Duggar family values??

Debating issues regarding sexuality

Moderator: Moderators

DanieltheDragon
Savant
Posts: 6224
Joined: Mon Jun 17, 2013 1:37 pm
Location: Charlotte
Been thanked: 1 time

Duggar family values??

Post #1

Post by DanieltheDragon »

http://gawker.com/five-women-sue-duggar ... 1738185507

yet another link to sex abuse and the Quiverfull movement.

Question for debate is there systemic sexual abuse in the Quiverfull movement?
Post 1: Wed Apr 01, 2015 10:48 am Otseng has been banned
Otseng has been banned for having multiple accounts and impersonating a moderator.

RightReason
Under Probation
Posts: 1510
Joined: Sat May 20, 2017 6:26 pm
Been thanked: 12 times

Re: Duggar family values??

Post #41

Post by RightReason »

[Replying to Justin108]



1. Where did Christ ever say "there shall be no priestesses"?
We are to imitate His actions.

2. Even if Christ decided it, it can still be arbitrary. As long as there is no practical reason for it, it is arbitrary.
True, Christ’s reasons could have been arbitrary, but the Church’s reasons are because it is what Christ did – so NOT arbitrary. Also, I believe it is the conclusion of the Church that Christ’s reasons’ were not arbitrary, as Christ dealt with a great number of women in the Bible and if He didn’t care whether those He chose were male or female, it is highly likely He would have not missed this detail (being creator of the world and all) and chosen a woman. Also, Scripture speaks about different roles and gifts and all of us working together using our different roles and gifts – showing it quite plausible that since God felt the need to make us male and female – there is a distinction there to be made.
Did Christ decide that only men can be ordained for a particular, sensible reason?
It seems so. A father has a different role than a mother. Apparently, He wanted the leaders of His Church to take on the role of father.




Christ is also perfect. He has a perfect nature. Do you believe all priests also have perfect natures?
I believe all of us should strive to be perfect, because with God’s help it is possible. It would be impossible however for a woman to strive to be male.




I disagree. A homosexual male couple can raise a child just as well as any heterosexual couple.
A homosexual male or 50 could not replace the role of one mother because they could never be a mother.






Can you try to be less vague please? I asked you "what aspects of their nature is important?"
This would be like asking what aspects of your child make you love them? Nonsense.



Specifically, how are they different? And don't say "because they have different natures". I want specifics.
You do know there are actually scientific studies showing there are differences between men and women, right?




Ok so you're reverting back to "the Catholic Church says so so it must be true"?
Reverting back? I have always admitted I believe the Catholic Church is Christ’s Church on earth, whom He gave authority.
Well if that's your argument, then I'm done here. Any debate that rests on "because my Church says so" is utterly pointless and a complete waste of time.
But it’s in Scripture. “He who hears you, hears me� “Whatever you bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven�. The Church is the ‘pillar and foundation of truth’ – all Scriptural! This IS how we are hear Christ.
But just a quick question. If what the Church decides automatically reflects Christ's will, does the same apply to what the Church does?
Are you familiar with Scripture where Jesus says, “Do as they say not as they do� in making people aware they are to listen to His Church leaders, because they have been put in charge and God will prevent them from teaching error. However, some within the Church screw up. They are fallible human beings who can do wrong.

If a Catholic Priest is found molesting a child, does that reflect Christ's will as well?
At least you waiting until your last question to get the molestation comment in – most others can’t do that. Always a sign the person has no argument left and resorts to the off topic child molester charge. Even though the Catholic Church holds no record on child molestation. If Uncle Joe molests little Timmy, is your entire family perverted? The Boy Scout motto includes duty to God, does that mean the Boy Scout leader who molested Johnny makes the entire Boy Scouts organization corrupt? Should we not utilize the public school system because the majority of child molestation is by school teachers? <sigh>

User avatar
tam
Savant
Posts: 5567
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 4:59 pm
Has thanked: 244 times
Been thanked: 205 times
Contact:

Post #42

Post by tam »

RightReason wrote: [Replying to tam]

He certainly did, and if we were following Peter, then we would follow him in his errors. We are supposed to be following Christ.
So, did Jesus tell Peter, “He who hears you, hears me� or not? Yeah, that’s what I thought.
He said this to the 72 disciples he sent out. Luke 10:16, 17

Your point?


