One Watchtower/Catholic comparison...

by Confession 38 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  lovelylil

  Jeff,

  I agree there are many different views about biblical texts. I belonged to Churches that taught all three of those beliefs you cited.

  Our salvation belongs on our having a personal relationship with God thru his son Jesus and recognizing that Jesus is our only savior. John 17:3 states our everlasting life depends on our knowing God and his son Christ Jesus and this "knowing" denotes we should know them as we would know a personal friend. That is why we are baptized in the name of the father, son and holy spirit. Not into an organization like the Witnesss do. So that we are united with them by Holy Spirit and have a personal relationship with them. If we have a personal relationship with them, they will teach us with holy spirit what we have to learn as individuals. but still as individuals we will be on different levels spiritually. Some will not be able to fully understand the deeper teachings. But I don't think the trinity or nature of holy spirit is really an important issue as far as our salvation goes although some churches tell you it is, and I will tell you why I feel this way

  For one thing nothing is stated in the bible that says we have to understand the nature of the Holy Spirit to be saved. Jesus even showed that it was a hard teaching to understand when he compared the spirit to the wind for Nicodemus. Nicodemus still did not understand what Jesus was saying. He used wind as an illustration as no one had seen holy spirit before that time. Nowhere did Christ say unless we full understood the nature of holy spirit and taught it the proper way that we will not be saved. It is an an issue essential to our salvation.

  Another reason is that Christ said people would know his true disciples by their love they had among themselves, not by their knowlege of or understanding of every scripture. If we are united in love for all our brethren, we are disciples of his. Now of course we have to agree with the basic teachings of the faith which the NT shows are simply that we need to recognize that Christ was the son of God, he gave his life a ransom for us, died for our sins and was resurrected on the third day. Any who say Jesus was not the son of God, or did not die for us or was not resurrected back to heaven, if they claim to be in the body of Christ, would be heretics.

  Also to show it was not head knowledge or being able to interpret all scripture that Christ found important for his followers but rather how well we know him is this scripture:

  John 5:39,40

  Here Jesus says to the Pharisees, "You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life

  So, although the Pharisees knew the scriptures backwards and forward they did not know Christ in an intimate way. If they did they would have known that showing love and mercy were far more important than interpreting or recalling scripture.

  Even though some do not agree with interpretations of certain scripture, if they agree with the few you had to in order to join the faith - love will cover them for the things they still do not understand. And those Christians who are more mature in the faith need to try to help those who are babes to learn the deeper things. We are never to berate them or judge them though. Our helping them should be in a loving way. And I also believe a time will come when all Christians will be united in the faith and have accurate knowlege of all scripture together. But, Jesus himself will accomplish this not a made made religion of our day.

  If we are in the body of Christ and have the Holy Spirit within us we will follow Christs footsteps and teach to the best of our ability based on what he taught us thru the Bible. Of course the basics should be understood and some religions like the WT do not even understand the basics. But there is a lot of freedom in Christ and many things are not black and white and we have the freedom of convincing ourselves what we hold to be true. To believe we have to agree on everything is not a biblical teaching at all. I see no reason why I cannot enjoy fellowship with other believers in Christ just because they may believe other doctrine of their church that I do not believe in.

  One thing I hate about some religious organizations is that they do not allow questioning of any sort. This is not a bible teaching as the Bereans were called noble minded Christians when they checked every teaching that the Apostle Paul gave them. If they disagreed with some things that would have been o.k. as they needed to be convinced in their own minds.

  Most of the mainstream religions today including the Catholic and Protestants among others do agree with the basic doctrines and that is why we should consider them our brothers in the faith.The seperation comes from the doctrines the churches teach that are unique to them, not because they are not in agreement that Christ is our only savior. If not for these institutions - we would always consider all Christians our brothers.

  It is o.k. as a Christian to say we don't fully understand everything. And it is o.k. to disagree on matters that are not important to our salvation. We need to stive for spiritual harmony not comformity.
• 

  A Paduan

  Irenaeus

  • After the Holy Apostles (Peter and Paul) had founded and set the Church in order (in Rome) they gave over the exercise of the episcopal office to Linus.

  -------------------------------------

  A couple of differences - I don't think that the watchtower comes up with first and second century references
• 

  Finally-Free

  A bit off topic, but not too much I hope. I am currently reading the book "Upon this Rock" by Stephen K. Ray and I'm finding it very interesting. Some of you may too. It's a bit heavy on the footnotes, but there's a ton of information in them.

  W
• 

  lovelylil

  Paduan,

  While the information you gave is true, my point was that the Catholic Chruch today with its centralized body that interprets all truth for the believers in Christ is not the same "church" that the Apostles began in their time.

