|
Post by sacerdotal on Mar 12, 2012 9:33:37 GMT -5
To those that left the Truth fellowship- where did you go? (If, indeed, you went to another denomination). How did you like it? Could you stomach the preaching? Did you feel like Peter when he asked Christ, "To whom Lord shall we go? Thou alone hast the words of life." Did you find Life (Jesus) in the other fellowships/denominations? Was the Spirit there like it is in the meetings? (And we know that the Spirit cannot be counterfeited.) Were you able to get past the concept of other preachers (non 2x2) being thieves and hirelings? Were you able to get past the shallow spiritual understanding of scripture amongst the non 2x2 congregation? Did you feel as if the service was too scholarly? Too informal? Too formal? Did the taking of tithes offend? Or the weird rituals (altar calls, loud amens, "preach on brother", etc.) Was politics introduced into the sermons- right wing demagoguery, left wing liberal non-sense, anti-homosexual, pro homosexual, etc.?
In short, did you find the above stereotypes about non 2x2 denominations to be accurate? Please be honest.
Do you think that the 2x2s = Jesus? I do and I don't. It is hard to explain.
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Mar 12, 2012 9:49:22 GMT -5
To those that left the Truth fellowship- where did you go? (If, indeed, you went to another denomination). How did you like it? Could you stomach the preaching? Did you feel like Peter when he asked Christ, "To whom Lord shall we go? Thou alone hast the words of life." Did you find Life (Jesus) in the other fellowships/denominations? Was the Spirit there like it is in the meetings? (And we know that the Spirit cannot be counterfeited.) Were you able to get past the concept of other preachers (non 2x2) being thieves and hirelings? Were you able to get past the shallow spiritual understanding of scripture amongst the non 2x2 congregation? Did you feel as if the service was too scholarly? Too informal? Too formal? Did the taking of tithes offend? Or the weird rituals (altar calls, loud amens, "preach on brother", etc.) Was politics introduced into the sermons- right wing demagoguery, left wing liberal non-sense, anti-homosexual, pro homosexual, etc.? In short, did you find the above stereotypes about non 2x2 denominations to be accurate? Please be honest. Do you think that the 2x2s = Jesus? I do and I don't. It is hard to explain. NO to the 2x2's = Jesus! the 2x2 sterotyping of other denomination is born of ignorance and hatred....long years of hatred and almost that many of ignorance. The other denominations do not holler "amen" or "preach on brother" any more then William Irvine did.....I've been in about 7 different denominational c hurches and I have NOT heard any interruptions of service......and the minister never speaks more then 15-20 mins. The urging to pay tithes has not entered into any of the services I've been at. One church did have a time where they were calling for more monetary donations for many different issues, but that has gone away...I guess it had to do with the finance committee not having enough money to fund the bills. I've heard a Baptist preacher who is one of the best scriptural preachers in the area....he takes a certain place in scripture and makes 3 points about that scripture and measure all 3 points to the standard of Jesus Christ. The Eucharist or bread and wine in most of the churches comes toward the end of the service. And the "altar call" is usually the closing part of the service and is an invitation for people to come to the confession of faith or an invitation to non-members to transfer membership from another church. That takes about 3 mins. for the minister to say. And this is done before the closing hymn. Then the minister or an elder will close the service with a prayer. Fact is the church where I've gone the most, has prayer for nearly every part of the service....which means about 4-5 prayers per service......it is not held to cover everything with one prayer session and then hit the doors after the last hymn is sung. Prayer is taught as a very vital part of the Christian experience and that it is the way to have the close intimate relationship with our great God and Saviour.
|
|
|
Post by sacerdotal on Mar 12, 2012 9:57:43 GMT -5
To those that left the Truth fellowship- where did you go? (If, indeed, you went to another denomination). How did you like it? Could you stomach the preaching? Did you feel like Peter when he asked Christ, "To whom Lord shall we go? Thou alone hast the words of life." Did you find Life (Jesus) in the other fellowships/denominations? Was the Spirit there like it is in the meetings? (And we know that the Spirit cannot be counterfeited.) Were you able to get past the concept of other preachers (non 2x2) being thieves and hirelings? Were you able to get past the shallow spiritual understanding of scripture amongst the non 2x2 congregation? Did you feel as if the service was too scholarly? Too informal? Too formal? Did the taking of tithes offend? Or the weird rituals (altar calls, loud amens, "preach on brother", etc.) Was politics introduced into the sermons- right wing demagoguery, left wing liberal non-sense, anti-homosexual, pro homosexual, etc.? In short, did you find the above stereotypes about non 2x2 denominations to be accurate? Please be honest. Do you think that the 2x2s = Jesus? I do and I don't. It is hard to explain. NO to the 2x2's = Jesus! the 2x2 sterotyping of other denomination is born of ignorance and hatred....long years of hatred and almost that many of ignorance. The other denominations do not holler "amen" or "preach on brother" any more then William Irvine did.....I've been in about 7 different denominational c hurches and I have NOT heard any interruptions of service......and the minister never speaks more then 15-20 mins. The urging to pay tithes has not entered into any of the services I've been at. One church did have a time where they were calling for more monetary donations for many different issues, but that has gone away...I guess it had to do with the finance committee not having enough money to fund the bills. I've heard a Baptist preacher who is one of the best scriptural preachers in the area....he takes a certain place in scripture and makes 3 points about that scripture and measure all 3 points to the standard of Jesus Christ. The Eucharist or bread and wine in most of the churches comes toward the end of the service. And the "altar call" is usually the closing part of the service and is an invitation for people to come to the confession of faith or an invitation to non-members to transfer membership from another church. That takes about 3 mins. for the minister to say. And this is done before the closing hymn. Then the minister or an elder will close the service with a prayer. Fact is the church where I've gone the most, has prayer for nearly every part of the service....which means about 4-5 prayers per service......it is not held to cover everything with one prayer session and then hit the doors after the last hymn is sung. Prayer is taught as a very vital part of the Christian experience and that it is the way to have the close intimate relationship with our great God and Saviour. But, can you feel/hear the Spirit in the service (or out) like one can in the meetings and conventions? Are you happier since leaving the meetings? Do you feel closer to God since leaving the meetings? Do you read your bible more or less since leaving the meetings? Do you pray more or less since leaving the meetings? Are you more or less selfish since leaving the meetings? Do you love your fellow man more or less since leaving the meetings? In short, did you become more Christlike (forgiving, kind, loving, patient, temperate) since leaving the meetings or more worldly like Esau.