Only Christ has all truth.
Christ promised to remain with His Church...


Yes... the Body of Christ, made of people. And He IS with HIS PEOPLE; HIS BODY; HIS BRIDE.


Quote:
Only the Catholic Church continues to teach the sin of sex outside of marriage, pornography, divorce, contraception, etc.


Well, that's not true (except perhaps contraception being a sin, which was not a teaching of Christ). I can think of multiple denominations that teach sex outside of marriage, porn and divorce, etc, to be sins.
Yes, some other denominations get some stuff right, but not everything – just as you acknowledge the Catholic Church stands alone in its recognition of the sin of contraception (which as has been previously discussed is Scriptural and contrary to God’s law). And it seems more and more the Catholic Church stands alone in its courage to remain true to Christ’s teachings regarding homosexual acts. Yep, like I said the Catholic Church stands alone today in remaining true.
What teaching did Christ have on homosexual acts and contraception? And all denominations (including the RCC) gets some stuff right, but not everything.

Pretty sure Jesus, the savior, was not subject to cultural norms and afraid of shaking things up. He could have selected women as His apostles if He wanted to do so. He did not.


I was talking about Paul and Paul's words.
I know you were – all the more odd considering it was Jesus – not Paul who chose Peter and the Apostles.
I was talking about Paul because the article you linked was using Paul's words as an example to back up your point.
You brought up Paul speaking about different roles... but Paul spoke about different roles as per the different gifts being given. He even described some of those gifts.
Yep, he described how the body is made up of different parts. Why do you rule out gender as a gift from God?
It is not about ruling out or accepting gender as a gift from God; it is about the context of Paul's words - and his words make ZERO mention of gender. Instead Paul is referring to the different but actual gifts of the spirit (which gifts one receives once one receives holy spirit... gender is determined long before receiving holy spirit, so these gifts of the spirit do NOT include gender). Gifts such as tongues, prophecy, healing, teaching, etc. Gifts of the spirit.

Besides the fact that I am not telling anyone to obey and follow me... but am instead pointing to Christ... you are missing the point.
Once again, Christ Himself insisted we listen to His Church – odd that you take such offense at that.
We - if we are indeed in Christ - ARE His Church. Was He telling us to listen to ourselves? Or are we supposed to be listening to HIM, and directing others to do the same thing?

Regardless, as you have said, we have had this conversation a couple of times already. I will just link to one instead of repeating (for now, if possible), though the conversation goes on for a few pages:

viewtopic.php?t=31377&postdays=0&postor ... &start=660


I would be much more interested for you to respond to my previous questions re: Cain.
Obviously the RCC does not always look at what is written or at what Christ did. They can and have been wrong, on numerous occasions. So you stating, "the church is insisting what Christ says she should", is a meaningless statement. Because it can be shown that she also insists upon things that Christ did not say she should, and even things that He specifically spoke against.
Wrong. Christ promised to remain with His Church and that the gates of hell will not prevail against it. Therefore, we can and should trust His Church that He has entrusted to us. My words are only meaningless if you believe Christ’s were.
No, your statement is meaningless because the RCC is shown - PROVEN - to have been wrong in some things she taught and/or did (and taught others to do) and/or sanctioned.

Unless of course you are suggesting that Christ told the RCC to teach and/or do and/or sanction false or terrible things?

What is the point of Christ warning us against false apostles and false christs, or of Him teaching us to test the inspired expressions, or to test to see if men are true or false apostles, if we only ever had to remain with the RCC?
The point is -- to not have ONE, HOLY, AUTHORITATIVE Church we can go to be assured we are getting it right would be contrary to God’s promise and illogical to think such could ever make sense. Without that set up – as set up by Christ Himself – we’d pretty much have thousands of groups all teaching different things all insisting they each have it right. That was what we were warned against. We were warned not to leave Christ’s Church and follow these false prophets because they complained about this or that within Christ’s Church. These false prophets claimed they know what’s what – that they know better than Christ’s Church – follow me, they say, but when you do you have no assurance of anything. It now becomes the word according to Calvin, or Wesley, or Graham, or Fox, or Luther, or the church of scientology, or the church of the body of Christ, or the church of latter day saints, or the church of believers, etc.

