Evangelicals: Here's How to Find a New Church! (w/ Rod Bennett)

[@summersong2012]

After a journey that lasted a lifetime, I converted to Catholicism at age 51. I count Lutherans, Anglicans, Methodists and Pentecostals amongst my friends. I am deeply grateful from the insights and experiences I received amongst them, and view them as gifts from God. My conversion came from a profound experience of the presence of the Holy Spirit (whom the Pentecostal s had introduced me to) during the elevation of the Host during Mass. I was there by accident: accompanying my daughter’s boyfriend (Catholic, obviously, as a host’s obligation to a visitor to my home. I had concerns, but as I began RCIA, they were met by Fr Aidan’s opening words, “What you have to know is,it’s all about live!” Keep loving one another. Don’t fall into judgement. It converts no-one.

[@N1IA-4]

The cognitive dissonance is heavy when one is steeped into the illogic and chaos of Protestant theologies and practice. Thankfully God removed the scales from my eyes and I am becoming Catholic. Great interview!

[@TheCordialCatholic]

Thanks for watching!

[@JoshN91]

Dang it! I already have too many podcasts to catch up on and here you go getting Rod Bennet back on your show… Now this has to jump to the front of the line. 😂

[@TheCordialCatholic]

Ha ha ha! My apologies. It’s a good one though!

[@borneandayak6725]

Yes. There is only One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. ❤❤❤

[@TheCordialCatholic]

Thanks for watching! 🔥

[@vintage53-coversandorigina37]

I’ve read four of Rod’s books, fantastic! The Apostasy that Wasn’t, The Four Witnesses, Four More Witnesses, and Scriptures Wars are must reads!

[@TheCordialCatholic]

He’s one of the best! Thanks for watching!

[@krenomichael1812]

He is one of my favorite Catholics

[@TheCordialCatholic]

Mine too!

[@thepic12]

Thank you so much for this video! I’m reading “Four Witnesses” right now and I hear Rod’s voice as I’m reading it!!!

[@TheCordialCatholic]

If there’s ever a voice you want to hear. Rod is one of my favourites!

[@thepic12]

@@TheCordialCatholic I agree!

[@sburton1971]

I’m reading “The Apostasy That Wasn’t”, great book!

[@thepic12]

@@sburton1971can’t wait to read it

[@Hebe76]

Rod is a great guy 👍

[@TheCordialCatholic]

He’s the best guy.

[@robharris7696]

The "essentials" are those beliefs that distinguish the Christian faith from other world religions/cults on key identity issues; i e. those doctrines expressed in the 3 Universal Creeds; those are the core beliefs.

[@Xavriel]

Argument for an older church: tradition passed from leader to leader by contact and word of mouth that would aim to remain in tact.

[@kentemple7026]

This (Jerome's comment around 400 AD, the NT, 1 Clement, Didache) reflects New Testament teaching: Titus 1:5-7 - clearly shows elders and bishops are the same church office. Acts 20:17 - “called the elders”, v. 28 - the Holy Spirit has made you overseers (bishops, episkopoi) and you are to do the work of shepherding (pastoring) the church of God . . . 1 Peter 5:1-4 - Peter is fellow-elder with them - to the elders, shepherd the flock, serving as overseers / bishops / episcopoi Acts 14:23 - the apostles appointed elders (presbyters) for each church Philippians 1:1 Also in the earliest church history after the NT was finished: 1 Clement 42-44 Didache 15

[@tonyl3762]

God's plan for unity? It's right there in Scripture, in Acts 15: Christ the King's Chief Steward declares what we believe and all debate is silenced, and/or the Steward approves of the judgement of the Church in council. Such declarations and judgements are guided, protected, and ratified by the Holy Spirit and promulgated by the Church. Case closed, dispute settled, and unity restored. And it's been that way ever since, starting with the Council of Nicaea through Vatican II in terms of councils, and starting with Pope Clement of Rome's letter to the Corinthians through JP2's exercises of infallibility.

[@paulmiller3469]

I think the 30k number comes from counting each non-denominational entity as separate from everyone else. And I think we all know there a bunch of non-denoms from mega-churches to the strip mall variants.

