C
CLARKY
Guest
I tell you what, when you have anything of substance to say, and can stick to a topic, start a new thread and let me know
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
- Status
C
CLARKY
Guest
Let me be brief. The 39 books in the Old Testament were recognized as a revelation of God as the books emerged. They were universally recognized by Jewish authorities as the Word of God.
The 27 books of the New Testament were written in the first century, A.D. by apostles (like Matthew and John) or close associates of apostles (like Mark and Luke).
In the early Christian era these books were recognized as the Word of God with the same kind of authority that the Old Testament has.
There appear to be three criteria that stood out in the early Christian's minds as true of books that should be considered Scripture: first, orthodoxy (teaching content that was consistent with the rest of God's Word.
Usage (that the books were used widely in the Christian world and apostolicity (that the books were written either by apostles or close associates of apostles).
Pope St. Damasus I in 382 AD approved the work of the first Council of Constantinople, accepting St. Athanasius’ list as divinely inspired.
Then the Council of Hippo, a regional council for some of the bishops in the Diocese of Africa, in 393 AD reaffirmed The Decree of Damasus.
The Council of Carthage in 397 AD also reaffirmed The Decree of Damasus. Carthage, unlike Hippo, sent its decisions to Rome for ratification.
Pope St. Boniface I (418-422) ratified the decision and declared the canon settled for the Western Patriarchate.
He also sent the decision to the Eastern patriarchs in Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. At that point, the Catholic Canon of Sacred Scripture was informally accepted worldwide.
The Fourth Council of Carthage in 419 reaffirmed Pope St. Boniface. The Council of Nicea II in 787 ratified the same canon as authoritative for the Eastern Churches.
Finally, the Council of Trent, a worldwide Ecumenical Council, formally proclaimed the Catholic Canon of Sacred Scripture in 1546 as authoritative for the whole world.
The canon list from the Synod of Rome A.D. 382 and a canon list from Trent 1546 are identical.
Now you are not being intellectually HONEST at ALL, so I am done with this nonsense. Have a nice life.
The 27 books of the New Testament were written in the first century, A.D. by apostles (like Matthew and John) or close associates of apostles (like Mark and Luke).
In the early Christian era these books were recognized as the Word of God with the same kind of authority that the Old Testament has.
There appear to be three criteria that stood out in the early Christian's minds as true of books that should be considered Scripture: first, orthodoxy (teaching content that was consistent with the rest of God's Word.
Usage (that the books were used widely in the Christian world and apostolicity (that the books were written either by apostles or close associates of apostles).
Pope St. Damasus I in 382 AD approved the work of the first Council of Constantinople, accepting St. Athanasius’ list as divinely inspired.
Then the Council of Hippo, a regional council for some of the bishops in the Diocese of Africa, in 393 AD reaffirmed The Decree of Damasus.
The Council of Carthage in 397 AD also reaffirmed The Decree of Damasus. Carthage, unlike Hippo, sent its decisions to Rome for ratification.
Pope St. Boniface I (418-422) ratified the decision and declared the canon settled for the Western Patriarchate.
He also sent the decision to the Eastern patriarchs in Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. At that point, the Catholic Canon of Sacred Scripture was informally accepted worldwide.
The Fourth Council of Carthage in 419 reaffirmed Pope St. Boniface. The Council of Nicea II in 787 ratified the same canon as authoritative for the Eastern Churches.
Finally, the Council of Trent, a worldwide Ecumenical Council, formally proclaimed the Catholic Canon of Sacred Scripture in 1546 as authoritative for the whole world.
The canon list from the Synod of Rome A.D. 382 and a canon list from Trent 1546 are identical.
Now you are not being intellectually HONEST at ALL, so I am done with this nonsense. Have a nice life.
R
roaringkitten
Guest
Clarky, I will respond to your post from the other thread(the one that was closed). Here is the part I will respond to:
Saved by grace thru faith is a partial teaching. Jesus says you have to clothe the naked and feed the hungry as well, or else you rate everlasting ****ation. Matthew 25:31-46 has the entire story.
(Matt. 25:46). Note that the Lord did not make an exception for those who profess a belief in him. A belief in Christ is only of value to those who do the will of the Father.
Feeding the hungry and clothing the poor are good works. And you make it CLEAR by your testimony that you think "the will of the Father" is to feed the poor,etc....But let me show some verses:
"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven." Matthew 7:21
"And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever." 1 John 2:17
"And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day." John 6:40
The will of the Father is for man to BELIEVE on the Son(not mere head knowledge, but trusting in His finished work on the cross to save you). If good works were required to get salvation then God should have added that to all the other passages which speak of believing the Son. Dont let anyone fool you to believe that salvation is a process by man, it is a present possession to those who believe(see red highlighted words):
"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life." John 5:24
The jailer asked the question directly:
"Then he called for a light, and sprang in, and came trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas, And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house." Acts 16: 29-31
Since you think feeding the poor, clothing the naked, etc are required to be saved, then the Word of God should have said such things here by your testimony or else Paul/Silas lied. But it does not. Discipleship is something we do AS Christians, not something to attain salvation(because it was Christ's SINLESS sacrifice that saved us, not ourselves):
"For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them." Ephesians 2:10
"My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:" 1 John 2:1
"I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service." Romans 12:1
Reasonable service? Or should that have read "required service or be ****ed"? It is our duty to serve Christ an follow Him, not to attain/keep salvation, but to show others Christ and show our love to Him who redeemed us! I believe you are badly mistaken in your attempt to justify good works as a way to get salvation. This is what God sees your righteous works:
“But we are all as an unclean thing, and ALL OUR RIGHTEOUSNESSES ARE AS FILTHY RAGS; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away” Isaiah 64:60
God wont accept our righteous works to get us in Heaven, but only by the merits of Jesus which one believed/trusted to save him/her. Do you think filthy rags are acceptable to God in terms of justifying us into heaven? This is why I am so concerned. People who truly follow the catholic religion have believed in works to save them. Romans 4:5 doesn't make a distinction between types of works, Ephesians 2:8-9 say it is not of ourselves. The way the catholic church teaches salvation is heresy. We do not co-help Jesus to save us through the sacraments as the council of Trent has declared(they teach justification, grace, and faith completely opposing the Word of God, which is blasphemy). I say this with great sorrow, because those who believe in the council of trent more than God will spend eternity in the lake of fire if they dont stop relying partly in themselves.