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Mar 12, 2012 10:00:49 GMT -5
NO to the 2x2's = Jesus! the 2x2 sterotyping of other denomination is born of ignorance and hatred....long years of hatred and almost that many of ignorance. The other denominations do not holler "amen" or "preach on brother" any more then William Irvine did.....I've been in about 7 different denominational c hurches and I have NOT heard any interruptions of service......and the minister never speaks more then 15-20 mins. The urging to pay tithes has not entered into any of the services I've been at. One church did have a time where they were calling for more monetary donations for many different issues, but that has gone away...I guess it had to do with the finance committee not having enough money to fund the bills. I've heard a Baptist preacher who is one of the best scriptural preachers in the area....he takes a certain place in scripture and makes 3 points about that scripture and measure all 3 points to the standard of Jesus Christ. The Eucharist or bread and wine in most of the churches comes toward the end of the service. And the "altar call" is usually the closing part of the service and is an invitation for people to come to the confession of faith or an invitation to non-members to transfer membership from another church. That takes about 3 mins. for the minister to say. And this is done before the closing hymn. Then the minister or an elder will close the service with a prayer. Fact is the church where I've gone the most, has prayer for nearly every part of the service....which means about 4-5 prayers per service......it is not held to cover everything with one prayer session and then hit the doors after the last hymn is sung. Prayer is taught as a very vital part of the Christian experience and that it is the way to have the close intimate relationship with our great God and Saviour. But, can you feel/hear the Spirit in the service (or out) like one can in the meetings and conventions? As much so if not more so!
|
|
|
Post by sacerdotal on Mar 12, 2012 10:01:53 GMT -5
But, can you feel/hear the Spirit in the service (or out) like one can in the meetings and conventions? As much so if not more so! Thanks. Sorry for the cross-post. I edited my initial question before I saw your reply. Thank you for the answer about the presence of the Spirit.
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Mar 12, 2012 10:16:45 GMT -5
But, can you feel/hear the Spirit in the service (or out) like one can in the meetings and conventions? As much if not more so. Are you happier since leaving the meetings? I'm not as anxious about how and what I do. Do you feel closer to God since leaving the meetings? Actually the feeling closer to God came from the need to know my Saviour more plus knowing what God wanted me to do. I didn't feel that I, alone, could make the right decision in regards to leaving or not leaving the fellowship....I knew I had to get closer to God to know how He would lead me. Do you read your bible more or less since leaving the meetings? Do you pray more or less since leaving the meetings? As much if not more so. Are you more or less selfish since leaving the meetings? Do you love your fellow man more or less since leaving the meetings? Yes, and yes. I've been very amazed and glad to find fellow Christians all around me. The amazing part was they were always there and I could not see them because of the way I was raised that there were no one saved outside the fellowship! That came to me that to feel that was condemning an awful amount of people to death and hell.In short, did you become more Christlike (forgiving, kind, loving, patient, temperate) since leaving the meetings or more worldly like Esau. Acutally I've not changed a whole lot in the carnal side of life but I am learning more, more of the bible has opened up to me. It was as if the 2x2 film on my understanding had been taken away as I had not been able to "see" the scriptures as they were meant to be "seen". I was able to see my great God and Saviour in ALL of the bible, not just the NT. I was able to see that there would be NO way in the world I could ever attain the "christ-like" qualities that the 2x2's say one can do because there is NOTHING in this world I can do or say that would attain the righteousness of Jesus Christ in or for me. That has to be done with repentance and baptism by water and blood[/quote]
|
|
|
Post by sacerdotal on Mar 12, 2012 10:32:44 GMT -5
Thank you, SharonW for the replies. Are you saying that you have learned that we can't attain unto being Christlike? If that is the case, what about Jesus saying "Learn of me?" "Deny self, take up your cross, and follow me?" "I must decrease but he must increase?" Isn't there the concept in other denominations of being Christlike? Or do the 2x2s take it too far?
