RightReason wrote:
[
Replying to tam]
Except you will not find the words, "Listen to the Church", being spoken by Him.
Not only do you find those words spoken by Him
If those words were actually spoken by Him, then you would have quoted them in one of our many discussions on this very matter. You have not because He never actually said this.
You are "interpreting" the words that He did say as meaning this, but it is merely an interpretation.
We are to listen to and follow
Christ.
The irony of course is groups like yours received what you have come to learn about God through what has been revealed about Him via His Church. LOL!
What I know of God has come from Christ. He is the one who has shown me the truth of His Father. He is the one who reveals God, yes? Knowing Christ, means knowing God.
I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me. If you had known Me, you would know My Father as well. From now on you do know Him and have seen Him.
No one has ever seen God. The One and Only Son-- the One who is at the Father's side-- He has revealed Him.
The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers so they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.
I did not learn truth about God from your religion. I did not come to know God through your religion. (nor from any religion) Only through Christ did I come to (and come to know) God.
You would not have the Scripture you do if it wasnt for the Church.
Your religion did not write the scriptures. Not the Psalms, the Prophets, or Moses; not revelation; not the NT.
You do realize it was a church of men, with a hierarchical structure who compiled and interpreted Scripture, right?
Would it be them, then, who also translated errors into the text? The word 'hell' for instance, being translated from 3 different words? Sheol/hades; gehenna; tartarus?
Do you think the Bible fell from the sky?
I think Israel (and later just perhaps the Jews) maintained their scriptures; then some who knew Christ wrote some of the gospels in testimony to Him, and some wrote based upon interviewing and investigation (like Luke did); and some of the NT is Paul and others writing letters to disciples and Christians in various places; and then John received revelation and wrote that down (making that scripture and inspired - something he was given in spirit and specifically told to write down).
Then some men (members of the RCC, perhaps) took what others had written and put it all in one book.
You claim to have no religion and yet you have no qualms taking the Bible given to you by my religion.
That's so funny, because I thought it was Mark, Matthew, Luke, the disciple Christ loved (from the book commonly, but mistakenly, attributed to John), Paul, Peter, John, Jude, James, etc... who gave us the NT, and various prophets and the like who gave us the OT.
But I guess you think your religion should take the credit for their works?
The whole church (the body of Christ) is guided by Christ, and given holy spirit. Not just some men who "claim" to be the Church.
Why do you keep accusing me of seeing the Church as just men?
Why do you keep ignoring the point I made?
The
whole church (the body of Christ) is guided by Christ, and given holy spirit.
Im afraid thats your anti-Catholic misappropriation, not mine.
What I said was true. The whole church (which is the body of Christ) is guided by Christ and given holy spirit. Not just some people in that church. Not just some men who claim to be that church.
But its easy to knock down, so I understand why you keep repeating it.
I repeat it because it is true. Do you disagree? Because if you disagree, then are you not saying that you have
not received holy spirit?
The Church clearly bothers you because like it or not it has always been made up of ordinary, fallible men, just as Christ wanted it.
The Church - which is the Body of Christ - does not bother me. It certainly
is made up of ordinary, fallible men - with CHRIST as their head. So your accusation against me has no merit. In fact, you've made that accusation before, and I pointed out how merit-less it was then as well.
The RCC is not that Church. But that is not what this thread is supposed to be about.
What good is unity of teaching if the teaching is wrong? Then everyone is just unified in being wrong.
How do you think unity of teaching can occur? Where may I find this unity of teaching you speak of? Are these universal teachings all printed or published somewhere, clearly explained so as to promote this unity?
You know, you don't seem to stay on track with the point being made. Unity of teaching is meaningless, if that teaching is wrong. You say the RCC has unity of teaching, well, so does the WTS. The LDS.
And let me guess . . . you believe you are getting it right, right?
I believe CHRIST gets it right. Him being the truth and all. If I listen to Him, then I understand 'right'.
If I go my own way and/or do not take great care in listening to Him and sharing 'just so' (not adding or taking away from what He says and teaches), then I will mess up. So I must be careful and take great care in listening and sharing 'just so'.
You believe you are understanding perfectly and clearly by the light of Christ
Those things that He
has taught me, yes.
Do I understand everything? Of course not. But I can tell you that if someone came to me and said that 'we have to go persecute those heretics', I would know that they were not speaking from Christ. Because He has taught exactly the opposite. If someone came to me and said that we have to go 'kill or curse our enemies', I would know that they were not speaking from Christ. Because He teaches the exact opposite. If someone came to me and said that we have to 'take children from their families' (residential school systems), or any of the other atrocities that the RCC has ordered done or cooperated in doing, I would know that they were not speaking from Christ. I would know that they were not listening to Christ. And if they were not listening to even the basics of what Christ taught on how to treat others, how in the world can anyone believe that they were listening to Christ in the formation of their many, many doctrines and teachings? Some of which are clearly not what Christ taught?