“And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But IF IT BE OF WORKS, THEN IT IS NO MORE GRACE: otherwise work is no more work.” Romans 11:6
It is not partly grace and partly works....It is either ALL grace or ALL works......God says it is ALL grace. Please dont die in your sins without Jesus....because you reject him when you try and justify yourself as part of the salvation process. God saves and seals us with the Holy Spirit the moment you believe on the Son(trusting Him as the Savior for your sins).
"In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise." Ephesians 1:13
Saved by grace thru faith is a partial teaching. Jesus says you have to clothe the naked and feed the hungry as well, or else you rate everlasting ****ation. Matthew 25:31-46 has the entire story.
(Matt. 25:46). Note that the Lord did not make an exception for those who profess a belief in him. A belief in Christ is only of value to those who do the will of the Father.
Feeding the hungry and clothing the poor are good works. And you make it CLEAR by your testimony that you think "the will of the Father" is to feed the poor,etc....But let me show some verses:
"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven." Matthew 7:21
"And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever." 1 John 2:17
"And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day." John 6:40
The will of the Father is for man to BELIEVE on the Son(not mere head knowledge, but trusting in His finished work on the cross to save you). If good works were required to get salvation then God should have added that to all the other passages which speak of believing the Son. Dont let anyone fool you to believe that salvation is a process by man, it is a present possession to those who believe(see red highlighted words):
"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life." John 5:24
The jailer asked the question directly:
"Then he called for a light, and sprang in, and came trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas, And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house." Acts 16: 29-31
Since you think feeding the poor, clothing the naked, etc are required to be saved, then the Word of God should have said such things here by your testimony or else Paul/Silas lied. But it does not. Discipleship is something we do AS Christians, not something to attain salvation(because it was Christ's SINLESS sacrifice that saved us, not ourselves):
"For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them." Ephesians 2:10
"My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:" 1 John 2:1
"I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service." Romans 12:1
Reasonable service? Or should that have read "required service or be ****ed"? It is our duty to serve Christ an follow Him, not to attain/keep salvation, but to show others Christ and show our love to Him who redeemed us! I believe you are badly mistaken in your attempt to justify good works as a way to get salvation. This is what God sees your righteous works:
“But we are all as an unclean thing, and ALL OUR RIGHTEOUSNESSES ARE AS FILTHY RAGS; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away” Isaiah 64:60
God wont accept our righteous works to get us in Heaven, but only by the merits of Jesus which one believed/trusted to save him/her. Do you think filthy rags are acceptable to God in terms of justifying us into heaven? This is why I am so concerned. People who truly follow the catholic religion have believed in works to save them. Romans 4:5 doesn't make a distinction between types of works, Ephesians 2:8-9 say it is not of ourselves. The way the catholic church teaches salvation is heresy. We do not co-help Jesus to save us through the sacraments as the council of Trent has declared(they teach justification, grace, and faith completely opposing the Word of God, which is blasphemy). I say this with great sorrow, because those who believe in the council of trent more than God will spend eternity in the lake of fire if they dont stop relying partly in themselves.
“And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But IF IT BE OF WORKS, THEN IT IS NO MORE GRACE: otherwise work is no more work.” Romans 11:6
It is not partly grace and partly works....It is either ALL grace or ALL works......God says it is ALL grace. Please dont die in your sins without Jesus....because you reject him when you try and justify yourself as part of the salvation process. God saves and seals us with the Holy Spirit the moment you believe on the Son(trusting Him as the Savior for your sins).
"In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise." Ephesians 1:13
C
CLARKY
Guest
Justification denotes the transforming of the sinner from the state of unrighteousness to the state of holiness and sonship of God. Justification is the work of God alone, in cooperation of ones free will.
It denotes the continued quality inherent in the soul, which theologians term sanctifying grace, and makes us righteous and worthy of salvation.
The ideas on which the reformers built their system of justification, were by no means the beliefs of the Apostles or original.
They had been conceived long before by heretics of the earlier centuries and were scattered as the seed of future heresies.
It was especially the representatives of Antinomianism during the Apostolic times who welcomed the idea that faith alone suffices for justification, and that the observance of the moral law is not necessary.
Antinomianism is the idea that members of a particular religious group are under no obligation to obey the laws of ethics or morality as presented by religious authorities.
Antinomianism is the polar opposite of legalism, the notion that obedience to a code of religious law is necessary for salvation.
The Apostles James, Peter, John, and Jude had directed their Epistles against the Antinomians of that time. James insists on the necessity of works of Christian charity.
Romans 2: 5 - 8 By your stubbornness and impenitent heart, you are storing up wrath for yourself for the day of wrath and revelation of the just judgment of God,
who will repay everyone according to his works: eternal life to those who seek glory, honor, and immortality through perseverance in good works, but wrath and fury to those who selfishly disobey the truth and obey wickedness.
St. James wrote his Epistle for a moral purpose, and addressed his co-religionists as their pastor, in his quality of Bishop of Jerusalem, in order:
(1) to exhort them to constancy in the faith in spite of the persecutions and trials they were undergoing, and to give them comfort in their tribulations;
(2) to correct the abuses and extirpate the evils amongst them, by urging them to make their conduct conformable to their faith, and by earnestly reminding them that faith alone would not justify them unless they added good works.
St. James wrote his Epistle for the Jewish Christians outside Palestine, who for the most part, were poor and oppressed.
He addressed the Jewish Christians only because the author styles himself "the servant of God, and of our Lord Jesus Christ", and by this title he indicates clearly that he writes to the disciples of Christ only.
He calls them not only his "brethren", but he so clearly shows them to be Christians that it is incomprehensible how any critics understand unconverted Jews to be the "brethren" to whom the Epistle was written.
The Epistle was not written later than AD 50, so we may conclude that it was written to some of the Churches of Syria or of another country not far distant from Jerusalem.