[@miracles_metanoia]

If you count the individuals that are "spiritual not religious" free from the "spirit of religion" and don't belong to any church but call themselves Christian with a personal relationship with Jesus at home, praying daily and interpreting bible their own way, that number could be 100,000s

[@paulmiller3469]

@@miracles_metanoia Maybe, but if they aren't going to Church (any church), I wonder how 'spiritual' they really are.

[@miracles_metanoia]

@@paulmiller3469 there are many "spiritual" people without christ, pagan or heathen. In this case, I've seen people who really love the Lord but without the magisterium or community they're all over the place with varying beliefs . Pray for them

[@paulmiller3469]

@@miracles_metanoia Well, what can I say? I just think anyone who claims to love the Lord ought to know the Lord started a Church, so if he or she isn't going anywhere to pray in communion with others for at least some of their prayer and worship, that doesn't like a well-rooted relationship, at least not yet. But I know I can't read his or her heart, so I'll have to leave it there.

[@paulmiller3469]

There are elements of structure in place in the New Testament, with bishops, priests and deacons (though the distinction between a bishop and a presbyter wasn't always as clear). In fact, Christ instituted some of the structure by basing them on structure that was created or inspired from Moses' time. Moses had Aaron; Jesus had Peter. Moses had an inner three (Aaron and two sons), Jesus had Peter, James and John. The number twelve was important to both. The number 70 was important to both (remember in Luke that Jesus, after sending out the Twelve two-by-two, did the same thing with 70 other disciples).

[@kentemple7026]

The original church structure was a plurality of elders for each church - see Acts 14:21 and Titus 1:5-7. Bishops (overseers / episcopais) and elders (presbuteroi) are the same church office. see also Acts 20:17 (elders), with v. 28 - "the Holy Spirit has made you elders overseers / bishops - shepherd (pastor) the flock of God. & Philippians 1:1 (bishops and deacons - 2 offices, not 3) Even 1 Clement (96 AD) demonstrates this (1 Clement 42-44). The Didache also confirms this. Rod even admitted this to me when we debated for 8 years from 1996 to 2004 and he told he was going to revise/ update his section on Clement in his book, "Four Witnesses". Ignatius comes after the Scriptures and 1 Clement and the Didache. Jerome confirms this in his commentary on Titus 1:5-7 - he admits that bishops and elders are the same office, but that later, for practical reasons (custom, and to root out heresy), one of them was put over the rest introducing the "mono-episcopacy". but that 2nd century practice does not mean the church "went totally off the rails" as Rod likes to say all the time. The church is not infallible; only Scripture is infallible. the church can make mistakes and has made mistakes. So someone found a scrap of a parchment that scholars debate over the date of (from 250 into the 400s and 500s AD) - the so called "Sub tuum praesidium" prayer to Mary. That someone wrote that down and prayed that does not mean it was right or widespread. A very careful Roman Catholic guy that I have friendly debates with (Allan Ruhl) admitted that it was only after 431 AD that all the Marian piety and practice really took off after that point. Those practices and piety and later dogmas are truly barnacles on the ship that must be scrapped off. (statues and icons of her, praying to her, dogmas of 1854 and 1950) The perpetual virginity of Mary did not become official dogma until 553 at the second council of Constantinople. Barnacles that have been added over the centuries - the above about Mary, the Papacy, Transubstantiation (early church is not that - Spiritual presence IS real presence), works as adding to justification rather than proof of justification (Trent 1545-1563 and beyond), Purgatory (slow process from Augustine to over-emphasis by Gregory around 600 to the full flowering of the doctrine in the Middle Ages, indulgences, Apocrypha as canonical (Trent), etc. None of those things are early church. (33-around 451 or 500) Although some ideas about some aspects of them existed earlier, they were not universal or Biblical.

[@AlphaOmega888]

The best way to look for a Church is to pick the one that is OLDEST and has STOOD the longest through the test of history (a house NOT built on sand). We know it's *NOT* Constantinople as it is in ruins and defiled. But what about this: -Romans 1:7 (KJV) To *ALL* that be *IN ROME,* BELOVED OF GOD, *CALLED* to be SAINTS: GRACE *TO YOU* and PEACE from GOD our FATHER, and the LORD JESUS CHRIST. -“To be CHRISTIAN one *MUST BE ROMAN* [hence Romans 1:7 above] . One must recognize the ONENESS of CHRIST’S CHURCH that is governed by ONE SUCCESSOR of the Prince of the Apostles who is the Bishop of Rome, Christ’s Vicar on earth.” -Pope Pius XII (Oct 8, 1957 allocution to Irish pilgrims) -Mountain now moved: -Dan 9:16 please turn your raging anger from JERUSALEM, which is YOUR CITY, your own HOLY *MOUNTAIN* (which has now MOVED Mat 17:20;21:43;Jn 4:21;Rm 1:7) -Mat 17:20 IF you have *FAITH* the size of a MUSTARD SEED, you will say to THIS MOUNTAIN, *'MOVE* from *HERE TO THERE',* and it WILL MOVE -[moved to ROME - ROMANS 1:7 - whenever you’re willing to received it]. -“The *NEW JERUSALEM* is the *CHURCH* and as such it has been DEFINITIVELY ESTABLISHED here *ON EARTH,* having REPLACED the original JERUSALEM as the center of religious life and worship.” -Fr. Echert

[@Xavriel]

Nag Hammadi Library online: be careful what you look for and follow from this library online. I can tell from your language used that you, too, know the propensity for manufacture in these arts just as in any other.

[@kentemple7026]

Basil of Caesarea (379 AD) on Scripture as the final infallible authority over customs/traditions: “What is my reply? I do not consider it fair that the custom which obtains among them should be regarded as a law and rule of orthodoxy. If custom is to be taken in proof of what is right, then it is certainly competent for me to put forward on my side the custom which obtains here. If they reject this, we are clearly not bound to follow them. Therefore let God-inspired Scripture decide between us; and on whichever side be found doctrines in harmony with the word of God, in favor of that side will be cast the vote of truth.” (Basil of Caesarea, Letter 189, 3; died in 379 AD)

[@kentemple7026]

Jerome lived from 342-420 AD, and translated the Bible into the Latin Vulgate, and was one of the most famous early church scholars. “A presbyter, therefore, is the same as a bishop, and before dissensions were introduced into religion by the instigation of the devil, and it was said among the peoples, ‘I am of Paul, I am of Apollos, and I of Cephas,’ Churches were governed by a common council of presbyters; afterwards, when everyone thought that those whom he had baptised were his own, and not Christ’s, it was decreed in the whole world that one chosen out of the presbyters should be placed over the rest, and to whom all care of the Church should belong, that the seeds of schisms might be plucked up. Whosoever thinks that there is no proof from Scripture, but that this is my opinion, that a presbyter and bishop are the same, and that one is a title of age, the other of office, let him read the words of the apostle to the Philippians, saying, ‘Paul and Timotheus, servants of Christ to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi with the bishops and deacons.’” (Jerome, Commentariorum In Epistolam Ad Titum, “Commentary on the Epistle to Titus”, PL 26:562-563) And: “Therefore, as we have shown, among the ancients presbyters were the same as bishops; but by degrees, that the plants of dissension might be rooted up, all responsibility was transferred to one person. Therefore, as the presbyters know that it is by the custom of the Church that they are to be subject to him who is placed over them so let the bishops know that they are above presbyters rather by custom than by Divine appointment, and ought to rule the Church in common, following the example of Moses, who, when he alone had power to preside over the people Israel, chose seventy, with the assistance of whom he might judge the people. We see therefore what kind of presbyter or bishop should be ordained.” (Jerome, Commentariorum In Epistolam Ad Titum, PL 26:563)

[@TheCordialCatholic]