You wouldnt be capable of getting it wrong since you proclaim from the mountain tops to be holding everything up to the light. Tell you what . . . Ill put 100 people in a room who just like you believe everything can be tested by the light of Christ and well see how much unity of message you all have. LOL!!!!!!!!!
And I could put people from many different sects of Christendom, all claiming that theirs is the true religion, and there would be no unity of message between them.
You seem to have no problem accepting that there is a true religion, even though many opposing religions make the same claim that theirs is the true religion and not yours. You seem to have no problem with 'testing' this claim when it comes to groups, but you can't seem to grasp testing that claim when it comes to individuals?
Perhaps you might consider that many people left the RCC (and other subsequent groups) because they could see that Christ was NOT with those groups. They did just what Christ praised people FOR doing in the above quote. They could see this by their fruit and by their teachings, both of which were not what Christ taught or did.
Perhaps you might consider that many people join the Catholic Church every year. Many even come from similar backgrounds as yourself " those who were taught the evils of organized religion and told to simply be led by the light of Christ.
Christ is the one who taught me not to be part of religion; and Christ is the One who taught me how to test the inspired expressions. To hold everything up against Him - because HE is the Truth.
They realized in doing so, Christ points them to His Church.
They
think this (or they are just born into it) or they would not have joined. That does not mean they are correct or that they are listening to Christ.
What I offered you was another explanation for why people LEFT.
Many a pre convert has confessed how easy it is to remain on the sidelines pointing out the short comings of the Church.
I am not on the sidelines or even in the crowd watching RCC events; caring about RCC teachings and RCC news. I have nothing to do with the RCC. I don't even think about the RCC unless something about her is being brought to my attention, such as you have done here and elsewhere.
I had no intention of responding to anything you posted on this thread, even those things I knew were wrong. I just wanted to answer the OP. YOU are the one who took issue with my post to Justin, and started arguing with me.
You are the one who started pointing out what you believe to be the "shortcomings" of following and listening to Christ, directly.
It is absurd to me that anyone who professes to be Christian could think this way, think that Christ is not enough, that He cannot speak to 'ordinary infallible men' (such as me), that He cannot guide 'ordinary infallible men' (such as me), that He cannot protect 'ordinary infallible men' (such as me). But He only speaks to and guides religious leaders; popes; etc, and everyone else has to rely upon men.
You think I have a problem with the Church being made up of ordinary infallible men, but it is actually you (and religious leaders) who has a problem with the idea ordinary infallible men being able to follow Christ, to hear His voice, with no need of religion to do so.
Its easy to knock down a false image one has created about the Church and remain safe in no mans land by claiming to be above organized religion.
It is not about being 'above' or 'below' organized religion.
It is just about being in Christ, loving Him, following Him, listening to Him, obeying Him.
You have a problem with me for doing that. For daring to do that, I suppose, without a need for yours or any other religion.
By not declaring a religion, no one can point out the wrongness of ones beliefs and interpretations. The individual simply continually declares he is discerning what Christ wants and insists Christ is leading him to truth. Yet never really knowing if his own baggage/preconceptions/prejudices/desires are what is actually leading him.
One can know this if Christ reveals it to them. If Christ removes the log from one's eye so that one can see clearly.
You don't seem to have any faith in His ability to do this; to keep His own in Him; to guide them and teach them.
Thank you for posting our previous conversations. I didnt really want to repeat everything we have discussed.
Nor do I. Hence, the link.
Yes, but then they would not be taking the credit for themselves, right? Which is what I said, yes?
No. What you did was imply the Church is taking credit for Christ.
What? No I did not. Please do not try and 'interpret' my words as meaning something other than what I say.
I simply shared meaning from the words that my Lord speak, as He taught me.
Do you think His words were meant to be used as a weapon by men to make people listen to and obey them, to gain followers after themselves?
His words are a
weapon. A weapon of truth and yes people are attracted to the truth. Put the truth out there and when people see how beautiful it is, they will follow.
You are avoiding the question and the point.
It does not matter if they came on the scene later or if they were on the scene from the start.
If one is interested in truth, it does matter. Christ established His Church over 2000 years ago and promised to remain with her. If you are following a church that was founded in the 1900s, unless you are ready to admit that the gates of hell have prevailed, it cannot be Christs Church.
