DeoOmnisGloria.com

Jay,

I have noticed that you post an announcement whenever a protestant converts to catholicism. However, what is the whole point of mentioning this? We could name countless catholics who convert to protestanism. We could also name Christians who convert to Islam or Judaism.
So why bother mentioning a converted evangelical? It's pointless.

Be blessed

Jeff,
I've actually only posted two! Trust me, there are many more than that (the Catholic Church is one of the few churches that is still growing in the US).

The whole point, which I explained in the article, is that the way he explained the conversion process was especially good. I read conversion accounts regularly, but I'm only posting the ones that add value.

Here's hoping I'll be posting yours one day, Jeff.

God bless,
Jay

Hi Jay;

Thank you for posting this! I am always excited when I read of conversion stories such as this (i.e.; someone honestly after knowing the Truth, searching for it, and coming to know it...). As I myself am from that vast country to the north of the US, it is even more exciting that this is a Canadian! :) And WOW, this article was printed in the Toronto Sun...in the current political and social climate here in Canada, I would have thought an article like his would be deemed illegal...
Thanks again Jay!
Nickie.

Jay,

Sorry to dissappoint, but if you would like you can post on how I converted from Catholicism. As a matter of fact, the pastors at my church are formerly Roman Catholic as well. Alot the people who post here also have indicated that they have converted from RC.

God Bless

Jeff,
Two questions: Why did you leave the Church? And, how much did you know about Catholic beliefs before leaving?

I'm just curious.

God bless,
Jay

Jay,

In short, I knew quite a lot. I used to be a defendant of the RCC. As you have seen from my previous posts, those are some of the reasons why I left. Bottom line is that after analyzing history, I believe that the Bible is authoritative on church matters. Not the two being equal or the church being superior. The written word of God dictates how the church( the body of believers, not some council) ought to conduct itself.

Be blessed

Jeff,
Where, historically, did you get that idea from? Also, I always ask two questions on this topic:
- What about the first 400 years after Christ when there was no compiled Bible?
- What about illiteracy? More than 2/3rds of the world remains illiterate, so they depend not on the written word, but on what others tell them. How are they to know the truth?

By the way, in 1 Tim 3:15 the Bible calls the Church, "the pillar and foundation of truth," which seems to be the superior position.

God bless,
Jay

Jay,

- The answer to question 1: There was a written
form oF God's word available. The OT existed in
written form. Jesus and the Apostles quoted from it. Someone could always check it out with what
was written.

- 2. No one discounts oral communication. It is a primary way in which everyone interacts. No one ever dicounts the spoken word. God Spoke the world into existence. The question should be Is the spoken word as reliable as the written word ...?

If we could rely soley on the spoken word then why did God Write the ten commandments down with His finger on Stone Tablets and have the Jews carry them around if He preferred oral commuication over the written word ? Why did He have Moses write the first five books of the OT if the spoken word is more reliable?

Jesus and the Apostles quoted from the OT and in most cases would say " It is written. Jesus said "Not One Jot or One Tittle would pass away" indicating the written and Not the spoken Word ... (I believe I've made my Point)

--3. It all depends how a person interprets what God means by the Church ?

A. Is it an instituion ?
B. Is it the Magistirum of the Caholic Church ?

C. Or is it simply ALL the believers all over the
world who are One in Jesus Christ, Catholic and Protestant? He is the Pillar and the founder and foundation of HIS church. Jesus is the cornerstone of the faith.

You asked the questions. Somehow I get the feeling though that you won't accept the answers because they are coming from me ..

By His Spirit,

Clem

Jay,

Let me add some questions back at you. We all can agree that through the written word God has revealed Himself. (It may not be His entire revelation, but it is at the very least a part) We all can agree to know more of God is a good thing. Then why has the Catholic Church historically not encouraged its reading, but in fact discouraged the reading of this revelation, and in many cases prevented its promulgation, and in fact continues to do so in countries where there is not a strong protestant influence? What exactly is/was it attempting to hide? If the Church's interpretation is the correct one, surely in the great discourse throughout history, that Truth would shine through. What did it have to worry about?