Once again, if you can't make Jesus conform to your beliefs you can biblically try make Him contradict Himself.
It denotes the continued quality inherent in the soul, which theologians term sanctifying grace, and makes us righteous and worthy of salvation.
The ideas on which the reformers built their system of justification, were by no means the beliefs of the Apostles or original.
They had been conceived long before by heretics of the earlier centuries and were scattered as the seed of future heresies.
It was especially the representatives of Antinomianism during the Apostolic times who welcomed the idea that faith alone suffices for justification, and that the observance of the moral law is not necessary.
Antinomianism is the idea that members of a particular religious group are under no obligation to obey the laws of ethics or morality as presented by religious authorities.
Antinomianism is the polar opposite of legalism, the notion that obedience to a code of religious law is necessary for salvation.
The Apostles James, Peter, John, and Jude had directed their Epistles against the Antinomians of that time. James insists on the necessity of works of Christian charity.
Romans 2: 5 - 8 By your stubbornness and impenitent heart, you are storing up wrath for yourself for the day of wrath and revelation of the just judgment of God,
who will repay everyone according to his works: eternal life to those who seek glory, honor, and immortality through perseverance in good works, but wrath and fury to those who selfishly disobey the truth and obey wickedness.
St. James wrote his Epistle for a moral purpose, and addressed his co-religionists as their pastor, in his quality of Bishop of Jerusalem, in order:
(1) to exhort them to constancy in the faith in spite of the persecutions and trials they were undergoing, and to give them comfort in their tribulations;
(2) to correct the abuses and extirpate the evils amongst them, by urging them to make their conduct conformable to their faith, and by earnestly reminding them that faith alone would not justify them unless they added good works.
St. James wrote his Epistle for the Jewish Christians outside Palestine, who for the most part, were poor and oppressed.
He addressed the Jewish Christians only because the author styles himself "the servant of God, and of our Lord Jesus Christ", and by this title he indicates clearly that he writes to the disciples of Christ only.
He calls them not only his "brethren", but he so clearly shows them to be Christians that it is incomprehensible how any critics understand unconverted Jews to be the "brethren" to whom the Epistle was written.
The Epistle was not written later than AD 50, so we may conclude that it was written to some of the Churches of Syria or of another country not far distant from Jerusalem.
Once again, if you can't make Jesus conform to your beliefs you can biblically try make Him contradict Himself.
C
CLARKY
Guest
“But we are all as an unclean thing, and ALL OUR RIGHTEOUSNESSES ARE AS FILTHY RAGS; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away” Isaiah 64:60
It is true that in Isaiah 64:6, the prophet makes that statement about the righteousness of Israel saying, "We are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousness are as filthy rags."
Which is why Jesus told his followers that their righteousness must exceed the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees or they wouldn't be able to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven (Matt. 5:20).
Let us examine two ideas relative to the meaning of this statement, shall we?
First, our righteousness compared to the righteousness of the Lord is as nothing. As Paul put it, "As it is written, there is none righteous, no not one" (Romans 3:10) and he said that "All have sinned, and come short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23).
Second, we become truly righteous not through our own righteousness, but through the power of Christ's righteousness. Therefore, to become more like Christ we must partake of the divine nature of Christ (2 Peter 1:4) and his righteousness.
Someone once said, "There is a righteousness of men and a righteousness of God." Surely Isaiah was referring to the righteousness of men, which indeed is as filthy rags.
Yet the Lord repeatedly taught that we cannot obtain his grace without our own righteous effort. Our Savior told us to seek "the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all things will be added unto us" (Matt. 6:33)
In the Sermon on the Mount the Lord tells us that there are degrees of righteousness and a certain degree (more than Scribes and Pharisees) is necessary to get into heaven.
Teachings about righteousness are consistent throughout the New Testament. The Lord even tells us to be perfect even as our Father in Heaven is perfect (Matt 5:48).
To be righteous is to be right with God. To be right with God comes by accepting both Christ's grace and by obeying his commandments, following his teachings and doing the will of the Father.
Those who accuse Christians of trying to "work our way to heaven" almost seem to be teaching that we shouldnot do our best to serve our Father in Heaven and follow his Son. If they are indeed teaching this, they are grossly out of harmony with the teachings of Jesus Christ.
Many essentially teach that confessing his name and saying "Lord, Lord" will gain them entrance into the Kingdom of Heaven. These are not modem heresies. The Lord, perhaps seeing our day, warned that those who simply confess his name will not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven, but rather "he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven" (Matt. 7:21).
Remember, Christ with outstretched arms did not say "Believe in me." What he did say was, "Follow me." Did not Jesus tend to the needs of His flock? His mission was not only to deliver doctrines, but taught us to follow His example.
One of the most vivid examples of how the Lord feels about righteousness is found in Matthew 25. Here the Lord divides the people of the nations into two groups: the sheep, or righteous, on his right hand; and the goats, or unrighteous, on his left.
Both groups ask why they were assigned that way, and the Lord answers that the division was made as a result of how they treated the less fortunate—the hungry, naked, thirsty, and sick.
The sheep, or the righteous as the scripture calls them, cared for the needy; thus they are blessed of "my father, and inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world" (Matt. 25:34).
The goats, on the other hand, are cursed "into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels" (Matt. 25:41). The example is summed up in a way that clearly outlines the value of being righteous and following the example of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ: "And these the goats shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal" (Matt. 25:46).
Note that the Lord did not make an exception for those who profess a belief in him. A belief in Christ is only of value to those who do the will of the Father.
Peter also recognized the value of righteousness when he said those in every nation who feared God and "worketh righteousness" would be acceptable to God (Acts 10:35).
The Apostle Paul (whom detractors seem to quote ten times for every time they quote the Lord) once counseled, "Let not then your good be evil spoken of: For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost" (Rom. 14:16-17).
It is true that in Isaiah 64:6, the prophet makes that statement about the righteousness of Israel saying, "We are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousness are as filthy rags."
Which is why Jesus told his followers that their righteousness must exceed the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees or they wouldn't be able to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven (Matt. 5:20).
Let us examine two ideas relative to the meaning of this statement, shall we?