If you quoted my words along with your own, you would see that the POINT is that it does not matter if you claim your religion was around from the start. Because there were false prophets and false christs from the start.
Because there were indeed false christs and false prophets from the start.
This part is true.
Which was my point.
One needs to remain in CHRIST and in HIS word. Or else one is going to be easily misled by those false prophets and false christs.
True again. Youre on a roll.
Hence, one must test everything against Him, the Truth. Hold all things up against the Light to see if they are true (or not).
As for tradition, here is what my Lord had to say about that:
Oh, I know what my Lord has to say about tradition, but are you sure you do?
Here we have Christs appeal to tradition . . .
Actually, everything you are about to quote is from Paul. (And Paul is speaking about teachings, bearing witness to Christ, nothing of which would contradict Christ and His word)
And just because someone put the word 'sacred' in front of the word 'tradition' does not make tradition sacred.
The Bible speaks of different kinds of tradition " a simple reading makes this clear.
Is what I said true or false? Does putting the word 'sacred' in front of the word 'tradition' make it so?
If it is true, then what is the problem? If it is false, then point out what is false about it.
And the first Christians all understood the sacredness of both Scripture and Tradition. Seeing how they both come from Christ, it is appropriate to label them sacred.
IF something comes from Christ, then it would be sacred, sure.
But just because someone
says it came from Christ, does not mean that it truly came from Him.
Hence, we must test the inspired expressions and hold all things up against the Light (Christ). Because if someone is teaching something other than what He taught - then it does not matter how long that thing has been taught or by whom or if it is tradition or not - it is still false.
My Lord emphasized TRUTH, love, mercy, forgiveness, faith... He never emphasized tradition
WRONG!
Not wrong. Unless you want to show me something from His own words emphasizing how good tradition is and how it should be followed.
Many groups like yours are so trenched in their talking points in attempts to slam organized religion, they are oblivious as to what Scripture actually teaches and says.
Groups like mine?
Again, you are the one who took issue with my post. Here and on that original thread. I did not come and take issue with your post, because my job is not to 'slam organized religion' but instead to bear witness to Christ.
You are 'slamming' that work that I am called to do. You are taking issue with my faith.
There is nothing inherently wrong with tradition or service or leadership. But leave it to someone to put negative connotations to suit their purposes on anything.
My point was against putting stock in something BECAUSE it is tradition. Putting TRADITION over TRUTH. Something being tradition means nothing if it is not also TRUE.
Im assuming your family has some traditions they practice and carry on. Heck, reading a bed time story to your child is a tradition and a beautiful one at that. Pretty sure Christ does not condemn tradition, but your anti-Catholic colors are showing.
By your definition of tradition, eating food is a tradition because everyone who came before us also ate food. I never read to my children because it is tradition, but because it was good for them.
Quote:
So test the inspired expression... against Christ, against love, against what is written (beginning with what Christ taught). Hold all things up against the Light that is Christ
See my comment above. Sincere truth seeking Christians have tested what they feel is being revealed to them and found support/evidence in Scripture to support it. They have tested their belief against love, against Christ, and against what is written. They have held all things up to the Light of Christ and still come to very differing views. This is problematic.
If they have come to different views; they did not each receive their understanding from Christ.
What a convenient answer " not the least bit helpful, but quite convenient to pretty much justify anything anyone would ever want to justify.
Is it untrue?
But even if the issue is not resolved in that way at that time, but the things that someone believes they learned from Christ is not against anything Christ teaches, and it is not against love, and it is not against what is written (beginning with what Christ has said), then what problem would you have with them?
Truth matters, or do you not believe that?
Ironic, considering your previous comment (and your quote-mine).
If you have or know the truth wouldnt you want to share that with others and wouldnt it be tragic to not share, even if that meant correcting others?
Who has suggested that one not share truth or correct others?
Perhaps you should have put in my full quote:
If they have come to different views; they did not each receive their understanding from Christ. Perhaps one or both of them are holding on to baggage/teachings from their former religions. It can be very hard to let go of things that have been deeply ingrained. But they can reason together; and sometimes the issue is resolved in that way. But even if the issue is not resolved in that way at that time, but the things that someone believes they learned from Christ is not against anything Christ teaches, and it is not against love, and it is not against what is written (beginning with what Christ has said), then what problem would you have with them?
If I saw someone overboard who was struggling to make it to shore and I could help them, would I instead sit and watch them struggle " justifying that well, theyre making it. They are actually a stronger better swimmer than I am so hopefully theyll eventually make it? Maybe they will and maybe they wont, but if I have a life preserver that could save their life, I ought to throw it at them. Not look the other way and hope they eventually find their way.