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Mar 12, 2012 11:05:56 GMT -5
To those that left the Truth fellowship- where did you go? (If, indeed, you went to another denomination). How did you like it? Could you stomach the preaching? Did you feel like Peter when he asked Christ, "To whom Lord shall we go? Thou alone hast the words of life." Did you find Life (Jesus) in the other fellowships/denominations? Was the Spirit there like it is in the meetings? (And we know that the Spirit cannot be counterfeited.) Were you able to get past the concept of other preachers (non 2x2) being thieves and hirelings? Were you able to get past the shallow spiritual understanding of scripture amongst the non 2x2 congregation? Did you feel as if the service was too scholarly? Too informal? Too formal? Did the taking of tithes offend? Or the weird rituals (altar calls, loud amens, "preach on brother", etc.) Was politics introduced into the sermons- right wing demagoguery, left wing liberal non-sense, anti-homosexual, pro homosexual, etc.? In short, did you find the above stereotypes about non 2x2 denominations to be accurate? Please be honest. Do you think that the 2x2s = Jesus? I do and I don't. It is hard to explain. No, to your closing question. I attended two Baptist churches for a number of years. There was a sweet spirit in both churches. I have been Catholic since 2006, formally since 2007. I love the Catholic faith. The Holy Spirit is very present. As is the Real Presence of Christ, our Lord. Some things vary from congregation to congregation but the short answer is a resounding 'no'. Sermons in the Baptist churches we attended were pretty good. Too long most of the time, but some were very good, some mediocre. The Catholic homilies in our diocese tend to be very good. And about 10 minutes, not over 15. Thieves and hirelings? Never. Shallow spiritual understanding as compared to the 2x2? You've got to be kidding. Seriously, the spiritual understanding is so far beyond the 2x2 it isn't even mildly comparable.
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Mar 12, 2012 11:13:23 GMT -5
Your screen name is interesting.
sac·er·do·tal/ˌsasərˈdōtl/ Adjective: Relating to priests or the priesthood; priestly. Relating to a doctrine that ascribes spiritual or supernatural powers to ordained priests.
|
|
|
Post by sacerdotal on Mar 12, 2012 11:28:47 GMT -5
Your screen name is interesting. sac·er·do·tal/ˌsasərˈdōtl/ Adjective: Relating to priests or the priesthood; priestly. Relating to a doctrine that ascribes spiritual or supernatural powers to ordained priests. Not that interesting, I used a thesaurus to find a synonym for the word "religious" and the word "sacerdotal" was listed as a synonym. So, I chose "sacerdotal" as I liked the sound of it. "believing, born-again, canonical, churchgoing, churchly, clerical, deistic, devotional, devout, divine, doctrinal, ecclesiastical, god-fearing, godly, holy, ministerial, moral, orthodox, pietistic, pious, pontifical, prayerful, priestly, pure, reverent, righteous, sacerdotal, sacred, sacrosanct, saintlike, saintly, scriptural, sectarian, spiritual, supernatural, theistic, theological" thesaurus.com/browse/religious
|
|
|
Post by sacerdotal on Mar 12, 2012 11:36:37 GMT -5
To those that left the Truth fellowship- where did you go? (If, indeed, you went to another denomination). How did you like it? Could you stomach the preaching? Did you feel like Peter when he asked Christ, "To whom Lord shall we go? Thou alone hast the words of life." Did you find Life (Jesus) in the other fellowships/denominations? Was the Spirit there like it is in the meetings? (And we know that the Spirit cannot be counterfeited.) Were you able to get past the concept of other preachers (non 2x2) being thieves and hirelings? Were you able to get past the shallow spiritual understanding of scripture amongst the non 2x2 congregation? Did you feel as if the service was too scholarly? Too informal? Too formal? Did the taking of tithes offend? Or the weird rituals (altar calls, loud amens, "preach on brother", etc.) Was politics introduced into the sermons- right wing demagoguery, left wing liberal non-sense, anti-homosexual, pro homosexual, etc.? In short, did you find the above stereotypes about non 2x2 denominations to be accurate? Please be honest. Do you think that the 2x2s = Jesus? I do and I don't. It is hard to explain. No, to your closing question. I attended two Baptist churches for a number of years. There was a sweet spirit in both churches. I have been Catholic since 2006, formally since 2007. I love the Catholic faith. The Holy Spirit is very present. As is the Real Presence of Christ, our Lord. Some things vary from congregation to congregation but the short answer is a resounding 'no'. Sermons in the Baptist churches we attended were pretty good. Too long most of the time, but some were very good, some mediocre. The Catholic homilies in our diocese tend to be very good. And about 10 minutes, not over 15. Thieves and hirelings? Never. Shallow spiritual understanding as compared to the 2x2? You've got to be kidding. Seriously, the spiritual understanding is so far beyond the 2x2 it isn't even mildly comparable. Interesting. So what did you learn in a recent homilie that was more edifying or different then what a worker would preach from the scriptures? How do you rationalize the exclusivism of the Catholic Church and their creative history to date back to the original apostles and to the time of Jesus? I find that practice by some 2x2s to be needlessly divisive and wonder how a Catholic that professes to love Christ could also blindly follow blatant historical "mistruths" and encourage division in the body of Christ by the belief in the "one true Catholic Church".
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Mar 12, 2012 12:09:56 GMT -5
No, to your closing question. I attended two Baptist churches for a number of years. There was a sweet spirit in both churches. I have been Catholic since 2006, formally since 2007. I love the Catholic faith. The Holy Spirit is very present. As is the Real Presence of Christ, our Lord. Some things vary from congregation to congregation but the short answer is a resounding 'no'. Sermons in the Baptist churches we attended were pretty good. Too long most of the time, but some were very good, some mediocre. The Catholic homilies in our diocese tend to be very good. And about 10 minutes, not over 15. Thieves and hirelings? Never. Shallow spiritual understanding as compared to the 2x2? You've got to be kidding. Seriously, the spiritual understanding is so far beyond the 2x2 it isn't even mildly comparable. Interesting. So what did you learn in a recent homilie that was more edifying or different then what a worker would preach from the scriptures? How do you rationalize the exclusivism of the Catholic Church and their creative history to date back to the original apostles and to the time of Jesus? I find that practice by some 2x2s to be needlessly divisive and wonder how a Catholic that professes to love Christ could also blindly follow blatant historical "mistruths" and encourage division in the body of Christ by the belief in the "one true Catholic Church". Homilies. I never leave without learning something I didn't know. Many of the Sunday ones are available online. My favorites are generally the 5-minute homily from Daily Mass. Our priests teach and preach from the readings for the day - they aren't out there wandering around hopping and skipping from one or two-line bits from hither and yon. I am going to take the high road here. I don't feel a need to rationalize exclusivism. Jesus said he would build a church. He did not say he would build church es. The Body of Christ is one, although there are separated brethren imperfectly joined to the Church, but joined nevertheless thru valid baptism. Now as to your wild accusations of 'blatant historical mistruths', since you made the statement, the burden is on you to prove that they are mistruths. The Church has the historical records to back their claims. You seem to have confidence in the Scriptures preserved, protected and canonized by the Church. By what cause would you doubt their historical records? That is a rhetorical question for this thread. If you want to discuss further why don't you start a thread in the religion forum.
