10andBOUNCE said:

---

Thaddeus73 said:

---

Paul says that the Church is THE pillar and bulwark of truth, in 1 Timothy 3:15.

---

Funny, my ESV says "a pillar" not "the pillar"

I am not sure your point though. In your mind is Paul not speaking of the catholic (universal) church?

Banned just called protestants out for using single verses as proof for doctrine. Keep going in v16...what is the chuch a pillar of....?
"Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of godliness: He was manifested in the flesh, vindicated by the Spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory."

---

1. "which is the Church of the living God"
- (ekklsia): *Ekklesia* is a compound Greek word from "out of" () and "to call" (). The early Jewish Church chose this term because it was used in the Septuagint, translating the Hebrew *qahal*, used in the phrase "the assembly of Israel" and the NT writers asserted that they were the "divinely called out ones," the People of God of their day.

This is absolutely critical: the Church is not a voluntary human institution it is the assembly of those *called out by God Himself*, the New Israel, the Body of Christ made visible in history.

- (theou zntos): "of the *living* God." The present participle is emphatic. This is not the static god of philosophy or pagan myth, but the God who acts, speaks, and sustains the Church in every age. The living God does not abandon His household.

---

2. "the pillar and foundation of the truth"

These two words carry enormous theological weight:

(stylos) *pillar*: *Stylos* means a "pillar, column, prop, or support" and is used only here, in Revelation 3:12, and in Revelation 10:1. A pillar holds something aloft it makes truth *visible and upheld* before the world. Think of the great columns of an ancient temple: they declare the grandeur of what they support for all to see.

- (hedraima) foundation/ground/bulwark: *Hedraima* means a "prop or support" and appears only in this New Testament verse. Both words come from Greek roots which refer to something that steadies, stiffens, or holds.

These are completely different words than used for other occurrences of "foundation" in English Bibles. 1 Corinthians 3:11, for instance, uses the word *themelion*, literally meaning the "foundation of a building," in reference to Christ. The distinction matters: Christ is the originating foundation of truth; the Church is His chosen instrument for upholding and proclaiming that truth throughout history.

- (ts altheias): "of *the* truth" with the definite article. Not *a* truth among many, but *the* truth. This is objective, revealed, Divine truth not subjective, culturally conditioned opinion.

The Banned said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

TeddyAg0422 said:

---

The Church that is upholding tradition and protecting from heresy and error.

---

Lets take the easiest example to show the problem.

Rome claims the Pope is has not just primacy, but supremacy.

claims "church tradition" and whatnot. All found outside Scripture.

EO claims the Pope/Bishop of Rome has primacy, but not supremacy.

claims "church tradition" and whatnot. More defensible from Scripture, but not clear.

Who has the correct "church tradition" and how do we determine that? Both groups claim to represent "the historic church and to have the tradition handed down from the apostles." Yet only one can be correct. Which one is committing heresy and error?

---

Primacy of Rome or supremacy of Rome. Either way it sounds like communion with Rome is a big deal, and one side isn't. They= East agreed they needed to be in communion with Rome twice at two different councils before backtracking.

Then come the claims that it was all political and there was no interest in the East in reuniting. Ok then. Even if it's only the Primacy of Rome that is noted and there is zero interest in reuniting with the Prime See, zero overtures made to attempt reunification and even when forced to come to the table it's done in bad faith (no true interest in uniting with intent to recant later) what does that say about how well you are following your own tradition? And it's important to note that the schism didn't start with the filioque but because of the growing presence of western rite churches in Constantinople, making the patriarch uncomfortable

---

The EO seems crystal clear that the apostles never gave supremacy to Rome. That's the claim.

Until that can be absolutely proved, the role of "church tradition" really holds no value because the exact same claims you make against protestantism are true for you.

"Sacred tradition" is really whatever any group wants to claim it is.

It does show a couple of things.

First, the significant role of private judgment in Rome and the EO. You have to look at the claims of these groups and decide who you think is right and why. The claim often leveled against Protestantism.

Second, "Sacred tradition" gives no more assurance than protestantism. Don't like what the pope says...jump to EO or Ethiopian Orthodox, etc. Same level of freedom is available.

AgLiving06 said:

---

First, the significant role of private judgment in Rome and the EO. You have to look at the claims of these groups and decide who you think is right and why. The claim often leveled against Protestantism.

Second, "Sacred tradition" gives no more assurance than protestantism. Don't like what the pope says...jump to EO or Ethiopian Orthodox, etc. Same level of freedom is available.

---

Finally some agreement. Splitting off from the established authority of the Church always introduces private judgement to decide who is or isn't the true authority. Jesus prayed for the 12 to be one for a reason. There may be many churches in many locations, but there is only one capital C Church that Jesus founded.

It's unfortunate that Cerularius never acknowledged even the primacy of the Roman See (no evidence anywhere we can find), seemingly dropped the Pope from the dyptichs prior to any formal break, forcibly shut down Latin Rite Churches in his area (that were there for the benefit of Latin speaking immigrants) and allowed one of his archbishops to circulate a letter on how Latin theology and liturgy was all wrong. In other words, a total break from acknowledging even the primacy of the Roman See (doesn't sound like "first among equals" or even "equals" to me), which you acknowledge would be a break in Eastern Sacred tradition.

Quote:

---

1. "which is the Church of the living God"
- (ekklsia): *Ekklesia* is a compound Greek word from "out of" () and "to call" (). The early Jewish Church chose this term because it was used in the Septuagint, translating the Hebrew *qahal*, used in the phrase "the assembly of Israel" and the NT writers asserted that they were the "divinely called out ones," the People of God of their day.

This is absolutely critical: the Church is not a voluntary human institution it is the assembly of those *called out by God Himself*, the New Israel, the Body of Christ made visible in history.

- (theou zntos): "of the *living* God." The present participle is emphatic. This is not the static god of philosophy or pagan myth, but the God who acts, speaks, and sustains the Church in every age. The living God does not abandon His household.

---

You could pass for a Calvinist with this write up

Maybe in heaven when we are all glorified and in our perfect states, Jesus can host some kind of Family Feud tournament (in his perfect way of course) with different "teams" to settle the fun debates.

Perhaps. I think we will be focused on more important things.

But in the here and now, it is unambiguously clear that the pillar and foundation/bulwark of the truth is the Church. And that necessarily means a single church that can be identified and is jurisdictionally capable of determining what is and isn't true. This is particularly clear in 1 Timothy given the setting and context of Paul's letter. It's a governance document issued by someone with authority to someone with authority.

No amount of sophistry can change the truth of this.

Quote:

---

But in the here and now, it is unambiguously clear that the pillar and foundation/bulwark of the truth is the Cchurch.

---

FIFY. No one disagrees with your sentence, as corrected. The universal church, not the RCC, is the pillar and foundation/bulwark of the truth.

Quote:

---

And that necessarily means a single church that can be identified and is jurisdictionally capable of determining what is and isn't true.

---

This is where you make a quantum leap unsupported by scripture, tradition, or logic. Why does your first sentence, as corrected, mean a single church? It seems that you are starting with your conclusion and attempting to work backward from it.

You RCC and EO guys keep stating that an organized church is necessary for determining truth, as if restating that point endlessly will be convincing and cover the complete lack of support for that point.

Quote:

---

This is particularly clear in 1 Timothy given the setting and context of Paul's letter. It's a governance document issued by someone with authority to someone with authority.

---

No one denies that Paul had authority. He was specifically ordained by God as the last apostle. What exact authority do you think Timothy had and what were its bounds?

Quote:

---

No amount of sophistry can change the truth of this.

---

What you call "sophistry" I call intellectual honesty and integrity.

KingofHazor said:

---

Quote:

---

But in the here and now, it is unambiguously clear that the pillar and foundation/bulwark of the truth is the Cchurch.

---

FIFY. No one disagrees with your sentence, as corrected. The universal church, not the RCC, is the pillar and foundation/bulwark of the truth.

Quote:

---

And that necessarily means a single church that can be identified and is jurisdictionally capable of determining what is and isn't true.

---

This is where you make a quantum leap unsupported by scripture, tradition, or logic. Why does your first sentence, as corrected, mean a single church? It seems that you are starting with your conclusion and attempting to work backward from it.

You RCC and EO guys keep stating that an organized church is necessary for determining truth, as if restating that point endlessly will be convincing and cover the complete lack of support for that point.

Quote:

---

This is particularly clear in 1 Timothy given the setting and context of Paul's letter. It's a governance document issued by someone with authority to someone with authority.

---

No one denies that Paul had authority. He was specifically ordained by God as the last apostle. What exact authority do you think Timothy had and what were its bounds?

Quote:

---

No amount of sophistry can change the truth of this.

---

What you call "sophistry" I call intellectual honesty and integrity.

---

There cannot be more than one juridical entity that is the pillar and foundation of the truth. The result of that would be Protestantism writ large.

Your "correction" of my use Church is incorrect. The Roman Catholic Church is not the Church. The Church is all the churches in communion with her but more importantly it is the mystical body of Christ.

Timothy was being "deputized" (my word) by Paul and would become the first Bishop of Ephesus based on the apostolic authority that Paul was authorized to pass on to him.

The duties Paul assigns to him in his letters align closely with the traditional responsibilities of a bishop:

Authority to Ordain: Timothy is instructed on how to appoint and ordain elders and deacons (1 Timothy 3:113, 5:22).

Doctrinal Oversight: Paul explicitly leaves him in Ephesus to command others not to teach false doctrines (1 Timothy 1:3).

Church Management: He is given authority to oversee church order, discipline, and even financial matters (1 Timothy 3:3-4, 5:19-21).

AI - According to the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius, Timothy was the first Bishop of Ephesus. According to tradition, Paul ordained Timothy Bishop of Ephesus in AD 65, where he served for 15 years. Timothy, who was unmarried, continued as Bishop of Ephesus until, when he was over eighty years of age, he was mortally beaten by the pagans.

In your first two paragraphs, you're just repeating RCC conclusory propaganda as if that's somehow evidence or persuasive argument. It's neither.

If you want to be convincing, you need to present something outside of the RCC itself to establish the validity of its claims.

You are making the same mistake that atheists correctly place against Christians in general. Atheists correctly assert that one cannot use the Bible, by itself, of the Bible's validity. At some point, reference must be made to evidence external to the Bible. Similarly, you must present evidence or logical arguments outside of RCC dogma.

In your paragraphs about Timothy, no Protestant would contest that. However, how do you extrapolate from those teachings to the exponentially broader claims made by the RCC as to its own authority?

Did Paul delegate to anyone else similar authority? Why Paul and not Peter?

The Banned said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

First, the significant role of private judgment in Rome and the EO. You have to look at the claims of these groups and decide who you think is right and why. The claim often leveled against Protestantism.

Second, "Sacred tradition" gives no more assurance than protestantism. Don't like what the pope says...jump to EO or Ethiopian Orthodox, etc. Same level of freedom is available.

---

Finally some agreement. Splitting off from the established authority of the Church always introduces private judgement to decide who is or isn't the true authority. Jesus prayed for the 12 to be one for a reason. There may be many churches in many locations, but there is only one capital C Church that Jesus founded.

It's unfortunate that Cerularius never acknowledged even the primacy of the Roman See (no evidence anywhere we can find), seemingly dropped the Pope from the dyptichs prior to any formal break, forcibly shut down Latin Rite Churches in his area (that were there for the benefit of Latin speaking immigrants) and allowed one of his archbishops to circulate a letter on how Latin theology and liturgy was all wrong. In other words, a total break from acknowledging even the primacy of the Roman See (doesn't sound like "first among equals" or even "equals" to me), which you acknowledge would be a break in Eastern Sacred tradition.

---

You misunderstood.

Rome and the EO both make claims to hold to the "traditions of the apostles." If we visual a vin diagram, there is parts of each group that overlap (as there will be with Protestants and either group), but then there will material things where Rome and the EO disagree.

Both can't be correct.

What I'm pointing out is that you, in your private judgment, decided what you believed to be correct. Which "sacred tradition" is correct.

KingofHazor said:

---

In your first two paragraphs, you're just repeating RCC conclusory propaganda as if that's somehow evidence or persuasive argument. It's neither.

If you want to be convincing, you need to present something outside of the RCC itself to establish the validity of its claims.

You are making the same mistake that atheists correctly place against Christians in general. Atheists correctly assert that one cannot use the Bible, by itself, of the Bible's validity. At some point, reference must be made to evidence external to the Bible. Similarly, you must present evidence or logical arguments outside of RCC dogma.

In your paragraphs about Timothy, no Protestant would contest that. However, how do you extrapolate from those teachings to the exponentially broader claims made by the RCC as to its own authority?

Did Paul delegate to anyone else similar authority? Why Paul and not Peter?

---

Never mind. It's not worth the effort.

In a nutshell, sola scriptura enables millions of bible readers to come to their own personal opinions of what the bible says, all the while ignoring 2000 years of biblical scholarship by brilliant minds who understand Hebrew, Greek, and Latin. As a result, you have thousands of denominations of believers all believing different stuff, which is in total violation of Jesus' prayer in John 17 that we all be one.

KingofHazor said:

---

Thaddeus73 said:

---

In a nutshell, sola scriptura enables millions of bible readers to come to their own personal opinions of what the bible says, all the while ignoring 2000 years of biblical scholarship by brilliant minds who understand Hebrew, Greek, and Latin. As a result, you have thousands of denominations of believers all believing different stuff, which is in total violation of Jesus' prayer in John 17 that we all be one.

---

How many times have you and other RCC posted those exact same words or concept on this board? Do you think repeating it over and over will finally make all Protestants go, "You're right! We've been wrong all along!"?

Protestants don't ignore "2000 years of biblical scholarship by brilliant minds who understand Hebrew, Greek, and Latin". All Protestant biblical scholars look to that history of scholarship in forming their own opinions. The difference is that Protestants don't view those early scholars, or Church councils, as inspired or authoritative, but merely informative. For example, I just saw a podcast by a young Protestant scholar describing Justin Martyr's account of a very early church service.

You RCC folks here constantly criticize Protestants for mischaracterizing the RCC. You, in particular, are very bad about that but in reverse. It is obvious that you have no idea what Protestantism is or what Protestants believe.

---

Thaddeus does rely on strawmen for most of his arguments.

I would quibble a bit with your comment that it's "Merely informative," though because it understates the importance of the fathers.

We should absolutely acknowledge that if we find teachings that aren't in the fathers, it should be a cause for concern. So we should feel very comfortable saying that we look to what the fathers taught and said as a guide to the boundaries of what the Church has held to.

It is within that that we can acknowledge that not every Church Father taught the same thing, and not every group held to the exact same beliefs on every point. And that can be ok to a certain extent.

Somethings are deal breakers, others aren't.

Rome made this a problem because to acknowledge this is to acknowledge that Rome grabbed power that wasn't its to grab.

OK, but then explain all of the thousands of different denominations all preaching different stuff....

Thaddeus73 said:

---

OK, but then explain all of the thousands of different denominations all preaching different stuff....

---

Most of the Protestant denominations preach the same core truths. Most protestants differ only on secondary or tertiary issues. That is why Protestant scholars gathered, in Chicago I believe, in the early part of the 20th century, to agree on what the fundamentals of the faith are. That is where the term fundamentalism drives from, although it's definition has changed, even becoming *******ized since then.

It's not much different than the wide in what Catholic priests preach from church to church.

finally, what is so horrible about different churches having different beliefs on secondary or tertiary issues? You make it sound like that's the end of the world, whereas it is one of the great strengths of Protestantism.

Thaddeus73 said:

---

OK, but then explain all of the thousands of different denominations all preaching different stuff....

---

Explain how the papal revolution is different…

Your quibble is valid. Point taken. By the way, I really appreciate your knowledge and your informative posts. I've learned a lot from reading them.

KingofHazor said:

---

Thaddeus73 said:

---

OK, but then explain all of the thousands of different denominations all preaching different stuff....

---

Most of the Protestant denominations preach the same core truths. Most protestants differ only on secondary or tertiary issues. That is why Protestant scholars gathered, in Chicago I believe, in the early part of the 20th century, to agree on what the fundamentals of the faith are. That is where the term fundamentalism drives from, although it's definition has changed, even becoming *******ized since then.

It's not much different than the wide in what Catholic priests preach from church to church.

finally, what is so horrible about different churches having different beliefs on secondary or tertiary issues? You make it sound like that's the end of the world, whereas it is one of the great strengths of Protestantism.

---

Whether or not baptism is necessary for salvation is a secondary/tertiary issue?

The number of sacraments is a secondary/tertiary issues?

Whether or not you can lose your salvation is a secondary/tertiary issue?

Whether or not we have actual free will is a secondary/tertiary issues?

Whether Christ is present or not in the Eucharist is a secondary/tertiary issue?

In modern times, LGBT morality is claimed by some to be a secondary/tertiary issue. Do you agree?


These (and many, many more) are all differences inside of Protestantism and I don't see how anyone can reasonably say these are not core issues. These are clearly issues of salvation.. The bolded is really easy to say when comparing Protestantism vs Catholicism, but when the Protestant-only details are actually inspected, it's clearly untrue.

Thaddeus73 said:

---

OK, but then explain all of the thousands of different denominations all preaching different stuff....

---

There's two kind of obvious responses here.

1. Every denomination (Rome, EO, Protestantism) has put far more boundaries and requirements around itself than existed historically. Differing opinions or views historically was completely acceptable. In fact, I'd argue that most, if not all, of the disagreements debated on this forum were debated historically as a single church without any concern or need for division. I'm thinking specifically of the Canon, Mary, and to a lesser extent Communion. The primary one I think is an outlier is infant baptism vs "believer baptism" as not a historical debate.

2. To state the obvious, Rome had a habit of killing groups that held differing opinions. Even Luther only survived, not for a lack of effort by Rome to kill him, but because the emperor needed the princes to fight the muslims and Luther had a prince who essentially saved his life by kidnapping him. I wouldn't be surprised to find out there were a lot of views held privately or groups that met in secret to avoid being killed.

I didn't misunderstand at all. Both East and West agree that there is a sacred tradition that includes the Primacy of the Roman See. We disagree on what primacy entails/means. Rome has never had an official title or teaching that it is the "supreme" see. It has taught and does teach that, as the Prime/First See, it has supreme jurisdiction in order to settle disputes and maintain unity, but it isn't "supreme" as if the other Sees aren't also bishops with local jurisdiction. The Eastern patriarchs disagreed with the extent in which his universal jurisdiction works, but they agreed Rome was the First See.

So we have the "same" tradition that needs to be clarified. No different that many other things needed to be clarified by councils. We've had two councils that agreed with the Roman view and both of those councils were recanted by the east. But the East no longer holds to the tradition the Rome is the First See. They no longer hold to the tradition they once claimed. So the "private interpretation" is only introduced because of the break with tradition, as I said before. Had they stuck it out, either originally or with either of the two reunification councils, there would be no need for that interpretation. And it's why I would partially agree with what you said and re-word it: Outside of the one, true Church, the person will always have to rely on private judgement.

This is a recent debate between Doug Wilson (Prot) vs Joe Heschmeyer (Catholic). Only one hour in but had been great so far. This is what a good, respectful debate of ideas should look like.

The Banned said:

---

Whether or not baptism is necessary for salvation is a secondary/tertiary issue?

The number of sacraments is a secondary/tertiary issues?

Whether or not you can lose your salvation is a secondary/tertiary issue?

Whether or not we have actual free will is a secondary/tertiary issues?

Whether Christ is present or not in the Eucharist is a secondary/tertiary issue?

In modern times, LGBT morality is claimed by some to be a secondary/tertiary issue. Do you agree?

---

Just because issues are important or significant does not automatically make them primary issues. There are very few things that are primary. Off the top of my head (and I'm probably missing some and perhaps including some that shouldn't be), the primary or essential issues of Christianity are:

1. Christ was the Son of God, was divine, became human, was sinless, died for our sins, and was bodily resurrected.
2. The Trinity
3. Salvation by grace, not by works
4. The authority and infallibility of Scripture

The rest of the issues you list are important, highly important, but not essential. Those that believe that baptism is essential to salvation would add it to the list, but those are a very small minority of Protestants.

To illustrate why I view those as secondary or lower, I know and am close friends with many Christians who disagree with me and with each other on many of those issues, but we still love and have fellowship with each other.

It's funny, you RCC and EO guys call the Protestants divisive, yet most Protestants would gladly worship and fellowship with you. It's y'all that don't want to have anything to do with us.

Quote:

---

1. Christ was the Son of God, was divine, became human, was sinless, died for our sins, and was bodily resurrected.
2. The Trinity
3. Salvation by grace, not by works
4. The authority and infallibility of Scripture

---

There are Protestant sects that disagree with all 4 of those primary issues you listed. I'm sure you'll call them not Christian, but they are the ones interpreting the bible the way they believe it is supposed to be interpreted (just like you). It seems like it would be hypocritical if you were to blame them for using the same process you do and failing to arrive at the same conclusion. And they would still be happy to be considered a Christian along side you.

Quote:

---

Those that believe that baptism is essential to salvation would add it to the list, but those are a very small minority of Protestants.

---

Luther kicked the party off and he said baptism saves you. The fact that just a few years later Calvin, Zwingli et al distanced themselves from his teaching should be telling.

Quote:

---

It's funny, you RCC and EO guys call the Protestants divisive, yet most Protestants would gladly worship and fellowship with you. It's y'all that don't want to have anything to do with us.

---

I bet you and I would be happy to share a prayer together. I do it with Protestants all the time. I'll do it before my son's little league game in a few hours. I spent 10 years in a Baptist church. I know there are sincere people there. But I promise you it's not the Catholics that want nothing to do with protestants. I've been told to my face more times than I can count that Catholics are idolators and going to hell. And the only reason I think they were comfortable saying that was because they didn't know I used to be Catholic (all this prior to my reversion). In my personal experience, this Cliff Knechtle, Wes Huff, Gavin Ortland "some Catholics are saved" stance is pretty new. Like past 10-15 years new. Before that it was always "are you Catholic or are you Christian?"

We have real differences. Anytime humans are involved there are going to be differences. Sometimes a Catholic will use that to distance from a Protestant. Sometimes it goes the other way. That's why Christ established a Church and sent the Holy Spirit to guide it into all truth. We don't have to guess for ourselves or rely on our own understanding. I don't know how there could be One Church any other way.

FIDO95 said:

---

KingofHazor said:

---

Just because issues are important or significant does not automatically make them primary issues. There are very few things that are primary. Off the top of my head (and I'm probably missing some and perhaps including some that shouldn't be), the primary or essential issues of Christianity are:

---

I believe in God,
the Father almighty,
Creator of heaven and earth,
and in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died and was buried;
he descended into hell;
on the third day he rose again from the dead;
he ascended into heaven,
and is seated at the right hand of God the Father almighty;
from there he will come to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and life everlasting.
Amen.

---

Amen.

Quote:

---

There are Protestant sects that disagree with all 4 of those primary issues you listed. I'm sure you'll call them not Christian, but they are the ones interpreting the bible the way they believe it is supposed to be interpreted (just like you). It seems like it would be hypocritical if you were to blame them for using the same process you do and failing to arrive at the same conclusion. And they would still be happy to be considered a Christian along side you.

---

So what? I truly don't understand your point. So what if someone believes that salvation is faith + baptism + works. They're wrong, but that won't stop me from worshiping and fellowshipping with them. Why does it bother you so much?

Are you suggesting a return to the auto-da-f to ensure conformity of belief? I know many Catholics who reject some of the approved doctrines of the RCC.

There are always going to be spurious groups, sects, and cults. There were when the RCC was the only church in the West.

What difference does it make to you or to anyone else if some Protestant group goes wacko on its own?

Y'all make it sound like Protestants can't agree on anything. That's simply not true. The vast majority of historical Protestant denominations agreed on all of the core tenets of Christianity (of course, most of the mainline Protestant denominations have gone wacko now, but not because of their interpretation of the Bible, but rather their view that the Bible is neither inerrant nor authoritative).

I used to volunteer at a ministry for Chrisitan military officers called Officers Christian Fellowship. It's a great example of what I'm talking about. Christian officers and their families would worship together in Bible studies and spend a week at one of the two conference centers. It didn't matter what brand of Christian they were. Some were Baptists, Charismatics, Catholics, and every other brand of Christianity. The brand of Christianity didn't matter. What mattered was their shared faith in God and Jesus Christ as Lord. They were able to worship together seamlessly and effortlessly. No one cared at all about the issues you listed.

Quote:

---

So what? I truly don't understand your point. So what if someone believes that salvation is faith + baptism + works. They're wrong, but that won't stop me from worshiping and fellowshipping with them. Why does it bother you so much?

---

It bothers me for three reasons:

1. Jesus prayed for unity. If He wanted it, we should want it. The Church is His bride and should be treated as such. Many Christians are living unintentionally sinful lives and have no idea because teachings have been watered down through all of the splintering.
2. It prevents us from worshipping as one on Sunday and providing a united approach to evangelizing the world. The disunity between Christian sects is a point that non-Christians point to as a knock against Christianity as a whole.
3. Because if this thought process was around at the beginning of Christianity, you and I wouldn't even have the defined doctrines you outlined in point 1-4 anyway. It all would have fell in the first couple hundred years if there wasn't a Church to guide the faithful away from error. Even the deity of Christ would likely have minority assent among Christians if it wasn't for the truth being protected.
There are other reasons too, but these are the most pressing.

Quote:

---

Y'all make it sound like Protestants can't agree on anything. That's simply not true. The vast majority of historical Protestant denominations agreed on all of the core tenets of Christianity

---

Again, you say that but it isn't true. It's only true if you narrowly define the core tenets. And even then, what qualifies as a core tenet is up for debate as well. What you say is a core tenet doesn't match others'. Luther condemned Calvin's double predestination within a couple decades of the 95 theses. He absolutely despised the anabaptists. There was no unity of doctrine then and they knew it. It's no different today, most just don't know it. I don't think they have ill intent. They just don't know.

Quote:

---

(of course, most of the mainline Protestant denominations have gone wacko now, but not because of their interpretation of the Bible, but rather their view that the Bible is neither inerrant nor authoritative).

---

Their belief that it errant is based off of their reading and interpretation of what they see as failures and contradictions in the bible. It's not like they just don't believe in the bible and then go to work. Many of those wackos came from fundamentalist upbringings. Wacko is exactly what happens without the foundations of our past.

Quote:

---

I used to volunteer at a ministry for Chrisitan military officers called Officers Christian Fellowship. It's a great example of what I'm talking about. Christian officers and their families would worship together in Bible studies and spend a week at one of the two conference centers. It didn't matter what brand of Christian they were. Some were Baptists, Charismatics, Catholics, and every other brand of Christianity. The brand of Christianity didn't matter. What mattered was their shared faith in God and Jesus Christ as Lord. They were able to worship together seamlessly and effortlessly. No one cared at all about the issues you listed.

---

Again, I'm not against this from a modern day perspective. I think it is helpful in this modern age when we are so divided on Sundays. But the only reason we even agree on a "shared faith in God and Jesus Christ as Lord" is because of the interpretive powers of the Church/Councils in the past still being adhered to today (in some degree at least). And it isn't the sort of thing that the Apostles or their successors would have said constitutes unity. Unity was tied to Bishop in the area who was placed by the apostles to lead the faithful. Paul told Timothy he was the one that was to teach and guide the Church in Ephesus. An 'anything goes as long as you profess Jesus' approach wouldn't have made it to the 3rd century.

You make good points. However, neither the Roman Catholic Church n the EO are or should be the arbiters of truth or what that unity looks like. I don't know as much about the EO simply because I have not been exposed to it much, but the RCC has shown, over and over again through history, great corruption and great error. The unity you speak of, as practiced by the RCC, prevented Reform, even internal reform.

And I am not sure that Christ or the apostles meant holding to a single doctrine when they spoke of unity. It seems pretty clear that they meant unity in love. The RCC has graphically demonstrated that it lacks that form of unity. It burnt Johnathan Huss at the stake for simply translating the Bible into the vernacular. That can't be what Christ meant when he called for unity.

And then, it is the RCC that has been divisive. If you think unity is so important, then you should be calling for the RCC to drop it differences with the EO and humbly beg the EO's forgiveness and acceptance back into that church. The RCC should also apologize to Luther and his followers, since it was the RCC that excommunicated Luther, rather than Luther leaving the RCC.

In summary, I'm not willing to accept error and sin in the name of unity.

I do want to ask you to elaborate more on this statement:

Quote:

---

Unity was tied to Bishop in the area who was placed by the apostles to lead the faithful. Paul told Timothy he was the one that was to teach and guide the Church in Ephesus.

---

What is your basis for that statement? What is the historical basis that "unity was tied to the Bishop in the are who was placed by the apostles . . . ." And what does that even mean?

In my own readings and research, I find that we know very, very little of the practice of the early church and we extrapolate wildly from what little we know.

Also, a Bishop back in the 1st century AD was significantly different than a Bishop 1000 years later or a Bishop today. There is confusion created by the same word used for their title. I dare say that Timothy did not live in a 100,000+ sq. ft mansion like Bishop Woolsey (sp?) of King Henry VIII fame. What exactly do we know of the role of a 1st century bishop? Was Timothy's role really that much different than that of a Protestant pastor today?

Sorry, wall of text incoming. I combined your two posts into one response

Quote:

---

You make good points. However, neither the Roman Catholic Church n the EO are or should be the arbiters of truth or what that unity looks like.

---

Jesus said His Church would be led into all truth. The Church is the arbiter of truth because Jesus said so. Even if it's just making sure the canon of scripture is correct, and even if we use some loose definition of some sort of invisible Church and not the Catholic Church, some sort of Church is being the arbiter of truth. We can't really get around that without some dangerous consequences

Acts 15 show that early unity. There was disagreement over a doctrine (gentile circumcision). The apostles got together and decided. It seemed good to them AND the Holy Spirit. They are saying it is the Spirit that is guiding these unifying decisions.

Quote:

---

The unity you speak of, as practiced by the RCC, prevented Reform, even internal reform.

---

Rome did reform internally. Look into the counter reformation. The Church's response to Luther agreed with over 50% of his 95 points, and steps were taken to combat the errors he pointed out. Had he not gone full Luther, he would likely have been a canonized saint today. Luther ended up teaching a monergism that diminished free will so much that Calvin's version of double predestination (God actively chooses who to pass over because He wants them to go to Hell for His glory) was the only logical conclusion. Why should the Church apologize for rejecting that? It's awful.

Quote:

---

The RCC has graphically demonstrated that it lacks that form of unity. It burnt Johnathan Huss at the stake for simply translating the Bible into the vernacular.

---

I would recommend reading a bit more in to Hus. There were already vernacular bibles in his day, so that was not the problem. It was his sola scriptura-esque teaching that got him in trouble. Especially since he stirred up rebellious attitudes in his region (modern day Czech Republic) against the empire in charge. He was as much a political danger as he was a theological danger. I'm not going to weigh in on whether or not he deserved the death penalty, but I do think the details are important.

Quote:

---

And then, it is the RCC that has been divisive. If you think unity is so important, then you should be calling for the RCC to drop it differences with the EO and humbly beg the EO's forgiveness and acceptance back into that church

---

I would then recommend looking into why the East/West schism happened to begin with. The schism started because the Constantinopolitan Patriarch forcibly shut down Latin parishes in his area that were there to serve Latin speaking immigrants. He shut them all down. The pope sent delegates to have them reopened. Cerularius said no and the rest is history. Rome had two ecumenical councils with the East to rectify things. The East agreed at the councils, then recanted. This isn't anything like Rome digging it's heels into the ground. The overtures are there and have been continuously rejected by one side only.

Quote:

---

In my own readings and research, I find that we know very, very little of the practice of the early church and we extrapolate wildly from what little we know.

---

St Ignatius of Antioch is your friend here. I would recommend reading all of his letters. If you are wondering why he should be read, it's because he was taught directly by St John the Apostle (the one Jesus loved). Just from the letter to the Trallians (Chapters 2, 3, 6 and 7):

For, since you are subject to the bishop as to Jesus Christ, you appear to me to live not after the manner of men, but according to Jesus Christ, who died for us, in order, by believing in His death, you may escape from death. It is therefore necessary that, as you indeed do, so without the bishop you should do nothing, but should also be subject to the presbytery, as to the apostle of Jesus Christ, who is our hope, in whom, if we live, we shall [at last] be found. It is fitting also that the deacons, as being [the ministers] of the mysteries of Jesus Christ, should in every respect be pleasing to all. For they are not ministers of meat and drink, but servants of the Church of God. They are bound, therefore, to avoid all grounds of accusation [against them], as they would do fire.

In like manner, let all reverence the deacons as an appointment of Jesus Christ, and the bishop as Jesus Christ, who is the Son of the Father, and the presbyters as the Sanhedrin of God, and assembly of the apostles. Apart from these, there is no Church. Concerning all this, I am persuaded that you are of the same opinion. For I have received the manifestation of your love, and still have it with me, in your bishop, whose very appearance is highly instructive, and his meekness of itself a power; whom I imagine even the ungodly must reverence, seeing they are also pleased that I do not spare myself. But shall I, when permitted to write on this point, reach such a height of self-esteem, that though being a condemned man, I should issue commands to you as if I were an apostle?

I therefore, yet not I, but the love of Jesus Christ, entreat you that you use Christian nourishment only, and abstain from herbage of a different kind; I mean heresy. For those [that are given to this] mix up Jesus Christ with their own poison, speaking things which are unworthy of credit, like those who administer a deadly drug in sweet wine, which he who is ignorant of does greedily take, with a fatal pleasure leading to his own death.

Be on your guard, therefore, against such persons. And this will be the case with you if you are not puffed up, and continue in intimate union with Jesus Christ our God, and the bishop, and the enactments of the apostles. He that is within the altar is pure, but he that is without is not pure; that is, he who does anything apart from the bishop, and presbytery, and deacons, such a man is not pure in his conscience.

Quote:

---

Was Timothy's role really that much different than that of a Protestant pastor today?

---

Timothy's story is very interesting. In Acts 19 we see he was there with Paul, prior to Paul sending him to Macedonia. In Acts 20 we see Paul tell the Ephesians that there will be wolves among them ready to distort the truth. He then writes the Ephesians with commendations. Then a few short years later after said commendation he is writing to Timothy, specifically, telling him to stay in Ephesus to ensure purity of doctrine and to ordain others in the area to ensure sound teaching. Only Timothy should be listened to in Paul's place, not the elders the Ephesians picked for themselves.

Quote:

---

Jesus said His Church would be led into all truth. The Church is the arbiter of truth because Jesus said so. Even if it's just making sure the canon of scripture is correct, and even if we use some loose definition of some sort of invisible Church and not the Catholic Church, some sort of Church is being the arbiter of truth.

---

Wow. You've inverted and misstated the very passage that you're relying upon. In John 16:13, Jesus says that the Holy Spirit will lead "you" into all truth. So it's the Holy Spirit that's leading, not the Church. And it's individuals who are being led, not some collective Church. You've corrupted that passage if you think it supports the proposition that "The Church is the arbiter of truth".

Quote:

---

Rome did reform internally. Look into the counter reformation.

---

Yes, but would it have done so without the reformation. Can't you see the irony, even the hypocrisy, in the Church excommunicating Luther and then acknowledging that he was right on most everything?

And I'm not going to defend Luther, Calvin, or any other individual no more than I would defend any church or church council. They are all men, were not inspired, and can easily commit error.

It is a logical error to attempt to defend the Church by pointing to Luther and Calvin's disagreements or errors. One side's errors does not make the other side right. Everyone can be wrong.

Your points about Hus raise another issue. You have transmuted the unity that Christ desired into the unity that the RCC demands. Christ wanted a unity based on love. The RCC demands a unity of obeisance to it. The RCC has corrupted the unity of Christ. Christ never ever demanded or even suggested a unity on every point of doctrine, no matter how small, or unity in obedience to a man-made group like the RCC.

Your recitation of the Great Schism appears to be very biased in favor of the RCC. I'll leave it up to the EO brothers on this forum to challenge your recitation. They have, previously, and it is considerably different than your account. You also completely skipped over the Bishop of Rome proclaiming that he is the Pope, the ultimate authority. Kind of a big deal.

You keep referring to Bishops. You do realize that Bishops in the early church had virtually nothing in common with Bishops today, other than the name? Extensive work has been done on that. Bishops and deacons were probably synonyms, and the closest thing today to an early church Bishop is most likely a pastor.

And you're reading an awful lot between the lines regarding Timothy. Your last sentence in particular is made up. There's no support for that in the text at all. Just because Paul gave Timothy authority does not mean that no one else in the church in Ephesus that didn't also have authority.

And you RCC guys keep avoiding Acts 17:11 where Paul tells the Bereans to search the Scriptures daily to verify even his teachings. That contradicts everything you've said about authority and the "wrongness" of people using the Scriptures to verify or contradict the teachings of those in self-proclaimed authority.

Finally, what exactly does it mean when the apostles gave others authority? It seems to mean primarily a role of servanthood. Again, the RCC has corrupted that authority, allowing "Bishops" to acquire vast wealth, to lead armies, and even to kill people.

The Banned said:

---

I didn't misunderstand at all. Both East and West agree that there is a sacred tradition that includes the Primacy of the Roman See. We disagree on what primacy entails/means. Rome has never had an official title or teaching that it is the "supreme" see. It has taught and does teach that, as the Prime/First See, it has supreme jurisdiction in order to settle disputes and maintain unity, but it isn't "supreme" as if the other Sees aren't also bishops with local jurisdiction. The Eastern patriarchs disagreed with the extent in which his universal jurisdiction works, but they agreed Rome was the First See.

So we have the "same" tradition that needs to be clarified. No different that many other things needed to be clarified by councils. We've had two councils that agreed with the Roman view and both of those councils were recanted by the east. But the East no longer holds to the tradition the Rome is the First See. They no longer hold to the tradition they once claimed. So the "private interpretation" is only introduced because of the break with tradition, as I said before. Had they stuck it out, either originally or with either of the two reunification councils, there would be no need for that interpretation. And it's why I would partially agree with what you said and re-word it: Outside of the one, true Church, the person will always have to rely on private judgement.

---

With the key point that with Rome in schism, there is a new "Roman bishop" in place there. (Constantinople I believe).

Your bishops is excluded.

So you don't have the same tradition.