What you are suggesting is the sin of indifferentism.
No, what you are doing is being dishonest in your quote-mining.
I never suggested
anything like what you are attributing to me.
The belief that all religions are equally worthy and profitable to man, and equally pleasing to God
Are you kidding me?
First I am anti-religion and now I believe that all religions are equally pleasing to God?
Do you even read my posts? Or are you just "so trenched in talking points" that it does not matter what I actually said?
All religions, indeed, may be said to contain some measure of truth;
All religions DO contain some truth - how else would they be able to mislead even the elect, who are seeking truth?
All religions also contain falsehood.
ONLY Christ is the Truth and teaches ALL Truth. So I will follow Him. Listen to Him. Bear witness to Him (and not to some organization or false light). Obey Him.
That is what HIS sheep do: listen to His voice and follow HIM.
and God may accept the imperfect worship of ignorant sincerity. But it is injurious to God, Who is truth itself, to assert that truth and falsehood are indifferent in His sight.
So who asserted that to begin with? Oh wait... this is all just part of yet another link that you have posted, instead of replying to my actual post and in your own words. Maybe you should stop doing that, because your links don't follow the conversation.
Love covers over a multitude of sins, yes? So we would go our way in peace, and leave Christ to correct what needs to be corrected, if indeed one is truly seeking and loving HIM.
The only thing that we can do is share as we have learned from Christ. The rest is not up to us.
This erroneous belief that one cant speak the truth and be loving and supportive is unfounded.
So who are you talking to here again? Because I never suggested that. If you note, I said that we share as we have learned from Christ. Which would require speaking, yes?
As to whether or not someone else hears or refrains, that is NOT up to us. Or do you not believe Christ when He said:
No one comes to me unless the Father draws them?
Do you think that we can make people believe truth? Make people come to Christ?
We can make people come to a
religion, via threats and coercion and forced conversions. But when it comes to Christ and to God, we can share as He gives us. The rest is not up to us.
Do you disagree with that? Truly?
Its possible to do both and that is what the Church and I advocate.
Speaking truth and being loving? Of course it is possible, and I never suggested otherwise.
The Church is there to help and guide. She is constantly waiting for her lost sheep
Her lost sheep?
Don't the sheep belong to Christ? If indeed they are
His sheep?
The RCC, you mean? No, that makes no sense at all. None whatsoever.
<sigh> Yeah, no history of God ever using ordinary, fallible, even sinful men as His appointed leaders.
The fact that the Church
has at times screwed up all the more points to her being Christs established Church.
To the bold (referring to the RCC, not the true Church, which is the Body of Christ):
Understatement of the millenium.
How many died because of the practices and teachings and orders of the RCC? How much blood did the RCC spill? Even of those who belong to Christ?
Christ said such things would be done TO His sheep; not BY His sheep.
Are you suggesting that Christ said we are to listen to Jewish leaders? Because that is who He was speaking about in your quote above, yes?
Christ has always used fallible men. And yes, at that time Christ was telling His people to listen to those who have been instructed to teach. His teachings are right and good and God entrusted ordinary men to safeguard them. So, dont get hung up on whether John or Joe are living up to the teachings themselves " that is for God to judge. But you, heed their teachings, listen to them, and do as they say, because it is through them that I wish you to hear and know these things.
So Christ wanted people to listen to religious leaders who taught falsely, who persecuted others (against His direct instructions), who spilled innocent blood, who did exactly the opposite of what He taught, and taught others to do the same -not just by their deeds but by their teachings?
You think those are the people that Christ entrusted with anything?
Come on.
Perhaps though you are suggesting that this accurately represents YOUR leaders in the RCC. Do you not see what that is saying about them and about who you are following?
Yes,
Yes, this accurately represents your religious leaders?
But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. 4They tie up heavy, burdensome loads and lay them on mens shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them. 5All their deeds are done for men to see. They broaden their phylacteries and lengthen their tassels. They love the places of honor at banquets, the chief seats in the synagogues, 7the greetings in the marketplaces, and the title of Rabbi by which they are addressed.
Oh but wait, because then He goes on to say that they (the apostles and any of us) are NOT to be like them:
But you are not to be called Rabbi, for you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers. 9And do not call anyone on earth your father, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. 10Nor are you to be called instructors, for you have one Instructor, the Christ.
Shouldn't your religion understand what that means?
You do recall that the Kingdom was taken from those religious leaders, right?
You think it was taken from them and given to those who would do more of the same?
You think He would leave His sheep to such people? That He would leave His sheep alone? He is with us. He, Himself. His sheep listen to HIS voice, and His sheep follow HIM.
Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy
