WN: Pope warns Lutherans of Christian challenge - Reuters

[nebula]

The gift of chesterton's contribution here, I think, is that we get down to the real brass tacks of the issue. Do we accept the simplicity that is in Christ (2 Cor. 11:3) and accept the verses that tell us the gospel is that salvation is a free gift (Romans 6:23) to anyone who believes by grace through faith (Ephesians 2:8-9), or do we accept the compounding voluminous tomes of writings and stipulations, Councils and Bulls, Decrees and Dogmas, etc. of those who claim to be apostles despite how their interpretations may come across to us.

Chesterton advocates they are one and the same.

To follow the RC/the Pope is to follow Christ.

That's the trouble.

He cannot see that his church has made a god out of a human being and human institution. (The Pope being the "in place of" Christ - thus "God".)

Ultimately it comes down to that, which chesterton here makes plain, and I would submit that it is the question of whether or not you accept Jesus as the sole mediator (which Biblical Christianity says is the gospel of salvation and any denial of which is rewarded with eternal damnation as seen in Galatians 1:9), or if the Church is required for salvation as per the Canons of the supposedly Holy Spirit decreed Ecumenical Council of Trent (in which it decrees eternal damnation for anyone who rejects the salvation offered via the mediation of the Roman Catholic Church).

That's the trick - by "representing" Christ, the institutional leadership becomes "as Christ" - thus Christ Himself - to them.

Do we accept the gospel of Christ or do we accept another mediator than Christ alone by accepting the mediation of a supposedly infallible institution, another communion that submits Christ to public disgrace by offering him up daily, another remission for sins with the ongoing remission of sins and works-basis for contributing to salvation, and therefore another (insufficient) Christ, and another gospel - in short, do we reduce our faith to just another works-based religion or are we saved by a personal relationship by grace, through faith, not by works.

And that's why I do not like his church. In His church, the Holy Spirit is an alien to me; the priests, the Pope, the saints, and Mary stand in the way of my communing with the Father. Jesus to them is the mediator after the mediator.

[nebula]

Jesus started a Church and told us to listen to the Church. Problem solved!

So, you agree with everything the "Church" proclaimed throughout the entire 2000 years?

The "Church" claimed that Aristotle spoke the words of God (manifested in the geocentric vs heliocentric debates).

The "Church" ordered the massacre of Jews and of believers in Jesus who would not pay indulgences to the Pope.

The "Church" ordered indulgences - the payment of money for the remission of sins.

The "Church" deemed it acceptable to integrate pagan monuments into its religion (the Egyptian obelisk in St. Peter's Square).

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

The gift of chesterton's contribution here, I think, is that we get down to the real brass tacks of the issue. Do we accept the simplicity that is in Christ (2 Cor. 11:3) and accept the verses that tell us the gospel is that salvation is a free gift (Romans 6:23) to anyone who believes by grace through faith (Ephesians 2:8-9), or do we accept the compounding voluminous tomes of writings and stipulations, Councils and Bulls, Decrees and Dogmas, etc. of those who claim to be apostles despite how their interpretations may come across to us.

Chesterton advocates they are one and the same.

To follow the RC/the Pope is to follow Christ.

That's the trouble.

He cannot see that his church has made a god out of a human being and human institution. (The Pope being the "in place of" Christ - thus "God".)

Ultimately it comes down to that, which chesterton here makes plain, and I would submit that it is the question of whether or not you accept Jesus as the sole mediator (which Biblical Christianity says is the gospel of salvation and any denial of which is rewarded with eternal damnation as seen in Galatians 1:9), or if the Church is required for salvation as per the Canons of the supposedly Holy Spirit decreed Ecumenical Council of Trent (in which it decrees eternal damnation for anyone who rejects the salvation offered via the mediation of the Roman Catholic Church).

That's the trick - by "representing" Christ, the institutional leadership becomes "as Christ" - thus Christ Himself - to them.

Do we accept the gospel of Christ or do we accept another mediator than Christ alone by accepting the mediation of a supposedly infallible institution, another communion that submits Christ to public disgrace by offering him up daily, another remission for sins with the ongoing remission of sins and works-basis for contributing to salvation, and therefore another (insufficient) Christ, and another gospel - in short, do we reduce our faith to just another works-based religion or are we saved by a personal relationship by grace, through faith, not by works.

And that's why I do not like his church. In His church, the Holy Spirit is an alien to me; the priests, the Pope, the saints, and Mary stand in the way of my communing with the Father. Jesus to them is the mediator after the mediator.

I agree completely, and doesn't chesterton's avocation here make that so clear?

I think it's good that people recognize what you've stated so that we can try to help those who've subscribed to that system. You can’t fix what you don’t know is broken, so the more we identify error the more capable we are to try to mend said error.

People need to be rescued from that Church. We can't afford to simply hope that the gospel will break through the walls and permeate some of those warming Catholic pews.

I believe that in caring for Catholics, we have to care enough to tell them the truth, and I think chesterton's dogmatism here has helped people realize how dichotomously opposed are the views of the gospel of salvation and the gospel according to Rome.

[OneLight]

1 Corinthians 12:27-21

Now you are the body of Christ, and members individually. And God has appointed these in the church: first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, varieties of tongues. Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Are all workers of miracles? Do all have gifts of healings? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret? But earnestly desire the best gifts. And yet I show you a more excellent way.

Nowhere does it say that the Holy Spirit will teach some and not others. Nor does it say He will guide some and not others. That is not to be found anywhere in scripture, but in church dogma created by man to hold authority over others through pride.

Who did the Holy Spirit tell to teach something different than the apostles?

Who did the Holy Spirit tell not to listen to the leaders chosen by the apostles?

What evidence do you have for this bizarre belief that everyone gets to make up their own doctrines?

This is your way of turning it around and you use it every time you don't have an answer for the questions asked you. Instead of admitting that there is no scriptural backing for my belief, your pride causes you to turn the tables ... but to answer your questions.

The Holy Spirit never told anyone any such thing, and of course, you know this. Now you are going to tell me all about the succession of the Apostleship up to the present pope, which is a man created position. That no longer flies. you have been shown that the succession is bogus. With that, the pope interrupts scripture his way, which is not always according to scripture.

The Holy Spirit teaches and guides us exactly the same way He did the Apostles. If there is error, it is with us, not Him. The difference is that with us who believe this way, we are to blame. With you, however, if there is error, you can point to the church and blame it, but that won't fly either because it is your responsibility to follow scripture before man.

You are very disingenuous. I have posted multiple scriptures that demonstrate the authority of the Church. I will list them below.

You can list scripture until your finger bleeds and it will not change the fact that the Holy Spirit teaches and guides every person who accepts Christ. Get over yourself.

If the Holy Spirit never told anyone not to listen to those sent by the apostles, then why do you find it acceptable to ignore the Church, which is led by men sent by the apostles?

I ignore your understanding and definition of what the church is. That is the main factor in all we ever disagree on, is your church and its teachings, not scripture, but how their teachings twist scripture.

If a Church is teaching error, then it is not the Church Jesus started. Protestantism is full of contradictory doctrines and therefore it is not the Church Jesus started and promised to be with until the end of the world.

The RCC is full of extra-biblical teachings and therefore is not the church Christ started either. Neither are. His church is the body of Christ, all who have accepted Him as Lord and Savior.

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

Following a false teaching based on scripture is still following a false teaching.

Jehovah's Witnesses, for example, follow scripture and yet they deny the divinity of Christ. Have they been made wise for salvation by scripture?

The question isn't have they, but could they.

Are you saying that because scripture can be in contradictory ways, then scripture cannot actually make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus, but instead it requires the Church?

It can,

So you agree that "holy Scriptures... are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus" (2 Tim. 3:15), so it can do so without requiring the interpretation of the Catholic Church?

but we can see from experience that this is not always the case. Jesus has given us a clear guide, why not follow it?

Certainly we can see that this is not always the case, but surely you mean that the clear guide that Jesus gave us is the Word of God? "Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light for my path" (Psalm 119:105).

What you have to recognize is that we would identify the Roman Catholic Church as being an undeniably, crystal clear example from experience that we can point to of misinterpretation of scripture, rift, and conflict that embodies the concept of not following scripture perfectly, and scripture as the self-identified clear guide on how to avoid such misdirections.

So you can't really point to the Catholic Church as the solution to a problem that we see embodied by the Catholic Church. That doesn't help us see your point.

[mizzdy]

Following a false teaching based on scripture is still following a false teaching.

Jehovah's Witnesses, for example, follow scripture and yet they deny the divinity of Christ. Have they been made wise for salvation by scripture?

The question isn't have they, but could they.

Are you saying that because scripture can be in contradictory ways, then scripture cannot actually make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus, but instead it requires the Church?

It can,

So you agree that "holy Scriptures... are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus" (2 Tim. 3:15), so it can do so without requiring the interpretation of the Catholic Church?

but we can see from experience that this is not always the case. Jesus has given us a clear guide, why not follow it?

