree that Paul was not giving commands. He was encouraging virginity in those who can contain their sexual desire. He was extolling the virtues of a religious life which "cares after the things of the Lord". So who is commanding men and women not to get married? Nobody. It is a damnable heresy to forbid to marry, and by the same token it is damnable heresy to require celibacy. The church does not forbid to marry, nor does it require celibacy of any young man. The church however as its prerogative chooses celibate men who are devoted to the Lord so that they can devote themselves to the church. This makes a lot of sense for many practical reasons. In the past there were enough young celibate men to draw from to make as priests, but sadly today the celibate lifestyle is laughed at a derided and treated as a false teaching so there are less young celibate men to draw upon.

An earlier poster pointed out that some of the disciples were married. So too are some catholic priests married. These are mainly Anglican priests who have converted who have been ordained into the priesthood of the Catholic church. Also in the Eastern Orthodox tradition priests can be married (although bishops cannot be married). So I understand that many Eastern Catholics maintain this Byzantine tradition with the blessing of the Western Church. This serves to prove that the church is not opposed to marriage either of priests or layfolk. However in choosing priests the church chooses those who have dedicated their lives to God; as Paul says so that they may be "holy both in body and in spirit" and also so that they may "careth for the things that belong to the Lord".

One of the most important things which belong to the Lord is his church, it is the fold of his sheep. Therefore it is quite apparent that a celibate man will have a greater capacity to care for the church than a married man who is distracted by wife and family. Surely we don't need Paul to tell us that, or the church. That's just common sense.

post the entire verse and it rather explains itself:

34 - and his interests are divided. The woman who is unmarried, and the virgin, is concerned about the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and spirit; but one who is married is concerned about the things of the world, how she may please her husband.

A woman who is married is concerned about pleasing her husband. A woman who is not married does not have those concerns and can focus soley on the Lord. The holiness had naught to do with sex.

post the entire verse and it rather explains itself:

34 - and his interests are divided. The woman who is unmarried, and the virgin, is concerned about the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and spirit; but one who is married is concerned about the things of the world, how she may please her husband.

A woman who is married is concerned about pleasing her husband. A woman who is not married does not have those concerns and can focus soley on the Lord. The holiness had naught to do with sex.
Exactly. A married woman (and man) is divided in her (his) attentions, therefore she is not as holy in body and spirit as an unmarried woman who is devoted exclusively to the Lord. That's what I have been saying all along. So what do you think "holiness in body" means which an unmarried virgin has which a married woman does not have? If it's nothing to do with sex then what is it? Any ideas?

Come on, stay with this Vhayes.

It has to do with how many hours are in a day. Not sex. A relationship with Jesus Christ requires what? TIME.

there is NOTHING inherently wrong/dirty/bad/unholy/evil about sex - therefore there is nothing holy/sacred/wonderful in celibacy unless one is "gifted" in that way.

Stay with you? Dude, get over yourself.

It has to do with how many hours are in a day. Not sex. A relationship with Jesus Christ requires what? TIME.

there is NOTHING inherently wrong/dirty/bad/unholy/evil about sex - therefore there is nothing holy/sacred/wonderful in celibacy unless one is "gifted" in that way.

Stay with you? Dude, get over yourself.
I did not say "stay with me" I said "stay with this" - meaning the subject. I said that because it seemed like you were firing off brief retorts which could have had a little more thought put into them. I certainly did not mean to be rude.

I never said that there was anything wrong/dirty/bad/unholy/evil about sex. What I said was that celibacy is holy/sacred/wonderful when someone is "gifted" in that way. Which is just what you said then. So we are in agreement.
I'm dropping it now.

I quoted the scriptures. Could you please comment on them. Somehow we have got fixated on Origen and have not discussed the scriptures which teach celibacy.

One question first, because of your (brief) dialogue with Vhayes. Do you believe that someone who is celibate, or even a virgin, is holier than someone who is married? That is, you are assuming that married couples have worries and priorities of a 'higher' sort than the worries and priorities of one who is single. Meaning that the one who is single can be more devoted to the Lord; the one who is married even less so. That doesn't seem at all evident to me, is that what you believe?



As for De Principiis I really think you are reading something different to what I am reading. The passages you have referenced don't even mention marriage or sex. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/04123.htm Could you cut and paste the passages which you believe that teach that sex is impure and is tolerated since the fall?

Origen believed that humanity was originally created to be entirely spiritual, lacking any sort of physical manifestation. That manifestation, what we call 'the body', was (is?) a result of the Fall. Sexuality, the 'ultimate' expression of physicality, is then the ultimate expression of the Fall. More Gnostic than Christian, but Origen did believe it. That said, I was prepared to quote for you the specific instances of Origen's teachings, but now I've realized I can't, I'd have to quote essentially the whole book. So with the above information you could perhaps read it yourself again, otherwise it may be best to focus on Scripture and drop Origen (unless you persist, then I can see if I can work some quote magic...)

One question first, because of your (brief) dialogue with Vhayes. Do you believe that someone who is celibate, or even a virgin, is holier than someone who is married? That is, you are assuming that married couples have worries and priorities of a 'higher' sort than the worries and priorities of one who is single. Meaning that the one who is single can be more devoted to the Lord; the one who is married even less so. That doesn't seem at all evident to me, is that what you believe?

Yes. It's the plain statement of the apostle Paul. Sorry its not my idea. Its straight from the scripture. Of course Paul is speaking in generalities. So a single who has dedicated themselves to the Lord might fall into sin (as is loudly and regularly reported in the media), whereas the married person may be more perfect in their state than the celibate in theirs. It is unlikely that you know any celibate people who have devoted themselves to the Lord, except what you have heard through the media. I do know many such people and I am convinced that they are holier than I am. I have seen their devotion to God and the church and it exceeds mine. There is no doubt in my mind of this. The media gives the story of the 1 out of a 1000 religious or priests who really foul up badly. They won't tell you about the extraordinary deeds of holiness and dedication of the other 999. As far as I am concerned, if you don't know any of these celibate religious men and women personally then you are in no position to comment or make judgment. You can't just base your perceptions on what you hear in the secular media.



Origen believed that humanity was originally created to be entirely spiritual, lacking any sort of physical manifestation. That manifestation, what we call 'the body', was (is?) a result of the Fall. Sexuality, the 'ultimate' expression of physicality, is then the ultimate expression of the Fall. More Gnostic than Christian, but Origen did believe it. That said, I was prepared to quote for you the specific instances of Origen's teachings, but now I've realized I can't, I'd have to quote essentially the whole book. So with the above information you could perhaps read it yourself again, otherwise it may be best to focus on Scripture and drop Origen (unless you persist, then I can see if I can work some quote magic...)
Yes please do. Vhayes made this accusation against Origen and failed to produce any evidence that he taught anything like this. I think this must be some kind of urban myth, where way back decades ago someone makes a false claim against Origen and it just get's repeated and repeated without anybody taking the time to verify that what they are repeating is true. After a while a general perception of belief is built up which is utterly separate from the facts of the matter.

Vhayes failed to retract his allegation against Origen. I hope that you will not repeat his error by making unsubstantiated allegations against one of the great teachers of the church. I admit Origen had his problems. I am the first to admit this. In fact he is not regarded as a Saint because of some serious errors in his character and teachings. The church has never whitewashed Origen. But where Vhayes came unstuck was the first of all he accused Origen of teaching a shocking error and heresy, and then by extension he extenuated that error upon the whole of the church as well. That is inadmissable. First one must prove that Origen taught this in the first place and then second you must prove that the church sanctioned that teaching and included it in the deposit of its teaching. I say nay on both counts. The church does not teach that sex or marriage is impure, or evil,dirty or unholy. It does not teach that sex or marriage is a product of the fall of man. Therefore if anybody is thinking of rejecting the church on these grounds and joining another church or outfit then they are absolutely not justified in doing so. And furthermore. Even if the church did make such a frightful error (which I deny) it would not justify a schismatic uprising and abandonment of the church. Because however bad the teaching that sex and marriage is impure is, the sin of schism is far, far worse. Even if the church did teach such a frightful heresy (which I deny) the correct response is to stay within the church and struggle from within the church to overcome the heresy which bred in its midst.

In fact this very thing happened in the first centuries of the churches history. Almost the entire church fell away into believing the heresy of Arianism which taught that Jesus was a created being. It was only because a faithful remnant stayed true to the original teaching of Jesus divinity that this heresy was overturned. And this faithful remnant remained at all times within the visible structure of the church and so were able to overcome the evil from within. The analogy is of a watchman who guards the city. He sees many of his fellow watchmen goofing off and neglecting their duty. The people inside the city are also goofing off, drinking and neglecting their training, and with no concern about the enemy without the city. What shall the faithful watchman do? Leave the city and run into the hills where he laughs and scoffs at the city as it is overun by the heathen? No. That would be faithless. Instead he stays with the city. He blows the horn when he sees the enemy advance. He fights the enemy who is at the gates. He stays with his people and his city to fight the good fight even if it seems to be hopeless. Yet it is not hopeless, because despite all the horrible problems of heresy and sin Christ himself promised that the church would not fail. He said "The gates of hell shall not prevail against the church built upon the rock".

Those men who abandoned the church in its hour of need and left her to the ravages of wicked men, were in fact truce breakers. They vowed to live celibate lives. Yet the rebelled against the church and their first order of business was to take mistresses and wives. Oath breakers the lot of them. They confessed "I believe in the one holy apostolic catholic church" from the creed, but when the church was in trouble they were the first to drive a nail into her heart and leave the church in a rage and take other wives. Adulterers and fornicators. Virgins who swore themselves to God and the church defiling themselves with strange women. How will they stand in the judgment?

While there have been many groups that have called themselves the "Church" since antiquity, there has always been and only ever will be one true Church, the Body of Christ.

It resides in people that love and have faith in the work of Christ, regardless of denomination, group, theology, practice, or allegiance to any man-made group or affiliation.

This thread reminds me of the story in Luke 7:

31 Jesus went on to say, “To what, then, can I compare the people of this generation? What are they like? 32 They are like children sitting in the marketplace and calling out to each other:

“‘We played the pipe for you,
and you did not dance;
we sang a dirge,
and you did not cry.’

I think this must be some kind of urban myth, where way back decades ago someone makes a false claim against Origen and it just get's repeated and repeated without anybody taking the time to verify that what they are repeating is true. After a while a general perception of belief is built up which is utterly separate from the facts of the matter.

It will take me a bit to reply, but before then let me just say that I gave you the material. Now it's come to a point where I have to quote the lines explicitly (much like when you couldn't find an earlier quote that I had to point out to you a second time). That's not a case of 'urban myth', it's a case of excubitor isn't aware of his history / church fathers.

It will take me a bit to reply, but before then let me just say that I gave you the material. Now it's come to a point where I have to quote the lines explicitly (much like when you couldn't find an earlier quote that I had to point out to you a second time). That's not a case of 'urban myth', it's a case of excubitor isn't aware of his history / church fathers.
I remember someone giving a quote from Origen and providing a reference to one of his books. I went and checked that reference and it said nothing like what was quoted. I quite properly asked for clarification which to this point I have not yet received. I also received many citations from De Principiis which were not quotes but just general claims that he said marriage was impure in a number of books and chapters. I went to these chapters and waded through pages of material and could not find any such thing. I even did a word search for marriage through the entire book and could not even find the word marriage used. I also searched for the word sex and where I found this word used it said nothing about sex being regarded as impure.

To be quite frank, I do not believe that you will come back with any references from Origen which say anything like what you claim he said. I have done all the google searches and it's just not there. I am entirely confident that Origen did not say anything like what you claim he said.

When you say "Its come to the point". Now really. If you are going to claim that someone said something it is quite reasonable to produce the quote and citation which backs up your claim. And when you do give a citation it should check out
and be a faithful quote of the author's statement.

And you should wait until you have produced your quotes with their explicit lines before you make your claim that I am not aware of the church fathers.

Still, I will wait for your reply. It should not take you that long seeing that you claim to have a good awareness of the church fathers.

When you say "Its come to the point". Now really. If you are going to claim that someone said something it is quite reasonable to produce the quote and citation which backs up your claim. And when you do give a citation it should check out and be a faithful quote of the author's statement.

