The Holy Roman Catholic Church...

We often use singular nouns to refer to more than one.
Example: Man sinned. Which man? Joe? John? Bill?
The answer: Every man has sinned.
The word "man" is used in a generic sense to refer to all men, every man.

People use butter on their toast
What people? what butter? What toast?
Neither is defined.
Yet you want the word church defined? A ridiculous position to take, in the light of the fact that the word means "assembly," and nothing else. Use a Greek lexicon.

You are the one that makes Christ a liar when you deny that he leaves himself without a true witness in every age.
DHK

 

Plus about 25 other references in the NT could be given that tend to lead one to believe there may indeed be "multiple local assemblies".

It is certainly no different today.

 

And the evidence for your sweeping assertion is...? Pure opinion.

What about Col 1:18, for example? How many Bodies does the Lord have? Note the use of the definite article here: τα εκκλησια . Not 'a' local church, but THE Church. So much for εκκλησια being just a local church

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

Not at all. Christ has left Himself a true witness in every age. That witness is the Church, not an imaginary succession of proto-baptist congregations.

You are the one that makes Christ out to be a liar when you deny this and have to invent hypothetical groups of Christians who somehow maintained the true baptistic interpreted NT faith while leaving no trace of their existence in history.

Although existing in local assemblies, the Church has been real definite unified Body and is described in the Bible as such, and is not merely some generic category as you asserted with your little semantic exercises.

 

It is not opinion it is fact, definite article notwithstanding. Use a dictionary (A Greek lexicon preferrably). The word ekklesia means assembly, nothing more than assembly or congregation, such as it used in Acts 19:41

Acts 19:41 And when he had thus spoken, he dismissed the assembly.

These were the people of Ephesus who had assembled together in the theatre of Ephesus motivated by Demetrius the silversmith, because of the preaching of Paul and the disciples. It was an assembly of people, a gathering.

It was impossible for this assembly to be worldwide or universal. It was confined to one place.
It is impossible to have a universal worldwide assembly or church. It is impossible to have an unassembled assembly. You have redefined the word to make it fit into your own modern day theology. Ekklesia means assembly just as it was used in Acts 19. If the translators of the KJV had translated it that way 400 years ago, there would have been a lot less confusion in the area of Ecclesiology today.
DHK

 

You're relying too much on secular Greek usage rather than the LXX usage as translation of the OT Hebrew 'qahal', which means, inter alia, 'assembly', 'nation', 'community' and has far more universalist connotations. We have to ask ourselves with what usage Jesus and His apostles were familiar when He made the pronouncement in Matt 16:18 - the Jewish sense or the pagan Greek sense?

Col 1:18 and other such Scriptures make no sense whatsoever if εκκλησια is merely 'a' church.

You have failed to adduce any evidence to support your sweeping assertion that 'church' means "not the Catholic Church - never has been and never will be". Given that that was the only expression and form of Christianity up to 1054, that seems a rather strange statement and does rather reduce the credibility of your other assertions...as does your "definite article notwithstanding" response to τα - it reminds me of the JWs' take on John 1:1 re there being no 'ο between και and θηοσ ...

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

I have already explained how "the church" is used in a generic sense.
As for your assertion that the Catholic Church being the only church or "expression of Christianity up to 1054" is totally ludicrous. The Catholic Church never had its beginnings until the fourth century, and there were plenty of groups of believers far before them.
DHK

 

Evidence, please! Facts, please!

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

Yeah...this I'd love to see.

Besides, DHK, Christ didn't say "I will build (generic) church". He said: "I will build My Church" which is His Body (singular), and not just some generic "body".

 

Still waiting...

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

I am well aquainted with New Advent (and the various other Catholic sources) that have done such an excellent job on revising history to suit their needs. I have quite a few resources concerning the origin of the Catholic Church, as do others on this board (such as Bob Ryan). But my time is limited.

This knowledge is no secret. Pick up any "reliable" history book. The Catholic Church started in the beginning of the fourth century when Constantine made a false profession of faith. He saw that Christianity was something that he could use for his own political gain, and therefore made it a "state church," legalizing it. At the same time he introduced all kinds of pagan practices into it. Basically what happened is that Constantine created a form of Christianity, entirely apart from Biblical Christinaity, wherein his "Christianity" became "paganized," and the pagans became "Christianized." Thus the introduction of the Catholic Church with all their consequent idols of this day. I am not saying that it all happened in a day. Don't get me wrong. I am saying that that was the beginning of it.
DHK

 

Ah, yes, the old Anabaptist revisionist trick of winding the clock back to before 313, before which the Church was a pure pristine Bride and after which She became the Whore of Babylon The trouble with that, apart from the fact that it is revisionism, is that you throw the theological baby out with the church bathwater in that you lose the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, the definition and discovery of the New Testament canon and the Definition of Chalcedon, amongst other things...which leads in turn to very dodgy Christology (fairly typical of early Anabaptism eg: Melchior Hoffman; Munster, anyone?) and...er...downright heresy. Thanks, but no thanks.