We're not supposed to follow ANY of them. We are supposed to follow CHRIST. We are not supposed to leave CHRIST. If we are following Him, then we are not going to follow Calvin or Wesley or Graham or Fox or Luther or the church of scientology or the LDS or the WTS or the RCC. And we will not follow them in their errors (blind leading the blind)

We will just follow CHRIST. The LIGHT.

That is the point.



Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

Justin108
Banned
Banned
Posts: 4471
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 5:28 am

Re: Duggar family values??

Post #43

Post by Justin108 »

RightReason wrote: [Replying to Justin108]
1. Where did Christ ever say "there shall be no priestesses"?
We are to imitate His actions.
Being male is not an action.
RightReason wrote:
Did Christ decide that only men can be ordained for a particular, sensible reason?
It seems so. A father has a different role than a mother.
What specifically is that role? And don't say "being a father". What does "being a father" entail? Why is it important (other than "because that's what 'father' means") that one needs a male parent?
RightReason wrote:
Christ is also perfect. He has a perfect nature. Do you believe all priests also have perfect natures?
I believe all of us should strive to be perfect, because with God’s help it is possible. It would be impossible however for a woman to strive to be male.
You said "The Christ incarnate has a male nature – for someone to be in His place they ought to share His nature". This was your reason for why only priests are allowed and not priestesses. Do priests "take Christ's place"? If so, then should they not first be perfect in order to do this just as they need to be male in order to do this?
RightReason wrote:
I disagree. A homosexual male couple can raise a child just as well as any heterosexual couple.
A homosexual male or 50 could not replace the role of one mother because they could never be a mother.
You still haven't told me why a mother's role is important. So far, from what you've told me, mothers
a) exist and
b) are female.

That's literally all you've told me about the role of mothers.
RightReason wrote:
Can you try to be less vague please? I asked you "what aspects of their nature is important?"
This would be like asking what aspects of your child make you love them? Nonsense.

So you can't answer my question then? Got it.
RightReason wrote:
Specifically, how are they different? And don't say "because they have different natures". I want specifics.
You do know there are actually scientific studies showing there are differences between men and women, right?
I didn't ask "are there differences?" I asked "what are the differences? How do they differ?"
RightReason wrote:
Ok so you're reverting back to "the Catholic Church says so so it must be true"?
Reverting back? I have always admitted I believe the Catholic Church is Christ’s Church on earth, whom He gave authority.
Yes but at least give me an argument. This is a debate site. A debate is a hell of a lot more than "this is true because my Church says so".
RightReason wrote: But it’s in Scripture. “He who hears you, hears me� “Whatever you bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven�. The Church is the ‘pillar and foundation of truth’ – all Scriptural! This IS how we are hear Christ.
Whether "you" in these verses revers to the Catholic Church is very much open to debate.
RightReason wrote:
But just a quick question. If what the Church decides automatically reflects Christ's will, does the same apply to what the Church does?
Are you familiar with Scripture where Jesus says, “Do as they say not as they do� in making people aware they are to listen to His Church leaders, because they have been put in charge and God will prevent them from teaching error.
Ok so God will prevent them from teaching error, but he couldn't care to intervene when they molest children?
RightReason wrote: However, some within the Church screw up. They are fallible human beings who can do wrong.
So it's possible for them to do wrong, but impossible for them to interpret the Bible incorrectly...?
RightReason wrote: At least you waiting until your last question to get the molestation comment in – most others can’t do that. Always a sign the person has no argument left
Ironic that you would accuse me of having no argument when your last resort is always "because my Church says so".
RightReason wrote: and resorts to the off topic child molester charge.
It's not as off-topic as you might think. You seem to be painting a picture that the Catholic Church can do no wrong. The logical response to this is to show you where the Catholic Church went wrong.
RightReason wrote: Even though the Catholic Church holds no record on child molestation.
What do you mean? Do you deny that Catholic Priests have molested children in the past?
RightReason wrote: If Uncle Joe molests little Timmy, is your entire family perverted?
No, but by the same token, I cannot say "the Smiths are infallible" if Joe Smith molests children.

RightReason
Under Probation
Posts: 1510
Joined: Sat May 20, 2017 6:26 pm
Been thanked: 12 times

Post #44

Post by RightReason »

[Replying to tam]

He certainly did, and if we were following Peter, then we would follow him in his errors. We are supposed to be following Christ.

So, did Jesus tell Peter, “He who hears you, hears me� or not? Yeah, that’s what I thought.


He said this to the 72 disciples he sent out. Luke 10:16, 17

Your point?
Your interpretation is weak. In Scripture immediately after Jesus says, “thou art Peter . . . “ He goes on to say, “He who hears you, hears me/whatever you bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven�. He wasn’t giving this authority to anyone who believed in Him.

And my point is you claimed (as usual) we shouldn’t follow Peter we should follow Jesus, but that’s not what Jesus Himself said. Jesus is the one who gave authority to Peter on whom He established His Church.

And you make the same mistake in your very next comment as well . . .
Quote:

Quote:
Only Christ has all truth.


Christ promised to remain with His Church...


Yes... the Body of Christ, made of people. And He IS with HIS PEOPLE; HIS BODY; HIS BRIDE.
So, we ought to be able to trust His Church, because it is where we will find Christ and He promised to guide her in all truth. So, you’re splitting hairs to continue to repeat – “only Christ has all truth�. He promised this truth to His Church. In fact, He commanded us to listen to His Church – that is the intended means of His communication. But that bothers you.

What teaching did Christ have on homosexual acts and contraception?
Topics for another thread and topics I have discussed in great length. You would have to ignore and misrepresent a great deal of Scripture to not know homosexual acts were considered immoral. The Scriptural evidence is overwhelming. And you would have to completely misunderstand God, the creator of life and Scriptural evidence to not see the immorality of contraception. AND you would have to completely ignore Christ’s command to listen to and obey His Church in these matters. The Pope is the Vicar of Christ on earth. Jesus commanded Peter to feed His sheep. It is the Church’s duty to protect us, to instruct us how God intended.
And all denominations (including the RCC) gets some stuff right, but not everything.
Unfortunately getting something only half right can be catastrophic and renders getting it wrong. This is exactly what Jesus wanted to avoid. He didn’t want thousands of splinter groups all thinking they got it right, when they don’t. So, how can we know? The only way to know would be to find the Church established by Christ Himself and remain with her.

I was talking about Paul because the article you linked was using Paul's words as an example to back up your point.
The article I linked used Paul’s words in some examples because Paul was the early Church and was doing/saying what Christ wanted him to.





It is not about ruling out or accepting gender as a gift from God; it is about the context of Paul's words - and his words make ZERO mention of gender.
Scripture speaks often about the different genders and makes distinctions between the two. For some reason today’s culture sees this distinction as sexist and annoying, but I submit it is because they do not understand. Our bodies are gifts from God – Scripture is clear on this and like Paul says we all have different roles. One role is not necessarily better than another.

Some Scripture that make people uncomfortable, but there it is making distinctions between men and women . . .


Matthew 19:4
He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female,

Genesis 1:27
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

Genesis 2:18
Then the LORD God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.�
Ephesians 5:23
For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior.

1 Timothy 2:13
For Adam was formed first, then Eve;


Genesis 3:20
The man called his wife's name Eve, because she was the mother of all living.

Genesis 1:28
And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.�

1 Corinthians 11:9
Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.


1 Corinthians 6:9
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,

1 Timothy 2:11-15
Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.


Genesis 2:24
Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.