First, our righteousness compared to the righteousness of the Lord is as nothing. As Paul put it, "As it is written, there is none righteous, no not one" (Romans 3:10) and he said that "All have sinned, and come short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23).
Second, we become truly righteous not through our own righteousness, but through the power of Christ's righteousness. Therefore, to become more like Christ we must partake of the divine nature of Christ (2 Peter 1:4) and his righteousness.
Someone once said, "There is a righteousness of men and a righteousness of God." Surely Isaiah was referring to the righteousness of men, which indeed is as filthy rags.
Yet the Lord repeatedly taught that we cannot obtain his grace without our own righteous effort. Our Savior told us to seek "the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all things will be added unto us" (Matt. 6:33)
In the Sermon on the Mount the Lord tells us that there are degrees of righteousness and a certain degree (more than Scribes and Pharisees) is necessary to get into heaven.
Teachings about righteousness are consistent throughout the New Testament. The Lord even tells us to be perfect even as our Father in Heaven is perfect (Matt 5:48).
To be righteous is to be right with God. To be right with God comes by accepting both Christ's grace and by obeying his commandments, following his teachings and doing the will of the Father.
Those who accuse Christians of trying to "work our way to heaven" almost seem to be teaching that we shouldnot do our best to serve our Father in Heaven and follow his Son. If they are indeed teaching this, they are grossly out of harmony with the teachings of Jesus Christ.
Many essentially teach that confessing his name and saying "Lord, Lord" will gain them entrance into the Kingdom of Heaven. These are not modem heresies. The Lord, perhaps seeing our day, warned that those who simply confess his name will not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven, but rather "he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven" (Matt. 7:21).
Remember, Christ with outstretched arms did not say "Believe in me." What he did say was, "Follow me." Did not Jesus tend to the needs of His flock? His mission was not only to deliver doctrines, but taught us to follow His example.
One of the most vivid examples of how the Lord feels about righteousness is found in Matthew 25. Here the Lord divides the people of the nations into two groups: the sheep, or righteous, on his right hand; and the goats, or unrighteous, on his left.
Both groups ask why they were assigned that way, and the Lord answers that the division was made as a result of how they treated the less fortunate—the hungry, naked, thirsty, and sick.
The sheep, or the righteous as the scripture calls them, cared for the needy; thus they are blessed of "my father, and inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world" (Matt. 25:34).
The goats, on the other hand, are cursed "into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels" (Matt. 25:41). The example is summed up in a way that clearly outlines the value of being righteous and following the example of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ: "And these the goats shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal" (Matt. 25:46).
Note that the Lord did not make an exception for those who profess a belief in him. A belief in Christ is only of value to those who do the will of the Father.
Peter also recognized the value of righteousness when he said those in every nation who feared God and "worketh righteousness" would be acceptable to God (Acts 10:35).
The Apostle Paul (whom detractors seem to quote ten times for every time they quote the Lord) once counseled, "Let not then your good be evil spoken of: For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost" (Rom. 14:16-17).
C
CLARKY
Guest
ROARING KITTEN,
By the way Thank you for you kind response. I wish to leave you with one more thought my friend.
1 COR 13:13 So faith, hope, love remain, these three; but the greatest of these is love.
By the way Thank you for you kind response. I wish to leave you with one more thought my friend.
1 COR 13:13 So faith, hope, love remain, these three; but the greatest of these is love.
The greatest is love: love is operative even within the other members of the triad, so that it has a "primacy" among them.
If the perspective is temporal, love will remain "never fails," 1 Cor 13:8) even when faith has yielded to sight and hope to possession.
I recall a speaking with a priest at Notre Dame after my mother had passed away. I was feeling down, empty, and my sense of direction became inhibited. After a long talk and a sincere embrace, he left me with these words.
"When you go to His kingdom you will never need your faith again because faith is what helped you get there. You will never need your hope again because you will be with your Lord. So what will you take with you, and how long will it endure?"
If the perspective is temporal, love will remain "never fails," 1 Cor 13:8) even when faith has yielded to sight and hope to possession.
I recall a speaking with a priest at Notre Dame after my mother had passed away. I was feeling down, empty, and my sense of direction became inhibited. After a long talk and a sincere embrace, he left me with these words.
"When you go to His kingdom you will never need your faith again because faith is what helped you get there. You will never need your hope again because you will be with your Lord. So what will you take with you, and how long will it endure?"
K
kujo313
Guest
What are you saying? That since the "catholic church" says some things are true then the CC is the TRUE "church"? Nonsense.
What you're saying is that the CC is THE True Church of Jesus Christ...... because the CC says so.
Sounds very much like a pride issue to me.
C
CLARKY
Guest
Pride? Not at all. Where did you get that idea from? I said, "The Catholic Church canonized the bible." Hmmmmmmmm Sounds like an envy problem to me.
P
Porphyrios
Guest
What particularly makes your interpretations of Scripture truth? Because you say that is how the Spirit guided you? Its not really a different claim.The authority of Scripture for Protestants rests on the same sort of claim ( a claim of faith) as the Apostolic Churches do (a claim of faith). The only difference is that the Apostolic Churches (Catholic, Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy, Assyrian Church of the East) have historical fact and development traceable from the Apostles to now, while Protestants and Evangelicals can only go back to the 16th century or really late middle ages (such as Wycliffe) at best to find the theologies and views on Scripture that they espouse. So really its a question of which claim of faith is more reasonable, one that has roots in the Apostles, or one that has roots in Calvin, Luther, Wycliffe, etc.
The problem for the Roman Catholic Church is that whilst claiming to hold the apostle's teachings many of the teachings which protestants have a problem with can historically be shown to be introduced at various times in history hundreds of years after the time of the Apostles, and are NOT found in the canonised scripture. I gave a website with a list of them earlier.