I'll provide an illustration. I cited Origen as saying the following: "God has allowed us to marry wives, because not everyone is capable of the superior condition, which is to be absolutely pure. (Against Celsus 8:55)". This was your reply: "Here is the link (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/04168.htm) which does not say what you claim Origen said..." My reply, and I think rightly, was to point out that yes, I properly cited Origen, giving the New Advent rendition ("But God has allowed us to marry, because all are not fit for the higher, that is, the perfectly pure life; and God would have us to bring up all our children, and not to destroy any of the offspring given us by His providence"). This is an instance of me making a claim and providing a citation. You disagreed with the citation - "it's not there!" - to the point where I had to dig out of the text what I said was there. That goes past 'mere' reference, it sets a precedent.



And you should wait until you have produced your quotes with their explicit lines before you make your claim that I am not aware of the church fathers.

If you were, you wouldn't be disagreeing with me.



Still, I will wait for your reply. It should not take you that long seeing that you claim to have a good awareness of the church fathers.

Just as your awareness of the church fathers should mean I shouldn't have to spell out citations for you? As I said, I'm going to have to get creative because Origen - long in tooth as he is - has spread out his views over many paragraphs. It's going to take a while to cite those paragraphs as you, apparently, have difficulty with "Book 'x' chapter 'x'" citations. Yet there you are, critical even with the above illustration. I mean no personal offense, but it's rather irritating that you claim "it's not in the text" when I cite something, when the 'fact' is that it is (what a clumsy sentence).

So be patient, it's coming. Maybe re-read the citations and see if you notice it. Likewise you could entertain yourself with Origen's view of stars (book 2). If not, well, the more embarrassed I'll be if I can't quote for you.

Yes. It's the plain statement of the apostle Paul. Sorry its not my idea. Its straight from the scripture. Of course Paul is speaking in generalities. So a single who has dedicated themselves to the Lord might fall into sin (as is loudly and regularly reported in the media), whereas the married person may be more perfect in their state than the celibate in theirs. It is unlikely that you know any celibate people who have devoted themselves to the Lord, except what you have heard through the media. I do know many such people and I am convinced that they are holier than I am. I have seen their devotion to God and the church and it exceeds mine. There is no doubt in my mind of this. The media gives the story of the 1 out of a 1000 religious or priests who really foul up badly. They won't tell you about the extraordinary deeds of holiness and dedication of the other 999. As far as I am concerned, if you don't know any of these celibate religious men and women personally then you are in no position to comment or make judgment. You can't just base your perceptions on what you hear in the secular media.


Yes please do. Vhayes made this accusation against Origen and failed to produce any evidence that he taught anything like this. I think this must be some kind of urban myth, where way back decades ago someone makes a false claim against Origen and it just get's repeated and repeated without anybody taking the time to verify that what they are repeating is true. After a while a general perception of belief is built up which is utterly separate from the facts of the matter.

Vhayes failed to retract his allegation against Origen. I hope that you will not repeat his error by making unsubstantiated allegations against one of the great teachers of the church. I admit Origen had his problems. I am the first to admit this. In fact he is not regarded as a Saint because of some serious errors in his character and teachings. The church has never whitewashed Origen. But where Vhayes came unstuck was the first of all he accused Origen of teaching a shocking error and heresy, and then by extension he extenuated that error upon the whole of the church as well. That is inadmissable. First one must prove that Origen taught this in the first place and then second you must prove that the church sanctioned that teaching and included it in the deposit of its teaching. I say nay on both counts. The church does not teach that sex or marriage is impure, or evil,dirty or unholy. It does not teach that sex or marriage is a product of the fall of man. Therefore if anybody is thinking of rejecting the church on these grounds and joining another church or outfit then they are absolutely not justified in doing so. And furthermore. Even if the church did make such a frightful error (which I deny) it would not justify a schismatic uprising and abandonment of the church. Because however bad the teaching that sex and marriage is impure is, the sin of schism is far, far worse. Even if the church did teach such a frightful heresy (which I deny) the correct response is to stay within the church and struggle from within the church to overcome the heresy which bred in its midst.

In fact this very thing happened in the first centuries of the churches history. Almost the entire church fell away into believing the heresy of Arianism which taught that Jesus was a created being. It was only because a faithful remnant stayed true to the original teaching of Jesus divinity that this heresy was overturned. And this faithful remnant remained at all times within the visible structure of the church and so were able to overcome the evil from within. The analogy is of a watchman who guards the city. He sees many of his fellow watchmen goofing off and neglecting their duty. The people inside the city are also goofing off, drinking and neglecting their training, and with no concern about the enemy without the city. What shall the faithful watchman do? Leave the city and run into the hills where he laughs and scoffs at the city as it is overun by the heathen? No. That would be faithless. Instead he stays with the city. He blows the horn when he sees the enemy advance. He fights the enemy who is at the gates. He stays with his people and his city to fight the good fight even if it seems to be hopeless. Yet it is not hopeless, because despite all the horrible problems of heresy and sin Christ himself promised that the church would not fail. He said "The gates of hell shall not prevail against the church built upon the rock".

Those men who abandoned the church in its hour of need and left her to the ravages of wicked men, were in fact truce breakers. They vowed to live celibate lives. Yet the rebelled against the church and their first order of business was to take mistresses and wives. Oath breakers the lot of them. They confessed "I believe in the one holy apostolic catholic church" from the creed, but when the church was in trouble they were the first to drive a nail into her heart and leave the church in a rage and take other wives. Adulterers and fornicators. Virgins who swore themselves to God and the church defiling themselves with strange women. How will they stand in the judgment?

You have your posters confused.

Please retract what you have said.

Thank you -
V

**************
** Modstaff Note**
**************

Let's get this thread a little more back on track with the OP guys.

The OP's topic is: "Jesus wanted one church. We should be together more."

The OP expressly stated in his opening post: "I am always dismayed when I here or see one Christian attack another over silly trivial things that should not and are not what we are truly about."

When I read phrases between members above like:
"[person abc] made this accusation"
"[person def]failed to produce any evidence"
"[person ghi] makes a false claim against"

that's not being 'more together' as the OP suggested. The entire Origen derail is off-topic. This is a bible discussion forum, and the scriptures, not the writings of Origen are where truth is found.

Let's get the thread back on track, and follow the suggestion of the OP to be more together within the body of Christ, which is the church.

Don't forget guys, this forum is being opened up to Christian and non-Christian alike. People of all belief systems, as well as no belief systems are watching you...seeing if you truly walk the walk, or just provide lip-service. If you server Christ, you should never sound like you have contempt for your brothers here. That does nothing to benefit anyone.

As Paul taught the Ephesians, we are all reminded: "With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love; Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. " Ephesians 4:2

Remember folks, if you say you serve Christ, then your conversations with your fellow brothers in Christ should reflect that love, patience, and meekness.
If you say you serve Christ, then likewise, your conversations with non-Christian board members should even the much more reflect that love, patience, and meekness.

I suggest everyone that believes they are a Christian to do a 'self-check' each time prior to hitting the submit button, especially in this particular subforum, that their post does not detract from the service to our Lord.

Be the good example Christ called you to be, as Paul admonished Timothy, "be thou an example of the believers, in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity. "

I'll provide an illustration. I cited Origen as saying the following: "God has allowed us to marry wives, because not everyone is capable of the superior condition, which is to be absolutely pure. (Against Celsus 8:55)". This was your reply: "Here is the link (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/04168.htm) which does not say what you claim Origen said..." My reply, and I think rightly, was to point out that yes, I properly cited Origen, giving the New Advent rendition ("But God has allowed us to marry, because all are not fit for the higher, that is, the perfectly pure life; and God would have us to bring up all our children, and not to destroy any of the offspring given us by His providence"). This is an instance of me making a claim and providing a citation. You disagreed with the citation - "it's not there!" - to the point where I had to dig out of the text what I said was there. That goes past 'mere' reference, it sets a precedent.

I admit that in that particular case your citation was correct. Initially I could not find the passage in 8:55 because the translation was so different. Thankyou for pointing it out to me, I should have acknowledged that earlier.

But my claim that your citation did not check out was not related to the 8:55 citation, it was related to the fragment citation which you claimed said this:

Do not think that just as the belly is made for food and food for the belly, that in the same way the body is made for intercourse. It was made that it should be a temple to the Lord. Adam had a body in Paradise, but in Paradise he did not know Eve. (Fragment, 1 Cor. 29).


My other complaint was that you said that Origen taught as follows regarding marriage and sex

Or, as I believe Origin put it, something only instituted after the fall and therefore not really 'good', but more a curse.

You then offered citation Against Celsus 8:55 in support of this claim. But it is quite clear that AC 8:55 does not in any way support this allegation of Origen's teaching.



If you were, you wouldn't be disagreeing with me.
Whether or not you have a superior understanding of the church fathers to me will be proved when you provide evidence that Origen taught that marriage and sex was "only instituted after the fall and therefore not really 'good', but more a curse."





Just as your awareness of the church fathers should mean I shouldn't have to spell out citations for you? As I said, I'm going to have to get creative because Origen - long in tooth as he is - has spread out his views over many paragraphs. It's going to take a while to cite those paragraphs as you, apparently, have difficulty with "Book 'x' chapter 'x'" citations. Yet there you are, critical even with the above illustration. I mean no personal offense, but it's rather irritating that you claim "it's not in the text" when I cite something, when the 'fact' is that it is (what a clumsy sentence).

It's not. As you say I waded through those citations that you provided and they don't say what you claim that they say. Therefore it is quite reasonable for me to request you to justify your claim that they say what you claim they say. In fact it is I who is irritated because I have been sent on a wild goose chase and had to read great reams of material which don't even come close to saying what you claim. In fact I could not even find the word marriage in the whole book.



So be patient, it's coming. Maybe re-read the citations and see if you notice it. Likewise you could entertain yourself with Origen's view of stars (book 2). If not, well, the more embarrassed I'll be if I can't quote for you.
Let's finish up with your mocking of Origens teaching of marriage and sex before we launch into derision about his teachings on the stars.

You have your posters confused.

Please retract what you have said.

Thank you -
V
Yes you are right. Sorry I got you mixed up with Athanasius. I retract what I said about you.

Please regard my comments as being directed to Athanasius.

**************
** Modstaff Note**
**************

Let's get this thread a little more back on track with the OP guys.

The OP's topic is: "Jesus wanted one church. We should be together more."

The OP expressly stated in his opening post: "I am always dismayed when I here or see one Christian attack another over silly trivial things that should not and are not what we are truly about."

When I read phrases between members above like:
"[person abc] made this accusation"
"[person def]failed to produce any evidence"
"[person ghi] makes a false claim against"

that's not being 'more together' as the OP suggested. The entire Origen derail is off-topic. This is a bible discussion forum, and the scriptures, not the writings of Origen are where truth is found.

Let's get the thread back on track, and follow the suggestion of the OP to be more together within the body of Christ, which is the church.

Don't forget guys, this forum is being opened up to Christian and non-Christian alike. People of all belief systems, as well as no belief systems are watching you...seeing if you truly walk the walk, or just provide lip-service. If you server Christ, you should never sound like you have contempt for your brothers here. That does nothing to benefit anyone.

As Paul taught the Ephesians, we are all reminded: "With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love; Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. " Ephesians 4:2

Remember folks, if you say you serve Christ, then your conversations with your fellow brothers in Christ should reflect that love, patience, and meekness.
If you say you serve Christ, then likewise, your conversations with non-Christian board members should even the much more reflect that love, patience, and meekness.

I suggest everyone that believes they are a Christian to do a 'self-check' each time prior to hitting the submit button, especially in this particular subforum, that their post does not detract from the service to our Lord.

Be the good example Christ called you to be, as Paul admonished Timothy, "be thou an example of the believers, in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity. "

I certainly appreciate the intent of your post here and I will try to take it on board. Personally I think this discussion on Origen is relevant though. Unfortunately people do make false claims that the church teaches such and such and use this as an excuse to split off and form other groups, or to leave the church altogether. That lies at the heart of the issue which the OP has raised.

Still I will try again to drop it. Maybe Athanasius can start another thread or PM me.