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

Greetings DHK,
Are you saying by this statement that current Catholic doctrines were not taught and practiced prior to the fourth century?

What "pagan" practices are you referring? I take it the ones you mean were not practiced prior to this time?

What idols does the Catholic Church have today?

 

Just quickly to address this one point. The "Catholic" definition of both "worship" and "idolatry" differ from both the dictionary and the Biblical definitions of the words. They are redefined to fit their own theology.

The Ten Commandments as set forth in Exodus chapter 20 clearly spells out what would be idolatry. It is significant that as I grew up as a Catholic the second commandment (in our Catechisms), "Thou shalt not make unto you any graven image or any likeness thereof..." was omitted, and the tenth commandment of "thou shalt not covet," was split into two. That, of course, was done on purpose. There were graven "idols" all over the Catholic churches--idols of Jesus, Mary, Joseph, all 15 stations of the cross--all of which Catholics bow down to--are worshipped. That is idolatry. That is the Biblical definition of worship and idolatry--at least by example.
DHK

 

Greetings DHK,

My first post on this board some years ago, you and I had a lenghty discussion on this issue. Without getting into all the theological differences...
I will quickly address one point;

The Catholic Church teaches that worship is reserved for God alone. This is what my family and I practice. Idolatry is placing anything in place of God and idolizing it. Be it some unknown god of the almighy dollar.

 

The "church" of Jesus Christ would not...

1) Clearly perpetuate a denial of the gospel of Jesus Christ.(justification trhough faith alone)

2) Clearly perpetuate a false gospel that Almighty God has cursed.(justification by works)

3) Clearly perpetuate the devilish notion that authoritative doctrinal truth is found in the traditions of men as opposed to the scriptures.

4) Clearly perpetuate the devilish lie that the poor un-enlightened "lay" people in the church have no buisiness feeding on and expecting Almighty God to personally speak to them and teach them through His scriptures, because(supposedly): "We...The Hierarchy of the Catholic Church...have been appointed by God to interpret the scriptures for you. We interpret, and you believe what we tell you, because thats Gods way!"

5) Have the blood of multiplied thousands, if not millions, of the saints of God on her hands.

6) Have a leader who would kiss the Qu'ran and call Shikhs, Buddhists, Zoroastrans and practitioners of Voodoo his "spiritual brothers".

7) Have church sponsored prayers lifted to a devilish counterfiet of the biblical Mary, who is the suppposed "Queen of the Universe", "Mother of God", "Mediatrix" of all grace, dispenser of wisdom, power, miracles, answered prayers, visitations, is omni-present and able to "keep for salvation" anyone who places themselves into her care at the "hour of" their death.

I could go on and on of course, but you get the idea.

Very sadly,

Mike

[ March 04, 2005, 12:17 AM: Message edited by: D28guy ]

 

To riposte your points:-

1) Show me where Scripture says faith alone
2)Rather bad news for the Apostle James, then.
3)Not if that Tradition authoritatively interprets the Scriptures
4) As opposed to: the huge disagreements over interpretation of Scripture that exist just on this BaptistBoard caused by the unbiblical notion of sola Scriptura and the naive and equally unbiblical notion that any old Tom Dick or Harry is 'qualified' to interpret...yeah, that really works ...like in Judges, every man does as he thinks fit in his own eyes.
5) What saints are we talking about here? What number?
6) Agreed - that's unfortunate. But we're not talking here about the modern RCC but the Catholic Church of the 4th and 5th centuries in the last couple of pages
7) No Catholic I know prays to Mary. Don't you ask other Christians to pray for you?

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

Mike, I think a further problem with what you have written (leaving to one side the RCC post-1517 - see my reply to your #6 above) is that until 1517 the Catholics and Orthodox, apart from some small groups like the Waldenses (c1160 onwards), Lollards (c.1380 onwards) and Hussites (1415 onwards) were the only Christians and Church(es) that there were. That rather makes a nonsense of the Lord's words in Matt 16:18 - "I will build my Church and the gates of Hell will not prevail against it"; what He obviously should have added, given your apparent revisionist thesis of ecclesiastical history, is "except for about 1400 of the first 1500 years of its existence". But He didn't, so...um...your theory and that of DHK rather falls to the ground...