  There was no governing body nor council of bishops or Pope that interpreted all scripture and judged those who did not believe as un-Christian or heretics.

  Christians even if they decide to join a group for worship still have to have a personal relationship with Christ and are not to be enslaved to man made doctrines at all. No one is supposed to govern over them except for Christ.

  And that all christians no matter what denomination are brothers in Christ if like Jeff said they are baptized in the name of the father, son and holy spirit.

  Unfortunately the WT baptizes into the "spirit directed organization"
• 

  Hondo

  lovelylil

  Disagree with you again.

  While the information you gave is true, my point was that the Catholic Chruch today with its centralized body that interprets all truth for the believers in Christ is not the same "church" that the Apostles began in their time.

  *** You are correct, the Catholic Church of today is not the same today as it was 2000 years ago. It has grown obviously to the size it now, 1.2 billion. To say that it is not the same church that Peter and the Apostles began is not correct. Peter, the first Pope, kept the church organization as centralized, and as organized, as possible, given the Roman persecution of the time period he lived, and with the central theme that with faith, grace, and belief in and love of our Lord, we can have eternal life. It was Peter and the Apostles job to orally interpret and preach the words of our lord Jesus Christ during a very tumultuous period of time. As a result of this persecution, Peter was crucified in 67AD and Pope Linus took over, the Pope Anacletus, then Pope Clement, Pope Evaristus, Pope Alexander I, Pope Sixtus, and so forth and so on up to Pope John Paul II, the 264th Pontif. This line of succession from Peter to current Pontif is unbroken, and has been for 2000 years. With each successive Pope the Catholic Church grew, expanded, and became more organized, through good times and bad. Like any other organized body, the Catholic Church started off slowly, painfully slow, but eventually grew by leaps and bounds, primarily after 400AD. Unfortunately, they became too centralized and powerful, which created periods of torment and problems during the middle ages, which the chuch, I'm certain, is not proud of. There were even a few crooked Popes thrown in, 5 to be exact. Martin Luther (the centralization and overall authority of the Pope were main complaints of his) finally had enough in 1516 and went in his own direction.

  Hondo
• 

  lovelylil

  
  

  Hondo,

  With all due respect to you, many people do not believe in the Catholic Churches belief that Peter was the first Pope. all christian denominations try to prove they are the only ones descended from the Apostles and thus have full authority over all Christians. The early church fathers are writing from their own beliefs and perspectives and while yes the early Catholic church did teach much of what the Apostles did. But, they are mistaken when they say that their Church was built on Peter who was the first Pope.

  I have extensively studied their so called "proof texts" to proof their beliefs and sorry but they do not hold water. The church is built on the foundation of Christ and he is the only head of it. If you feels I am in error, then please show me scripturally where I am wrong. What scriptures do you say that the early church fathers used to prove Peter was the first Pope? If you would like to discuss this in more detail away from this forum, here is my email address: [email protected] I am not saying anything against being a Catholic, I don't believe our salvation depends on what religion we affiliate with so I would never tell anyone to leave their church. The only problem I have with churches like the Catholic on and the WT, is that they claim sole authority over the whole body of believers and this is not a biblical teaching.
• 

  heathen

  I think lovelylil has a point . The catholic church is as biased of their past as the WTBTS is of theirs . The catholic church just acts like it's ok to apologize for the horendous treatment of people in the past , when they've murdered and mamed untold amounts of people . The apostle peter was the only one that was ordained by christ , all others after him just assumed they could fill that position , there is nothing in the bible to confirm the churches stand on this . The WTBTS uses the FDS in the same way the catholic church uses the pope and cardinals . They just claim the scripture is talking about them and poof they assume control of the bible and it's interpretations. There is always the evil slave as well of which never seems to apply but to people that oppose the WTBTS. It's been interesting to see how catholics are as brainwashed today to defend the church as the dubbies are . I've been in several of these type of discussions and people have produced evidence to show the cruel torture the catholic church would impose on people . I suggest you look up the -anal pear - on the web .
• 

  the_classicist

  double post
• 

  the_classicist

  "A bit off topic, but not too much I hope. I am currently reading the book "Upon this Rock" by Stephen K. Ray and I'm finding it very interesting. Some of you may too. It's a bit heavy on the footnotes, but there's a ton of information in them." Not that I'm a proponent of theism, but if you want a balanced view, also read the book "The Primacy of Peter: Essays in Ecclesiology and the Early Church" by John Meyendorff et al. Many quotes in books like Mr. Ray's are taken out of both historical and intertextual context.