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Mar 12, 2012 12:15:00 GMT -5
Your screen name is interesting. sac·er·do·tal/ˌsasərˈdōtl/ Adjective: Relating to priests or the priesthood; priestly. Relating to a doctrine that ascribes spiritual or supernatural powers to ordained priests. Not that interesting, I used a thesaurus to find a synonym for the word "religious" and the word "sacerdotal" was listed as a synonym. So, I chose "sacerdotal" as I liked the sound of it."believing, born-again, canonical, churchgoing, churchly, clerical, deistic, devotional, devout, divine, doctrinal, ecclesiastical, god-fearing, godly, holy, ministerial, moral, orthodox, pietistic, pious, pontifical, prayerful, priestly, pure, reverent, righteous, sacerdotal, sacred, sacrosanct, saintlike, saintly, scriptural, sectarian, spiritual, supernatural, theistic, theological" thesaurus.com/browse/religiousI like it too. ![;)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/wink.png) pon·tif·i·cal/pänˈtifikəl/ Adjective: (in the Roman Catholic Church) Of or relating to the pope. Noun: (in the Roman Catholic Church) An office book of the Western Church containing rites to be performed by the pope or bishops. Synonyms: papal - episcopal
|
|
|
Post by sacerdotal on Mar 12, 2012 12:16:24 GMT -5
Interesting. So what did you learn in a recent homilie that was more edifying or different then what a worker would preach from the scriptures? How do you rationalize the exclusivism of the Catholic Church and their creative history to date back to the original apostles and to the time of Jesus? I find that practice by some 2x2s to be needlessly divisive and wonder how a Catholic that professes to love Christ could also blindly follow blatant historical "mistruths" and encourage division in the body of Christ by the belief in the "one true Catholic Church". Jesus said he would build a church. He did not say he would build church es. The Body of Christ is one, although there are separated brethren imperfectly joined to the Church, but joined nevertheless thru valid baptism. Actual the word churches is mentioned at least 36 times in the New Testament. Remember the 12 churches in Revelation? Or this verse: Salute one another with an holy kiss. The churches of Christ salute you." And we know from reading Revelation that some of the churches had different doctrines- doctrines that weren't of Christ. I think the same can be said today, that the Spirit is guiding and directing in the churches today, pointing souls to Christ and warning against disobedience and the slipping in of false doctrine, pride, and complacency.
|
|
|
Post by sacerdotal on Mar 12, 2012 12:58:50 GMT -5
Now as to your wild accusations of 'blatant historical mistruths', since you made the statement, the burden is on you to prove that they are mistruths. The Church has the historical records to back their claims. You seem to have confidence in the Scriptures preserved, protected and canonized by the Church. By what cause would you doubt their historical records? That is a rhetorical question for this thread. If you want to discuss further why don't you start a thread in the religion forum. Is Peter considered to be the first Pope? If so (and I believe this to be the Catholic teaching), then why him and not John, for example? Or Paul? If Popes are considered infallible- even as defined by Wikipedia (" Papal infallibility is a dogma of the Catholic Church which states that, by action of the Holy Spirit, the Pope is preserved from even the possibility of error[1] when in his official capacity he solemnly declares or promulgates to the universal Church a dogmatic teaching on faith or morals. It is also taught that the Holy Spirit works in the body of the Church, as sensus fidelium, to ensure that dogmatic teachings proclaimed to be infallible will be received by all Catholics. This dogma, however, does not state either that the pope cannot sin in his own personal life or that he is necessarily free of error, even when speaking in his official capacity, outside the specific contexts in which the dogma applies.") then why did Paul need to rebuke Peter? Can the Pope be rebuked today by an "underling"? I know, Catholicism promotes the verse "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." But, ignore other verses- such as the concept of humility in the leadership and that the greatest would be as a little child. I would think that would also include protecting little children- which the current Pope doesn't seem to value over keeping the scandals quiet- surely you know about that investigation in which he is named. Have you read in Revelation how John fell to the feet of Jesus when Jesus revealed himself to Him- the Lord of all, that is to say, Jesus, said to him, "And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last:" Did you know that when cardinals are ordained that they must prostrate themselves fully on the ground in front of the Pope? Is that the image of the apostles that you read of in the New Testament. The lowly fishermen? There doesn't seem to be PROOF of apostolic succession with the Catholics or the 2x2s. BOTH have to revert to suppositions about what might have happened as there are no written records indicating apostolic succession. There seems to be a 200 year gap with the Catholic church. Do you know of written records? Does the current concept of Apostle as Pope align with the New Testament reaching. Where is his companion. Why only 1 Apostle at a time. Jesus sent out 12 and then 70. Many were married. Photo from USAToday.
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Mar 12, 2012 13:38:53 GMT -5
Jesus said he would build a church. He did not say he would build church es. The Body of Christ is one, although there are separated brethren imperfectly joined to the Church, but joined nevertheless thru valid baptism. Actual the word churches is mentioned at least 36 times in the New Testament. Remember the 12 churches in Revelation? Or this verse: Salute one another with an holy kiss. The churches of Christ salute you."And we know from reading Revelation that some of the churches had different doctrines- doctrines that weren't of Christ. I think the same can be said today, that the Spirit is guiding and directing in the churches today, pointing souls to Christ and warning against disobedience and the slipping in of false doctrine, pride, and complacency. ' the churches of Christ' refers to the churches in the vicinity where the apostle had been - churches under the doctrine of the apostles. The doctrine which they were exhorted to persevere in; to hold fast to. The two verses following your Romans 16:16 quote answer that very issue ... 17 Now I beseech you, brethren, to mark them who cause dissensions and offences, contrary to the doctrine which you have learned, and avoid them.
18 For they that are such, serve not Christ, our Lord, but their own belly: and by pleasing speeches, and good words, seduce the hearts of the innocent.
|
|
|
Post by sacerdotal on Mar 12, 2012 13:42:33 GMT -5
Actual the word churches is mentioned at least 36 times in the New Testament. Remember the 12 churches in Revelation? Or this verse: Salute one another with an holy kiss. The churches of Christ salute you."And we know from reading Revelation that some of the churches had different doctrines- doctrines that weren't of Christ. I think the same can be said today, that the Spirit is guiding and directing in the churches today, pointing souls to Christ and warning against disobedience and the slipping in of false doctrine, pride, and complacency. ' the churches of Christ' refers to the churches in the vicinity where the apostle had been - churches under the doctrine of the apostles. The doctrine which they were exhorted to persevere in; to hold fast to. The two verses following your Romans 16:16 quote answer that very issue ... 17 Now I beseech you, brethren, to mark them who cause dissensions and offences, contrary to the doctrine which you have learned, and avoid them.
18 For they that are such, serve not Christ, our Lord, but their own belly: and by pleasing speeches, and good words, seduce the hearts of the innocent.
I agree.
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Mar 12, 2012 14:28:10 GMT -5
Now as to your wild accusations of 'blatant historical mistruths', since you made the statement, the burden is on you to prove that they are mistruths. The Church has the historical records to back their claims. You seem to have confidence in the Scriptures preserved, protected and canonized by the Church. By what cause would you doubt their historical records? That is a rhetorical question for this thread. If you want to discuss further why don't you start a thread in the religion forum. Is Peter considered to be the first Pope? If so (and I believe this to be the Catholic teaching), then why him and not John, for example? Or Paul? If Popes are considered infallible- even as defined by Wikipedia (" Papal infallibility is a dogma of the Catholic Church which states that, by action of the Holy Spirit, the Pope is preserved from even the possibility of error[1] when in his official capacity he solemnly declares or promulgates to the universal Church a dogmatic teaching on faith or morals. It is also taught that the Holy Spirit works in the body of the Church, as sensus fidelium, to ensure that dogmatic teachings proclaimed to be infallible will be received by all Catholics. This dogma, however, does not state either that the pope cannot sin in his own personal life or that he is necessarily free of error, even when speaking in his official capacity, outside the specific contexts in which the dogma applies.") then why did Paul need to rebuke Peter? Can the Pope be rebuked today by an "underling"? I know, Catholicism promotes the verse "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." But, ignore other verses- such as the concept of humility in the leadership and that the greatest would be as a little child. I would think that would also include protecting little children- which the current Pope doesn't seem to value over keeping the scandals quiet- surely you know about that investigation in which he is named. Have you read in Revelation how John fell to the feet of Jesus when Jesus revealed himself to Him- the Lord of all, that is to say, Jesus, said to him, "And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last:" Did you know that when cardinals are ordained that they must prostrate themselves fully on the ground in front of the Pope? Is that the image of the apostles that you read of in the New Testament. The lowly fishermen? There doesn't seem to be PROOF of apostolic succession with the Catholics or the 2x2s. BOTH have to revert to suppositions about what might have happened as there are no written records indicating apostolic succession. There seems to be a 200 year gap with the Catholic church. Do you know of written records? Does the current concept of Apostle as Pope align with the New Testament reaching. Where is his companion. Why only 1 Apostle at a time. Jesus sent out 12 and then 70. Many were married. Photo from USAToday.I believe your photo represents diaconate or priest candidates. From another board ... Because it was to Simon, renamed Peter (Cephas, rock) who Jesus blessed, and to whom Jesus gave the keys to the kingdom of heaven and the power to bind and loose. It was not to John. It was not to Paul. Pls note ... singular ' you' - 4771. su - second pers. sing. pers. pronoun - concordances.org/greek/4771.htm15“But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”
16Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
17Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18And 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. 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”
If you want to copy the rest of your post to the Religion forum, I'll be happy to continue the discussion, taking one issue at a time. BTW, even though you quoted the definition, you apparently aren't clear on what infallibility is, or isn't.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2012 14:30:42 GMT -5
Now as to your wild accusations of 'blatant historical mistruths', since you made the statement, the burden is on you to prove that they are mistruths. The Church has the historical records to back their claims. You seem to have confidence in the Scriptures preserved, protected and canonized by the Church. By what cause would you doubt their historical records? That is a rhetorical question for this thread. If you want to discuss further why don't you start a thread in the religion forum. Is Peter considered to be the first Pope? If so (and I believe this to be the Catholic teaching), then why him and not John, for example? Or Paul? If Popes are considered infallible- even as defined by Wikipedia (" Papal infallibility is a dogma of the Catholic Church which states that, by action of the Holy Spirit, the Pope is preserved from even the possibility of error[1] when in his official capacity he solemnly declares or promulgates to the universal Church a dogmatic teaching on faith or morals. It is also taught that the Holy Spirit works in the body of the Church, as sensus fidelium, to ensure that dogmatic teachings proclaimed to be infallible will be received by all Catholics. This dogma, however, does not state either that the pope cannot sin in his own personal life or that he is necessarily free of error, even when speaking in his official capacity, outside the specific contexts in which the dogma applies.") then why did Paul need to rebuke Peter? Can the Pope be rebuked today by an "underling"? I know, Catholicism promotes the verse "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." But, ignore other verses- such as the concept of humility in the leadership and that the greatest would be as a little child. I would think that would also include protecting little children- which the current Pope doesn't seem to value over keeping the scandals quiet- surely you know about that investigation in which he is named. Have you read in Revelation how John fell to the feet of Jesus when Jesus revealed himself to Him- the Lord of all, that is to say, Jesus, said to him, "And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last:" Did you know that when cardinals are ordained that they must prostrate themselves fully on the ground in front of the Pope? Is that the image of the apostles that you read of in the New Testament. The lowly fishermen? There doesn't seem to be PROOF of apostolic succession with the Catholics or the 2x2s. BOTH have to revert to suppositions about what might have happened as there are no written records indicating apostolic succession. There seems to be a 200 year gap with the Catholic church. Do you know of written records? Does the current concept of Apostle as Pope align with the New Testament reaching. Where is his companion. Why only 1 Apostle at a time. Jesus sent out 12 and then 70. Many were married. You're right. There is no proof of apostolic succession and there are no records to substantiate it. It has been dreamed up. Any claim of apostolic succession by any group is no more sound than the 2x2 claim of "from the shores of Galilee". “Neither the New Testament nor early Christian history offers support for a notion of apostolic succession as 'an unbroken line of episcopal ordination from Christ through the apostles down through the centuries to the bishops of today'…such (Catholic) scholars agree that along with the evidence from the New Testament and early Christian documents, one must invoke a theological argument based on Christian faith to arrive at the conclusion that bishops are the successors of the apostles “by divine institution”.“ Francis A. Sullivan, Jesuit priest and Catholic theologian
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Mar 12, 2012 14:50:57 GMT -5
II. Authority is Transferred by the Sacrament of Ordination
Acts 1:15-26 - the first thing Peter does after Jesus ascends into heaven is implement apostolic succession. Matthias is ordained with full apostolic authority. Only the Catholic Church can demonstrate an unbroken apostolic lineage to the apostles in union with Peter through the sacrament of ordination and thereby claim to teach with Christ's own authority.
Acts 1:20 - a successor of Judas is chosen. The authority of his office (his "bishopric") is respected notwithstanding his egregious sin. The necessity to have apostolic succession in order for the Church to survive was understood by all. God never said, "I'll give you leaders with authority for about 400 years, but after the Bible is compiled, you are all on your own."
Acts 1:22 - literally, "one must be ordained" to be a witness with us of His resurrection. Apostolic ordination is required in order to teach with Christ's authority.
Acts 6:6 - apostolic authority is transferred through the laying on of hands (ordination). This authority has transferred beyond the original twelve apostles as the Church has grown.
Acts 9:17-19 - even Paul, who was directly chosen by Christ, only becomes a minister after the laying on of hands by a bishop. This is a powerful proof-text for the necessity of sacramental ordination in order to be a legitimate successor of the apostles.
Acts 13:3 - apostolic authority is transferred through the laying on of hands (ordination). This authority must come from a Catholic bishop.
Acts 14:23 - the apostles and newly-ordained men appointed elders to have authority throughout the Church.
Acts 15:22-27 - preachers of the Word must be sent by the bishops in union with the Church. We must trace this authority to the apostles.
2 Cor. 1:21-22 - Paul writes that God has commissioned certain men and sealed them with the Holy Spirit as a guarantee.
Col 1:25 - Paul calls his position a divine "office." An office has successors. It does not terminate at death. Or it's not an office. See also Heb. 7:23 – an office continues with another successor after the previous office-holder’s death.
1 Tim. 3:1 - Paul uses the word "episcopoi" (bishop) which requires an office. Everyone understood that Paul's use of episcopoi and office meant it would carry on after his death by those who would succeed him.
1 Tim. 4:14 - again, apostolic authority is transferred through the laying on of hands (ordination).
1 Tim. 5:22 - Paul urges Timothy to be careful in laying on the hands (ordaining others). The gift of authority is a reality and cannot be used indiscriminately.
2 Tim. 1:6 - Paul again reminds Timothy the unique gift of God that he received through the laying on of hands.
2 Tim. 4:1-6 - at end of Paul's life, Paul charges Timothy with the office of his ministry . We must trace true apostolic lineage back to a Catholic bishop.
2 Tim. 2:2 - this verse shows God's intention is to transfer authority to successors (here, Paul to Timothy to 3rd to 4th generation). It goes beyond the death of the apostles.
Titus 1:5; Luke 10:1 - the elders of the Church are appointed and hold authority. God has His children participate in Christ's work.
1 John 4:6 - whoever knows God listens to us (the bishops and the successors to the apostles). This is the way we discern truth and error (not just by reading the Bible and interpreting it for ourselves).
Exodus 18:25-26 - Moses appoints various heads over the people of God. We see a hierarchy, a transfer of authority and succession.
Exodus 40:15 - the physical anointing shows that God intended a perpetual priesthood with an identifiable unbroken succession.
Numbers 3:3 - the sons of Aaron were formally "anointed" priests in "ordination" to minister in the priests' "office."