Another problem for the Catholic is that while claiming to canonise the bible, it is another thing to say that christians would not have a bible without the Catholic church. That can be shown to be a false view because of the simple fact that the scriptures were in circulation well before any Catholic decided to Canonise them. It is well known that the source texts for our great bible versions we have today were not held in Catholic hands. For example the Codex Sinaiticus manuscript was never in the hands of the Roman Catholic Church. The German scholar, Tischendorf, who was a Protestant, discovered it.The Codex Alexandrinus, said to be one of the best manuscripts, was written in Alexandria, Egypt, possibly in the 5th century. It is in the British Museum. The Syriac Version was translated from the original into six dialects of Syrian early in the 2nd century. It is believed that some who read this version were acquainted with
the Councils[/FONT], Vol.ii, part I, Col. 425, can. 14, Paris, 1671).
[/FONT]
[/FONT]
Another problem for the Catholic Church is that when there is a disagreement between Official church teaching and Scripture, it is the Official church teaching which is always correct.
What it basically comes down to is this; An organisation which refuses to be held accountable and its teachings scrutinized in light of the very same Scripture and Canon which it professes to have given the world.
An organisation which has vigorously opposed the translation of the bible into the common language and violently persecuted those who would attempt it. And we all know what the Church did to Wycliffe after translating the bible into English.
Another problem for the Catholic is that while claiming to canonise the bible, it is another thing to say that christians would not have a bible without the Catholic church. That can be shown to be a false view because of the simple fact that the scriptures were in circulation well before any Catholic decided to Canonise them. It is well known that the source texts for our great bible versions we have today were not held in Catholic hands. For example the Codex Sinaiticus manuscript was never in the hands of the Roman Catholic Church. The German scholar, Tischendorf, who was a Protestant, discovered it.The Codex Alexandrinus, said to be one of the best manuscripts, was written in Alexandria, Egypt, possibly in the 5th century. It is in the British Museum. The Syriac Version was translated from the original into six dialects of Syrian early in the 2nd century. It is believed that some who read this version were acquainted with
some of the New Testament writers. The Old Latin Version was translated from the Greek into the Latin at the close of the 2
nd century. The Coptic Version was translated from the original into the Egyptian about the close of the 2nd century. Ulfilas translated the Gothic Version for the Goths in A.D. 375.
It is well known that Catholics in general have been against the very bible which it claims to have Canonised. In 1229 A.D., the Bible was forbidden by the Council of Toulouse to the laitywith the following decree: “
[FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]We forbid also the permitting of the laity to have the
books of the Old and New Testament, unless any should wish, from a feeling of
devotion, to have a Psalter or breviary for divine service. But we must strictly
forbid them to have the above-mentioned books in the vulgar tongue.[/FONT]” ([FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]History of
books of the Old and New Testament, unless any should wish, from a feeling of
devotion, to have a Psalter or breviary for divine service. But we must strictly
forbid them to have the above-mentioned books in the vulgar tongue.[/FONT]” ([FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]History of
the Councils[/FONT], Vol.ii, part I, Col. 425, can. 14, Paris, 1671).
Pope VIII, in 1829, denounced the circulation of the Bible in vernacular tongue as
a “
a “
[FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]crafty device[/FONT]” and “[FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]a nefarious scheme threatening everlasting ruin[/FONT]”.
Pope Gregory XVI in his encyclical letter of 1844 condemned Protestant Bible
Societies with these words: “[FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]Among the chief machinations by which in our times
Pope Gregory XVI in his encyclical letter of 1844 condemned Protestant Bible
Societies with these words: “[FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]Among the chief machinations by which in our times
[/FONT]
88
[FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]non-Catholics of various denominations try to enslave Catholic believers and turn
their minds away from the holiness of their faith, a prominent place is held by the
Bible societies…. Moreover, we confirm and by our Apostolic authority renew the
commands already given against the publication, distribution, reading and
keeping of Scripture translated into the vernacular.”their minds away from the holiness of their faith, a prominent place is held by the
Bible societies…. Moreover, we confirm and by our Apostolic authority renew the
commands already given against the publication, distribution, reading and
[/FONT]
Another problem for the Catholic Church is that when there is a disagreement between Official church teaching and Scripture, it is the Official church teaching which is always correct.
What it basically comes down to is this; An organisation which refuses to be held accountable and its teachings scrutinized in light of the very same Scripture and Canon which it professes to have given the world.
An organisation which has vigorously opposed the translation of the bible into the common language and violently persecuted those who would attempt it. And we all know what the Church did to Wycliffe after translating the bible into English.
C
CLARKY
Guest
I agree with PORPHYRIOUS
If the Body of Christ is NOT the Church of the living God, the pillar and mainstay of truth, then scripture can be wrong.
If scripture can be wrong, the Church that compiled that scripture can be wrong. If the Church can be wrong, as the Body of Christ, Christ can be wrong. This is pure logic.
I would wonder how many people who profess bible alone dont even have a BISHOP when the office is clearly shown in the N T.
If the Body of Christ is NOT the Church of the living God, the pillar and mainstay of truth, then scripture can be wrong.
If scripture can be wrong, the Church that compiled that scripture can be wrong. If the Church can be wrong, as the Body of Christ, Christ can be wrong. This is pure logic.
I would wonder how many people who profess bible alone dont even have a BISHOP when the office is clearly shown in the N T.
C
CLARKY
Guest
C
CLARKY
Guest
It is well known that Catholics in general have been against the very bible which it claims to have Canonised. In 1229 A.D., the Bible was forbidden by the Council of Toulouse to the laity
the Councils[/FONT], Vol.ii, part I, Col. 425, can. 14, Paris, 1671).
Yes! in Toulouse, France, a council was held in 1229. And, yes, that council dealt with the Bible. It was organized in reaction to the Albigensian or Catharist heresy, which held that there are two gods and that marriage is evil because all matter (and thus physical flesh) is evil. From this the heretics concluded that fornication could be no sin, and they even encouraged suicide among their members.
In order to promulgate their sect, the Albigensians published an inaccurate translation of the Bible in the vernacular language (rather like the Jehovah’s Witnesses of today publishing their severely flawed New World Translation of the Bible, which has been deliberately mistranslated to support the sect’s claims).
Had it been an accurate translation, the Church would not have been concerned. Vernacular versions had been appearing for centuries. But what came from the hands of the Albigensians was an adulterated Bible.
The bishops at Toulouse forbade the reading of it because it was inaccurate. In this they were caring for their flocks, just as a protestant minister of today might tell his flock not to read the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ New World Translation.
The Council of Toulouse is a clear example of people lying for Jesus example. It Is a example of peoples incompetence in hatred that they even cannot tell a good lie well.
Your CREDEBILITY is SHOT!
with the following decree: “
[FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]We forbid also the permitting of the laity to have the
books of the Old and New Testament, unless any should wish, from a feeling of
devotion, to have a Psalter or breviary for divine service. But we must strictly
forbid them to have the above-mentioned books in the vulgar tongue.[/FONT]” ([FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]History of[/FONT]
[FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]books of the Old and New Testament, unless any should wish, from a feeling of
devotion, to have a Psalter or breviary for divine service. But we must strictly
forbid them to have the above-mentioned books in the vulgar tongue.[/FONT]” ([FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]History of[/FONT]
the Councils[/FONT], Vol.ii, part I, Col. 425, can. 14, Paris, 1671).
Yes! in Toulouse, France, a council was held in 1229. And, yes, that council dealt with the Bible. It was organized in reaction to the Albigensian or Catharist heresy, which held that there are two gods and that marriage is evil because all matter (and thus physical flesh) is evil. From this the heretics concluded that fornication could be no sin, and they even encouraged suicide among their members.
In order to promulgate their sect, the Albigensians published an inaccurate translation of the Bible in the vernacular language (rather like the Jehovah’s Witnesses of today publishing their severely flawed New World Translation of the Bible, which has been deliberately mistranslated to support the sect’s claims).
Had it been an accurate translation, the Church would not have been concerned. Vernacular versions had been appearing for centuries. But what came from the hands of the Albigensians was an adulterated Bible.
The bishops at Toulouse forbade the reading of it because it was inaccurate. In this they were caring for their flocks, just as a protestant minister of today might tell his flock not to read the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ New World Translation.
The Council of Toulouse is a clear example of people lying for Jesus example. It Is a example of peoples incompetence in hatred that they even cannot tell a good lie well.
Your CREDEBILITY is SHOT!
It's a bit strange for you to be referring to the office of Bishop in the NT when the Catholic ideas of special order of priests, religious orders, parishes, dioceses, archdioceses, monk, friars, nuns etc, are not mentioned in the NT whatsoever.
Logic and frankly common sense is that an organisation which claims to hold the teaching of the apostles yet can be shown to disagree with Scripture on a number of areas, cannot hold to all the teachings of the apostles and therefore the Church must be wrong. As for whether the Church can be wrong? Yes of course it can. In Galatians 2 note Paul's exchange with Peter where Paul rebuked Peter. I guess that's one example of the first Pope being wrong.
Common sense is that an organisation which teaches that the organisation is always right despite the Scriptural evidence against it, and thinks itself above scrutiny and accountability of Scripture, is susceptible to false teaching and probably should be looked upon with a degree of suspicion.
But it is good that the Church changed tactic and now instead of burning bibles as they did in the past, encourages the private reading of the bible. Obviously though despite the average Western person achieving a high standard in English comprehension and schooling, the Catholic Church still thinks the average person too stupid or illiterate to understand the Scriptures and so they need the Magisterium to do that for them. Or so they claim.
Logic and frankly common sense is that an organisation which claims to hold the teaching of the apostles yet can be shown to disagree with Scripture on a number of areas, cannot hold to all the teachings of the apostles and therefore the Church must be wrong. As for whether the Church can be wrong? Yes of course it can. In Galatians 2 note Paul's exchange with Peter where Paul rebuked Peter. I guess that's one example of the first Pope being wrong.
Common sense is that an organisation which teaches that the organisation is always right despite the Scriptural evidence against it, and thinks itself above scrutiny and accountability of Scripture, is susceptible to false teaching and probably should be looked upon with a degree of suspicion.
But it is good that the Church changed tactic and now instead of burning bibles as they did in the past, encourages the private reading of the bible. Obviously though despite the average Western person achieving a high standard in English comprehension and schooling, the Catholic Church still thinks the average person too stupid or illiterate to understand the Scriptures and so they need the Magisterium to do that for them. Or so they claim.
C
CLARKY
Guest
C
CLARKY
Guest
Paul used Peter as an example precisely because Peter was the chief Apostle. Paul had a personal relationship with the Galatians and had converted many of them himself (4:12-16).
He felt betrayed when some of his converts abandoned his gospel of justification and began embracing a false gospel that said Christians must embrace the Mosaic Law to be saved.
As a result, he wrote to them in anger, saying, "I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ" (1:6). Later, he refers to the Galatians as "mindless" (3:1).
Some in Galatia accused Paul that his gospel of justification in Christ was a watered down version of the "true gospel," which supposedly also required the observance of the Mosaic Law.
Paul responded to this charge by pronouncing an anathema on anyone who preached a gospel different from his. "Am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? Or am I trying to please men?" (1:10).
He then turned to a defense of his gospel, to show that it was not of human origin (1:11) but was revealed to him by God (1:12).
After three years Paul went to Jerusalem and spent a fortnight with Peter (1:18-24). Paul wasn't interested in meeting the others, only Peter, whom he went to see.
Why? Because Peter was the one to see. He was the head Apostle, the big cheese, and so Paul wanted to confer with him.
Fourteen years after his conversion, Paul made another visit, in which he did see the other apostles (2:1-10).
He stressed that he did not curry the favor of others, saying that the reputations of the most important apostles did not matter to him, for God judges impartially (2:6).
But Paul did have regard for the teaching of the Jerusalem Apostles, who also had been instructed by Christ.
His gospel had to agree with theirs, so he explained it to them privately, "lest somehow I should be running or had run in vain" (2:2). He thus submitted his gospel to the Jerusalem Apostles.
The fact that God judges impartiality does not do away with offices in the Church; it means that God will judge the officeholders impartially.
Paul singled out Peter as one who had a special office, above James and John, as the one God entrusted with leading the mission to the Jews (2:7-8).
This made Peter a perfect test case to show the transcendent importance of the gospel. It is more important than any person, so Paul used Peter, the most important person in the early Church, to show this.