I certainly appreciate the intent of your post here and I will try to take it on board. Personally I think this discussion on Origen is relevant though. Unfortunately people do make false claims that the church teaches such and such and use this as an excuse to split off and form other groups, or to leave the church altogether. That lies at the heart of the issue which the OP has raised.

Still I will try again to drop it. Maybe Athanasius can start another thread or PM me.

I'll shoot you off a PM, either tonight or tomorrow before lunch. It's just unfortunate that we can't have a good 'back-and-forth' without being suspected of 'lacking unity' or being in competition with eachother. That our discussion takes place would, I hope, show our 'unity' in the face of our obvious disagreements. However I'll respect the mod.

TO go way off topic, and get BACK on topic I will say that if we are to serve Christ together we are going to have to move past the endless strife.

We will need to surrender the discussion to soliadarity with scripture.... and abandon the teachings of men. Even the next step, to abandon the ideas WE hold and bring to the table.

Let us begin, both on our Knees and on or face flat before the Lord.

Just us.

No interlopers, no hirelings, no priests or bishops... just the Lord's people.

Let us get flat on our face, and beg He forgive our sin. Let us spend the timewith Him that we might know and understand waht it is to be purified.

Let us surrender whatever XXXX teaches. If it is not in scripture it is ACCURSED!!!!

Let us go before the Lord and lay very very still. He will answer.

TO go way off topic, and get BACK on topic I will say that if we are to serve Christ together we are going to have to move past the endless strife.

We will need to surrender the discussion to soliadarity with scripture.... and abandon the teachings of men. Even the next step, to abandon the ideas WE hold and bring to the table.

Let us begin, both on our Knees and on or face flat before the Lord.

Just us.

No interlopers, no hirelings, no priests or bishops... just the Lord's people.

Let us get flat on our face, and beg He forgive our sin. Let us spend the timewith Him that we might know and understand waht it is to be purified.

Let us surrender whatever XXXX teaches. If it is not in scripture it is ACCURSED!!!!

Let us go before the Lord and lay very very still. He will answer.

Well that's all very moving. I see a problem however. Luther used the authority of the scripture to break the authority of the Pope and what was the result. Division. Major rebellions all over Europe. The peasant wars result in hundreds of thousands of deaths. Churches were destroyed, holy relics thrown into the streets, nuns raped. Every nation had its own church and they all had different variations of protestant belief and it was no longer a universal belief. Since that day the schism has raged on uncontrolled with each new sect, cult and splinter group claiming that they have the authentic interpretation of the scripture. Armed with this "restoration of the beliefs and practices of the early church" they split off from their parent church. And then ten years later ten more splinter groups have splintered off from them as well. What is common to all these people? The are all claiming that their teachings are the honest truth of scripture.

Proof that the scripture does not produce solidarity is AS PLAIN AS THE NOSE ON YOUR FACE.

Perhaps the laypeople wouldn't have run so hard and fast from the "mother" church if said church hadn't been so giddy about jamming Pears of Anguish into every anus, vagina, and mouth in sight. Torture enough people's loved one to the ragged edge of insanity and people start looking for a way out. So what happened when Luther used the authority of scripture to break the authority of the pope? Freedom. Glorious freedom from a church that had become both a monster and a whore. Luther was merely a catalyst for a reactive mass the RCC had been building for generations.

Now, I'm not one of those believers who thinks the RCC is a cult. I believe the gospel is preached there and that its members can be counted in the global body of Christ. However, it lost its credibility as "mother church" when it went from oppressed to oppressor.

Well that's all very moving. I see a problem however. Luther used the authority of the scripture to break the authority of the Pope and what was the result. Division. Major rebellions all over Europe. The peasant wars result in hundreds of thousands of deaths. Churches were destroyed, holy relics thrown into the streets, nuns raped. Every nation had its own church and they all had different variations of protestant belief and it was no longer a universal belief. Since that day the schism has raged on uncontrolled with each new sect, cult and splinter group claiming that they have the authentic interpretation of the scripture. Armed with this "restoration of the beliefs and practices of the early church" they split off from their parent church. And then ten years later ten more splinter groups have splintered off from them as well. What is common to all these people? The are all claiming that their teachings are the honest truth of scripture.

Proof that the scripture does not produce solidarity is AS PLAIN AS THE NOSE ON YOUR FACE.

You seem to hold to an idea that scripture produces only unity. :hmm:

What about.

Luke 12:49-53 (New King James Version)

Christ Brings Division

49 “I came to send fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled! 50 But I have a baptism to be baptized with, and how distressed I am till it is accomplished! 51 Do you suppose that I came to give peace on earth? I tell you, not at all, but rather division. 52 For from now on five in one house will be divided: three against two, and two against three. 53 Father will be divided against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.”

I am very thankful for the ministry of the Holy Spirit who DROVE me from the Roman Catholic Church least I be entombed there. :pp:pp:pp

Perhaps the laypeople wouldn't have run so hard and fast from the "mother" church if said church hadn't been so giddy about jamming Pears of Anguish into every anus, vagina, and mouth in sight. Torture enough people's loved one to the ragged edge of insanity and people start looking for a way out. So what happened when Luther used the authority of scripture to break the authority of the pope? Freedom. Glorious freedom from a church that had become both a monster and a whore. Luther was merely a catalyst for a reactive mass the RCC had been building for generations.

Now, I'm not one of those believers who thinks the RCC is a cult. I believe the gospel is preached there and that its members can be counted in the global body of Christ. However, it lost its credibility as "mother church" when it went from oppressed to oppressor.

Don't forget the abuses the RCC ignored that led to the Reformation.

Isn't solidarity found in Christ? Isn't He the One we should be looking for to unify us in our identity? Or am I missing something?

Isn't solidarity found in Christ? Isn't He the One we should be looking for to unify us in our identity? Or am I missing something?

Completely different philosophies conflict over the answer. Some would believe that the Church (and a specific church) is the unique and solitary solution that Christ provided for unity. To that philosophy the Church IS solidarity in Christ, and not being part of that specific institution is Christlessness. There is no middle ground.

I'll stick with Christ as God the Son and stay pat. He created the world and all that is in it - including me.

Acts 4
12 - "And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved."

As you said above, HisLeast, I firmly believe I have many brothers and sisters in the Roman Catholic Church as well as the Eastern Orthodox and Coptic churches and Protestant churches of various sects.

Completely different philosophies conflict over the answer. Some would believe that the Church (and a specific church) is the unique and solitary solution that Christ provided for unity. To that philosophy the Church IS solidarity in Christ, and not being part of that specific institution is Christlessness. There is no middle ground.

Given that Christ started the church with the specific intention that it would be "one" and united so that the world would see and believe, then I would have to believe that those who deliberately separate themselves from that institution are opposing the will of Christ. I agree that this is pretty cut and dry as far as the scriptures are concerned.

Don't forget the abuses the RCC ignored that led to the Reformation.
Imagine a family which is constantly fighting, spitting hatred at one another, screaming insults at each other. That's bad. But what shall we say about the guy who pulls a knife and stabs his mother and kills her. Is he excused by all the dysfunction which was in the family?

I submit to you that the abuses in the RCC prior to the reformation were not as bad as the hateful family in my example, whereas the deeds of Luther and the reformers were no less violent. They pulled a knife on their mother, Holy Mother Church.

Whatever dysfunction might have existed in the RCC, it did not condone the rebellion of the reformation. As the scripture says "rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft".

And catholic morality 101 teaches that you may not do evil so that good may result. The reformers should have known that (given that they were catholics at the time). To be quite frank, so should all Christians even today.

And catholic morality 101 teaches that you may not do evil so that good may result.
If this is the case then why the long and storied history of the church's use of torture on dissidents and the use of duress to receive confessions?

Whatever crimes were perpetrated against the RCC, the church can not hold itself beyond repute.

Imagine a family which is constantly fighting, spitting hatred at one another, screaming insults at each other. That's bad. But what shall we say about the guy who pulls a knife and stabs his mother and kills her. Is he excused by all the dysfunction which was in the family?

I submit to you that the abuses in the RCC prior to the reformation were not as bad as the hateful family in my example, whereas the deeds of Luther and the reformers were no less violent. They pulled a knife on their mother, Holy Mother Church.

Whatever dysfunction might have existed in the RCC, it did not condone the rebellion of the reformation. As the scripture says "rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft".

And catholic morality 101 teaches that you may not do evil so that good may result. The reformers should have known that (given that they were catholics at the time). To be quite frank, so should all Christians even today.
The analogy won't stand up to scrutiny. Luther tried to work within the church before he walked away.

He didn't "kill" the RCC - it's still around.

Walking away from evil is not evil.

Imagine a family which is constantly fighting, spitting hatred at one another, screaming insults at each other. That's bad. But what shall we say about the guy who pulls a knife and stabs his mother and kills her. Is he excused by all the dysfunction which was in the family?

I feel a bad analogy coming on...



I submit to you that the abuses in the RCC prior to the reformation were not as bad as the hateful family in my example, whereas the deeds of Luther and the reformers were no less violent. They pulled a knife on their mother, Holy Mother Church.

The abuses of the RCC continued for over two centuries, unheeded as a corrupt church leadership argued amongst themselves (Avignon Papcy, anyone?). Ignoring 'the reformers' - a very ambiguous term - Luther was not all that violent, except where he called out the Catholic church on their corruption, as he should have and as the people had been doing for some two hundred years. The Reformation wasn't all bad - it 'revitalized' the RCC (you know, that "counter-reformation"), led to the council of Trent (which condemns us 'Protestants' to perdition some 260+ times) and various other good, as well as bad (see Hisleast) changes.

To say that Luther held a knife to the church is historical ignorance.

This is a 'gem' of that 'good and perfect' church, the RCC:


"But the natural reason is that she [woman] is more carnal than a man, as is clear from her many carnal abominations. And it should be noted that there was a defect in the formation of the first woman, since she was formed from a bent rib, that is, a rib of the breast, which is bent as it were in a contrary direction to a man. And since through this defect she is an imperfect animal, she always deceives." (That is from the Malleus Maleficarum)



Whatever dysfunction might have existed in the RCC, it did not condone the rebellion of the reformation. As the scripture says "rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft".

If I may say it this way, Luther 'rebelled' from a church which had itself rebelled from God.



And catholic morality 101 teaches that you may not do evil so that good may result. The reformers should have known that (given that they were catholics at the time). To be quite frank, so should all Christians even today.

I think Luther did a lot of good, and exposed a lot of evil.

They pulled a knife on their mother, Holy Mother Church.

Are you saying all Christians actually should return to the RCC?

Given that Christ started the church with the specific intention that it would be "one" and united so that the world would see and believe, then I would have to believe that those who deliberately separate themselves from that institution are opposing the will of Christ. I agree that this is pretty cut and dry as far as the scriptures are concerned.

The problem with this line of reasoning, is that you are implying whenever you use words like "the church" or "that institution" you are implying and directly inferring the RCC is "the church".

But it aint.

The RCC contains some members of "the church" that Christ started, but itself is not solely "the church".

"The church" has always been comprised of individuals who follow the Lord's Word, and are lead by His Spirit in truth and faithfulness.

I Cor 12:12 "the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ."
Eph 1:20 "in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places, Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come: And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church, Which is his body"

It isn't limited to the RCC whatsoever.

The unity in the body is via Christ and His people, not any specific organization.

Through Christ's true church, his body of individual believers, the gospel has gone out to all nations and has been united in taking that message out to the world so that many would and have believed.

When you attempt to narrowly define "the church" as but one single Roman entity, you err. It has always been much more than the RCC.

They pulled a knife on their mother, Holy Mother Church.


There is no Holy Mother Church. To say that is a delusion and nigh a blasphemy. Christ Himself is holy, and those who belong to Him from all parts of the globe share with Him in His holiness....no organization nor building is any "holy" mother or "holy" anything else. This sounds just like the 1st century faithless Jewish rulers who were esteeming the temple and the rulers of Israel as holy, but missed the Holy One Himself when He was standing right infront of them welcoming many to Himself that didn't belong to their organization. Shall a Samaritan belong to Christ outside of Judaism? Shall a Methodist belong to Christ outside of RCCism? No difference, both falsely claim to be the end-all, be-all; and miss the very Christ standing in the midst of them, and his outreached arms that stretched far out beyond their walls, and their own desired excluvisity.