Numbers 16:40 - shows God's intention of unbroken succession within His kingdom on earth. Unless a priest was ordained by Aaron and his descendants, he had no authority.
Numbers 27:18-20 - shows God's intention that, through the "laying on of hands," one is commissioned and has authority.
Deut. 34:9 - Moses laid hands upon Joshua, and because of this, Joshua was obeyed as successor, full of the spirit of wisdom.
Sirach 45:15 - Moses ordains Aaron and anoints him with oil. There is a transfer of authority through formal ordination.
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Mar 12, 2012 15:33:19 GMT -5
You're right. There is no proof of apostolic succession and there are no records to substantiate it. It has been dreamed up. Any claim of apostolic succession by any group is no more sound than the 2x2 claim of "from the shores of Galilee". “Neither the New Testament nor early Christian history offers support for a notion of apostolic succession as 'an unbroken line of episcopal ordination from Christ through the apostles down through the centuries to the bishops of today'…such (Catholic) scholars agree that along with the evidence from the New Testament and early Christian documents, one must invoke a theological argument based on Christian faith to arrive at the conclusion that bishops are the successors of the apostles “by divine institution”.“ Francis A. Sullivan, Jesuit priest and Catholic theologian You have quoted an excerpt from a Mormon blog, an excerpt by an obviously liberal leaning thinker outside of Catholic teaching. The bishops - successors of the apostles
861 "In order that the mission entrusted to them might be continued after their death, [the apostles] consigned, by will and testament, as it were, to their immediate collaborators the duty of completing and consolidating the work they had begun, urging them to tend to the whole flock, in which the Holy Spirit had appointed them to shepherd the Church of God. They accordingly designated such men and then made the ruling that likewise on their death other proven men should take over their ministry."374
862 "Just as the office which the Lord confided to Peter alone, as first of the apostles, destined to be transmitted to his successors, is a permanent one, so also endures the office, which the apostles received, of shepherding the Church, a charge destined to be exercised without interruption by the sacred order of bishops."375 Hence the Church teaches that "the bishops have by divine institution taken the place of the apostles as pastors of the Church, in such wise that whoever listens to them is listening to Christ and whoever despises them despises Christ and him who sent Christ."376
The ECFs knew. And yes, there is recorded history. Pope Clement I
“Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry” (Letter to the Corinthians 42:4–5, 44:1–3 [A.D. 80]).
Hegesippus
“When I had come to Rome, I [visited] Anicetus, whose deacon was Eleutherus. And after Anicetus [died], Soter succeeded, and after him Eleutherus. In each succession and in each city there is a continuance of that which is proclaimed by the law, the prophets, and the Lord” (Memoirs, cited in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 4:22 [A.D. 180]).
Irenaeus
“It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known to us throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors down to our own times, men who neither knew nor taught anything like what these heretics rave about” (Against Heresies 3:3:1 [A.D. 189]).
“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul—that church which has the tradition and the faith with which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world. And it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (ibid., 3:3:2).
“Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time” (ibid., 3:3:4).
“Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the apostles, like a rich man [depositing his money] in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth, so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life. . . . For how stands the case? Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient churches with which the apostles held constant conversation, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question?” (ibid., 3:4:1).
|
|
|
Post by SharonArnold on Mar 12, 2012 15:36:33 GMT -5
To those that left the Truth fellowship- where did you go? (If, indeed, you went to another denomination). How did you like it? Could you stomach the preaching? Did you feel like Peter when he asked Christ, "To whom Lord shall we go? Thou alone hast the words of life." Did you find Life (Jesus) in the other fellowships/denominations? Was the Spirit there like it is in the meetings? (And we know that the Spirit cannot be counterfeited.) Were you able to get past the concept of other preachers (non 2x2) being thieves and hirelings? Were you able to get past the shallow spiritual understanding of scripture amongst the non 2x2 congregation? Did you feel as if the service was too scholarly? Too informal? Too formal? Did the taking of tithes offend? Or the weird rituals (altar calls, loud amens, "preach on brother", etc.) Was politics introduced into the sermons- right wing demagoguery, left wing liberal non-sense, anti-homosexual, pro homosexual, etc.? In short, did you find the above stereotypes about non 2x2 denominations to be accurate? Please be honest. Do you think that the 2x2s = Jesus? I do and I don't. It is hard to explain. Okay, I do realize that you are being provocative here. However, when I read this post, the first thought that crossed my mind was – “You really do need to get out more.” The things in life that have given me feelings of joy, peace, meaning, connection, and purpose have never have been dependent on a system of worship. None. Zero. Zilch. It has always been something that I have carried within me, (something I have found when I have got very still and reached deep inside myself), totally independent of anything “out there”. The system of worship that I was in at one time sometimes added to it, sometimes took away from it. I’m sure if you asked any of the really cool 2x2’s (or exes) on this site, they would tell you exactly the same thing. 2X2’s may comprise .07% of the world’s population. 33% of the world’s population might be labeled Christian. Can you honestly entertain the thought that .07% or even 33% of the world’s population might have a lock on connection to “Spirit”? Really?