He recounted an incident in which Peter visited the Church in Antioch (2:11-17). Peter had been the one who first admitted Gentiles to the Church (Acts 10), though doing so subjected him to criticism (Acts 11).
When Peter visited Antioch, he kept his usual practice of holding table fellowship with Gentile Christians, but drew back when some Jewish Christians arrived (2:12).
Paul rebuked Peter since this action could be misunderstood as implying that Jews should not sit at table with Gentiles and that the Mosaic Law is binding (2:14-16).
Peter knew that keeping the Mosaic Law was not necessary, and Paul reminded him of this fact (2:15-16). Peter's understanding of the gospel was correct.
The problem was with his behavior, not his teaching especially since Peter was not trying to define a dogma of the faith. Nor did Paul's rebuke impugn Peter's authority.
It is precisely because Peter is so important, the chief Apostle, that he provides such a useful illustration for Paul's exposition of the gospel's supreme importance. Now you have the rest of the story.
He felt betrayed when some of his converts abandoned his gospel of justification and began embracing a false gospel that said Christians must embrace the Mosaic Law to be saved.
As a result, he wrote to them in anger, saying, "I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ" (1:6). Later, he refers to the Galatians as "mindless" (3:1).
Some in Galatia accused Paul that his gospel of justification in Christ was a watered down version of the "true gospel," which supposedly also required the observance of the Mosaic Law.
Paul responded to this charge by pronouncing an anathema on anyone who preached a gospel different from his. "Am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? Or am I trying to please men?" (1:10).
He then turned to a defense of his gospel, to show that it was not of human origin (1:11) but was revealed to him by God (1:12).
After three years Paul went to Jerusalem and spent a fortnight with Peter (1:18-24). Paul wasn't interested in meeting the others, only Peter, whom he went to see.
Why? Because Peter was the one to see. He was the head Apostle, the big cheese, and so Paul wanted to confer with him.
Fourteen years after his conversion, Paul made another visit, in which he did see the other apostles (2:1-10).
He stressed that he did not curry the favor of others, saying that the reputations of the most important apostles did not matter to him, for God judges impartially (2:6).
But Paul did have regard for the teaching of the Jerusalem Apostles, who also had been instructed by Christ.
His gospel had to agree with theirs, so he explained it to them privately, "lest somehow I should be running or had run in vain" (2:2). He thus submitted his gospel to the Jerusalem Apostles.
The fact that God judges impartiality does not do away with offices in the Church; it means that God will judge the officeholders impartially.
Paul singled out Peter as one who had a special office, above James and John, as the one God entrusted with leading the mission to the Jews (2:7-8).
This made Peter a perfect test case to show the transcendent importance of the gospel. It is more important than any person, so Paul used Peter, the most important person in the early Church, to show this.
He recounted an incident in which Peter visited the Church in Antioch (2:11-17). Peter had been the one who first admitted Gentiles to the Church (Acts 10), though doing so subjected him to criticism (Acts 11).
When Peter visited Antioch, he kept his usual practice of holding table fellowship with Gentile Christians, but drew back when some Jewish Christians arrived (2:12).
Paul rebuked Peter since this action could be misunderstood as implying that Jews should not sit at table with Gentiles and that the Mosaic Law is binding (2:14-16).
Peter knew that keeping the Mosaic Law was not necessary, and Paul reminded him of this fact (2:15-16). Peter's understanding of the gospel was correct.
The problem was with his behavior, not his teaching especially since Peter was not trying to define a dogma of the faith. Nor did Paul's rebuke impugn Peter's authority.
It is precisely because Peter is so important, the chief Apostle, that he provides such a useful illustration for Paul's exposition of the gospel's supreme importance. Now you have the rest of the story.
As Archbishop Fulton Sheen once said, "Very FEW people hate the Catholic Church, but MILLIONS hate what they THINK the Catholic church to BE."
C
CLARKY
Guest
"Common sense is that an organisation which teaches that the organisation is always right despite the Scriptural evidence against it"
Jesus said his Church would be "the light of the world." He then noted that "a city set on a hill cannot be hid" (Matt. 5:14). This means his Church is a visible organization.
He is quoting Isaiah 2:2 a prophecy that the Church would be a visible presence in the world and not some spiritual umbrella over many churches.
Jesus promised, "I will build my Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it" (Matt. 16:18). This means that his Church will never be destroyed and will never fall away from him.
This requires that the Church teach infallibly. If the Church did not have the gift of infallibility, the gates of hell and error would prevail.
Since the Apostolic Church was the ONLY Church that existed up until the revolt, those who follow the revoltors call Christ a liar by saying that hell did INDEED prevail.
The Jews tried to destroy the Church and they in turn were almost totally destroyed in 70 AD. The Church is still here.
The Romans tried to destroy the Church, but they in turn were destroyed and their entire empire collapsed in AD 471. The Church is still here.
The Moslems tried to destroy the Church in the middle ages, and failed. The Church is still here.
The protestants tried to destroy the Church in the revolt and failed, and look what happened to them. The (churches) of protestantism, which Luther started, was from the very beginning cracked and splintered.
Look at protestantism today, over 43000 splinters, with more cropping up every day. The Church is still here.
Communism tried to destroy the Church and failed, and where is communism today? The Church is still here.
Why do you think the Apostolic Church has endured all these attacks for almost two millennia? It is because it was founded by Jesus Christ and is guarded from within and from without by Him and the Holy Spirit, that is why.
Christ "guaranteed" the perpetuality of His ONLY Church. Matt 16:18, Matt 28:20, John 14:16-17, Eph 5:23.
So, if all of the more formidable foes tried and failed to destroy the Church, what makes you think YOU can succeed?
Would you define yourself as the foundation and bulwark of truth? The Church is much more than I assume you think it to be.
Jesus said his Church would be "the light of the world." He then noted that "a city set on a hill cannot be hid" (Matt. 5:14). This means his Church is a visible organization.
He is quoting Isaiah 2:2 a prophecy that the Church would be a visible presence in the world and not some spiritual umbrella over many churches.
Jesus promised, "I will build my Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it" (Matt. 16:18). This means that his Church will never be destroyed and will never fall away from him.