There is a universal church, which is the worldwide body of Christ comprised of individual faithful beleivers, between themselves and the Lord Himself, guided by His Holy Spirit in Truth and Righteousness, and it doesn't have a governing leader aside for Christ Himself, nor does it have an address or a central location. (outside of the Heavenly New Jersualem at least now).

You give the RCC much more credit and authority than it deserves. The interesting thing is, no protestant governing body can claim any more either. Because the church isn't an earthly, man-made exclusive organization ruling over it's minions. The church is Christ and His individual followers, in a one-to-one relationship with each other....no other intermediaries, and no other 'official' go-betweens whom we must seek membership from, and following marching orders of.

I feel a bad analogy coming on...
The abuses of the RCC continued for over two centuries, unheeded as a corrupt church leadership argued amongst themselves (Avignon Papcy, anyone?). Ignoring 'the reformers' - a very ambiguous term - Luther was not all that violent, except where he called out the Catholic church on their corruption, as he should have and as the people had been doing for some two hundred years. The Reformation wasn't all bad - it 'revitalized' the RCC (you know, that "counter-reformation"), led to the council of Trent (which condemns us 'Protestants' to perdition some 260+ times) and various other good, as well as bad (see Hisleast) changes.




To say that Luther held a knife to the church is historical ignorance.

He nailed his demands on the door of the church at Wittenburg. This is a matter of historical record. His demands were not met to his satisfaction so in the midst of a howling mob of peasants he stamped on the papal bull which was written to him by the Pope and set it on fire. This was the touchstone that triggered the peasant wars and the destruction of churches across Europe. That too is a matter of historical record. If you read the 95 Theses it is a sustained and unremitting attack upon the Pope, this was supported by repeated lectures at the university where he mocked and railed against the Pope and church leaders to the delight and urging of the students there. He developed a ribald band of followers and the 95 Theses was everywhere regarded as a Declaration of Independence from the church. The entire scene had all the elements of insurrection. That is a matter of historical record.



This is a 'gem' of that 'good and perfect' church, the RCC:

"But the natural reason is that she [woman] is more carnal than a man, as is clear from her many carnal abominations. And it should be noted that there was a defect in the formation of the first woman, since she was formed from a bent rib, that is, a rib of the breast, which is bent as it were in a contrary direction to a man. And since through this defect she is an imperfect animal, she always deceives." (That is from the Malleus Maleficarum)

This is not church teaching. I don't agree with this. I doubt that anybody does. Shall we judge the entire church on the basis of the worst error that you can find in 600 years. These words were spoken in the context of witch hunts. The medieval society of the day had a huge problem with witchcraft and the whole society was fanatically opposed to it. The protestant reformers were right in on it as well, using the popular hatred of witches to stir up a following for themselves. In fact they were utterly brutal in their attacks on witches. The vast majority of executions of witches were carried out by protestants in protestant lands AFTER the reformation. It can be clearly shown that the processes of the Inquisition actually curtailed more brutal treatment upon witches by the general populace and civil rulers. This is proven by the fact that when the authority of the church was broken in those protestant lands the floodgates of the most vilest forms of torture against witches and all opponents of the reformation rose to unparalleled levels.

Here are some quotes by Luther which enflamed this situation.
"I should have no compassion on these witches; I should burn them all."

"When I was a child there were many witches, and they bewitched both cattle and men, especially children."

and quotes on women
"Men have broad and large chests, and small narrow hips, and more understanding than women, who have but small and narrow breasts, and broad hips, to the end they should remain at home, sit still, keep house, and bear and bring up children."

"God created Adam master and lord of living creatures, but Eve spoilt all, when she persuaded him to set himself above God's will. 'Tis you women, with your tricks and artifices, that lead men into error."

"The word and works of God is quite clear, that women were made either to be wives or prostitutes."

"How often have not the demons called 'Nix,' drawn women and girls into the water, and there had commerce with them, with fearful consequences."




If I may say it this way, Luther 'rebelled' from a church which had itself rebelled from God.

At least you have agreed that Luther rebelled from the church. That is my point exactly.

Whether or not the church rebelled against God is a personal assessment. There were certainly some men who rebelled against God and who committed terrible crimes. Just like a man who sins, shall he be cut off from the people? Only if he refuses to admit his fault and continues to persist in it. In fact what is not known is that the Pope conceded to over half of the "requirements" in Martin Luther's 95 Theses. Soon after at the Council of Trent they made radical changes to prevent future abuses. Recently the Pope John Paul II apologises for excesses of the church during the Inquisition. Will you forgive a man who confesses his fault and changes his ways, and yet you will not forgive the church.

Even if its true that wicked men rebelled from God, it is not evidence that the greater part of the church rebelled against God. If that were to happen then how could it be true when Christ said that the Gates of Hell would not prevail against the church and that he would be with the church until the end of the ages?

And let's suppose that you made a personal judgment that the church had rebelled against God. Does that give you the excuse to rebel against the church? Does two wrongs make a right? No. Like I said earlier. You cannot do evil in order that good may result. Rebellion is evil. The scripture says "Rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft". The other problem in judging the church as rebellious and rebelling against it, is that you are exalting your own private judgment as being higher than the church. We must remember that Jesus is the head of the church. If he is really upset about something going on in the church then he can fix it. He does not need us to make private judgments against the church and to commit illicit acts of rebellion in order for him to correct his church which is his body of which he is the head.

Therefore if we rebel against the church we are effectively saying that Christ is not the head of the church, that he has dropped the ball and is not doing enough to fix the problem, and that therefore you have to take matters into your own hands. Now it might be possible to say that God used the reformers to correct the church. Maybe so. But does God love his son or does he love the rod with which he corrects his son? Clearly the rod is a necessary evil, which he happily casts away when he is finished chastising his son. Just as Babylon was used to chastise Israel and then when it was done Babylon was thrown away for its great wickedness.

Are you saying all Christians actually should return to the RCC?

We are talking here about how we might all be one church again. When it was one church it was Catholic, when the whole world confessed "We believe in one holy apostolic catholic church"
This does not mean that we all have to be Roman Catholics though. The eastern churches who are in communion with the Pope have different rites which follow after the Eastern tradition. The pope recently issued the APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTION ANGLICANORUM COETIBUS - PROVIDING FOR PERSONAL ORDINARIATES FOR ANGLICANS ENTERING INTO FULL COMMUNION WITH THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

This enables the Anglicans to retain their rites and customs with minor changes. The emphasis is of course on being in communion. This effectively means that existing protestant churches must come into communion with the Catholic church, it does not mean that they have to become Roman Catholics as long as they become Catholics. By which I mean that they would have to submit to the teachings of the church as contained in the Catechism and must submit to the rule of the sovereign pontiff as successor of the apostle Peter who currently is Pope Benedict XVI .

This is the only way unity of Christians will be visible to the world.
Only the Catholic church has come up with a program to reunite Christians all over the world. The approach which the church seeks to take is described in the Vatican 2 decree on ecumenism UNITATIS REDINTEGRATIO which starts in this vein.

Can I also mention the aspect of communion. In all of the past ages it was not only shared belief but also a shared meal which united Christians universally. This of course was the communion/eucharist/mass. This is why the scripture says
1 Cor 10:15 I speak as to wise men; judge ye what I say. 16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? 17 For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.


So Christians throughout the ages would have their disagreements during the week, but when they came together to communion then they would be one together, one flesh, the one body of Christ altogether.
This is why to break fellowship and set up a different table is such a shocking strike at the unity of the visible body of Christ.

1. The restoration of unity among all Christians is one of the principal concerns of the Second Vatican Council. Christ the Lord founded one Church and one Church only. However, many Christian communions present themselves to men as the true inheritors of Jesus Christ; all indeed profess to be followers of the Lord but differ in mind and go their different ways, as if Christ Himself were divided.(1) Such division openly contradicts the will of Christ, scandalizes the world, and damages the holy cause of preaching the Gospel to every creature.

You see the world cannot necessarily see that we believe all the same thing, but they notice when we all share in the one communion of the one bread. This is very visible.
It is absolutely essential to the missionary effort of the church that the church be seen by the world to be united as one.
John 17:20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; 21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. 22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: 23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

So Vatican 2 pointed out how the lack of visible unity amongst Christians was frustrating the missionary work of the church. This makes a mockery of the notion that there is no united visible church. There is one visible united church being the Catholic church, but the unity of the church is obscured and frustrated by all of the division in the wider Christian community. This is why the Vatican 2 Council as one of its most important orders of business was to work towards unity amongst Christians.

Hi excubitor,

I understand the point you are making. I agree with the sentiment, not with the practical effectuation. In this your focus is entirely on earthly things (church as an organization) while Christ meant the spiritual. One in Him, not in an earthly church. So, I am one with you in Christ at this very moment, why is that not enough?

Bless you brother.

He nailed his demands on the door of the church at Wittenburg. This is a matter of historical record. His demands were not met to his satisfaction so in the midst of a howling mob of peasants he stamped on the papal bull which was written to him by the Pope and set it on fire. This was the touchstone that triggered the peasant wars and the destruction of churches across Europe. That too is a matter of historical record.

Let's be fair - that papal bull demanded the burning of Luther's books, in the very least. So on the one hand Luther's books are being burned, on the other, a papal bull is burned. Frankly, because I don't see the Pope as some 'holy successor' of Peter, there really isn't a difference in my mind. Medieval Europe, books are being burned by men - nothing spectacular. Also as I was saying previously, this 'disdain' for the church is a multifarious issue, not just some 'hate' and 'rebelleion' Luther dreamed up one morning on the toilet.



If you read the 95 Theses it is a sustained and unremitting attack upon the Pope, this was supported by repeated lectures at the university where he mocked and railed against the Pope and church leaders to the delight and urging of the students there. He developed a ribald band of followers and the 95 Theses was everywhere regarded as a Declaration of Independence from the church. The entire scene had all the elements of insurrection. That is a matter of historical record.

There is nothing inappropriate in Luther's 95 thesis, this 'sustained and unremitting attack upon the Pope' is a theological corrective. If you believe I'm being 'blind', then you may post any of those 95 Thesis'(?).



This is not church teaching. I don't agree with this. I doubt that anybody does. Shall we judge the entire church on the basis of the worst error that you can find in 600 years. These words were spoken in the context of witch hunts. The medieval society of the day had a huge problem with witchcraft and the whole society was fanatically opposed to it.

Written with a preface by Pope Innocent the VIII. Why is it that a Pope is infallible, but a church isn't? And yes, we judge things by their errors. It's not as if I'm giving examples from some deviant group no one has ever heard of. This is the Catholic church, the church which refused reform. The same one that demanded the feet of the Pope be kissed before the 'Great Schism' could be ended.



The protestant reformers were right in on it as well, using the popular hatred of witches to stir up a following for themselves. In fact they were utterly brutal in their attacks on witches. The vast majority of executions of witches were carried out by protestants in protestant lands AFTER the reformation. It can be clearly shown that the processes of the Inquisition actually curtailed more brutal treatment upon witches by the general populace and civil rulers. This is proven by the fact that when the authority of the church was broken in those protestant lands the floodgates of the most vilest forms of torture against witches and all opponents of the reformation rose to unparalleled levels.

Here are some quotes by Luther which enflamed this situation.
"I should have no compassion on these witches; I should burn them all."

"When I was a child there were many witches, and they bewitched both cattle and men, especially children."

and quotes on women
"Men have broad and large chests, and small narrow hips, and more understanding than women, who have but small and narrow breasts, and broad hips, to the end they should remain at home, sit still, keep house, and bear and bring up children."

"God created Adam master and lord of living creatures, but Eve spoilt all, when she persuaded him to set himself above God's will. 'Tis you women, with your tricks and artifices, that lead men into error."

"The word and works of God is quite clear, that women were made either to be wives or prostitutes."

"How often have not the demons called 'Nix,' drawn women and girls into the water, and there had commerce with them, with fearful consequences."