Grace, Peace and Truth,

Thomas

Jay,

You keep asking a question, which has been addressed before, by myself and others. It cannot be explained in one or 2 sentences. SO if you want to see my thoughts on your question,
"What about the first 400 years after Christ when there was no compiled Bible?", then I suggest you look on your website again and revisit my answers as well as the answers of others.
Lastly..."By the way, in 1 Tim 3:15 the Bible calls the Church, "the pillar and foundation of truth," which seems to be the superior position"

This a clip act you have performed. Paul is addressing Timothy...VIA A LETTER.
So let us read from 1 Tim 3:14-15

"Although I hope to come to you soon, I am WRITNG these INSTRUCTIONS so that, IF I AM DELAYED you will know how people OUGHT TO CONDUCT THEMSELVES in GOD'S household..."

Paul clearly left written instructions for the church! According to Paul, how would people know how to conduct themselves in God's house?? According to 1 Tim 3:14-15, it is by written instructions, not by word of mouth.
Paul WROTE INSTRUCTIONS...to teach the people how they ought to behave in GOD'S household...
"which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth"...
A pillar is a structure that upholds something. A foundation is a structure that provides support. Not the creator of truth...but supporter of truth.
So when you take 1 Tim 3:14-15 in all of its content....you will find that the WRITTEN instructions were what the church had to adhere to. Sounds like the WRITTEN word is superior to the church.

God Bless

Jeff,
First, only God "creates" truth, we merely learn about it or "discover" it. So neither the Bible or the Church "creates" truth.

However, do you admit that the written word says the church is the "supporter" of truth, as you say. The Bible never calls itself the "pillar or foundation of truth." When I write "my oral argument is superior to my written argument" you can't go back and ignore the point simply because I wrote it! Paul wrote that the Church (not the Bible) is the "pillar and foundation of truth."

Note that the Bible also says that through the Church the "manifold wisdom of God is made known." The Bible also says we must obey the "oral and written" teachings of the apostles. I think it's important to note that the Bible never says it is the sole arbiter of truth. In other words, sola scriptura is not Scriptural.

God bless,
Jay

Jay,

If I may interject here. Not to belabor the point, although I think that we have gone well passed doing so, you have a mistaken view of Sola Scriptura. First of all, Sola Scriptura doesn’t mean that the Bible is “the sole arbiter of truth”, as you keep erroneously stating. It instead means that it is the ultimate arbiter of truth. It is the Cannon or measuring stick upon which all other truth is measured. This is the only rational way to view the earliest evidence of our faith. If something written or proclaimed today has as much authority or more authority as what was written by a religion’s founders then it ceases to be the original religion and become something else entirely.

With the given fact that one can derive truth from a source outside of the Bible, one can clearly see that Sola Scriptura does not itself need to be word for word stated in the Bible. Much like the doctrine of the Trinity it is not stated in the Bible. Both of these doctrines are never clearly stated throughout the Bible, but the Catholic Church disregards one while still clinging to the other, even though both make perfect rational sense.

Sola Scriptura also states that what is written in the Bible is sufficient to lead someone to salvation. Since the belief in Sola Scriptura is not a necessity to salvation, there is no contradiction there either.

You and Joe, and I believe the apologists that you read, love to quote I Tim. 3:15. However have you ever asked yourself what “church” Paul is referring to in this passage? Is this church one that cannot possibly error in the matters of faith and morals? I would counter this notion with these verses. Galatians 1:6-9. Note that this verse doesn’t say “[Except for the infallible Catholic Church, or the pope in union with the magisterium], even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we have preached to you, let him be condemned.” There is no such exception. This is because we are told by Paul to study what we are being taught by other teachers, in light of the true Gospel, which the apostles taught. What is the best record of what this is? It is the writings of the early apostles and their immediate contemporaries. If this is not a strong endorsement of Sola Scriptura, I don’t know what is. Why would Paul say this if we weren’t to guard against potential future error that might even come from the church itself. If he truly believed that the church would not fall into error, he would have just said follow the church leadership, and you will never go wrong. This isn’t the case, and you will never see this in any of the writings of the Apostles, because I believe that it wasn’t a belief that the Apostles held. I believe that this shows that any organization of believers can and indeed will fall into error if they digress from the true Gospel, even Paul admits that he could as well.

So what is the church that Paul is calling “the Pillar and Foundation of the Truth”? This is the church that has been entrusted with the truth of the Gospel, and has not digressed from it. That is why it is the Pillar and Foundation of the Truth, and not from anything innately due to itself. As long as a church clings to this Truth, it will be the church, which is the Pillar and Foundation, all others will be eternally condemned.

Now the Catholic Church may indeed be this church, but the standard with which we judge whether it is or not, is how closely it conforms itself to the True Gospel. How do we know what is the True Gospel? We are to look at what is the earliest and most reliable record of what the apostles believed was the True Gospel, which is the Bible. Sola Scriptura!

In Christ,

Thomas

Thomas,
Most protestants teach sola scriptura is the "sole" arbiter of truth (hence the name "sola", which means "sole"), rather than the way you tend to define it (I posted a list of the major church positions and they virtually all said "sole"). This is important, since the question ultimately involves how much "Tradition" matters. The reformers argued that it did not matter at all, we're arguing that it is critical to properly understanding Christ.

The Trinity point is interesting, since I would look at it the other way. Protestants accept the tradition of the trinity, but not of the Church. Essentially, Luther threw out the doctrines he did not like, and kept others. Seemingly using only his own judgment as the final arbiter of Truth (he kept Mary's veneration and virginity, for example, as well as infant baptism). Catholics are the ones that typically suggest we must use reason to understand further, whereas the protestant would argue it must be self-evident from Scripture. Scripture does not agree in any way with sola scriptura (1 Tim and the command to obey the oral teachings, for example) and no one has been able to show where the Bible even suggests it (the Trinity is pretty clear in Scripture).

Going to your next point: Paul also orders us to obey the "oral" Word as well as the written. How do we know which is the "Word" and which is not? Well, Scripture says that through the Church the "manifold wisdom of God is made known" and that the Church is the "pillar and foundation of truth." What is the Church? I think I've shown that it must be physical through these two articles:

• Is a physical Church necessary?
  
• Matthew's View of "Church"
  

If you believe that the Church can fall into error, then you don't believe Christ in Matthew 16:18. Clearly, He states that He will not allow the Church to fall. Catholics simply believe Christ is telling the truth here. We have faith in the power of the Holy Spirit to keep men on the right path.

And the final point: Christ also prayed that the Church would be "one" as He and the Father are "one". This verse should make any protestant wonder. Only in the Catholic Church can we find a clear doctrine that is not divided up by individual pastors each preaching their own version (especially on key beliefs such as baptism, salvation, and free will). The reason? The Catholic Church has the protection of the Holy Spirit and the gates of hell shall not prevail against her.

God bless,
Jay

Jay,

As in previous posts, it is obvious that the Catholic and the Protestant churches interpret
scripture differently. And there in is where the
debate comes in.

You say that Matthew 16:19 says that the Church
can NOT fall into error... But that is NOT what the verse is saying, that is YOUR interpretation of what the verse says. What does it mean that the Gates of Hell will not prevail against it.

Myself and others believe it means that Satan will not overcome the church. If it meant that
the church would not fall into Error then WHY
did Jesus and the Apostle Paul Warn in so many
passages about FALSE TEACHERS, FALSE TEACHINGS
and FALSE PROPHETS ? Who were they warning if
not the Church ? MT 7:15, MT 24:24, MT 24:11, MR 13:22,2 COR 11:13, 2 Cor 11:26, Gal 2:4.
Why would they need to bring it up if the Church
could NOT fall into error ?

Jay I have asked this question in Many posts,
Yet you Choose to ignore it and do not answer.

No one discounts oral tradition. But again it
would only be logical that the oral tradition
would have to line up with the written scriptures. If an Oral tradition contradicts scripture it should not be condidered..

Was the selling of indulgences by the church during the time of Luther something Jesus or the
apostles would approve of ?? Can someone buy their way into heaven ??

God Wrote the Ten Commandments with His finger,
His Word is infallible but His Chosen people
were not ?? They did not interpret it correctly
and even added to it burdens God never put on the people.

The verse you quote does not at least to me in any way suggest or PROVE infallibility of the church..

There IS a physical church, It is All those who follow the Lord Jesus Christ. Are they not physically here ? They are ALL One in Christ
Just as Jesus and the father are one... Are you claiming that Oneness equals total agreement in
doctrine ? Is that what Jesus meant? There are
Catholics that do not agree with every doctrine that the church teaches, yet they are devout and
receive communion and consider themselves good Catholics. Are they not true Catholics
if they do NOT agree totally with ALL of the Catholic Church's doctrines? Again is that
what Jesus means by the Church being ONE..?

Jay we have read your articles and your line of
thought . Did Jesus say I am going to Start the Roman Catholic church ? Or did HE say if you
acknowledge me before men I will acknowledge you before my Father in heave ? Did HE say if you abide in Me I will abide in you ..?

Aren't the Promises of Jesus for everyone Catholic and non Catholic ? I am Happy that you feel that you have found the truth and that you are convinced that the Catholic church is the true church.

Myself and I guess most of the others like
Thomas are not convinced that the Catholic Church is the one true church.. I don't believe
in a denomination but in a Savior, the son of God. We are brothers in Christ. He doesn't love me any less or you any more because you are a Catholic and I am not...

Let me make a Disclaimer. (I am NOT saying you ever claimed in a post or implied in a post that only Catholics can get into heaven or that Catholics are better than non Catholics. I don't want there to be any misunderstanding)You NEVER made such claims and I don't want anyone to think that I am saying you said or implied it) I hope that is clear.

All I know is I was brought up a Catholic and I had to leave the church to learn about the bible and to find out that I could have a personal relationship with Jesus.

Jay although I disagree with your point of view
I admire and Respect your Zeal. We are brothers
and One in Christ Jesus.

Blessings to you,

Clem

Maybe they were warning not to follow the false teachers that led the protestant rebellion.

Tom and Jay,

Or it might be false teachers from out of the Catholic Church.

How in the world are we to tell? . . .

We are told repeatedly how, by comparing what is taught by what the Apostles and Christ taught. What is the best and most accurate record of what Christ and the Apostles taught? The Bible.

Jay I'd go back and reread your own article on the positions of the various protestant denominations. Not one states that the Bible is the "Sole" authority. Sola Scriptura states that the Bible is ultimate, sufficient and only infallible authority. There is a big difference.

In Christ,

Thomas

Tom,

Snappy answer. I like it.

Or maybe they were talking about the church of the day allowing pagan Ideas and practices to infiltrate the church.

Maybe they were waring them not to compromise with The pagan Roman cultures they were converting by changing their pagan holidays
in Christian holidays like Christmas and Easter
to name but two.. What other compromises and did they let in... The kings of Israel were rebuked by God when they let the Israelites compromise and not purge the pagan Gods and practices from the land .. Read 1 & 2 Kings...

Grace & Peace,

Clem

If, as protestants suggest, scripture is the ultimate authority, could someone please explain why no protestant church (to my knowledge) believes in the dogma of transubstantiation. I believe there is ample Biblical evidence to demonstrate that Christ initiated this sacrament.

Guys,
It's important to note that we all agree that the Church can contain "false brothers" (Gal 2:4) and it always has been this way (Judas was a disciple, after all). The question is not, can fallen men enter the church, the question is: Will God protect the church from the harm these men could cause. I've brought up the point several times that popes have dropped dead while planning to codify doctrine that isn't "truth" - - the Holy Spirit has the power to ensure the accuracy of Church teaching as He sees fit. The simple difference is that Catholics trust Christ completely when he says "the gates of Hell shall not prevail against [His Church]" in Matthew 16:18. This is an excellent example of faith: the complete trust that Christ will always keep His Church in truth.

Again, the Bible says we must obey the written and oral teachings of the apostles: how do protestants do this? As fidens points out, Jesus says "You must eat my flesh and drink my blood." How do protestants do this? The Bible says the Church, not the Bible, is the "pillar and foundation of truth." You must each think about this: what did Jesus want when he founded His Church? Did Jesus intend for His Church to fall into heresy? Or could He, as God, protect it from heresy? Faith.

God bless,
Jay

PS - Thomas, did you read the articles on the need for a physical church?

Jay,

If it was believed by the Apostles from the beginning that there was an established Church that could not fall into error, why do we have the repeated warnings and chastisement of the early church throughout the writings of the Apostles? Why have the Apostles writings at all? Each epistle should have just said “Follow the Church’s leadership, and you will not go wrong.” “Follow the Church’s teaching and you will not go wrong.” It would have been a repeated theme. However, what we have is far from the case. I would challenge you to come up with one verse that clearly states this doctrine of infallibility. You cannot. If there was such a thing surely it would have been written somewhere, as the Apostles were writing to the various churches throughout early Christendom. You stated that the Holy Spirit actively prevented the Church from falling into heresy. I disagree. The Holy Spirit is always described in Scripture as a guide, a conscience and a comforter. It is never described as an irresistible force. If it was such, it would rip away the Church’s free will to fall away if it so chose. Yes God could have actively prevented the Church from falling away, but if He did so He would have then had a group of robots that did His bidding, and not a group of people with a will to freely choose and love Him. Look at the old testament, this was not how has God operated throughout history, and not how He operates now. No what the Holy Spirit gave to the Church was the Scriptures to guide it, and the Catholic Church had the choice to either follow it’s guide or fall away and follow its own wisdom. The truth was right there all along, but the Catholic Church virtually ignored it for several centuries. If any organization be it the church or any other organization chooses to actively ignore the truth, do you think that God will not allow them do so? Isreal did the same thing, and God did not prevent it but allowed it to happen. I think that you need to rethink your interpretation of the one or two verses you quote, because the rest of scripture screams out against your interpretation. There is no man or group of men who are infallible. Only God and His word are infallible.

In Christ,

Thomas

PS I will address your definition of Church when I have time.

Thomas,

Well Put !! But only God can change hearts and minds. He has to take the blinders off of peoples hearts and minds.

You make Excellent Points I would add the warnings in Revelation Jesus makes to the seven
Churches. Those churches existed at the time John wrote Revelation. Jesus had problems with
six of those seven churches. Those churches were
part of the early Apostolic church.. Those six churches were in some form of error according to the words of Jesus..

Yet Jay and the others want to cling to One or two verses as you said and ignore the
rest of scripture to the contrary. This leads
to the only logical conclusion that they are NOT
interpreting those two verses correctly since
scripture does not contradict itself..

What is the meaning of the gates of Hell will not
Prevail against the church? Is it saying the church is infallible as they claim or could it really mean that Satan will not prevail against the church ??? In light of the rest of scripture it MUST be the later.

The other favortie verse is about the church being the Pillar and foundation. Is that verse
really claiming infallibility of the church or again do you have to read that into that verse ?
In light of other scriptures we have both sited
this verse must have another meaning ??

Just because the church has been around for 2000
years doesn't automatically make them always correct in the matter of interpreting the scripture.

The Jews God's chosen people have been around for much longer 3000 plus years, and yet Most of them did not recognize their Messiah. They are still looking for Him. Their leadership had God's written Word and oral tradition and yet they still missed Jesus? God Spoke directly to Moses and to their prophets, yet they still missed Jesus..

Now you may say well they had to reject Jesus so
that the prophecies would be fullfilled. Okay,
That was 2000 years ago and the prophecy has been
fulfilled, why are they still rejecting Him ??

Open the Eyes of our hearts Lord..

In Christ,

Clem

Thomas,
First, I believe Scripture is clear on the "follow the Church" bit - if you read Acts and pay attention to Peter, you'll clearly see he is the leader. The question you must answer is "Of what"? At some point soon I'll post all of the points from Scripture and the early Church that clearly indicate we are to follow the Church - I don't have time right this second.

But remember, they are warning the people to be vigilant and follow only them (the leaders of the Church). Perhaps I am misunderstanding your point here.

On the Holy Spirit, you are incorrect. Go back and read Acts 5:1-12; this verse clearly shows exactly what I would expect of the Holy Spirit and what I believe history shows to be accurate. Clearly the Holy Spirit actively takes the life of someone attempting to deceive Peter and the early Church.

The Church is not a person, so it does not have the Free Will associated with people (the Holy Spirit is essentially the "Will" of the Church). If the Church had free will, Christ could not have said "the gates of Hell will not prevail against" the Church, since that would have been dependant upon the Church.

The Old Testament Church did not have the Holy Spirit. This is a vital difference between the two. However, it's important to note that God chose from the beginning to work through a physical church to tend to the needs of His people - protestants argue that God essentially "changed" under the new covenant and rejected the physical aspect of the Church. Catholics argue that He simply gave the Church the Holy Spirit to lead it as well as changed its rituals into Sacraments (which offer us the ability to reject sin, something ritual cannot do).

Catholics do not ever say that a man is infallible: we say that God has the power to make a position infallible. Do you follow? We aren't trusting in the humanity of John Paul II, we are trusting in the divinity of the Holy Spirit to ensure John Paul II cannot lead the Church astray. In the New Testament the Cheif Rabbi is trying to kill Jesus and yet he is still prophecying (sp?), because of his "seat" - according to Scripture. If God can do that to the Old Testament Church, why can't He do that to the New Testament Church?

By the way, I don't know of any other way to interpret "the pillar and bulwark of truth" or "the manifest wisdom of God is made known through the church." These both are very clear verses. I have yet to hear a viable alternative interpretation that takes into account the context of the verses.

I look forward to your thoughts on the physical church.

God bless,
Jay

Mt 16:18
"I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build (My church); and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.(NASB)

Church = Ekklesia : Definition - a gathering of citizens called out from their homes into some public place, an assembly

A. an assembly of the people convened at the public place of the council for the purpose of deliberating
B.the assembly of the Israelites any gathering or throng of men assembled by chance, tumultuously

In a Christian sense : (1.)an assembly of Christians gathered for worship in a religious meeting
(2)a company of Christian, or of those who, hoping for eternal salvation through Jesus Christ, observe their own religious rites, hold their own religious meetings, and manage their own affairs, according to regulations prescribed for the body for order's sake
(3)those who ANYWHERE, in a city, village, constitute such a company and are UNITED into ONE BODY
(4)the WHOLE BODY of CHRISTIANS scattered throughout the earth
(5)the assembly of faithful Christians already dead and received into heaven
From the NAS New Testament Greek Lexicon Strongs number 1577

You are right the church is NOT a person, But from the definition above It IS made up of People. God gave People a Free Will.. The Holy spirit is a comforter and a Guide. He dwells in but NEVER Takes poscession Of a person like Satan or a Demon does. Everyone has the ability to quench or ignore the spirit including the Pope.

If you look at the scripture you sited in Acts, Annanias an Saphira were struck dead because they lied to the GOD, NOT because they lied to Peter.

Acts 5:4 While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not under your control ? Why is it that you have conceived this deed in your heart ? You have NOT LIED to MEN but to GOD."

Note: IT says it was because they lied to GOD, NOT to Peter or the Church.

Verse :9 Then Peter said to her, "Why is it that you have agreed together to put the Spirit of the Lord to the test? (Note It is says the Spirit of the Lord and Not Peter)

But it does NOT say that the Holy Spirit IS the
church..

If the Holy Spirit went around Zapping everyone
who lied in the Catholic And Protestant churches
there would be a lot of Dead bodies...

This was a special instance and you notice it was not repeated again anywhere else in Scripture.

I don't know why God chose to do it then but
if HE was going to continue to do it there would be some dead priests and Bishops for covering up the sin of Pediphillia.. They were living a
lie ...

Let's see what Thomas posts..

Your Brother in Christ

Clem

Clem,
I suggest you read the two articles on the physical nature of the Church as well.

Also, note that Annanias and Saphira did not lie to God, they lied to Peter. Go back and read the text. This supports my arguments, rather than yours, since lying to Peter (the head of the Church) is basically the same as lying to God. Annanias probably thought he was just lying to a man (Peter), which is why in Acts 5:4 it was pointed out to him that he actually lied to God. And this is affirmed again: he lied to Peter, which is the same as putting the Spirit of the Lord to the test. In other words, this emphasizes the seriousness of those who would lie to the Church. The reason this is even pointed out in Scripture is to show that the nature of the Church is much closer to God than to man (my ultimate point in this discussion), so that if you lie to the Church, you lie to God.

God bless,
Jay

Jay.

So now you are making Peter equal to God ? You
read the text again slowly. It CLEARLY says you have NOT Lied to MEN but to GOD.. (Wasn't Peter
a Man or did I miss his Promotion to Deity)

So It either Means exactly WHAT it SAYS OR It
MEANS that PETER AND GOD are One in the same
since they were Speaking to Peter...

Are the Popes now Deity? Only Jesus claimed to
be One with the Father thus affirming His Deity.
It sounds like you are saying Peter was Equal to
GOD ??? Thus elevating everyone who holds that
position to be Equality with God and to Deity ...

That concept goes against tons of scripture and
tons of oral tradition. The scripture speak of the trinity, and my bible says the Trintiy is the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. The trinity does NOT include the Pope ..

Either the verse is saying when you Speak to Peter you are Speaking to GOD or it Doesn't...? Are you saying that Peter was the Church ? Again that goes against the definition of church in my last post and against what you even posted. You said the Church is not a person so it does not have free will... I am very careful now when I Post and I was careful NOT to misquote you. That is verbatim what you
posted ....

Again the definition of CHURCH in my last POST says that the church is CALLED out ones. Or
a group. You should read the definition. IT is
not the Holy Spirit either. That is NOT the definition of what church means in the post above. It does NOT INCLUDE the Holy Spirit either.

Let's review, You posted : Lying to Peter is the
same as Lying to God. This gives Peter and God equality, something the scriptures never do...

It also appears that your definition of Church is
the Pope, Bishops and Priests or at least the ones in authority. This in contrast to the definition that it is just Ones called out or Followers of Christ.

Maybe the Church is only the Popes and the
Bishops ? So If I lied to a Bishop and since he
represents the Church and the church represents
God I would be struck dead ....

Again using your line of thinking there would be a lot of dead priests for lying to their bishops
about the "P" word...

From my point of view you are making this scripture say more than what it actually is saying. Peter and GOD were not Equal ... Peter
does not speak for or in the Place of God..

And that is where Protestants and Catholics disagree... You believe the Pope speaks for Jesus or for God, they don't.

Your Brother in Christ,

Clem

Clem, Clem, Clem,
Again you are misrepresenting my point (or maybe not reading what I wrote?). I said nowhere that Peter was equal to God. I said clearly that lying to the Church was being equated in Scripture with lying to God. Please tell me where Annanias lied to God. I can't find anywhere in the passage where Annanias was talking to God - he was talking to Peter the head of the Church.

Please quote the verse in which Annanias was lying to God.

God bless,
Jay

Jay,

Let me refer you to a passage of Scripture. I Corinthians 1-3. The Corinthian church was divided into factions, each faction following a different leader. By the way, this in itself suggests that there was no unified church organization. This is Paul's response:

“I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought. My brothers, some from Chloe's household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. What I mean is this: One of you says, "I follow Paul"; another, "I follow Apollos"; another, "I follow Cephas [Peter]"; still another, "I follow Christ." (1:10-12)

First thing we see here is that not everyone followed Peter/Cephas, but that everyone was still called "brothers" and considered part of the church by Paul.

Secondly, if there had been a unified church organization with Peter at its head this would have been a great time for Paul to set the record straight. Paul should have naturally said something like the following: "Surely you know that the church is one unified assembly, and that the church is headed up by Peter, why are you even discussing this? We must follow Peter's leadership as Christ's ambassador on earth. If you fail to follow the proper leadership, you are not brothers and will be considered outside the church, and outside God’s will. Now that we have that settled, Peter and the church leadership have clearly established certain things that we must do . . ." Or something like this.

Notice that he neither mentions a unified organization nor does he mention that Peter was the leader or Pope. Paul instead goes into a long drawn out discussion of why the Corinthian factions should be unified. Notice that it is not because there is one unified church organization and one unified church leadership, but instead he refers again and again to Christ. Christ is not divided (1:13); the message of the cross is the power of God (1:18); the preaching of Christ crucified (1:23) Christ is the power and wisdom of God (1:24) Christ is our righteousness, holiness and redemption (1:30) If we boast we boast in the Lord (1:31); Paul knows nothing except Christ and him crucified (2:2) Paul then goes on to talk about what God has given to each of us. That is the ability to know the truth of the gospel. Notice that this is given to all believers not just the Pope and Magisterium. Why do we now know these secret things of God? Because we have been given the mind of Christ! (2:4-16) Not because they have been divulged or spoon feed to us by the Church.

Notice especially the following verse “’For who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct him?’” And the answer is . . . “The Pope and the Magesterium” . . . No! The answer is “We have the mind of Christ.” The “We” here being all of us who are believers!

Chapter 3 then concludes the matter by stating that all the various leaders that the divisions have been following [and indeed every one of us] are [and should be] all working toward one goal that is building the temple of God, the body of Christ.

Then after spending much time on the subject of divisions, and the reasons why we shouldn’t be divided, namely Christ and the work set out before us through Christ, Paul concludes with the following statement.

“So then, no more boasting about men! All things are yours, whether Paul or Apollos or [Peter] Cephas or the world or life or death or the present or the future – all are yours, and you are Christ, and Christ is of God.”(3:21-23)

The universal body of believers . . .

In sum the first three Chapters of 1 Corinthians refutes your assertion that there was a universal Church organization with Peter at its head. Paul clearly states that is because of Christ and what he has done on the cross, and the Spirit he has given to each of us, that we should not be divided. Paul equally clear does not state that it is because there is already an established church organization and leadership that we should follow. If there really were a organized church at this time Paul was wasting his breath.

In Christ,

Thomas

P.S. This was the first book I opened to and I’ll see if I can dig up more later.

Thomas,

WOW. Very good post .. Very good points..
I have a question. Didn't the other churches send support to the church in Jerusalem? Wasn't James the Brother of Jesus the Head of that church? How come Peter wasn't the head of that church ? Paul was the Apostle to the Gentiles so
what church did Peter head before He went to Rome ? Do you know the reason why the church moved from Jerusalem to Rome ?

You articulate things so well, Thanks ...

Your Brother in Christ,

Clem

Jay ,

It was not my intention to misquote you and maybe I did Misunderstand Your point?

Your post said "That Lying to the church was being equated in scripture as Lying to God."

Now we both agree that Annanias was speaking to
Peter.

Question 1: Peter was a leader or maybe even the
leader of the Church. He was NOT the church correct, he was a representative of the church?

How should a reasonable person interpret what you
posted? I hope I can articulate my thought process. Have you not said that the Church is not
a person or is that incorrect?

I am going with the premise that the church is NOT a person. So using that premise since Annanias lied to Peter and the scripture actually says "You have NOT lied to MEN but
to God." What other reasonalbe conclusion can one come to then that lying to Peter is the same as lying to God, thus giving Peter equality with GOD ? Is that such a strange conclusion.

It's like saying Jesus was God and Mary was His
Mother so Mary must be the Mother of God ...

Peter was not the church only it's leader and since the scripture clearly states " you have NOT lied to MEN but to God" and since he was speaking to Peter there are only two conclusions:

A. Annanias lied directly to God when he answered Peter's question Or

B.Peter was equal to God since Annanias was addressing Peter's question and the scripture says you have NOT lied to MEN but to God.

Now you may think that this conclusion is incorrect, but I don't see how you get around what the scripture says. Since he was addressing
Peter and it says you have not lied to MEN but to GOD It can logically in my mind at least either mean choice A or B ..?

I hope I have articulated my thought process clearly? And I apologize again if I did not articulate it well the first time.

Your Brother in Christ,

Clem

Clem,

You stated “Didn't the other churches send support to the church in Jerusalem?”

Yes but it was not required of them. They did it out of Christian charity.

You stated “Wasn't James the Brother of Jesus the Head of that church?”

I don’t know. It seems so.

You stated “How come Peter wasn't the head of that church ?”

I don’t know.

You stated “Paul was the Apostle to the Gentiles so what church did Peter head before He went to Rome ?”

I don’t know. We are not even sure that Peter ever went to Rome.

You stated “Do you know the reason why the church moved from Jerusalem to Rome ?”

It may not have happened until after Constantine. I assume that after Jerusalem was destroyed in 70AD that it was only natural for the church to relocate to the point of power in the empire. But I’m not a scholar on this. So I really don’t know.

Sorry I couldn’t help with this more.

In Christ,

Thomas

Post a comment