We - if we are indeed in Christ - ARE His Church. Was He telling us to listen to ourselves? Or are we supposed to be listening to HIM, and directing others to do the same thing?
Ahhhh . . . see how impractical and illogical your suggestion? If Christ said, “He who hears you, hears me/whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven� was directed to any member who professes to believe in Him – we would have exactly what we have today – the broken body of Christ – thousands of offshoot religions all professing to be “following Christ�. Your Body of Believer is just one more of those groups, claiming to not be a religion at all – claiming to simply be “following Christ�. And yet Christ said listen to His Church. So who is His Church? Oh, that’s right – His body of believers. And what happens when one of His ‘body of believers’ says God says adultery is wrong and another member of His ‘body of believers’ says there are exceptions. And another one says homosexual acts are immoral and another one says they are not and each person uses Scripture to interpret as they like to fit their claim? Who is right? Where does the final decision lie?

Like I said impractical and illogical AND unscriptural!


Wrong. Christ promised to remain with His Church and that the gates of hell will not prevail against it. Therefore, we can and should trust His Church that He has entrusted to us. My words are only meaningless if you believe Christ’s were.


No, your statement is meaningless because the RCC is shown - PROVEN - to have been wrong in some things she taught and/or did (and taught others to do) and/or sanctioned.
No, it hasn’t. Individuals within the Church have been in error, but never the Church. Like I said, the Church has not changed any of her teachings on matters of faith or morals, even when individuals within the Church would have personally loved to see some of them changed. Truth doesn’t change, and Christ has promised to prevent His Church from teaching error, which He has. Which, like I said, is why the Catholic Church stands alone today in upholding what is right and good and true.

We're not supposed to follow ANY of them. We are supposed to follow CHRIST.
Not what Christ says.

User avatar
Tcg
Savant
Posts: 7146
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:01 am
Location: Third Stone
Has thanked: 1278 times
Been thanked: 1505 times

Post #45

Post by Tcg »

RightReason wrote: Which, like I said, is why the Catholic Church stands alone today in upholding what is right and good and true.
This would only be true if one considers pedophilia and the protection of those who practice it to be "right and good and true." It's a pretty tough sell for those who care about the health and welfare of children.

User avatar
tam
Savant
Posts: 5567
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 4:59 pm
Has thanked: 244 times
Been thanked: 205 times
Contact:

Post #46

Post by tam »

[Replying to post 44 by RightReason]

Peace to you RR, and to you all!

I will respond to post 44 in detail after this post. At the moment, I am going to just tackle the reasons you have provided in an attempt to support the doctrine that women cannot be priests. (I don't care about women being priests in the RCC. I am just responding to this incorrect doctrine.) As far as I can see there is only one reason you have provided that has any merit.

The twelve apostles chosen by Christ were male. He did not choose any women to be one of the twelve apostles.

On the surface, that seems like a pretty good reason to suggest that women cannot be appointed (or anointed) as priests. And yet I know it does not mean this, in part for the reason I provided in my first post on this thread. But I did not know how to explain further that this does not mean Christ excluded women from being priests. (again this has nothing to do with organized religion or its hierarchy, but just with the teaching)

So I asked my Lord. And He reminded me of the gentiles.


Remember, my Lord did not go and preach to the Gentiles during His time in the flesh either. He even told His disciples not to go and preach to the Gentiles. We know that this is not because Gentiles were forever barred from coming to Christ, or even that they were barred from being able to anointed or to be counted as kings and priests in His Kingdom.


Well... just as there were no women appointed to be one of the 12 apostles, there were also no Gentiles appointed to be one of the 12 apostles. Not one Samaritan was appointed as one of the 12 apostles. Indeed, not a SINGLE non-Jew was appointed as one of the 12 apostles.


But no one (including the RCC) is suggesting that this means only Jews can be priests. No one thinks that this means Gentiles are barred from the priesthood. Or that Samaritans are barred from the priesthood.

There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. Galatians 3:28


Neither can this original choosing be used to suggest that women are barred from the priesthood. Women receive gifts of the spirit, just as men receive. Women are anointed, just as men are anointed. Women reign with Christ as kings and priests in His Kingdom, just as men do.







Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

RightReason
Under Probation
Posts: 1510
Joined: Sat May 20, 2017 6:26 pm
Been thanked: 12 times

Post #47

Post by RightReason »

[Replying to post 45 by Tcg]
his would only be true if one considers pedophilia and the protection of those who practice it to be "right and good and true." It's a pretty tough sell for those who care about the health and welfare of children.
There were some disgusting, horrible, perverted individuals who did those things. They were not the Church. To attempt to show or argue the Church does not care about the health and welfare of children would be a tough sell. The Catholic Church has fought for the oppressed. She has always stood up for the little guy. She was the founder of hospitals, orphanages, and schools and took her job of helping people very seriously when no one else did. She alone today stands up for the most vulnerable among us and fights for those who can't fight for themselves like the elderly and the unborn. People will believe and see what they want.

RightReason
Under Probation
Posts: 1510
Joined: Sat May 20, 2017 6:26 pm
Been thanked: 12 times

Post #48

Post by RightReason »

[Replying to post 46 by tam]
Peace to you RR, and to you all!
Peace to you as well. Though your often passive aggressive comments don’t always reveal peace.
I will respond to post 44 in detail after this post. At the moment, I am going to just tackle the reasons you have provided in an attempt to support the doctrine that women cannot be priests. (I don't care about women being priests in the RCC. I am just responding to this incorrect doctrine.) As far as I can see there is only one reason you have provided that has any merit.

The twelve apostles chosen by Christ were male. He did not choose any women to be one of the twelve apostles.
Sorry, but you don’t quite get the reason I provided. As I previously posted, Scripture is full of reminding us that God created us male and female. Scripture is full of making distinctions between men and women. We aren’t the same. As much as our culture wants/needs to see us as the same – we are not. God created us male AND female. What was Jesus’ nature? Jesus giving Himself up for us is a perpetual sacrifice that the Church celebrates, every day, 365 days a year, in every culture, in every country, in all places . . . The mass re creates this perpetual sacrifice – this once and for all sacrifice when Jesus says, “"This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me." A priest acts in the place of Christ. What was Jesus’ nature again? This perfect sacrifice is re created. Like I said before, a priest acts in persona christe in the place of Christ. When the priest says the very words Christ said, "This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me." he needs to be “taking Christ’s place� To take the place of Christ requires the male nature, seeing how Christ was male, the role of a man is required. A woman cannot take the role of a man. But that’s ok. She has her own role. So, it’s all good.

** Also, there is the reason that the Holy Spirit has thus far prevented Christ’s Church from allowing women to be priests – a pretty big sign that the big guy doesn’t want it. So, sorry, like I said you still aren’t quite getting it.

User avatar
tam
Savant
Posts: 5567
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 4:59 pm
Has thanked: 244 times
Been thanked: 205 times
Contact:

Post #49

Post by tam »

Peace to you!
RightReason wrote: [Replying to tam]

He certainly did, and if we were following Peter, then we would follow him in his errors. We are supposed to be following Christ.

So, did Jesus tell Peter, “He who hears you, hears me� or not? Yeah, that’s what I thought.


He said this to the 72 disciples he sent out. Luke 10:16, 17

Your point?
Your interpretation is weak.
What interpretation? Is what I said incorrect? Did He or did He not say this to the 72 disciples that He sent out?
In Scripture immediately after Jesus says, “thou art Peter . . . “ He goes on to say, “He who hears you, hears me/whatever you bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven�. He wasn’t giving this authority to anyone who believed in Him.

After 'thou art Peter'... Christ does not go on to say, 'he who hears you, hears me'. (As stated above, this is true of anyone Christ sends out to speak as He has given them to speak.) He does say 'whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven.' But He does not ONLY say this to Peter. See Matthew 18:18, where He is speaking these words to more than just Peter.

And my point is you claimed (as usual) we shouldn’t follow Peter we should follow Jesus, but that’s not what Jesus Himself said.



"Come, follow Me," [Jesus] said, "and I will make you fishers of men."

"Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest."

On the last and greatest day of the feast, Jesus stood up and called out in a loud voice, "If anyone is thirsty, let him come to Me and drink."


Just in case you think that only applied to the apostles or disciples at that time:

"Therefore go and make disciples of all nations... teaching them to obey ALL that I have commanded you. Matt 28:19,20

And how about these:

"Anyone who loves me will obey my teaching. My Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them."