Luther also hated Jews, but the difference is that we don't claim he's some 'holy succession' from Peter, or infallible, or the 'true and holy (mother) church'. You do. He was a Christian who saw error in church doctrine and action - in many ways he was right, in a lot of other ways he was wrong. We follow the right and remove the wrong. Something exceedingly difficult in a beaurocracy. That is why you can't say, "Well, the reformers did it too! Look!" Yeah, I know. They were terrible, especially their infighting. But they are a different monster.



At least you have agreed that Luther rebelled from the church. That is my point exactly.

Whether or not the church rebelled against God is a personal assessment. There were certainly some men who rebelled against God and who committed terrible crimes. Just like a man who sins, shall he be cut off from the people? Only if he refuses to admit his fault and continues to persist in it. In fact what is not known is that the Pope conceded to over half of the "requirements" in Martin Luther's 95 Theses. Soon after at the Council of Trent they made radical changes to prevent future abuses. Recently the Pope John Paul II apologises for excesses of the church during the Inquisition. Will you forgive a man who confesses his fault and changes his ways, and yet you will not forgive the church.

I'm sure it's not at all that serious, after all: "As soon as a coin in the coffer rings, the soul from purgatory springs". Bought any indulgances lately? So here's the thing, I think the Reformation has proven to be a enourmous failure. But I think the Catholic Church is an even bigger one. You know it's nice the council of Trent "made radical changes", because they also condemned me to Hell ~268 times. And that's mighty nice of Pope John Paul II to apologize, but it's still the same church.

So tell me, which of the 'requirements' did the Pope refuse to concede to.



Even if its true that wicked men rebelled from God, it is not evidence that the greater part of the church rebelled against God. If that were to happen then how could it be true when Christ said that the Gates of Hell would not prevail against the church and that he would be with the church until the end of the ages?

It's easy for me to answer, nigh impossible for you. When Jesus speaks of 'the church' He means His people. He doesn't mean the Roman Catholic Church - you know, kind of like Elijah and the remnant he didn't know existed. The church rebelled ("my personal opinion") and it led an uneducated, illiterate people down that same path to destruction. The 'Gates of Hell' won't prevail against the church, but that doesn't mean the 'Gates of Hell' won't prevail against an institution known as the RCC.



And let's suppose that you made a personal judgment that the church had rebelled against God. Does that give you the excuse to rebel against the church? Does two wrongs make a right? No. Like I said earlier. You cannot do evil in order that good may result. Rebellion is evil. The scripture says "Rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft". The other problem in judging the church as rebellious and rebelling against it, is that you are exalting your own private judgment as being higher than the church. We must remember that Jesus is the head of the church. If he is really upset about something going on in the church then he can fix it.

He did, it's called 'the Reformation'.



He does not need us to make private judgments against the church and to commit illicit acts of rebellion in order for him to correct his church which is his body of which he is the head.

When the church doesn't listen, absolutely. He was one driving out money changers, after all.



Therefore if we rebel against the church we are effectively saying that Christ is not the head of the church, that he has dropped the ball and is not doing enough to fix the problem, and that therefore you have to take matters into your own hands. Now it might be possible to say that God used the reformers to correct the church. Maybe so. But does God love his son or does he love the rod with which he corrects his son? Clearly the rod is a necessary evil, which he happily casts away when he is finished chastising his son. Just as Babylon was used to chastise Israel and then when it was done Babylon was thrown away for its great wickedness.

Sounds like something a Pope would say to protect their pathetic little monarchy.

At least you have agreed that Luther rebelled from the church.

There ya go again, misusing the phrase 'the church' to mean only the RCC.

Luther didn't rebel against the church of Jesus Christ, he rebelled against the RCC, a subgroup within the church of Jesus Christ that was promoting many things contrary to God's Will.

Rebelling against the RCC or any other organization that is teaching or enforcing things contrary to God is not rebelling against God's church...because God's church is much more than just the RCC Organization.




Whether or not the church rebelled against God is a personal assessment. There were certainly some men who rebelled against God and who committed terrible crimes.


That is a fair statement. Within the RCC some men (whether popes, or peasants) have rebelled against God and committed terrible crimes. This is no different than people associated with other groups, denominations, and organizations. However, that is not a true reflection of Christ's church, because the faithful of Christ's church don't do those type of things. The faithful members of the true church, whether from within the RCC, the EO, or Baptist, Methodist, etc.....abstain from evil, avoid conflicting against God's will and His word, and follow Him above and beyond organizational associations.




Just like a man who sins, shall he be cut off from the people? Only if he refuses to admit his fault and continues to persist in it. In fact what is not known is that the Pope conceded to over half of the "requirements" in Martin Luther's 95 Theses. Soon after at the Council of Trent they made radical changes to prevent future abuses. Recently the Pope John Paul II apologises for excesses of the church during the Inquisition. Will you forgive a man who confesses his fault and changes his ways, and yet you will not forgive the church.


It's not a matter of forgiveness. It's a matter of false-claims. Fundamentally, the RCC claims to be the sole church on earth, and all other non-RCC apostate and false. When an organization claims to be the only true church on the earth, then admits to having done great injustice against God, and also continues to teach, enforce, or allow many doctrines that run contrary to God's Word; then that orgainization cannot be God's true church. They render themselves impossible to be what they claim to be, because of their actions whether past or present. That's why Protestants so strongly disagree that the RCC is "the church" as you like to refer to it as.

Yes, Protestants will mostly all agree that the RCC contains within it many true faithful Christian members; but it as a whole organization is rejected as being the one true church. It can't be, because of it's past and present choices which run contrary to God in many areas.



Even if its true that wicked men rebelled from God, it is not evidence that the greater part of the church rebelled against God. If that were to happen then how could it be true when Christ said that the Gates of Hell would not prevail against the church and that he would be with the church until the end of the ages?

And the gates of hell will not prevail against "the church"....but "the church" is not the RCC.
"The Church" is comprised of individual faithful believers, not any organizational controlling entity.



And let's suppose that you made a personal judgment that the church had rebelled against God. Does that give you the excuse to rebel against the church?

There is no personal judgments against the true church. It is pure and faithful and meek and just and follows the shepherd whereever he goes.
Similarly, there are no 'personal' judgements against the RCC either. The judgments against the RCC come from God's Word itself judging the false teachings of the RCC. When we bring those to mind, we aren't judging of our own personal opinion, we are reminding others from the Scriptures where the RCC has and continues to error and conflict with God by arrogantly esteeming itself and it's authority above and beyond where it belongs, and to the detriment of what God has revealed to humankind through His Word.




Does two wrongs make a right? No. Like I said earlier. You cannot do evil in order that good may result. Rebellion is evil. The scripture says "Rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft". The other problem in judging the church as rebellious and rebelling against it, is that you are exalting your own private judgment as being higher than the church. We must remember that Jesus is the head of the church.


And again, noone is rebelling against Jesus Christ, and noone is rebelling against Jesus Christ's Church. The RCC alone, is not Jesus Christ's church. Get that straight, and you'll stop making so many conflicting and contradictory statements in your posts.

Faithful Christians will always rebel against things (whether people, teachings, or organizations) that conflict with and are contradictory to God, and what God has revealed to us through His Word by the teaching of the Holy Spirit of Truth.



Therefore if we rebel against the church we are effectively saying that Christ is not the head of the church,


Yes, I effectively say that Christ is not the head of the RCC.
That's easy to do, because the RCC has done, and continues to do many things contrary to Christ and His Word.

However, none of us would rebel against the true church of Christ, which is comprised of individuals, not a problematic governing organization, and is most definately not the RCC.

We are talking here about how we might all be one church again. When it was one church it was Catholic, when the whole world confessed "We believe in one holy apostolic catholic church"
This does not mean that we all have to be Roman Catholics though. The eastern churches who are in communion with the Pope have different rites which follow after the Eastern tradition. The pope recently issued the APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTION ANGLICANORUM COETIBUS - PROVIDING FOR PERSONAL ORDINARIATES FOR ANGLICANS ENTERING INTO FULL COMMUNION WITH THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

This enables the Anglicans to retain their rites and customs with minor changes. The emphasis is of course on being in communion. This effectively means that existing protestant churches must come into communion with the Catholic church, it does not mean that they have to become Roman Catholics as long as they become Catholics. By which I mean that they would have to submit to the teachings of the church as contained in the Catechism and must submit to the rule of the sovereign pontiff as successor of the apostle Peter who currently is Pope Benedict XVI .

This is the only way unity of Christians will be visible to the world.
Only the Catholic church has come up with a program to reunite Christians all over the world. The approach which the church seeks to take is described in the Vatican 2 decree on ecumenism UNITATIS REDINTEGRATIO which starts in this vein.



The only way all Christians will unite under one organizational body, will be when Christ returns and manifest Himself directly in running the organization.

The prophetic scriptures are clear that the universal church will be hunted, killed, and maryted until Christ returns, and while the gospel will continue to be spread, this utopian church organizational view won't occur until after His Advent.

The thing is, the RCC will never get the rest of the believe world who has rebelled against it to rejoin it as one lone group, because the RCC refuses to stop teaching and renounce all of the doctrines of it's past that are contradictory to God.

Most Christians will not yeild to align with, and follow an organization that claims to be of God, and the sole true organization of God, while it still continues to do things contradictory to God.

That's why there will be no unity under one organization this side of the Advent of Christ.

You get the RCC to renounce and turn from all of it's unbiblical teachings and doctrines first; until then, the RCC can never accomplish what you wish it could do. It as an organization, speaks the same speak as the pharisees of old.

They "draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. " Matt 15:8


I Timothy 6:3 "If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself. But godliness with contentment is great gain. "

Romans 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.



God's Word tells every Christian to withdraw and to avoid anyone that teaches doctrines contrary to the Scriptures, and that is exactly why Luther rebelled, and so many millions over the centuries have rebelled from the RCC. Instead of the RCC abandoning false doctrines, and unbliblical teachings.....the RCC has added more to their catalog of unbiblical and ungodly teachings.

The RCC must change first, and must do it completely and thoroughly, if it truly wishes the rebellion against it, and the reformation that stemmed from it to reverse.

Let's be fair - that papal bull demanded the burning of Luther's books, in the very least. So on the one hand Luther's books are being burned, on the other, a papal bull is burned. Frankly, because I don't see the Pope as some 'holy successor' of Peter, there really isn't a difference in my mind. Medieval Europe, books are being burned by men - nothing spectacular. Also as I was saying previously, this 'disdain' for the church is a multifarious issue, not just some 'hate' and 'rebelleion' Luther dreamed up one morning on the toilet.

disdain for the church is not an excuse to rebel from it. Surely you can see that disdain is a different thing to rebellion. What is your point about the toilet? Are you trying to cheapen the discussion?
The papal bull command to burn the books of Luther came at the last resort. The church did everything they could to reason with Luther.

There is nothing inappropriate in Luther's 95 thesis, this 'sustained and unremitting attack upon the Pope' is a theological corrective. If you believe I'm being 'blind', then you may post any of those 95 Thesis'(?).

I am not simply relying upon my own opinion here. It seems to me when I read it that he was having a good solid crack at the authority of the Pope. In at least a third of the Theses the pope is faulted. Notice that he does not fault the church in these Theses, he attacks and blames the pope. But the pope did not originate these teachings, he received them from the apostles through the Sacred Traditions of the church. They were not his inventions. The church certainly took the 95 Theses to be an act of rebellion. The papal bull states


Arise, O Lord, and judge your own cause. Remember your reproaches to those who are filled with foolishness all through the day. Listen to our prayers, for foxes have arisen seeking to destroy the vineyard whose winepress you alone have trod. When you were about to ascend to your Father, you committed the care, rule, and administration of the vineyard, an image of the triumphant church, to Peter, as the head and your vicar and his successors. The wild boar from the forest seeks to destroy it and every wild beast feeds upon it.

Rise, Peter, and fulfill this pastoral office divinely entrusted to you as mentioned above. Give heed to the cause of the holy Roman Church, mother of all churches and teacher of the faith, whom you by the order of God, have consecrated by your blood. Against the Roman Church, you warned, lying teachers are rising, introducing ruinous sects, and drawing upon themselves speedy doom. Their tongues are fire, a restless evil, full of deadly poison. They have bitter zeal, contention in their hearts, and boast and lie against the truth.