Certainly we can see that this is not always the case, but surely you mean that the clear guide that Jesus gave us is the Word of God? "Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light for my path" (Psalm 119:105).

What you have to recognize is that we would identify the Roman Catholic Church as being an undeniably, crystal clear example from experience that we can point to of misinterpretation of scripture, rift, and conflict that embodies the concept of not following scripture perfectly, and scripture as the self-identified clear guide on how to avoid such misdirections.

So you can't really point to the Catholic Church as the solution to a problem that we see embodied by the Catholic Church. That doesn't help us see your point.

The Catholic Church is the solution, even if you don't yet accept it.

Jesus only started one Church. The Church is led by the successor of Peter, who was given the keys to the Kingdom by Jesus.

And yet, you claim that a group of individuals with contradictory interpretations of the Catholic New Testament are right and this Church is wrong!!

Amazing.

Thing is even Yeshua would not accept the rcc, it goes against almost every single thing He taught, followed and told us to do. God's, Yeshua's congregation/church started at Sinai, continued on when Joshua took the second called out generation through the water and into the land. His called out assembly has always been around, those who come to Him in faith, confess His name and who He is and returns to Him and obeys His ways have always been His called out assembly. No rcc, no denominations, not made up liturgy, no manmade holidays, what is in scripture is His word, His Spirit calls and guides us all, not the pope or the rcc's writings, only the Word of God and the books He put forth are to be followed. Chesterton you can put forth all the rcc logic you care to post, throw out as much scripture as you can write but it will never change the fact that God nor Messiah ever start a church apart from the one He already had called out. Yeshua never set out to start anything new, there was already a perfect laws, perfect ways to worship and praise Him. Why don't you give the rcc doctrines and theology a rest and try having a regular converstation that isn't tied into the false teachings of the rcc?

shalom,

Mizz

[nebula]

Jesus only started one Church.

What Jesus established was "an assembly of called out ones", not a "church institution."

It has nothing to do with the Hellenistic dogmas and doctrines the Gentile Christians inserted into the faith.

Eph. 2

18 for through Him we both have our access in one Spirit to the Father. 19 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God's household, 20 having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone, 21 in whom the whole building, being fitted together, is growing into a holy temple in the Lord, 22 in whom you also are being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit.

The Church is led by the successor of Peter, who was given the keys to the Kingdom by Jesus.

By misinterpreted dogma that is alien to Hebraic thought. In other words, a gross mistranslation of Scripture.

Jesus is our mediator to the Father.

There is no Scriptural justification for the need of a mediator between us and Jesus.

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

The Catholic Church is the solution, even if you don't yet accept it.

I'm aware that you think so, but try to see this from my perspective.

You came to a protestant forum to tell us about the Catholic Church, and use the circular reasoning that the RCC is right to show that the RCC is right.

Since I disagree, how have you helped me to understand?

Jesus only started one Church.

Right, and as I pointed out, we have every reason to see that it wasn't the RCC, just like we both can see it isn't the JW's.

The Church is led by the successor of Peter, who was given the keys to the Kingdom by Jesus.

Nope, it really isn't.

But again, if this were true, what have you presented to make me believe it is so?

The circular reasoning that the RCC is the true church because the true church is the RCC doesn't do it - why would you think it would?

And yet, you claim that a group of individuals with contradictory interpretations of the Catholic New Testament are right and this Church is wrong!!

Amazing.

Not really.

Even if it were perfectly true that the RCC preserved the NT, the Jews preserved the OT.

So what? Does that mean they followed it?

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

Not really.

Even if it were perfectly true that the RCC preserved the NT, the Jews preserved the OT.

So what? Does that mean they followed it?

It is true that the Catholic Church wrote and compiled the New Testament.

O, now they even wrote the NT. Good to know.

It is also true that the Jews preserved the Old Testament.

But they didn't write it?

Many Jews still follow the Old Covenant.

Actually, according to the NT they didn't even follow the OT back then, "If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me" (John 5:46).

I'm not sure what your point is.

My point is, regardless of who can claim connection to whom, people err and the Jews didn't follow God "the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; but the people of Israel, who pursued the law as the way of righteousness, have not attained their goal. Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works" (Romans 9: 30-32).

So the OT was recorded and preserved by the Jews but the Jews didn't follow it.

Therefore, it can't be suggested that even if it were true the Catholic Church preserved scripture that it is following it. it may be that they have not attained their goal. Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works.

And yes, the Catholic Church still follows scripture and the teachings of the apostles.

But that's another topic, which we're currently discussing on another thread.

[nebula]

Have I been put on "ignore"?