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

Matt,

If I attempted to post them all I would be here 2 hours from now still posting. That truth is thundered from the scriptures.

The book of James does not contradict justification through faith alone in the least. The way the Catholic Church mangles and twists a couple of passages in there to perpetuate their false gospel of works is absolutly mind boggling.

But it doesnt. Its actually the other way around. We "test all things" according the scriptures.

A complete falsehood. The Holy Spirit is the interpreter of scriptures. The problem is that none of us have perfect hearing. We are instructed to "let your brother be fully convinced in his own mind" regarding non-foundational issues.

And sometimes their is truth and wisdom to be found in both sides where there is a disagreement.

I have no idea, but I wouldnt be suprised if somewhere at the Vatican all of the thousands if not millions of the saints of God "she" has murdered are listed, and maybe even categorised according to the manner of torture, or mode of execution.

You are the 1st Catholic I have encountered who agrees with the un-imaginable actions and words of the current pope at the assisi prayer gatherings.

I tip my hat to you.

Than you dont know any Catholics.

Thats not what Catholics are doing.

Honestly, I dont know you you Catholics can actually give that stock answer when this comes up. Cant you see how it causes you to come across? Like someone who doesnt bother to think, but just recites what they have been programmed to recite.

To show you the difference, here is an example of "asking someone to pray for you":

"Say, Bob. My wife is having a tough time kicking this pnuemonia that is going around. Could you remember her in your prayers? Thanks, brother"

Here, on the other hand, is a normal...and just like multiplied multitudes of others...prayer that is prayed TO Mary....


"O Mary
bright dawn of the new world,
Mother of the living,
to you do we entrust the cause of life:

Look down, O Mother,
upon the vast numbers
of babies not allowed to be born,
of the poor whose lives are made difficult,
of men and women
who are victims of brutal violence,
of the elderly and the sick killed
by indifference or out of misguided mercy.

Grant that all who believe in your Son
may proclaim the Gospel of life
with honesty and love
to the people of our time.

Obtain for them the grace
to accept that Gospel
as a gift ever new,
the joy of celebrating it with gratitude
throughout their lives
and the courage to bear witness to it resolutely, in order to build,
together with all people of good will,
the civilization of truth and love,
to the praise and glory of God,
the Creator and lover of life.

Pope John Paul II

Click here...Prayers to Mary

That prayer is nothing less than pure unadulterated idolatry.

From that same University of Dayton site are these prayers that are posted, and directed to Mary...

"“Thank you, Mother Mary, for all my answered prayers. I give thanks and praise for your constant support and love you send me everyday… May we all find comfort in your presence of the LORD.THANK YOU AMEN.”

Submitted by: Jovanna
Posted: 2005-03-04


“Mary, Mother of all children, help Nathan to recover from his surgeries. Bring his smiles back to us. Bless his mother and grandmother with the strength they will need. Thank you for all of our children in the family. Keep them forever in your care.”

Submitted by: Patty
Posted: 2005-03-03

“Blessed Mother, I pray to you to bring my husband home. Let him understand that family is the most important thing in life. I love him and forgive him. Help us to start a new relationship that includes faith in your Son. Thank you for all the blessings in my life.”


Submitted by: Trish
Posted: 2005-03-03

“Please pray that our financial obligations will be met for this month. Blessed Mother, please guide us towards some solution and please wrap your loving arms around us and protect us from harm. Please also bring buyers and sellers into my path. Amen.”

Submitted by: Maria
Posted: 2005-03-02

And this one is absolutly heartbreaking...

“Mary, can you please ask your son to give me the confidence and assertiveness to be successful in my new career and the new job I'll be starting? Can you please also ask him to help ease the anxiety of my employees in their new business venture and for their success?”

Click here...Catholics prayers to Mary

"Mary, can you please ask your son to give me..."


That person apparently does not know that they personally have direct...24 hours a day...direct access to the "Holy Of Holies". They have access at any time day of night to the very throne of Almighty God and the ear of nothing less than Jesus Christ and God the Father, through the ministry of the Holy Spirit. (That is of course assuming these people are born again, which they very well might not be, but I hope they are.)


But they are "good Catholics", doing as they have been told and praying TO Mary for answered prayer.

Crediting her of course with being omni-present...an ability that only God has.

This is so heartbreaking,

Mike

[ March 04, 2005, 08:38 PM: Message edited by: D28guy ]