"Whoever has My commandments and keeps them is the one who loves Me. The one who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and reveal Myself to him."


Emphasis there on ANYONE and WHOEVER.

Jesus is the one who gave authority to Peter on whom He established His Church.


His Church is established upon Himself. Christ is the Rock. The foundation cornerstone. His Church is built upon HIM. How could it be HIS church if it were not built upon Him?

He builds His Church with that same faith that Peter showed.

In fact, He commanded us to listen to His Church – that is the intended means of His communication. But that bothers you.
Because that was not His command.

There is no verse where He states, "Listen to my Church."

And who would He have been speaking to? We who belong to Him ARE His Church. WE are to listen to HIM.

And all denominations (including the RCC) gets some stuff right, but not everything.
Unfortunately getting something only half right can be catastrophic and renders getting it wrong.


Agreed.

It is not about ruling out or accepting gender as a gift from God; it is about the context of Paul's words - and his words make ZERO mention of gender.
Scripture speaks often about the different genders and makes distinctions between the two. For some reason today’s culture sees this distinction as sexist and annoying, but I submit it is because they do not understand. Our bodies are gifts from God – Scripture is clear on this and like Paul says we all have different roles. One role is not necessarily better than another.

Some Scripture that make people uncomfortable, but there it is making distinctions between men and women . . .
So? Who said there were no distinctions between men and women? You used Paul's words about different roles to indicate that he meant different roles for different genders. But in actuality, Paul was referring to different roles due to different gifts OF THE SPIRIT.

So I will repeat... gifts of the spirit are endowed at the receiving of holy spirit. Gender is determined long before that time.

If Christ said, “He who hears you, hears me/whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven� was directed to any member who professes to believe in Him – we would have exactly what we have today – the broken body of Christ – thousands of offshoot religions all professing to be “following Christ�.


We do not have a broken body of Christ. We do have false christs (false anointed) and false prophets, some of whom have formed various sects and denominations, gaining followers after THEMSELVES.

Your Body of Believer is just one more of those groups, claiming to not be a religion at all – claiming to simply be “following Christ�.
I do not have a 'body of believers'. The Body of Christ - the Church - is made of people, with Christ as their Head, their Teacher, their Leader, their Master, their King, their Lord. This truth would not change even if I were not a part of that Body.

And yet Christ said listen to His Church.


Please provide this command from what is written.
So who is His Church? Oh, that’s right – His body of believers.


His Body (made of people, with Him at the head) is His Church. Correct.

"And he is the head of the body, the church..." Colossians 1:18

"And God put everything under His feet and made Him head over everything for the church, which is His Body..." Ephesians 1:22, 23

"Now you are the body of Christ, and each of you is a member of it." 1Corinthians 12:27
And what happens when one of His ‘body of believers’ says God says adultery is wrong and another member of His ‘body of believers’ says there are exceptions. And another one says homosexual acts are immoral and another one says they are not and each person uses Scripture to interpret as they like to fit their claim? Who is right? Where does the final decision lie?
With Christ... always. And if for some reason we cannot agree, we can reason with one another (iron sharpening iron)... according to what Christ says, according to love, and according to what is written (beginning with what Christ has said).

We must listen to Christ (which means listening also to God, since Christ is the Word of God)... over men.

To one's own master, one stands or falls.

Wrong. Christ promised to remain with His Church and that the gates of hell will not prevail against it. Therefore, we can and should trust His Church that He has entrusted to us. My words are only meaningless if you believe Christ’s were.


No, your statement is meaningless because the RCC is shown - PROVEN - to have been wrong in some things she taught and/or did (and taught others to do) and/or sanctioned.
No, it hasn’t. Individuals within the Church have been in error, but never the Church.



I think at this point you need to define the Church. What do you believe the Church is, exactly?



Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

RightReason
Under Probation
Posts: 1510
Joined: Sat May 20, 2017 6:26 pm
Been thanked: 12 times

Post #50

Post by RightReason »

[Replying to tam]



After 'thou art Peter'... Christ does not go on to say, 'he who hears you, hears me'. (As stated above, this is true of anyone Christ sends out to speak as He has given them to speak.) He does say 'whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven.' But He does not ONLY say this to Peter. See Matthew 18:18, where He is speaking these words to more than just Peter.
Once again, I feel we have had this conversation. Your just ‘follow Jesus’ religion is illogical and unscriptural. Jesus is no longer a human being who walks the earth. The majority of us can’t go to Him and have audible conversations where He audibly answers us. He established a church – a church He gave authority – this is shown in Scripture. You are NOT following Jesus if you are not following the Church He established. We can’t just turn to the Bible, because the Bible is a book and does not speak. It needs to be interpreted. So, tell me who interprets the Bible for you? And before you answer that, tell me who even gave you the Bible? Jesus didn’t hand it to you, did He? So, if you refer to the Bible and I have seen in many of your posts that you do, then you have already followed someone/thing other than Jesus (because His Church gave us the Bible) And to do so does not diminish your love for Jesus, in fact, you are following His command.

Sooooooo much Scriptural evidence of the authority of Christ’s Church and that we are to listen to her (so enough all ready with the meaningless unscriptural personal relativist interpretation of, “I can just follow Jesus�. Six sincere truth seeking individuals can all read the exact same bible passage and all come to six different understandings. How in the world would you know if yours is right? There has to be a final word. To robotically continue to repeat – Jesus is the final word – fails to recognize the impracticality of your suggestion without accepting Christ’s command to His Church, “He who hears you, hears me/whatever you bind on earth, shall be bound in heave� I implore you to meditate on this tonight.

https://www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/LK1016.TXT


More of the context of the whole of Scripture is this: at once after the
ascension, the Apostles began their mission of teaching In Acts 1:15-26 a
replacement for one of the Twelve is chosen, Matthias. Acts 2:42 reports
that the people "devoted themselves to the teaching of the Apostles" and in
Acts 5:13: "No one of the rest dared to join himself to them [the Apostles]
but the people magnified them." So all did understand from the start that
it was the Apostles, and they alone who had the commission from Christ to
teach. St. Paul constantly teaches with authority. Pope St. Clement I, in
an Epistle to Corinth c. 95 AD, intervened with authority. He said: "Our
Apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife over
the name of Bishop. As a result, having received full foreknowledge, they
appointed those we have mentioned, and meanwhile added a provision that if
these would fall asleep [die] other approved men should receive their
ministry."

https://www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/LK1016.TXT

Acts 5:13 - the people acknowledged the apostles’ special authority and did not dare take it upon themselves.

Acts 15:6,24; 16:4 - the teaching authority is granted to the apostles and their successors. This teaching authority must be traced to the original apostles, or the authority is not sanctioned by Christ.

Rom. 15:16 – Paul says he is a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles in the priestly service of the gospel of God, so that the offering of the Gentiles may be acceptable. This refers to the ministerial priesthood of the ordained which is distinguishable from the universal priesthood of the laity

1 Cor. 5:3-5; 16:22; 1 Tim. 1:20; Gal 1:8; Matt 18:17 – these verses show the authority of the elders to excommunicate / anathemize (“deliver to satan�).

2 Cor. 2:17 - Paul says the elders are not just random peddlers of God’s word. They are actually commissioned by God. It is not self-appointed authority.

The well-worn argument that the church does not consist of one authoritative institution, but instead the body of believers, is only half right, but is a big fan with people loving to hear what they want to hear. How convenient to be permitted to find a church group that justifies what we believe.

The reality is that the entire NT presupposes we are part of an institutionalized, local church, with a hierarchical structure.


Quote:
Jesus is the one who gave authority to Peter on whom He established His Church.


His Church is established upon Himself. Christ is the Rock. The foundation cornerstone. His Church is built upon HIM. How could it be HIS church if it were not built upon Him?

He builds His Church with that same faith that Peter showed.
We’ve had this conversation before too. Peter’s name was changed to rock. Peter is the rock. The grammar, syntax, context, placement of the pronouns etc, all reveal this and something the early church all understood. The idea that the Church was built on Peter’s confession was a Protestant invention that came way after the establishment of Christ’s Church in order to justify disobedience to the Church.

Post Reply