Hi Ken, You're right that Jerome is a very important and famous Early Church Father. His testimony is important, and he's very clear about the monepiscopacy. I'm actually working on a project specifically about Jerome and the monepiscopacy and I have to say you're wrong here. Jerome tell us that the churches were originally governed by plurality of priests BEFORE believers began saying, "I am of Paul, I am of Apollos, I am of Cephas," but AFTERWARDS it was "decreed for the whole world" that one priest be elected over others. Jerome is quoting 1 Corinthians when he writes, "I am of Paul, I am of Apollos..." which scholars agree was written around AD50. He's giving us a distinctive place marker to show when the monepiscopacy began. It began after those schisms arose, around AD50, when Paul wrote 1 Corinthians, which Jerome is quoting and it was also "decreed for the whole world" which meant the apostles, since they were the living Church authorities with the power to decree (as Jerome understood it clearly) or their successors. This is corroborated with Jerome's comments in Letter 146 where he tells us that "even in Alexandria, from the time of Mark the Evangelist..." that priests elected one chief priest to govern over them. And we know from Jerome's own research that Mark came to Alexandria around AD46. He actually calls this a tradition handed down from the apostles at the end of Letter 146. I encourage you to have a look. Yes, Jerome believed that the Early Church was governed by a plurality of elders but he gives us clear evidence as to when this changed and it was within the lifetime of the apostles and this change was "decreed" for churches to follow. And, to be fair, Jerome is also clear that the term priests/bishops was used interchangeably in the Early Church but he doesn't see this as a problem. In fact, the whole context of his Commentary on Titus 1:5, and his Letter 146, are to remind haughty bishops of their place -- that originally they were nothing more than glorified priests and it wasn't Christ who intended them to wield power but by necessity, because of schism. But even Dr. Michael Kruger himself has noted that when Scripture refers to "priests" or "bishops" interchangeably this doesn't mean there wasn't a chief priest in charge of a group, even if they're all lumped in as priests in the text, the distinction just hadn't developed yet.

[@kentemple7026]

@@TheCordialCatholic thanks for interaction !! this phrase is key from Jerome's quote: so let the bishops know that they are above presbyters rather by custom than by Divine appointment, custom = practical practice and pragmatic reasons; that is different than "Divine Appointment" - God speaking in the Scriptures = Sola Scriptura The "decree for the whole world" - the evidence of the existence of the mono-episcopate (not really a decree for all the churches) is first by Ignatius around 110 AD - but even that is not a "decree for the whole world" It cannot mean what you say, since Acts (Acts 14:21; 20:17, 28) [ 62 AD] , Titus, 1-2 Timothy, (63-67 AD) 1 Peter 5:1-4 (63-64 AD) are written later, so it was not right after I Corinthians was published (55 AD) all the NT books continued to teach only a plurality of elders for each church until Ignatius (110 AD), so you are wrong. who made the decree and what is the evidence for that? Bottom line, Infallible God-breathed Scripture trumps a custom that started in 2nd century

[@TheCordialCatholic]

Sorry, Ken, but just because you label a "key phrase" to be the most important part of Jerome's text, and ignore the rest, does not make it so in reality. I've already explained that even Reformed scholars don't see a problem with a plurality of priests being mentioned in the New Testament. This does not mean one of those priests wasn't in charge; this is precisely what Jerome is arguing for and is not an argument against Jerome. It is clear that Jerome understands what a "decree" is. In fact, he later uses this exact same word when he appeals to the Bishop of Rome to offer a "decree" against a heretical sect of Christians. It doesn't matter whether we say the apostles made the decree (it was within their lifetime so this is most plausible) or their successors, Jerome says it was "decreed" and *that* trumps manmade notion of custom vs. practical practice. Just because Jesus didn't explicitly establish the monepiscopate doesn't mean it isn't an apostolic tradition; in fact, in Letter 146, Jerome says EXPLICITLY that it is. I'm sorry, Ken, but you're mistaken.

[@kentemple7026]

@@TheCordialCatholic No; I am sorry, K. Albert, you are mistaken. There is no evidence of a "decree that went out" in 55-56 AD right after 1 Corinthians was written. The fact that Acts 20:17, 28 (elders, overseers/bishops are pastoring the flock = all one office), 1 Peter 5:1-4 - Peter is fellow elder among the other elders, & they are to shepherd the flock as overseers (bishops) and 1 Timothy 3 and Philippians 1:1 and Titus 1:5-7 - all were written later and they are infallible - they are infallible God-breathed Scripture, and all written later than 55-56 - sorry, but you are wrong. The only evidence for the mono-episcopate development is starting with Ignatius around 110 AD. Jerome is right that presbyters and bishops are the same, but we don't know what he is referring to by "a decree that went out" - there is no evidence of that. Sorry, you are wrong. Infallible God-breathed Scripture trumps man-made traditions added in the second century. Mark 7:1-14; Matthew 15:1-20; Colossians 2:8. Furthermore, the apostolic solution to the disunity in Corinth in chapters 1-4 is 4:6 - "do not go beyond what is written". the context is about the factions "myself and Apollos" in 4:6 demonstrates the context of the disunity of chapters 1-4 and the apostolic solution. "Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively applied to myself and Apollos for your sakes, so that in us you may learn not to exceed what is written, so that no one of you will become arrogant in behalf of one against the other. " the solution to disunity is follow and Submit to Scripture, the voice of God for all time. you are wrong.

