X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Thu, 1 Oct 1992 21:05:05 -0400
From:         Eric James Ewanco <ewanco@MLO.DEC.COM>
Subject:      Re: Scriptures versus Rome

David,

Welcome to the list! We are glad to have you.  I rejoice that you found Christ
and I pray that you will grow quickly in your faith.

Christian Music:  I am heavily into Christian music.  I love it! I learned so
much through Christian music, and it really helped me to grow in my faith.
Right now I am listening to Keith Green -- awesome, powerful music!  I love
Petra, Steve Curtis Chapman, Geoff Moore, Kenny Marks, Ruscha, Jerusalem, Ruff
Taff, D&K, MWS, Carman, Benny Hester, and many other artists.  I live for
Christian music!

Now about your other topics!

>       As a former Catholic now turned Orthedox Christian, I feel in
> a way compelled to stand quiet on this discussion, but I can't so here
> it goes.

Umm, point one, this confused me at first.  You are not an "Orthodox
Christian", because that means you are a member of an Eastern Orthodox church
in communion with the See of Constantinople.  You may be an "orthodox
Christian", meaning a Christian who holds right doctrine.  But I would ask you
first, how do you know you are orthodox, given all the various definitions of
"orthodox" floating around?

Point two, it sounds like you are implying Catholicism is not orthodox.  Maybe
not, you could be referring to yourself.  But in any case, Catholicism is
certainly orthodox.

>       Eric, you are basing your challenge on the assertion that the
> largest percentage of Catholic teachings are not in contradiction to the
> scriptures.  And on that point you are correct, but then the Jehovia's
> Witnesses, Mormons, and Christian Scientists can say the same thing.

Except that the Mormons and Christian Scientists have different Scriptures
than we do.  As for the JW's, I would assert that they are one of the few
groups that truly follows the gospel of Sola Scriptura to its logical
conclusion.

>       There are several fundemental differences between the Catholic
> doctrine and the historical and scriptural evidence as to what Christianity
> is "suppossed" to be.

Examine history and see.  Scriptural evidence depends highly on your
interpretation; lots of Protestant Christians disagree about what the
"scriptural evidence" of what Christianity is supposed to be, is.

> The largest of these is the fact that the
> Catholic Church holds that it is the only "official" interpretator of
> scripture.

That is correct.

> This one act flies in the face of the facts that Jesus taught
> to the common man, the Gospel's were written in the common tongue, (not
> just Greek and Hebrew, but the 'street dialect' of those languages) and
> God ment for us to read and interpret these things in our own way.

Sorry, Scripture does that say that God meant us to "read and interpret"
Scripture "in our own way."  In fact, 1 Tim 3:15 says that the Church is the
"pillar and foundation of the truth."  2 Peter 1:20 says, "Above all, you must
understand that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of private
interpretation."  Rather, Scripture says that we must not accept anything
contrary to the teaching we received (Rom 16:17), and we must keep away from
anyone who does not live according to the teaching we received (2 Th 3:6).
These refer to the teachings of the church; we are not to find our own
doctrine, but accept what we have received.  For the Faith was "once for all
entrusted to the saints" (Jude 3).

It is true that Christ wants us to know and understand His gospel, and he
wants all peopel to know his written Word.  But we are not to depart from the
teaching of the church.  "He who listens to you, listens to me; he who rejects
you, rejects he who sent me." (Luke 10:16).  Christ has promised that His Holy
Spirit would bring all right doctrine be remembered by his church (John 14:26)
and that all truth would be revealed to the church (John 16:13).  Note that
this is a corporate promise, not an individual one.

> How many times does scripture say "*YOU* have been given these signs so that
> *YOU* may...." God is talking to use directly not through a Church
> intemediary.

The job of the church is to guard the correct doctrine.  Scripture as I have
mentioned tells us to adhere to what we received; 1 Thes 2:15 says that we
must hold fast to the traditions we received, "whether by word of mouth, or by
letter."

Unfortunately the reality of sin is that individual tend to fall into error.
This is sadly demonstrated by the state of the Christian churches today -- no
one can agree on any substantian amount of doctrine, and different churches
claim that Scripture teaches this or that, but what they teach contradicts
what others claim that Scripture teaches.

God talks to us directly, but the revelation has been given to the church has
a whole, and must not be interpreted individually.  We all are members of the
church; to speak of the Church as "intermediary" is fallacious because we
_are_ the church.  The Apostles left us a set of doctrines, Scriptures, and a
way of interpreting them.  Any interpretation contrary to the teaching of the
Apostles is heretical.  Therefore we must know how the Apostles interpreted
Scripture.  The only way to do this is to see what Christians have believed
throughout the centuries.  After all, Christ promised his Holy Spirit to guide
us into all truth and protect us from error.

The Catholic Church is not free to proclaim anything it wishes.  It is only
free to proclaim what it has received from the Apostles.  Bishops cannot
invent new interpretations.  They must only proclaim what has always been
believed by the church.  Not even the Pope can declare an infallibly article
of faith or morals that has no basis in what the Church has historically
believed.

>       Additionally, the Papacy makes claims to be infailable, under
> certain conditions.  This again simply stands against the Biblical
> teachings "There is no one who is rightous, not even one".

You are confusing "infalliblity" with "impeccability".  Infallibility means
that when the Pope makes a solemn proclamation that a certain article of faith
or morals must be held by all the faithful, then that article is infallible,
i.e., without error.  This has only happened a handful of times.  It does not
mean that everything the Pope says is inerrant, nor does it mean he will be
preserved from sin.  Infallibility is entirely unrelated to how good the Pope
behaves.  It is a consequence of Christ's scriptural promise to guide us into
all truth, and that the gates of Hell would not prevail against the Church
Jesus founded (Matthew 16:19).  Hence the Scripture you quote is entirely
inapplicable to infallibility.

>       I do believe that the Catholic Church has many fundemental
> error's in the way that it interprets scripture, and in the way that
> it governs its assembly; however, I also recognize that *EVERY* religion
> has its own problems with this same issue.

>       JESUS CHRIST IS NOT RELIGION!!!!!!!

James 1:26: "If anyone considers himself religious and yet does not keep a
tight rein on his tongue, he deceives himself and his religion is worthless.
Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look
after orphans and windows in their distress and to keep oneself from being
polluted by the world."

1 Tim 5:4: "But if a widow has children or grandchildren, these should learn
first of all to put their religion into practice by caring for their own
family and so repaying their parents and grandparents, for this is pleasing to
God."

>       If people know God personally, and read and interpret the Bible
> in Spiritual prayer, if Jesus is your personal Lord and Saviour, then
> the title you label yourself with is irrelevant!! People, we are at
> war with Satan and you want to stand and argue about whether the Marines
> or the Army is better equiped to fight him!!  This is absolute foolishness.
> God is our Lord, Christ is our Saviour, the Spirit is our Strength, lets
> not waste this on each other when their is an Army marching against us.

I agree.

>       We should not be worried about the Catholics, or the Baptists, or
> the Methodists -- we MUST be worried about the Agnostics, the Athiests, the
> Unitarians, the multitude of lost lonely souls who need to see the light and
> love of God.  We can never show them that if we spend our time argueing
> about who is better equiped to do that.

Agreed, again.

> Your Brother in Christ,

> Dave Wagle

Shalom,

Eric
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU