Why All the Divisions Within Christ's Church?

[The_drake_]

Have you heard of the "three legged stool"? Three elements are needed for stability. Without one of them the stool falls over.
Regarding doctrine the three are:
1. Sacred Scripture
2. Sacred Tradition - the oral teaching from God
3. A Magisterium to correctly interpret the above.

The reformers jettisoned the second and made individuals their own magisterium interpreting scripture themselves. That is why Protestantism is splintering into more and more pieces.


I can't follow you thoughts here.

Doctrine is just guidance by the Magisterium, and you can object to it. Only Dogma, which is interpreted as divinely revealed is infallible. Obviously, dissension is not encouraged, but it is allowed.

"
Quoting the Vatican II document Dignitatis Humanae, it continues: “He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters.”

In forming their consciences, “the faithful must pay careful attention to the sacred and certain teaching of the church”...

In extolling conscience the Catechism quotes from another Vatican II document Gaudium et Spes. It states: “Deep within his conscience man discovers a law which he has not laid upon himself but which he must obey.

“For a man has in his heart a law inscribed by God . . . His conscience is man’s most secret core and his sanctuary,” the document goes on, “There he is alone with God whose voice echoes in his depths.”

In summary, it is possible for a good Catholic in good faith to act contrary to the teachings of the church.
"

I see no difference between the doctrinal guidance of the Magisterium and the doctrinal guidance of the synods held by the protestants which could result in the affects you are claiming.

Catholics all wear the same-colored shirt, on the surface they are united, but in reality, there is deep theological division in that church.

 

[Mr G Lee]

Hi Mungo

The cat knocked of the keep board I was not finished with last post .

Sorry try reading slower and ask questions.

I have heard most common excuses like the three legged stool coming from a hierarchy of men form of government, serving another written authority (Law of the legion fathers) That the non-venerable (no understanding of their own) must call patron saints written in their book of law (CCC) A false authority as commandments (I heard it through the fathers grapevine ) This is other than all things written in the law and the prophets (sola scriptura) therefore making God's tradition without effect .No man can serve two good teaching master as one unseen Lord

Those who belong to a hierarchy of venerable men simply usurp the work of the unseen Holy Father . with another excuse why they think that can disobey the commandment not to call any man on earth ."Holy Father, Holy See Christ our vicar" it must be ignored

Again no man can serve two good teaching master as one Lord . (the flesh and the unseen Holy Spirit The law of our father in heaven (sola scriptura) . And the law of men called fathers kings who do glory in the flesh. there law. . I heard it through the grapevine

Which one will you serve today ?

 

[Phedup]

The New Testament teachings were by letters and books from the beginning. We can see in 2 Peter 3:15-16 Peter recognizes what Paul writes as scripture.

2 Peter 3:15 Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

Second Peter is a forgery. It is attributed to Peter.

"Most critical biblical scholars consider the epistle pseudepigraphical (i.e., authored by someone other than Peter, using Peter as a pseudonym), but doubts about the epistle's attribution to Peter had already been expressed by Church Fathers as early as the 2nd century.[1][2]"

Second Epistle of Peter - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Sorry. As I have said before, I wish it was true because it is a slap in Paul's face. Not only are you told to not interpret Paul on your own, and to leave that to the more learned, but it is about works, which is anti Paul. Also, when this was written, the Jewish bible was scripture, there was no new testament.

Much of the New Testament is letters from the apostles to the churches, and the apostles commanded the churches to share the letters.

There were many sayings of Jesus in the early churches. These later became the bulk of the synoptic gospels except. Each church decided what sayings and letters were to be taught in their church. There was no unification until after Ireneous effort to combat the heretic Marcion.

There are so many more letters and gospels that men decided not to include in their version of a cannon.

I know the Bible is true because I did what Jesus says to do to find out.

Did you?

 

[The_drake_]

Second Peter is a forgery. It is attributed to Peter.

"Most critical biblical scholars consider the epistle pseudepigraphical (i.e., authored by someone other than Peter, using Peter as a pseudonym), but doubts about the epistle's attribution to Peter had already been expressed by Church Fathers as early as the 2nd century.[1][2]"

Second Epistle of Peter - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Sorry. As I have said before, I wish it was true because it is a slap in Paul's face. Not only are you told to not interpret Paul on your own, and to leave that to the more learned, but it is about works, which is anti Paul. Also, when this was written, the Jewish bible was scripture, there was no new testament.



There were many sayings of Jesus in the early churches. These later became the bulk of the synoptic gospels except. Each church decided what sayings and letters were to be taught in their church. There was no unification until after Ireneous effort to combat the heretic Marcion.

There are so many more letters and gospels that men decided not to include in their version of a cannon.


Did you?

He doesn't respond to scholarship arguments. He also doesn't respond to scriptural arguments when he is in error.

 

[God's Truth]

Second Peter is a forgery. It is attributed to Peter.

"Most critical biblical scholars consider the epistle pseudepigraphical (i.e., authored by someone other than Peter, using Peter as a pseudonym), but doubts about the epistle's attribution to Peter had already been expressed by Church Fathers as early as the 2nd century.[1][2]"

I don't go by what scholars say.

Sorry. As I have said before, I wish it was true because it is a slap in Paul's face. Not only are you told to not interpret Paul on your own, and to leave that to the more learned,

What? Are you repeating what the Catholics told you?

but it is about works, which is anti Paul. Also, when this was written, the Jewish bible was scripture, there was no new testament.

People misunderstand Paul about not of works. Paul is speaking about the purification works of the law. He was a pharisee and the Gentiles were separate and without God because they didn't come into the covenant with God and do the purification works.

There were many sayings of Jesus in the early churches. These later became the bulk of the synoptic gospels except. Each church decided what sayings and letters were to be taught in their church. There was no unification until after Ireneous effort to combat the heretic Marcion.

There are so many more letters and gospels that men decided not to include in their version of a cannon.

Again, the believers from the beginning used these books and letters from the start. That is what determined these books as scripture.

Did you?

I did.

 

[Bladerunner]

Oh right, and you're the holder of all truth.

You're standing on a lot of verses and ignoring even more. Nothing is being removed. It has always been there, but the Catholic Church introduced these false ideas like original sin, and a lot of people were sucked in.

Glorydaz, I have done nothing but teach what is in the Bible..We are told of the original sin and because of their sin, death came upon the whole world.."For without the Law sin was dead" Rom 7:8

and in the very next verse Paul tells us:
Rom 7:9.."For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died."

Did you get to read all the verses I posted not too long ago about the total depravity of mankind? If not I can post them for you again...I go by nothing but His scripture. In fact, many ROC practices are trashed once the reformation came about...the Word of GOD was again read by ordinary people who wanted to know the truth. We need no one to tell us what is sin, who to pray to and when.....

I am sorry you feel the way you do for I have tried to be up front about everything I have said about the doctrines of the Bible.

Blade

 

[Mr G Lee]

Second Peter is a forgery. It is attributed to Peter.

Who attributed the word of God to our brother in the lord, Peter ? Satan?

Church fathers, a hierarchy of men have nothing to do with the gospel. They went out from the true believers in order to establish a hierarchy of men who lord it over the non-venerable faith ,demanding of the non venerable that the seek the approval of the legions of fathers called patron saints .(3500 and rising )

Those kinds of fathers called venerable attributed the gospel the key the gates would never prevail to our brother in the lord Peter.

Peter in false pride rebuked the God of Glory prohibiting Jesus the Son of man the chief apostle from doing the will of the unseen Holy Father .

They have the same one source of faith as we do today which they deny The have another book of law of the fathers called (CCC) .

God for over two thousand years has not been bringing any new prophecies sealed it with 7 seals till the end of time .

We have the perfect or complete living abiding word that works in us Why go above all things written in the law and prophets (sola scriptura)? What's the goal?

 

[Grace Accepted]

I told you that you wouldn't be able to see it.
Where do you think your mere denial is any defense anyways?

It is quite interesting, that inability to see spiritual things from the bible. It is because we see through a glass darkly. For some, the glass is darker than others and for some, it is so dark they can't even understand the plain text.

My mother was a simple woman who taught school all of her life. She had a very simple approach to theology. God was Her dearest, loving friend. It showed to. She just rested in His love and it flowed out of her to others. When she died, 400 people showed up for her funeral all of them her "best friend."

I learned from her to take the bible as it read unless other texts shed light on the subject. It is true that we humans miss a lot of truth because of our own hubris.

 

[Grace Accepted]

He doesn't respond to scholarship arguments. He also doesn't respond to scriptural arguments when he is in error.

She

 

[MatthewG]

There is no division in love.

Love in the biblical sense (1 Corinthians 13:1-13)

God being a good God let’s all of these denominations exist. How great is our LORD? All people have the ability to read (or have someone read to them), and learn and grow in the knowledge of God and the Lord Jesus.

God is love.

His thoughts are not our thoughts, nor his ways our ways.

There is only one way to God, period and that is the Lord Jesus Christ.

Take care,
Matthew

View: https://youtu.be/qVC6eCYBB48

 

[glorydaz]

Glorydaz, I have done nothing but teach what is in the Bible..We are told of the original sin and because of their sin, death came upon the whole world.."For without the Law sin was dead" Rom 7:8

and in the very next verse Paul tells us:
Rom 7:9.."For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died."

Did you get to read all the verses I posted not too long ago about the total depravity of mankind? If not I can post them for you again...I go by nothing but His scripture. In fact, many ROC practices are trashed once the reformation came about...the Word of GOD was again read by ordinary people who wanted to know the truth. We need no one to tell us what is sin, who to pray to and when.....

I am sorry you feel the way you do for I have tried to be up front about everything I have said about the doctrines of the Bible.

Blade

Seriously Blade? Do you think you are the only one who has spent years studying and sharing what is in the Bible.

I really wouldn't brag too much about what you know because it's quite clear you are mistaken on some key issues.
I know the importance you put on certain verses, but you'll need support from the rest of scripture. Don't bother talking about the reformation because we are in the end days, and I won't have time for too much nonsense.

 

[Bladerunner]

Seriously Blade? Do you think you are the only one who has spent years studying and sharing what is in the Bible.

No, which is why I was listening intently to what you were saying. I am not the object of discussion here but GOD and His Word are.

I really wouldn't brag too much about what you know because it's quite clear you are mistaken on some key issues.

and what are those KEY issues, care to elaborate and share.

I know the importance you put on certain verses, but you'll need support from the rest of scripture.

Yes, I rely on some verses that have supporting verses in other books, etc. and I rely on certain verses because they make clear what they are saying. I know my interpretation by literal, historical and grammatical methods are by far a minority among this forum and others...But it is the only way the Bible can be read without having to delete, add, change any of its verses.

Don't bother talking about the reformation because we are in the end days, and I won't have time for too much nonsense.

I rarely speak of the reformation because in all their goodness, they shed a lot of blood trying to force people to believe a certain way. The restoration period was not much better.

As you have little time for nonsense, I suggest we converse about God's Word and not about what my knowledge might or might not be.

Blade