[@kentemple7026]

In my Review of Four Witnesses (Part 1), on page 87, Rod stops the quote of 1 Clement 44 as precisely the exact place that would show that overseers/bishops (Greek: επισκοποι - episcopoi ) is the same office as elders (Greek: πρεσβυτεροι - presbuteroi). This is clear in the earlier New Testament writings, such as Acts 14:23; 20:17, 28; Titus 1:5-7; 1 Timothy 3, 1 Peter 5:1-5, Philippians 1:1. Even other very early non-canonical writings confirm this, such as the Didache 15, and Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book IV, chapter 26, no. 5. “Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry. We are of opinion, therefore, that those appointed by them, or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole Church, and who have blamelessly served the flock of Christ in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all, cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry. Rod, used a different translation than the one above, but stopped the quote here on page 87 of his book. You can look it up at the standard early church fathers set at ccel dot org web-site or new advent. The quote continues: “For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties. Blessed are those presbyters who, having finished their course before now, have obtained a fruitful and perfect departure [from this world]; for they have no fear lest any one deprive them of the place now appointed them. But we see that ye have removed some men of excellent behavior from the ministry, which they fulfilled blamelessly and with honor. “ 1 Clement 44 Rod admitted to me (when we debated these issues from 1996 to 2004) that I was right to point that out and that he would sincerely revise that section in a future edition of "Four Witnesses"

[@jacobwoods6153]

Hes hilarious lol

[@kentemple7026]

Did Pope Francis "say the same thing" on these occasions? 1. Pope Francis: Press conference on flight from Brazil, July 28, 2013: “If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge?” 2. Changing the catechism to now saying that the death penalty is always sinful, whereas this contradicts previous tradition and history of the church? 3. Telling a boy that his atheist father is in heaven because he wanted his children to be baptized. Was that the "same thing" as previous history and church tradition? Your suppossed infallible Pope, Vicar of Christ on earth, who can guide the church infallibly and "walk into the room and say "thus says the Lord" (Rod you said this to me many times when we debated (1996-2004) - that the Pope (John Paul 2) is a "living voice" who can give us the right interpretation and can solve all the disunity problems between Protestants . Yet, Irenaeus says that "living voice" (vive voce) is the method of the Gnostics - Also, Irenaeus’ wrote that it was the Gnostics who pointed to a living voice and living oral tradition outside of Scripture, and this is what Roman Catholics attempt to do by pointing back to 2 Thessalonians 2:15 and John 20:30 and 21:25 - reading centuries later doctrines, practices, or “seeds” of those concepts back into those verses - this is what the Gnostics were doing in Irenaeus’ day, in order to try and establish an authority from the apostles outside of written Scripture. See Against Heresies 1:8:1 Such, then, is their [Gnostics] system, which neither the prophets announced, nor the Lord taught, nor the apostles delivered, but of which they boast that beyond all others they have a perfect knowledge. They gather their views from other sources than the Scriptures . . . and 3:2:1. When, however, they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition. For [they allege] that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents, but vivâ voce (“living voice”) . . . This is exactly what Roman Catholics all the time when attacking Sola Scriptura. They say Scripture is ambiguous and unclear and obscure. Casey Chalk (former Evangelical) even has an entire book with that title: "The Obscurity of Scripture".

[@TheCordialCatholic]

We know. He’s been on this show, Ken.