This requires that the Church teach infallibly. If the Church did not have the gift of infallibility, the gates of hell and error would prevail.
Since the Apostolic Church was the ONLY Church that existed up until the revolt, those who follow the revoltors call Christ a liar by saying that hell did INDEED prevail.
The Jews tried to destroy the Church and they in turn were almost totally destroyed in 70 AD. The Church is still here.
The Romans tried to destroy the Church, but they in turn were destroyed and their entire empire collapsed in AD 471. The Church is still here.
The Moslems tried to destroy the Church in the middle ages, and failed. The Church is still here.
The protestants tried to destroy the Church in the revolt and failed, and look what happened to them. The (churches) of protestantism, which Luther started, was from the very beginning cracked and splintered.
Look at protestantism today, over 43000 splinters, with more cropping up every day. The Church is still here.
Communism tried to destroy the Church and failed, and where is communism today? The Church is still here.
Why do you think the Apostolic Church has endured all these attacks for almost two millennia? It is because it was founded by Jesus Christ and is guarded from within and from without by Him and the Holy Spirit, that is why.
Christ "guaranteed" the perpetuality of His ONLY Church. Matt 16:18, Matt 28:20, John 14:16-17, Eph 5:23.
So, if all of the more formidable foes tried and failed to destroy the Church, what makes you think YOU can succeed?
Would you define yourself as the foundation and bulwark of truth? The Church is much more than I assume you think it to be.
F
Forgiven83
Guest
Ok.....can anyone say...DEFENSIVE MUCH???
I had a giggle over Clarky saying that someone's credibility is shot, and yet he has said he's not posting anymore like, three times or more???? Credibility?? mmmmmm
Lighten up people....I dont think God would approve of all the mud slinging you're all doing in here. It's only hurting your testimony and your relationship with God, and thats really sad cos its just not worth it!
I had a giggle over Clarky saying that someone's credibility is shot, and yet he has said he's not posting anymore like, three times or more???? Credibility?? mmmmmm
Lighten up people....I dont think God would approve of all the mud slinging you're all doing in here. It's only hurting your testimony and your relationship with God, and thats really sad cos its just not worth it!
C
CLARKY
Guest
I'm posting for the benefit for those who are willing to listen, and not for a FLUNKY who has NOTHING to share but BIGOTRY
It's true that the Church has prevailed but the question is which Church?
You presume it to be yours but let's not forget the Orthodox and others claiming apostolic succession and just as old as the Roman Catholic.
By the way these schisms occurred well before the protestant reformation, and
Also your statements previously about veracular versions is only half the truth.
The thing is that the Roman Catholic church did not well support the use of vernacular versions whether authorized or not. The Church did not produce a bible in English until two centuaries after Wycliffe.
http://www.wayoflife.org/database/vernacularversions.html
The Council of Trent did allow reading of Scripture, but only after a license in writing was obtained from the proper ecclesiastical authority, a license which was given only in extremely rare cases. Even the Catholic clergy had to obtain a license from their bishops before they were allowed to read the Bible. Booksellers were forbidden to have Bibles in stock for sale under pain of severe punishment.
Wherever Rome has maintained power, the people have not had ready access to the Scriptures. Consider this testimony about conditions existing in the city of Rome in the mid 19th century: "The Bible in Rome is a strange and rare book. The only edition of it authorized to be sold here, is in fifteen large volumes, which are filled with Popish commentaries. Of course none but the rich can purchase a copy of the sacred Scriptures. Indeed very few of the common people know what we mean by the Bible" (J.A. Clark, Protestant Episcopal Church of St. Andrew, Philadelphia, in a letter to his congregation, dated from Rome, March 24, 1838; reprinted by Charles Elliott, Delineation of Roman Catholicism, 1851, p. 23).
Although
The Roman Catholic church cannot be credited for putting the bible into the hands of the common people.
No of course not. Now this concept may be hard for you to understand but I read the bible for myself and funnily enough reach the same conclusions as many others who do the same. The reading and study of Scripture by independent sources reaching the same conclusions (thanks to the clarity of written Scripture) is by far more reliable and robust than believing the un-challenged, unaccountable and seemingly beyond correction (at least in the mind of those who ascribe to it) claims of a largely corrupt religious institution known as the Roman Catholic Church.
You presume it to be yours but let's not forget the Orthodox and others claiming apostolic succession and just as old as the Roman Catholic.
By the way these schisms occurred well before the protestant reformation, and
Also your statements previously about veracular versions is only half the truth.
The thing is that the Roman Catholic church did not well support the use of vernacular versions whether authorized or not. The Church did not produce a bible in English until two centuaries after Wycliffe.
http://www.wayoflife.org/database/vernacularversions.html
The Council of Trent did allow reading of Scripture, but only after a license in writing was obtained from the proper ecclesiastical authority, a license which was given only in extremely rare cases. Even the Catholic clergy had to obtain a license from their bishops before they were allowed to read the Bible. Booksellers were forbidden to have Bibles in stock for sale under pain of severe punishment.
Wherever Rome has maintained power, the people have not had ready access to the Scriptures. Consider this testimony about conditions existing in the city of Rome in the mid 19th century: "The Bible in Rome is a strange and rare book. The only edition of it authorized to be sold here, is in fifteen large volumes, which are filled with Popish commentaries. Of course none but the rich can purchase a copy of the sacred Scriptures. Indeed very few of the common people know what we mean by the Bible" (J.A. Clark, Protestant Episcopal Church of St. Andrew, Philadelphia, in a letter to his congregation, dated from Rome, March 24, 1838; reprinted by Charles Elliott, Delineation of Roman Catholicism, 1851, p. 23).
Although
The Roman Catholic church cannot be credited for putting the bible into the hands of the common people.
No of course not. Now this concept may be hard for you to understand but I read the bible for myself and funnily enough reach the same conclusions as many others who do the same. The reading and study of Scripture by independent sources reaching the same conclusions (thanks to the clarity of written Scripture) is by far more reliable and robust than believing the un-challenged, unaccountable and seemingly beyond correction (at least in the mind of those who ascribe to it) claims of a largely corrupt religious institution known as the Roman Catholic Church.
- Status