We beseech you also, Paul, to arise. It was you that enlightened and illuminated the Church by your doctrine and by a martyrdom like Peter's. For now a new Porphyry rises who, as the old once wrongfully assailed the holy apostles, now assails the holy pontiffs, our predecessors.


As far as Martin himself is concerned, O good God, what have we overlooked or not done? What fatherly charity have we omitted that we might call him back from such errors? For after we had cited him, wishing to deal more kindly with him, we urged him through various conferences with our legate and through our personal letters to abandon these errors. We have even offered him safe conduct and the money necessary for the journey urging him to come without fear or any misgivings, which perfect charity should cast out, and to talk not secretly but openly and face to face after the example of our Savior and the Apostle Paul. If he had done this, we are certain he would have changed in heart, and he would have recognized his errors. He would not have found all these errors in the Roman Curia which he attacks so viciously, ascribing to it more than he should because of the empty rumors of wicked men. We would have shown him clearer than the light of day that the Roman pontiffs, our predecessors, whom he injuriously attacks beyond all decency, never erred in their canons or constitutions which he tries to assail. For, according to the prophet, neither is healing oil nor the doctor lacking in Galaad.

But he always refused to listen and, despising the previous citation and each and every one of the above overtures, disdained to come. To the present day he has been contumacious. With a hardened spirit he has continued under censure over a year. What is worse, adding evil to evil, and on learning of the citation, he broke forth in a rash appeal to a future council. This to be sure was contrary to the constitution of Pius II and Julius II our predecessors that all appealing in this way are to be punished with the penalties of heretics. In vain does he implore the help of a council, since he openly admits that he does not believe in a council.



So as I said in another recent post we have to allow the wheat tares to grow up in the harvest, but Luther was a wild and drunk boar raging through the field rooting up every green thing. In the end something had to be done about the situation.



Written with a preface by Pope Innocent the VIII. Why is it that a Pope is infallible, but a church isn't? And yes, we judge things by their errors. It's not as if I'm giving examples from some deviant group no one has ever heard of. This is the Catholic church, the church which refused reform. The same one that demanded the feet of the Pope be kissed before the 'Great Schism' could be ended.

Who said that the church was fallible. I never did. The church gave us the scriptures. Was the church fallible when it gave its testimony which books should be regarded as divine by the general assembly? If the church is fallible then maybe the scriptures that they selected is also fallible. That I deny.



Luther also hated Jews, but the difference is that we don't claim he's some 'holy succession' from Peter, or infallible, or the 'true and holy (mother) church'. You do. He was a Christian who saw error in church doctrine and action - in many ways he was right, in a lot of other ways he was wrong. We follow the right and remove the wrong.

Who's we? And your version of "we" are not at all united about what is true and what is wrong. You each just choose for yourselves what you want to be right and what you want to be wrong. You then claim that the scriptures teach what you have chosen and attack everyone else who teaches different to you. Just like Luther had massive fights with his fellow reformation leaders. The fact is that the only authority that you claim is your own. Your own perceived ability to interpret the scripture truly and to correctly select the right and reject the wrong is your authority. At least I claim an authority which is greater than myself. Even Jesus did that, claiming the authority of the Father. Notice that he did not claim the authority of the scripture. Authority is given from the Father to Jesus who gave it to his apostles, who gave it to their bishops and successors down through the ages. That's apostolic succession. That is authority. The difference between my belief and yours is that what I say is aligned with the authority of the church, whereas you are simply expressing your own personal opinion.




It's easy for me to answer, nigh impossible for you. When Jesus speaks of 'the church' He means His people. He doesn't mean the Roman Catholic Church - you know, kind of like Elijah and the remnant he didn't know existed. The church rebelled ("my personal opinion") and it led an uneducated, illiterate people down that same path to destruction. The 'Gates of Hell' won't prevail against the church, but that doesn't mean the 'Gates of Hell' won't prevail against an institution known as the RCC.

Israel was the precursor to the church. All of the people went astray. A remnant headed by Elijah remained faithful. Why were they faithful? Because they remained in Israel and observed the commandments of the Lord given to Israel. Did Elijah say "Look at all this idolatry in Israel, I'm going to leave and go back to Egypt?" No he remained in that visible nation even though he thought he was the only one that obeyed the law. To be separated from Israel was the greatest punishment of Israel. Maybe you want to claim that Israel was a bureaucratic institution as well. The church too is the visible Christian nation. It has no national borders because it is uniquely universal. The first universal kingdom in the history of the World. But not recognised as a nation but rather as pilgrims sojourning among the nations.



He did, it's called 'the Reformation'.

The reformation was the rod with which God corrected his son. So yes in a way you are right.




When the church doesn't listen, absolutely. He was one driving out money changers, after all.

You've got it backwards. Luther would not listen to the church.
Matthew 18:17 if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican."

The only way all Christians will unite under one organizational body, will be when Christ returns and manifest Himself directly in running the organization.

The church was united under one organisational body for 1000 years while Christ was in heaven. For another 500 years the differences with the East were not theological but administrative. The East would acknowledge the authority of the Pope over all Christendom. In the West all Christians were united under a single organisational body for another 500 years. It was the break of fellowship caused by the protestants that ruined that unity. However you are probably right. When faced with such hardened attitudes as I have seen on this forum then I agree it is highly unlikely that unity will be achieved. Which is why Jesus says upon his return "Shall I find faith on the earth". In this parable the city is the church, the judge is Jesus, the widow is the faithful remnant of the church who cry out because of the injustices in the church. Did the widow leave the city because of the injustice. No. So faithfulness is staying in the church and crying out for the Lord to return and bring judgment to the church.
The prophetic scriptures are clear that the universal church will be hunted, killed, and maryted until Christ returns, and while the gospel will continue to be spread, this utopian church organizational view won't occur until after His Advent.


The thing is, the RCC will never get the rest of the believe world who has rebelled against it to rejoin it as one lone group, because the RCC refuses to stop teaching and renounce all of the doctrines of it's past that are contradictory to God.

For 1500 years the Christian world was united behind those doctrines. Besides, it cannot be shown that the doctrines of the RCC are contrary to the scriptures or to God. I tried and failed to prove such a thing, which is why it was necessary for me to convert to the Catholic religion after 30 years as a dedicated protestant. Even if it could be proved that the church was teaching false teaching, it would still not be justification to leave the church. Have a look at the horrendous idolatry and tolerance of false teaching that was going on in the Corinthian church and the churches mentioned in the Book of Revelation. Yet God not once commanded the Christians there to leave their church. He commanded them to stand fast, occupy till I come, endure to the end. Only a faithless hired hand runs off when the church is in the heat of battle. The faithful servant stays with the city to defend its walls against the intruder with his false teaching. In the first centuries of the church the Arian heresy almost completely overwhelmed the church, but the church was still one. The faithful Christians who were true to the received doctrine that Christ was God DID NOT LEAVE the church but stood up against the heretics and eventually vanquished them even though at the time it seemed hopeless. I contend that even if there is heresy in the Catholic Church (which I deny) it is far far less serious than the Arian heresy was.

If it was wrong to abandon the church doing the Arian crisis then it is even more so wrong to abandon the church in the 1500's and even more wrong to abandon it today, as some here on this thread have done.



Most Christians will not yeild to align with, and follow an organization that claims to be of God, and the sole true organization of God, while it still continues to do things contradictory to God.

Every organisation does things contrary to God as a consequence of the weakness of our flesh. Like someone said "I found the perfect church and when I joined it it was no longer perfect" Or something like that. So taking your line of thinking to its logical conclusion it is wrong to join any organisation because it does things contrary to God. Which is of course why there are so many home-aloners. These home-aloners think that their little church of one is more perfect than the RCC or any other organisation. This is because the natural man immediately assumes that he is more righteous than others. He readily sees the faults and errors of others and is unlikely to examine his own faults and errors. So imagine this David. Imagine that your church organisation (or if you are a home-aloner your church of one). Imagine if that church grew and after 2000 years it grew to a billion people in size. Do you think that the church which grew from your foundation, or from Luthers foundation, or from King Henry VIIIths foundation or from Ellen G. Whites foundation would be any less contrary to the things of God than the RCC? I say not, because the RCC is built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets and by the grace of God is protected from serious long term systemic error which is injurious to faith and morals. Which is why Paul said "Do not build on any other foundation than that which was laid".


That's why there will be no unity under one organization this side of the Advent of Christ.

There is still Christian unity in one universal organisation to be found in the RCC. Either you are a part of that unity or you are not. I never said that Christianity was not united. I said that the division of the Protestants obscures the visible unity of the one true apostolic catholic church. This obscurity of the visibility of the church is injurious to the churches mission to preach the gospel to all the world.



You get the RCC to renounce and turn from all of it's unbiblical teachings and doctrines first; until then, the RCC can never accomplish what you wish it could do. It as an organization, speaks the same speak as the pharisees of old.

This is just propoganda. You have not proved that there are unbiblical teachings in the RCC. Nobody has. It's a matter of your opinion. As I said. Even if the church has unbiblical teachings, this does not justify schism. I proved that to you in a number of ways in a number of posts.



They "draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. " Matt 15:8

This may be true, but again it does not justify schism. It just means that those who are remaining in the church must do all that they can to worship Jesus in spirit and truth. This is similar to the instruction given in Revelation. As an example take the church in Sardis
"Rev 3:3 And unto the angel of the church in Sardis write; These things saith he that hath the seven Spirits of God, and the seven stars; I know thy works, that thou hast a name that thou livest, and art dead. " Then the next verse it says "therefore leave the church in Sardis and go and find the church of spirit and truth and join it" No it does not say that. It says "2 Be watchful, and strengthen the things which remain, that are ready to die: for I have not found thy works perfect before God". It says attend to your own calling. Jesus commends those within the dead church who despite the problems around them have served God in spirit and truth. He says "4 Thou hast a few names even in Sardis which have not defiled their garments; and they shall walk with me in white: for they are worthy. "

He adds "5 He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment;". So leaving the church is no solution. Staying with the church and living a righteous life within the church is approved by God because it shows endurance, perseverance and patience.

In the church in Pergamos there were people their teaching the false commandments of men; which was the doctrine of the Nicolaitaines. Again the commandment was not given to leave the church in Pergamos, rather the command was to stand fast and endure and to resist or avoid those wicked teachers.


I Timothy 6:3 "If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself. But godliness with contentment is great gain. "

Romans 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.



God's Word tells every Christian to withdraw and to avoid anyone that teaches doctrines contrary to the Scriptures, and that is exactly why Luther rebelled, and so many millions over the centuries have rebelled from the RCC. Instead of the RCC abandoning false doctrines, and unbliblical teachings.....the RCC has added more to their catalog of unbiblical and ungodly teachings.

The RCC must change first, and must do it completely and thoroughly, if it truly wishes the rebellion against it, and the reformation that stemmed from it to reverse.
I've already responded to this point. Avoiding ungodly and unbiblical men is not the same thing as schism. Avoiding division is not the same thing as causing schism. Prior to the fracture of the Reformation Catholic's were well served if they avoided Luther. Were they leaving the church by avoiding Luther? No, rather they were protecting themselves from the inevitable result of division and heresy. What is the inevitable result of division and heresy? Schism. Its proven throughout the history of the church, time and time again. It is proved to this day even in protestant fellowships, where a group of people come up with some new version of what they reckon the bible teaches and with a hail of protest rage off into schism. We need to avoid troublemakers and heretics that is for sure, lest they infect us and steal away our hearts. But avoiding troublemakers and heretics is nothing like leaving the church. They are the direct opposite of one another.

I've already responded to this point. Avoiding ungodly and unbiblical men is not the same thing as schism. Avoiding division is not the same thing as causing schism. Prior to the fracture of the Reformation Catholic's were well served if they avoided Luther. Were they leaving the church by avoiding Luther? No, rather they were protecting themselves from the inevitable result of division and heresy. What is the inevitable result of division and heresy? Schism. Its proven throughout the history of the church, time and time again. It is proved to this day even in protestant fellowships, where a group of people come up with some new version of what they reckon the bible teaches and with a hail of protest rage off into schism. We need to avoid troublemakers and heretics that is for sure, lest they infect us and steal away our hearts. But avoiding troublemakers and heretics is nothing like leaving the church. They are the direct opposite of one another.

You and the RCC claim © where there isn't.

disdain for the church is not an excuse to rebel from it. Surely you can see that disdain is a different thing to rebellion. What is your point about the toilet? Are you trying to cheapen the discussion?

Mere disdain for the church is no reason to rebel from it, no, but I'm not speaking simply of disdain, hence the quote marks. And the toilet remark refers to Luther's bowel problems (i.e. Luther once joked that he did his best thinking / wrote the 95 Thesis on his toilet). It's a cheeky way of looking for historical awareness.



The papal bull command to burn the books of Luther came at the last resort. The church did everything they could to reason with Luther.

Well let's see, the papal bull Luther burned was titled Exsurge Domine. 'It' disagrees with at least 41 of Luther's teachings, not just from the 95 thesis (the implication is they included only the most important). 'They' write:
In virtue of our pastoral office committed to us by the divine favor we can under no circumstances tolerate or overlook any longer the pernicious poison of the above errors without disgrace to the Christian religion and injury to orthodox faith. Some of these errors we have decided to include in the present document; their substance is as follows:Interested in the list? Here are some highlights:
13. In the sacrament of penance and the remission of sin the pope or the bishop does no more than the lowest priest; indeed, where there is no priest, any Christian, even if a woman or child, may equally do as much.

14. No one ought to answer a priest that he is contrite, nor should the priest inquire.

17. The treasures of the Church, from which the pope grants indulgences, are not the merits of Christ and of the saints.

25. The Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter, is not the vicar of Christ over all the churches of the entire world, instituted by Christ Himself in blessed Peter.

27. It is certain that it is not in the power of the Church or the pope to decide upon the articles of faith, and much less concerning the laws for morals or for good works.

33. That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit.

37. Purgatory cannot be proved from Sacred Scripture which is in the canon.

41. Ecclesiastical prelates and secular princes would not act badly if they destroyed all of the money bags of beggary.Not only does 'the church' disagree with these eight teachings (as well as others), they go on to say: "No one of sound mind is ignorant how destructive, pernicious, scandalous, and seductive to pious and simple minds these various errors are, how opposed they are to all charity and reverence for the holy Roman Church who is the mother of all the faithful and teacher of the faith; how destructive they are of the vigor of ecclesiastical discipline, namely obedience. This virtue is the font and origin of all virtues and without it anyone is readily convicted of being unfaithful."

And as you know Luther did not comply (nor would I see why he ought to have), Decet Romanum Pontificem was issued, Luther was excommunicated.

So did the church do everything they could to reason with Luther? Maybe in their minds. They certainly disagreed with the core of Luther's complaints, and as such Luther obviously was not going to recant or change his position. So no, I don't think they did everything to reason with Luther. I think they hid behind a very specific interpretation of scripture - which has gone on to be rejected in part - and attempted to bargain with Luther on those grounds.

('Recant what you've said' isn't exaclty 'reasoning', it's 'threatening'.)



I am not simply relying upon my own opinion here. It seems to me when I read it that he was having a good solid crack at the authority of the Pope. In at least a third of the Theses the pope is faulted. Notice that he does not fault the church in these Theses, he attacks and blames the pope. But the pope did not originate these teachings, he received them from the apostles through the Sacred Traditions of the church. They were not his inventions. The church certainly took the 95 Theses to be an act of rebellion.

Reminds me of 'basic' logic:

Every A is a B
Every B is a C
Every C is a D
Therefore, every A is a D (That is, the Pope is the church... But historically the observation is fallacious.)

Except that the Pope wasn't teaching doctrines which had been passed down through the ages and recieved as 'sacred church tradition'.


The papal bull states

It certainly does, Luther had the power to undermine the institution. The bull goes on to state:

Therefore we can, without any further citation or delay, proceed against him to his condemnation and damnation as one whose faith is notoriously suspect and in fact a true heretic with the full severity of each and all of the above penalties and censures. Yet, with the advice of our brothers, imitating the mercy of almighty God who does not wish the death of a sinner but rather that he be converted and live, and forgetting all the injuries inflicted on us and the Apostolic See, we have decided to use all the compassion we are capable of. It is our hope, so far as in us lies, that he will experience a change of heart by taking the road of mildness we have proposed, return, and turn away from his errors. We will receive him kindly as the prodigal son returning to the embrace of the Church.

Therefore let Martin himself and all those adhering to him, and those who shelter and support him, through the merciful heart of our God and the sprinkling of the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ by which and through whom the redemption of the human race and the upbuilding of holy mother Church was accomplished, know that from our heart we exhort and beseech that he cease to disturb the peace, unity, and truth of the Church for which the Savior prayed so earnestly to the Father. Let him abstain from his pernicious errors that he may come back to us. If they really will obey, and certify to us by legal documents that they have obeyed, they will find in us the affection of a father's love, the opening of the font of the effects of paternal charity, and opening of the font of mercy and clemency.

We enjoin, however, on Martin that in the meantime he cease from all preaching or the office of preacher.


So as I said in another recent post we have to allow the wheat tares to grow up in the harvest, but Luther was a wild and drunk boar raging through the field rooting up every green thing. In the end something had to be done about the situation.

Right.



Who said that the church was fallible. I never did. The church gave us the scriptures. Was the church fallible when it gave its testimony which books should be regarded as divine by the general assembly? If the church is fallible then maybe the scriptures that they selected is also fallible. That I deny.

'A' church is the Roman Catholic Church, which is not the church that 'gave us the scriptures', which is the church claimed to be headed by a holy-appointed infallible 'man of God'. So if the Pope teaches what the church passes down, and the Pope is infallible, why isn't, therefore, the church? I think anything 'human' is infallible, and the Pope certainly isn't divine. (Did you hear, male prostitutes can use condems in specific situations... How does a Pope maintain infallibility while contradicting earlier teaching?)



Who's we? And your version of "we" are not at all united about what is true and what is wrong.

Yes we (meaning you and me) are. We are in much more agreement on the important things than you'd probably wish to admit. But in this instance the 'we' I was speaking of was in reference to anything non-Catholic, perhaps specifically Protestant.



You each just choose for yourselves what you want to be right and what you want to be wrong. You then claim that the scriptures teach what you have chosen and attack everyone else who teaches different to you.

That is the danger, and historically well-attested to. But it isn't what I do, no.



Just like Luther had massive fights with his fellow reformation leaders. The fact is that the only authority that you claim is your own. Your own perceived ability to interpret the scripture truly and to correctly select the right and reject the wrong is your authority. At least I claim an authority which is greater than myself. Even Jesus did that, claiming the authority of the Father. Notice that he did not claim the authority of the scripture. Authority is given from the Father to Jesus who gave it to his apostles, who gave it to their bishops and successors down through the ages. That's apostolic succession. That is authority. The difference between my belief and yours is that what I say is aligned with the authority of the church, whereas you are simply expressing your own personal opinion.

The difference between my belief and yours is that you think they are different, when they are not. (Hint: everything you just said, except your last sentence, are things I agree with... Well, save the 'apostolic succession' bit. The many abuses of the church, ancient and modern, have shown that to be a rather naive notion, more of an insult to the apostles than anything.)



Israel was the precursor to the church. All of the people went astray. A remnant headed by Elijah remained faithful. Why were they faithful? Because they remained in Israel and observed the commandments of the Lord given to Israel. Did Elijah say "Look at all this idolatry in Israel, I'm going to leave and go back to Egypt?" No he remained in that visible nation even though he thought he was the only one that obeyed the law. To be separated from Israel was the greatest punishment of Israel. Maybe you want to claim that Israel was a bureaucratic institution as well. The church too is the visible Christian nation. It has no national borders because it is uniquely universal. The first universal kingdom in the history of the World. But not recognised as a nation but rather as pilgrims sojourning among the nations.

Then I must point out that Elijah and his remant followed God against the institution of Israel. Surely you can see the parallel. I belong to the universal church, but I'm not Catholic. So thanks for the offer (usually I tell Jehovah's I'm already one of the 144,000... But I haven't had the opportunity to be that cheeky in a while.)



The reformation was the rod with which God corrected his son. So yes in a way you are right.

But damn Luther for starting it.



You've got it backwards. Luther would not listen to the church.
Matthew 18:17 if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican."

I didn't realize Matthew 18:17 referred specifically to Luther.

Edit* Oh yes, those Origen quotes. The 'best' I can do is direct you to book 2, chapters 8 - 9. Those address his views on the pre-existence of the soul, purpose in creating the soul, souls moving away from God, material clothing of the soul (i.e. body), etc.

There were Christian denominations before the dreaded rcc, wiped out of course for not conforming to a dysfunctional doctrine. So i.e. we can't be one Church because of the unnecessary rules and regulations set by the dysfunctional church.

Mere disdain for the church is no reason to rebel from it, no, but I'm not speaking simply of disdain, hence the quote marks. And the toilet remark refers to Luther's bowel problems (i.e. Luther once joked that he did his best thinking / wrote the 95 Thesis on his toilet). It's a cheeky way of looking for historical awareness.

I am quite well aware of Luther's love for toilet humour. In fact it was legendary. He really was a crass and crude individual. Shocking to imagine that he started an entire church.




('Recant what you've said' isn't exaclty 'reasoning', it's 'threatening'.)

I didnt say it was. They tried reasoning with him for long years. In the end it was necessary to threaten.


Reminds me of 'basic' logic:
Except that the Pope wasn't teaching doctrines which had been passed down through the ages and recieved as 'sacred church tradition'.

Of course he was.


It certainly does, Luther had the power to undermine the institution. The bull goes on to state:

Therefore we can, without any further citation or delay, proceed against him to his condemnation and damnation as one whose faith is notoriously suspect and in fact a true heretic with the full severity of each and all of the above penalties and censures. Yet, with the advice of our brothers, imitating the mercy of almighty God who does not wish the death of a sinner but rather that he be converted and live, and forgetting all the injuries inflicted on us and the Apostolic See, we have decided to use all the compassion we are capable of. It is our hope, so far as in us lies, that he will experience a change of heart by taking the road of mildness we have proposed, return, and turn away from his errors. We will receive him kindly as the prodigal son returning to the embrace of the Church.

Therefore let Martin himself and all those adhering to him, and those who shelter and support him, through the merciful heart of our God and the sprinkling of the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ by which and through whom the redemption of the human race and the upbuilding of holy mother Church was accomplished, know that from our heart we exhort and beseech that he cease to disturb the peace, unity, and truth of the Church for which the Savior prayed so earnestly to the Father. Let him abstain from his pernicious errors that he may come back to us. If they really will obey, and certify to us by legal documents that they have obeyed, they will find in us the affection of a father's love, the opening of the font of the effects of paternal charity, and opening of the font of mercy and clemency.

We enjoin, however, on Martin that in the meantime he cease from all preaching or the office of preacher.


Right.

I don't know why you are writing this all out. Are you trying to shock me? I uphold everything the church did and wrote on this subject.



'A' church is the Roman Catholic Church, which is not the church that 'gave us the scriptures', which is the church claimed to be headed by a holy-appointed infallible 'man of God'. So if the Pope teaches what the church passes down, and the Pope is infallible, why isn't, therefore, the church? I think anything 'human' is infallible, and the Pope certainly isn't divine. (Did you hear, male prostitutes can use condems in specific situations... How does a Pope maintain infallibility while contradicting earlier teaching?)

I never said that the church was not infallible. In fact I directly stated that the church was infallible. Didnt you even read what I wrote. The Pope is not divine I never said he was. Why are you putting words into my mouth. Neither were the apostles divine and yet they produced infallible scriptures because they were divinely inspired to write truthfully. The church teaches that the Pope is similarly divinely inspired when speaking in his official office of Sovereign Pontiff from speaking any error which is injurious to faith and morals. The condom issue is easy to answer. He was quoted by a German author who interviewed him and then wrote a book. That is quite different to the Pope speaking from his office (ex cathedra). Not everything the Pope writes in his letters to the church and personal correspondence is divinely guarded from error. But when he makes a solemn declaration from his chair then he is infallible. I don't agree with the Popes comments, Paul did not agree with Peter's behaviour towards the gentiles and withstood him to his face. I might even write to the Pope and express my strong objection to his comments about condoms. However I can absolutely guarantee that he is not going to sit on his chair in his office of bishop and declare de fide that the church must allow condoms. It won't happen. He was merely expressing a private opinion.