[@kentemple7026]

@@TheCordialCatholic Do you see the contradiction of Casey Chalk's book and what Irenaeus wrote? Against Heresies 3:2:1. When, however, they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition. For [they allege] that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents, but vivâ voce (“living voice”) . . . "they assert that the Scriptures are ambiguous . . . " and emphasis "viva voce" traditions - not written, oral traditions. The very thing you guys do

[@kentemple7026]

I enjoyed listening to this because I really do miss Rod Bennett as a friend when we were Baptists together in our local church, and those days of great discussions and friendship over good movies, Star Wars, It's A Wonderful Life, Star Trek, monsters, wax museums, C. S. Lewis, the Beatles, etc. The way Rod framed his first argument - mixing doctrinal unity with episcopal form of church government - was a bad mixing of categories. Including the Anglican Church in the "doctrinal unity" with RCC, EO, OO (Copts and Jacobite Syrian Church, Armenia Apostolic Church, Ethiopian O. Church, etc.) was a strange "bait and switch" from episcopal form of church government to doctrinal unity - since the true Anglicans (conservative African Anglicans and the Australian Anglicans = those that still hold to the Reformation, Sola Fide, Sola Scriptura, and that LGBTQ is sin, etc.) ie, NOT the church of England and most western forms, the American Episcopal church - those are apostate churches. But those that still hold to the 39 Articles - that Sola Fide is Biblical, Transubstantiation is unBiblical and wrong; the Pope is not Biblical, etc. Even the liberal Anglicans are not unified doctrinally with the Roman Catholic Church. Also to include the Copts (the Oriental Orthodox) in "doctrinal unity" with you is not true. They don't believe in the 2 natures of Jesus - that Jesus is one Person with 2 natures. They are Miaphysite (or Mono-physite) = Jesus has ONE Nature, and divine one - the human nature is swallowed up and subsummed in the Divine nature. On that issue, we orthodox conservative Protestants are in unity more with you than with the Copts. you also left out the Assyrian Church of the East - broke from the "catholic / orthodox" church in 431 AD. The Copts and the other Oriental Orthodox broke from the "catholic / orthodox" church in 451 AD. So the claim that "everyone said the same thing" (alluding to 1 Corinthians 1:10 and John 17) until 1054 is false! Another thing is the elephant in the room - Pope Francis. You made a big deal about contraception and the year 1930. Yet your current Pope has changed several things in spirit and emphasis; and at least one thing formally - especially the Catholic Catechism (a formal document) to say that the death penalty is always wrong and sin - this is a massive contradiction to the RCC's position in the past. So why did YOUR church change? Conservative Protestants still believe the death penalty is valid for properly adjudicated court process and finding of guilt for first degree murder, proven rape, serial murderers, etc. Your so called "infallible Pope" has said many things that seem like he things homosexuality is not so bad. (in the interview when he said, "Who am I to judge?") and he continues to allow priests such as James Martin go on supporting the LGBTQ agenda. Also, he told a boy about his atheist father who died, that his atheist / unbelieving father went to heaven even though he did not believe in Christ, because he wanted his children to be baptized. You think water baptism is magic and can be applied to a father without faith in Christ? Your church does not "say the same thing" as you did for centuries! Vatican 2 & post Vatican 2 theology and apologetic methods are a massive contradiction. Vatican 2 really changed the anathemas of Trent against all of us believing Protestants to "separated brethren". At the same time, they claim they did not change. The official anathemas have never been changed, but in modern parlance Vatican 2 and post Vatican theology claims and apologetic methods give the impressing that those Anathemas have been changed. For centuries, atheists and Muslims without Christ were clearly understood as condemned and going to hell; yet post Vatican 2 theology has been saying for the past 50 + years that people without Christ can be saved. Even your Catechism says this. Shameful. "no salvation outside of the Church" has been changed. Why did you change on those issues, and we have not?

[@jeanw9160]

Do you honestly think anybody is going to read your reply when it's mile long, give me a break!

[@kentemple7026]

@@jeanw9160 That's fine if you don't want to read something longer and think deeply about the issues. Obviously, some don't have time to read longer comments. Anyway, some may want to read longer comments and think deeper about the issues that separate Protestants from Roman Catholics.

[@jeanw9160]

@kentemple7026 If I want to read something longer and think more deeply about issues, I go directly to the Apostolic Fathers in the early church, who were unapologetically Catholic, and who sat at the feet the Apostles and who actually had something worth saying!! Done.

[@kentemple7026]

@@jeanw9160 why not go straight to the apostles/apostolic writings? (The 27 books of the New Testament ) Only those writings/ Scriptures are infallible, since they are God-breathed. 2 Timothy 3:16 Anthasius agrees with us: "in these alone is the doctrine of godliness " Festal letter 39, And "The Scriptures are self-sufficient" for faith, & teaching And " Vainly do they run around seeking a council where as the scriptures are fully sufficient" I will get references in next comment.

[@kentemple7026]

​@@jeanw9160 After listing the 27 books of the NT in his famous Easter Letter of 367 AD, Athanasius writes, “These are the fountains of salvation that they who thirst may be satisfied with the living words they contain. In these alone is proclaimed the doctrine of godliness.” (Athanasius, Festal Letter 39) Notice the word “alone” here. There is “Sola Scriptura” in a basic, general principle form. “Vainly then do they run about with the pretext that they have demanded Councils for the faiths sake; for divine Scripture is sufficient above all things; but if a Council be needed on the point, there are the proceedings of the Fathers, for the Nicene Bishops did not neglect this matter, but stated the doctrines so exactly, that persons reading their words honestly, cannot but be reminded by them of the religion towards Christ announced in divine Scripture.” (De Synodis, 6) (On the Councils, 6) “For indeed the holy and God-breathed Scriptures are self-sufficient for the preaching of the truth.” (Against the Gentiles, 1:3)

[@qvrty6]

It's another Jesus as Paul spoke of in Galatians. Galatians 1:6-12 New King James Version (NKJV) But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.

[@Xavriel]

I'm for birth control, not against it. I'm for whatever dynamic in a relationship suits those who are in that relationship or working towards it.

[@Xavriel]

I'm more concerned about world unity of spirit and otherwise. A true savior shouldn't care what religion you are from or what path you follow integrating all under one.

[@RitaGatton]

It is not for you to say what a "true savior" should or should not care about. The True Savior is Jesus Christ. He is God. He can care about whatever He wants to care about.

[@kentemple7026]

at the beginning you something like, "if you are looking for a church, why not look into the Catholic Church, the church that Christ founded?" the problem with that is that they catholic little c church of the first 5 centuries is a completely different thing than the Roman Catholic Church of today with Purgatory, Indulgences, Papacy, over-exalting Mary, praying to statues and icons of Mary, adding works to justification, etc.

[@HoMegasTaxiarches]

Hello friend, that’s what I would’ve said, too ! Seems like no one outside of the Catholic Church wants to say it’s the same one. As if the original church just vanished !!

[@RitaGatton]

The Catholic Church is the same today as it was in the early centuries. It has not changed. Read the early Church Fathers.

[@kentemple7026]

@@RitaGatton Actually, it has changed a lot - slowly adding man-made traditions over the centuries - purgatory, indulgences, the treasury of merit, prayers to Mary, veneration of icons, Immaculate conception, bodily assumption of Mary, infallibility of the Pope, the Papacy, trafficking in relics, Transubstantiation - (real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, yes; but not Transubstantiation. Rather, Spiritual presence IS real presence.) these are not in the first century (New Testament), nor in the earliest centuries. There may have been some side comments of some thoughts of seeds of these things that later became full blown doctrines, practices and dogmas, but they are not there in the first 400-500 years. One clear example is the veneration of icons. Watch Gavin Ortlund's videos on that. Also his video on the Bodily Assumption of Mary. They did not have statues in the NT nor in early centuries. The statues of Mary look like idols and the many Romans Catholics bowing down in front of them looks like idolatry. Revelation 19:10 and 22:8-9 says, "Don't do that! Worship God. (alone)

[@kentemple7026]

@@RitaGatton The Sub tuum praesidium (Beneath your Protection) prayer to Mary is claimed by Roman Catholics to be from the 3rd or 4th Century. It is a fragment. It was dated initially to the 3rd or 4th century; however later scholars proposed much later datings, even as far as the 9th century. The dating of the Papyrus remains uncertain. Prayers to Mary is not early and certainly not in the New Testament / first century, nor in the 2nd Century for sure.

[@Xavriel]

Pro choice.

[@qvrty6]

I can tell you why not the Catholic Church and that is because Jesus is "not" sufficient and according to the Catholic Church His blood did not cover all sin.

[@Truthseekingcatholic]

You're ignorance is showing. You know nothing about Catholicism.