Is there a true church?

Cruciform

New member
Most of the central doctrines that most all Protestants have in common, such as the Five Solas, were developed by Martin Luther I believe. John Calvin perfected those doctrines...
Yes, Calvin came along and decided that Luther's "reforms" needed "reforming," and Zwingli---a contemporary of Luther---radically disagreed with both Luther and Calvin, and they with him and one another. In a short time, the principle "reformers" couldn't even agree among themselves regarding the supposed doctrinal content of the Christian faith. Ever since, the Protestant movement has been nothing more than a hopeless chaos of interpretive and theological subjectivism yielding nothing but the mere opinions of men.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+
 

Crucible

BANNED
Banned
Yes, Calvin came along and decided that Luther's "reforms" needed "reforming," and Zwingli---a contemporary of Luther---radically disagreed with both Luther and Calvin, and they with him and one another. In a short time, the principle "reformers" couldn't even agree among themselves regarding the supposed doctrinal content of the Christian faith. Ever since, the Protestant movement has been nothing more than a hopeless chaos of interpretive and theological subjectivism yielding nothing but the mere opinions of men.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

They were angry at Calvin because he burnt down the temple of wish washy doctrine. Luther literally threw tantrums about it.

Your perception is off. The Roman Church had it's schisms, and the Eastern Orthodox is something Catholics rarely speak about- they call themselves the one true church as well.
The RCC wielding an idea of 'infallibility' has caused much of the problems therein.

What I see Catholics do is point at Protestants whilst sweeping their own inadequacies under the rug.
 

brewmama

New member
T

Your perception is off. The Roman Church had it's schisms, and the Eastern Orthodox is something Catholics rarely speak about- they call themselves the one true church as well.
The RCC wielding an idea of 'infallibility' has caused much of the problems therein, and it was declared in steed of control.

It's funny how the Protestants ignore it too.
 

glassjester

Well-known member
They were angry at Calvin because he burnt down the temple of wish washy doctrine. Luther literally threw tantrums about it.

Your perception is off. The Roman Church had it's schisms, and the Eastern Orthodox is something Catholics rarely speak about- they call themselves the one true church as well.
The RCC wielding an idea of 'infallibility' has caused much of the problems therein.

What I see Catholics do is point at Protestants whilst sweeping their own inadequacies under the rug.

Why do you think Catholics don't talk about Eastern Orthodox?

I just heard a Catholic radio show while I was driving today, completely focused on the Eastern Orthodox.
 

Cruciform

New member
Your perception is off. The Roman Church had it's schisms, and the Eastern Orthodox is something Catholics rarely speak about- they call themselves the one true church as well.
The Eastern Orthodox entered into schism from the Catholic Church in 1054 A.D. See, for example, this.

The RCC wielding an idea of 'infallibility' has caused much of the problems therein.
The one historic Church (the Body) founded by Jesus Christ himself can no more teach formal doctrinal error than could Jesus Christ (the Head) himself. The Head cannot be separated from the Body, and Christ himself declared that to follow the teachings of the Church is identical to following the teachings of the Lord himself (Lk. 10:16; cf. 1 Tim. 3:15; 1 Jn. 4:6). They are one and the same in truth and authority.

What I see Catholics do is point at Protestants whilst sweeping their own inadequacies under the rug.
What I see is Protestants pointing at one another, while pridefully and ignorantly dismissing the Christ-endowed doctrinal authority of Christ's one historic Catholic Church.


As a former Calvinist myself, I encourage you in Christ to give THIS a careful and thorough reading.

See also THIS very helpful resource whose contributors are all former Reformed Protestants with graduate degrees in theology, biblical studies, and philosophy. God bless.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+
 
Last edited:

Letsargue

New member
Of course, one must understand the meaning of the word "church" as understood from Scripture, and not by Rome:

"In the sense of the faithful (the one people of God), the church is one, despite contrary evidences, but not in the sense of being visibly united. In the definitive and progressive sense, the church is holy, but not empirically perfect. The church is apostolic, not because it is directly led by the Apostles themselves, rather because the church is guided, whenever and wherever it qualifies as "the church," by the apostolic proclamation and patterns from Scripture."

...and so on, as more fully explained here:

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4580080#post4580080

AMR


WELLL!! - I see that you DO Know what the "Church" IS!!! That is Very Rear!!!

Let me add a little to that.

The Church is a Group.
The Group is the House of God.
The House of God is the Family of God.
The Family of God is the Body of Christ // God.
The Body of Christ is the Christian.
The Christian is CHRIST in the One Group and are One / CHRIST.

((( Watch Your News )))!!!

PAUL, DAVID -- 020916
 

glassjester

Well-known member
Because God doesn't need men to do thinking for him.... basically, if you think doctrine and dogma need development... then you have to come to the conclusion that God is either an idiot or dead... especially in light of the Old Testament.

Or it could mean...

that every time a heretic starts making up his own new "traditions of men," the Church has to further define and clarify what was taught and believed by orthodox Christians since the first century.
 

Ask Mr. Religion

☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) &#9
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Or it could mean...

that every time a heretic starts making up his own new "traditions of men," the Church has to further define and clarify what was taught and believed by orthodox Christians since the first century.

No it would not mean this at all.

The ecumenical councils were but a defining of what Scripture teaches in answer to error. No new revelations or new doctrines were created, but rather learned men explicating Scripture's teachings per the commandment to confess that which we hold dear according to the sound patterns of Holy Writ. This explains but one of the reasons division exists, for out of division emerges God's truth.

It is only when men assume for themselves knowledge beyond the teachings of Scripture do we find the odious pronouncements in Papal Bulls, Trent I and Trent II.

AMR
 

Ask Mr. Religion

☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) &#9
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
And why should anyone believe that all Christian doctrine is explicitly contained in Scripture?
For three reasons.

The canon is closed.

Hebrews 1..

1 In many ways and in various ways of old, God having spoken to the fathers in the prophets;
2 in these last days He spoke to us in the Son, whom He appointed heir of all things; through whom He indeed made the ages;
3 who being the shining splendor of His glory, and the express image of His essence, and bearing up all things by the Word of His power, having made purification of our sins through Himself, He sat down on the right of the Majesty on high,
4 having become so much better than the angels, as much as He has inherited a name more excellent beyond them.

Scripture's authority is from God

The Scripture's authority is from being the very Word of God. God in effect wrote the Bible and it is received as God’s Word to mankind. The authority is of God not any church or person on earth (see 2 Pet. 1:19, 21, 2 Tim. 3:16, 1 John 5:9, 1 Thess. 2:13).

Scripture contains all that man needs for salvation

The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture and to which nothing at any time is to be added to the now closed canon, whether by so-called new revelations of the Spirit or traditions of men. (see 2 Tim. 3:15-17, Gal. 1:8-9, 2 Thess. 2:2).

There are no passages in Scripture that can be extracted to prove that there is any other doctrine explicitly taught concerning another competent source beside Scripture to convey the specific elements (all things necessary for God's own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life) to make one "wise for salvation through faith in Christ" and to render the man of God "complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work."

That said, no one should deny that the inward illumination of the Holy Spirit is necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in Scripture (see John 6:45, 1 Cor. 2:9-12). Moreover there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be set out by knowledge that comes from creation, providence to man ("the light of nature"), and good Christian prudence, all according to the general rules of Scripture, which are always to be observed (see 1 Cor. 11:13-14, 1 Cor. 14:26, 40).

It is true that all things in Scripture are not all equally plain in and of themselves, nor equally clear to all persons (see 2 Pet. 3:16). Yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation, are clearly presented, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the educated, but also the poorly educated, using ordinary means, may achieve a sufficient understanding of them (see Ps. 119:105, 130).

AMR
 

glassjester

Well-known member
For three reasons.

The canon is closed.


How do you know what writings are included in the canon? Does Scripture itself tell you? Is there a divinely inspired table of contents in the Bible? If not, then your belief in what is or is not canonical, is in fact extra-Biblical.


Scripture's authority is from God

The Scripture's authority is from being the very Word of God. God in effect wrote the Bible and it is received as God’s Word to mankind. The authority is of God not any church or person on earth (see 2 Pet. 1:19, 21, 2 Tim. 3:16, 1 John 5:9, 1 Thess. 2:13).

Funny how almost all the verses you quoted refer to spoken word, not Scripture.


Scripture contains all that man needs for salvation

The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture and to which nothing at any time is to be added to the now closed canon, whether by so-called new revelations of the Spirit or traditions of men. (see 2 Tim. 3:15-17, Gal. 1:8-9, 2 Thess. 2:2).

Surely you are aware the Paul could only have been referring to the old testament in Second Timothy - as what other Scripture could Timothy have known since childhood? If you wish to take this verse to mean that there is no other source of Christian doctrine, then would I be right to assume that you only recognize the doctrinal authority of the OT?
 

HisServant

New member
How do you know what writings are included in the canon? Does Scripture itself tell you? Is there a divinely inspired table of contents in the Bible? If not, then your belief in what is or is not canonical, is in fact extra-Biblical.




Funny how almost all the verses you quoted refer to spoken word, not Scripture.




Surely you are aware the Paul could only have been referring to the old testament in Second Timothy - as what other Scripture could Timothy have known since childhood? If you wish to take this verse to mean that there is no other source of Christian doctrine, then would I be right to assume that you only recognize the doctrinal authority of the OT?