Then I must point out that Elijah and his remant followed God against the institution of Israel. Surely you can see the parallel. I belong to the universal church, but I'm not Catholic. So thanks for the offer (usually I tell Jehovah's I'm already one of the 144,000... But I haven't had the opportunity to be that cheeky in a while.)

You have this faceless monster that you call the "institution". What is an "institution". It is collection of people. In the church (Israel) the institution of people if we can call it that is made up of large numbers of modernists and wicked men, but the remnant that you speak of exists at all levels of the hierarchy. Therefore Israel never passed away. Are you saying that God was against Israel? That's absurd. He was always with them even when he took them out of their land into captivity. Even when the Jews rejected Israel he did not utterly cast away his people but from a remnant of those Jews he began his church.

Are you saying that Elijah was opposed to Israel? No he was the true patriot. When all others turned aside he and the other remnant remained true to Israel. So what is Israel? Israel is the promises of Abraham, the commands of Moses, the land itself and its borders, it was the temple, Jerusalem, the mountain of Zion, the Jordan river. It was not just "the people", it was not just "the institution". It was all of those things. In the same way the church is Jerusalem, Rome, the Vatican, the Pope, the priests, the bishops, the church buildings themselves throughout the world, the people of God, the scriptures, the creeds, the catechism, the Lord's prayer, the liturgy. It's not just an "institution". Institutions are people too.

Now when the great apostasy occurs the people will leave the church ideologically and many will physically leave the church, they will start sinning and teaching damnable heresies. At that time God as punishment for the multiplication of sins and wickedness God will take us from our buildings and drive the Pope from Rome and we will be left as destitute wanderers in the land, chased and persecutors by the entire world. (Judgement begins at the house of God) But we have a promise from Jesus that he will be with the successors of the apostles until the end of the age, until he comes. So if we keep our eye upon the bishop and remain with the bishop we will be OK. But many will rebel from the bishops and will even drive the bishops away and set up their own puppet bishops. This is how antichrist works. This is what King Henry VIIIth did. Driving out the catholic bishops and putting his cronies into the office of bishop. More recently communist china did the same thing. It will happen on a worldwide scale in the end days. Heresy and antichrist bishops will be so prevalent that the true church will be effectively gone. The vast majority of priests will go astray
Hosea 4:6 My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children.
There may be also a desperate shortage of the sacraments at this time
Joel 1:13 Gird yourselves, and lament, ye priests: howl, ye ministers of the altar: come, lie all night in sackcloth, ye ministers of my God: for the meat offering and the drink offering is withholden from the house of your God.


But this will be a very short period of 3 and a half years where the church appears as the antichrist institution. The true bishops will be in hiding with their true followers hiding in caves in the desert and in the wilderness while the institution of the antichrist rages thoughout the world. But this 3.5 years when the church appears to be dead is like Christ being dead in the grave. After that short period the church will arise again in vindication to the glory of the returning Jesus Christ, just like Jesus rose from the grave and David rose came in from the wilderness to reign as King.

If however you claim that the Catholic church of today is that antichrist religion (as the protestant reformers audaciously claimed). Then where is the glorious appearing of Jesus Christ to rescue it? When do you say that the church turned to become an apostate institution? 350 AD with Constantine? That makes the great tribulation to be 1700 years long instead of 3.5 years long. And the same too for the reformation. Did the Catholic church become an apostate institution in 1500 AD when the reformation (also called the Protestant Revolt http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant_Reformation) occurred? If so the Great Tribulation has been going on for 500 years instead of 3.4 years.

In any event, Christ started an institution.
Here is the definition of an institution.
"an organization, establishment, foundation, society, or the like, devoted to the promotion of a particular cause or program, esp. one of a public, educational, or charitable character: "
He established the church upon Peter, he organised it into a college of apostles, he devoted them to the cause of preaching the gospel and baptising the nations, he gave them apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; 12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: (Eph 4)

That Athanasius is an institution. It was an institution right from the start, instituted by none other than our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.



Edit* Oh yes, those Origen quotes. The 'best' I can do is direct you to book 2, chapters 8 - 9. Those address his views on the pre-existence of the soul, purpose in creating the soul, souls moving away from God, material clothing of the soul (i.e. body), etc.
The book does not say that marriage or sex is impure or that it is the product of the fall of mankind. So you should come clean and admit you were wrong and that Origen never taught such outlandish things. It's alright to admit that you are wrong. I would think better of you not worse. This is not a contest you know. We are all trying to grow closer to the truth and should be happy when someone points out an error in our thinking as it helps us to grow.

There were Christian denominations before the dreaded rcc, wiped out of course for not conforming to a dysfunctional doctrine. So i.e. we can't be one Church because of the unnecessary rules and regulations set by the dysfunctional church.
Can you name even one and give a brief description of its doctrines and teachings.

I am quite well aware of Luther's love for toilet humour. In fact it was legendary. He really was a crass and crude individual. Shocking to imagine that he started an entire church.

What is 'crass'? A man who makes toilet jokes, or a church which burns heretics, sells indulgances, elects multiple concurrent Pope's etc.,? Shocking.



Of course he was.

Alright, so starting with Indulgances?



I don't know why you are writing this all out. Are you trying to shock me? I uphold everything the church did and wrote on this subject.

I know you do, I bring it up for others who are reading. Not everything is about you :P



I never said that the church was not infallible. In fact I directly stated that the church was infallible. Didnt you even read what I wrote. The Pope is not divine I never said he was. Why are you putting words into my mouth. Neither were the apostles divine and yet they produced infallible scriptures because they were divinely inspired to write truthfully.

The Pope comment is rhetorical flair. The church comment makes me wonder, though - you say "the church was infallible". So is it not infallible any more, or is it? I'll go with the latter, you believe it is. If it is, then why so many scandals? Why so many altar boys? Why the witch hunts, Inquisition's and Papal authority abuses? The scriptures are infallible, they haven't been re-written. Many of the actions of the church have been 'redacted', that isn't infallible.



The church teaches that the Pope is similarly divinely inspired when speaking in his official office of Sovereign Pontiff from speaking any error which is injurious to faith and morals.

I'm not a Medieval European surf - just as I don't believe in divine kings, I reject infallible Popes, regardless of the 'official office' they are speaking in.



The condom issue is easy to answer. He was quoted by a German author who interviewed him and then wrote a book. That is quite different to the Pope speaking from his office (ex cathedra). Not everything the Pope writes in his letters to the church and personal correspondence is divinely guarded from error. But when he makes a solemn declaration from his chair then he is infallible. I don't agree with the Popes comments, Paul did not agree with Peter's behaviour towards the gentiles and withstood him to his face. I might even write to the Pope and express my strong objection to his comments about condoms. However I can absolutely guarantee that he is not going to sit on his chair in his office of bishop and declare de fide that the church must allow condoms. It won't happen. He was merely expressing a private opinion.

You might remember that both Paul and Peter did not claim infallibility, hence their disagreement is on the periperhy. Now on the other hand we have a Pope who believes that he is infallible when speaking ex cathedra, yet fallible otherwise. The issue is much larger than fallibility / infallibility. The issue is with a Pope, well aware of Church teaching, who would say such a thing. Should we suppose that he will now pronounce, ex cathedra, that he was wrong, "never mind what I said". But that is a problem of integrity. Are these his personal beliefs? Does he disagree with God? Has doctrine been wrong all these years?



You have this faceless monster that you call the "institution". What is an "institution". It is collection of people. In the church (Israel) the institution of people if we can call it that is made up of large numbers of modernists and wicked men, but the remnant that you speak of exists at all levels of the hierarchy. Therefore Israel never passed away. Are you saying that God was against Israel? That's absurd. He was always with them even when he took them out of their land into captivity. Even when the Jews rejected Israel he did not utterly cast away his people but from a remnant of those Jews he began his church.

I never said God was against Israel, no. Though there was, and still is, a time when Israel strayed from God.



Are you saying that Elijah was opposed to Israel? No he was the true patriot. When all others turned aside he and the other remnant remained true to Israel. So what is Israel? Israel is the promises of Abraham, the commands of Moses, the land itself and its borders, it was the temple, Jerusalem, the mountain of Zion, the Jordan river. It was not just "the people", it was not just "the institution". It was all of those things. In the same way the church is Jerusalem, Rome, the Vatican, the Pope, the priests, the bishops, the church buildings themselves throughout the world, the people of God, the scriptures, the creeds, the catechism, the Lord's prayer, the liturgy. It's not just an "institution". Institutions are people too.

You're trying to define your way into an argument when you should first be asking, 'what does he mean by 'institution of Israel?' So let me tell you. By 'institution of Israel' I am referring to the largely corrupt religious practices 'of the day'. That is, those practices which allowed for the worship of other gods in addition to Yahweh. Practices which allowed for 'mixed' marriages, always produced positively uplifting prophecies, and the like. That is the Israel Elijah was opposed to, and it is the Israel God was opposed to.



Now when the great apostasy occurs the people will leave the church ideologically and many will physically leave the church, they will start sinning and teaching damnable heresies. At that time God as punishment for the multiplication of sins and wickedness God will take us from our buildings and drive the Pope from Rome and we will be left as destitute wanderers in the land, chased and persecutors by the entire world. (Judgement begins at the house of God) But we have a promise from Jesus that he will be with the successors of the apostles until the end of the age, until he comes. So if we keep our eye upon the bishop and remain with the bishop we will be OK. But many will rebel from the bishops and will even drive the bishops away and set up their own puppet bishops. This is how antichrist works. This is what King Henry VIIIth did. Driving out the catholic bishops and putting his cronies into the office of bishop. More recently communist china did the same thing. It will happen on a worldwide scale in the end days. Heresy and antichrist bishops will be so prevalent that the true church will be effectively gone. The vast majority of priests will go astray

Hosea 4:6 My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children.

There may be also a desperate shortage of the sacraments at this time
Joel 1:13 Gird yourselves, and lament, ye priests: howl, ye ministers of the altar: come, lie all night in sackcloth, ye ministers of my God: for the meat offering and the drink offering is withholden from the house of your God.

But this will be a very short period of 3 and a half years where the church appears as the antichrist institution. The true bishops will be in hiding with their true followers hiding in caves in the desert and in the wilderness while the institution of the antichrist rages thoughout the world. But this 3.5 years when the church appears to be dead is like Christ being dead in the grave. After that short period the church will arise again in vindication to the glory of the returning Jesus Christ, just like Jesus rose from the grave and David rose came in from the wilderness to reign as King.

If however you claim that the Catholic church of today is that antichrist religion (as the protestant reformers audaciously claimed). Then where is the glorious appearing of Jesus Christ to rescue it? When do you say that the church turned to become an apostate institution? 350 AD with Constantine? That makes the great tribulation to be 1700 years long instead of 3.5 years long. And the same too for the reformation. Did the Catholic church become an apostate institution in 1500 AD when the reformation (also called the Protestant Revolt http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant_Reformation) occurred? If so the Great Tribulation has been going on for 500 years instead of 3.4 years.

This is what you call a 'red herring'. I bring it up only so that you don't wonder why I left it alone.



In any event, Christ started an institution.
Here is the definition of an institution.
"an organization, establishment, foundation, society, or the like, devoted to the promotion of a particular cause or program, esp. one of a public, educational, or charitable character: "

He established the church upon Peter, he organised it into a college of apostles, he devoted them to the cause of preaching the gospel and baptising the nations, he gave them apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; 12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: (Eph 4)

That Athanasius is an institution. It was an institution right from the start, instituted by none other than our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

Sure, and yet the institution He started isn't identical to one the now known as the RCC. You think it is, that is our disagreement.



The book does not say that marriage or sex is impure or that it is the product of the fall of mankind. So you should come clean and admit you were wrong and that Origen never taught such outlandish things. It's alright to admit that you are wrong. I would think better of you not worse. This is not a contest you know. We are all trying to grow closer to the truth and should be happy when someone points out an error in our thinking as it helps us to grow.

I never said it did, I only said that as a summary that is the best I could do. Those teachigns are still in Origen, but I can't hold your hand while you read through it.