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Mar 12, 2012 15:55:01 GMT -5
Remember the 12 churches in Revelation? Seven, not twelve. Sorry to be pedantic, but seven is an awfully meaningful number in Revelation. I'm probably the only one that cares, lol.
|
|
|
Post by sacerdotal on Mar 12, 2012 15:55:33 GMT -5
To those that left the Truth fellowship- where did you go? (If, indeed, you went to another denomination). How did you like it? Could you stomach the preaching? Did you feel like Peter when he asked Christ, "To whom Lord shall we go? Thou alone hast the words of life." Did you find Life (Jesus) in the other fellowships/denominations? Was the Spirit there like it is in the meetings? (And we know that the Spirit cannot be counterfeited.) Were you able to get past the concept of other preachers (non 2x2) being thieves and hirelings? Were you able to get past the shallow spiritual understanding of scripture amongst the non 2x2 congregation? Did you feel as if the service was too scholarly? Too informal? Too formal? Did the taking of tithes offend? Or the weird rituals (altar calls, loud amens, "preach on brother", etc.) Was politics introduced into the sermons- right wing demagoguery, left wing liberal non-sense, anti-homosexual, pro homosexual, etc.? In short, did you find the above stereotypes about non 2x2 denominations to be accurate? Please be honest. Do you think that the 2x2s = Jesus? I do and I don't. It is hard to explain. Okay, I do realize that you are being provocative here. However, when I read this post, the first thought that crossed my mind was – “You really do need to get out more.” The things in life that have given me feelings of joy, peace, meaning, connection, and purpose have never have been dependent on a system of worship. None. Zero. Zilch. It has always been something that I have carried within me, (something I have found when I have got very still and reached deep inside myself), totally independent of anything “out there”. The system of worship that I was in at one time sometimes added to it, sometimes took away from it. I’m sure if you asked any of the really cool 2x2’s (or exes) on this site, they would tell you exactly the same thing. 2X2’s may comprise .07% of the world’s population. 33% of the world’s population might be labeled Christian. Can you honestly entertain the thought that .07% or even 33% of the world’s population might have a lock on connection to “Spirit”? Really? Jesus said to remember Noah. Noah and his family were the only ones in the world that were saved. Would that be .000001% of the population at the time? What about Sodom and Gomorrah? God destroyed the whole city. Babies and all. Only Lot and his family were spared and even his wife was killed because she disobeyed. Jesus said for us to remember Lot's wife. So, numbers don't matter. Only righteousness through Grace and Faith in God/Jesus seem to matter. And, not trying to be provocative, as you put it, I don't see it in most denominations/religions. Christians seem to exist INSPITE of denominations.
|
|
|
Post by sacerdotal on Mar 12, 2012 15:56:12 GMT -5
Remember the 12 churches in Revelation? Seven, not twelve. Sorry to be pedantic, but seven is an awfully meaningful number in Revelation. I'm probably the only one that cares, lol. I stand correct, DC. Thanks. I agree with you. That is what I get for not rereading it before quoting.
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Mar 12, 2012 16:13:27 GMT -5
To those that left the Truth fellowship- where did you go? Wherever I feel like on Sunday morning, which is usually for a nice bicycle ride, but sometimes I visit churches. I like big, anonymous churches with uplifting, reverent music. Some I can't. If I find the tone too conservative, I'll walk out. My first shocking discovery of Jesus/Life/Spirit outside the f&w way was in a mormon Temple. THAT was a mind-bender for me. Absolutely not. Nothing will be quite the same as f&w meetings. Huh? Oh, I was way beyond that before I ever left the f&w's. "Get past it?" I find value in heart-felt sharing of the Spirit and what is laid on one's heart, whether or not the speaker knows diddly about the Bible passages they are quoting. That would be impossible for me. I seldom pay attention to dress styles; couldn't tell you. If you mean the service itself, I do like formal. Naw. I feel responsible to contribute for what I receive. I can do without any kind of congregational participation (except singing) but I enjoy solemn rituals. I'd make a good once-a-month Catholic. Only once, and I didn't bother staying to hear more. If I could find a bit more left-wing libereral nonsense, I'd enjoy that. Yes. I do indeed feel there is a different spirit about each church, influenced particularly by the pastor and the singing. Not sure how to answer this either. The 2x2 Jesus is perfect for most 2x2's. When it no longer is for someone, I hope they'll find the strength to leave and find a better-fitting Jesus.
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Mar 12, 2012 19:12:50 GMT -5
Thank you, SharonW for the replies. Are you saying that you have learned that we can't attain unto being Christlike? If that is the case, what about Jesus saying "Learn of me?" "Deny self, take up your cross, and follow me?" "I must decrease but he must increase?" Isn't there the concept in other denominations of being Christlike? Or do the 2x2s take it too far? Learn of Jesus...one has to do that in order to know what they need to repent for as it is only Jesus' righteousness that marks that which we are sinful in. JMO Denying self really means not to be so caught up in life and having to have this or that and then working one's self down to a nub taking care of all that stuff and giving much time to their spiritual life. Following Jesus can well mean to just keep Him in our sights instead of the trials of the flesh and that wiles of Satan that way we will keep our life on a decent track and not love the Lord our God with all our heart, mind, soul and strength. And also keep us from trespassing against our brothers and sisters. The 2x2's take it too far in that many of them think of Jesus as only another man and that though He was perfect that means that anyone else can be perfect....but then that idea makes Jesus' death in vain....for if we all could make ourselves perfect, then why in the heck did Jesus have to die? Simple, mankind will never make themselves that perfect and pure thus it takes the blood of Jesus to make us that righteousness. And as Abraham's faith was imputed to him for righteousness, so is our faith in Jesus Christ as our salvation imputed to us for righteousness.
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Mar 12, 2012 19:21:12 GMT -5
Remember the 12 churches in Revelation? Seven, not twelve. Sorry to be pedantic, but seven is an awfully meaningful number in Revelation. I'm probably the only one that cares, lol. Why just 7 churches? To match the seven branched candlestick? Maybe no one thought to make that candlestick with more branches? Strange that, eh? Esp. when considering that is was the 12 tribes of Israel that means so much even now, spiritually eh? ![:)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/smiley.png)
|
|