Doctrinal authority is not something scripture seems to be concerned with.... it seems to be a big hangup for romanists though.
 

Ask Mr. Religion

☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) &#9
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
How do you know what writings are included in the canon? Does Scripture itself tell you? Is there a divinely inspired table of contents in the Bible? If not, then your belief in what is or is not canonical, is in fact extra-Biblical.
You must be really new at this Romanist apologetics business given the "table of contents" canard.

Asked and answered:
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4580418#post4580418

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4579306#post4579306

Funny how almost all the verses you quoted refer to spoken word, not Scripture.


Surely you are aware the Paul could only have been referring to the old testament in Second Timothy - as what other Scripture could Timothy have known since childhood? If you wish to take this verse to mean that there is no other source of Christian doctrine, then would I be right to assume that you only recognize the doctrinal authority of the OT?

Peter (2 Peter 3:16) would differ with you. Did you catch that "as they do also the other scriptures" in your Douay-Reims version? Clearly, the scriptural status of at least some of Paul’s letters was reasonably widespread by this time. Moreover, if Paul’s letters are regarded as Scripture, it is difficult to avoid the implication that other apostolic letters would be regarded as Scripture as well. We read in 1 Timothy 5:18: “For the Scripture [ἠ γραϕή] says, ‘You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,’ and, ‘The laborer deserves his wages.’” The first citation is clearly derived from Deuteronomy 25:4, and the second is identical in wording to Luke 10:7, where it is found on the lips of Jesus. First Timothy is citing Luke’s Gospel as Scripture, as this is the only interpretation that avoids the Romanist's contorted intellectual acrobatics or special pleading is the plain, obvious one. First Timothy is citing Luke’s Gospel alongside Deuteronomy as normative Scripture for the ordering of the church’s ministry.

Paul’s insistence that his letters be publicly read, his overt claims to apostolic authority, and his readers’ understanding of what public reading would mean within a synagogue context provide good reasons to think that his letters would have been viewed as being in the same category as other Scripture read during times of public worship. Indeed, Paul himself makes this connection clear when he exhorts Timothy, “Devote yourself to the public reading of Scripture” (1*Tim. 4:13).

The Apostles received the Gospel for us from the Lord Jesus Christ, Jesus the Christ was sent from God. The Christ therefore is from God and the Apostles from the Christ. - 1 CLEMENT​

Please stop embarrassing yourself with these amateur objections if you want a seat at the table. Better you scurry on off to the CtC or CA sites and search about for more worthy rebuttals in hopes of bolstering your Romanist apologist fascade.

:AMR:

AMR
 

glassjester

Well-known member
Please stop embarrassing yourself with these amateur objections if you want a seat at the table. Better you scurry on off to the CtC or CA sites and search about for more worthy rebuttals in hopes of bolstering your Romanist apologist fascade.

Do you come here to read the best Catholic apologetics that members of the Church have produced? There are better places to look, if that's what you're hoping to find. Books, for example.

I do not claim to be an apologist. I do not claim to be a "Mr. Religion," or a "Mr." anything, for that matter. In fact, I am very, very sure, as my ID suggests, that I am a fool.

I am sure there is much you can explain, that I am unaware of. My question in the first post of this thread, remains. If you're willing to answer, I'd like to ask it in a more specific way, which might allow for a better discussion.

Does the denomination that you belong to, teach any false doctrine?
 

HisServant

New member
Mt. 16:18-19/Is. 22:22; Mt. 28:18-20; Lk. 10:16; Ac. 15:2; 16:4; Rom. 16:17; 2 Thess. 3:4; 1 Tim. 3:15; 1 Jn. 4:6

Also, see this.


Try again.

Nothing there contradicts my statement.

Seriously, throwing small snippets of verses at people hoping the bulk will cause people to not research them is the sign of a deceiver.

Jesus is more concerned about what we do for or neighbors in need then he is about doctrine...its all about what we do for non-christians... besides, jesus and the apostles hated the very romanism which you promote... how does it feel to be hated by God?
 
Last edited:

Cruciform

New member
Nothing there contradicts my statement.
Everything there contradicts your statement. Back to Post #76.

Jesus is more concerned about what we do for or neighbors in need then he is about doctrine...
Correct practice (orthopraxis) flows from correct belief (orthodoxy). Try again.

...jesus and the apostles hated the very romanism which you promote...
I'll go ahead and require you to post your proof for this statement, just so readers here can once again see that you actually have none. Let's have it, then...



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+
 
i don't have any problem with the doctrines/dogmas in the Catholic Church, but there is something really creepy going on there. Sometimes it is hard to put your finger on, but then that's the way it goes with evil. There is a lot of mystery to evil (such as why does God allow certain kinds of really awful evil)
 
Top