A question about Catholocism.

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by LittleLambofJesus

Matthew 3:9 "and do not think to say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as [our] father.'
For I say to you that God is able to raise up children to Abraham from these stones. ​

​

Well, you ain't heavy ole stone, your my brother.

Art thou being ambiguous

Proverbs 27:3 A stone is heavy and the sand weighty,
but the provocation of a fool is heavier than both of them.

 

[Yarddog]

[/indent]
Art thou being ambiguous

Hee-hee-hee-hee

 

[Albion]

No, we are justified through faith.

So you've become a Lutheran?

What shading?

I gave plenty of examples.

We are justified through faith. Now what exactly is faith? As scripture shows, faith is more than "saying" I believe. As James points out.

But it's NOT good works. So you are telling me that the church does NOT believe that our works contribute to salvation?

I don't know why one would say it?
Purge
1
a : to clear of guilt b : to free from moral or ceremonial defilement

Well, then, what is the explanation for the way most Catholics on CF go out of their way to say that purging doesn't go on in Purgatory but something that sounds nicer, like purifying or preparing?

Catholics believe the Bible, they just don't trust what it says to be the whole truth.

Why would anyone believe that what scripture holds the only revelations of God?

Why would they NOT??

If God chose this method of revealing his intentions and the information necessary for us, why would we conclude that it's insufficient or incomplete? I'd think that it would be almost automatic for any Christian to trust God.

Worship-
chiefly British : a person of importance —used as a title for various officials (as magistrates and some mayors)
2
: reverence offered a divine being or supernatural power; also : an act of expressing such reverence

3
: a form of religious practice with its creed and ritual

4
: extravagant respect or admiration for or devotion to an object of esteem

Since the word includes both devotion paid to God and to saints (persons commanding esteem), why would Catholics so vehemently deny, by evasive wording, that they worship the saints?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by Yarddog
No, we are justified through faith.

So you've become a Lutheran?

They are really closet Lutherans.

http://www.christianforums.com/t6980813-23/#post44360212
That Martin Luther? He wasn’t so bad, says Pope

 

[Yarddog]

So you've become a Lutheran?

Nah, they teach their sheep to do many of things which we do and call it "faith alone".

I gave plenty of examples.

And I answered them.

But it's NOT good works. So you are telling me that the church does NOT believe that our works contribute to salvation?

Good works covers anything which we do which God has called us each to do through the Holy Spirit. Without the Holy Spirit, they are useless works. The Holy Spirit needs to be working within us for us to have justifying faith.

Well, then, what is the explanation for the way most Catholics on CF go out of their way to say that purging doesn't go on in Purgatory but something that sounds nicer, like purifying or preparing?

You are making this claim but I don't know if they are or not. The ones which you are talking about may use those words because many Protestants are lazy with the understanding of English. Purging can have negative connotation for some but it does means the final purification before entering heaven.

Why would they NOT??

Because anyone who has the slightest understanding of scripture would know that John plainly wrote: "There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written."

Now remember that John wrote that long after the other books which are contained in scripture were already written.

If God chose this method of revealing his intentions and the information necessary for us, why would we conclude that it's insufficient or incomplete?

Where did God conclude that scripture contained all knowledge? I guess that since he trusted the Catholic Church to give you what was written he would trust that those that came 2000 years years later would get the message that he left far more with those that the Apostles taught.

I'd think that it would be almost automatic for any Christian to trust God.

We trust God. We trust what he taught the Apostles and what they handed down to those that they taught.

Since the word includes both devotion paid to God and to saints (persons commanding esteem), why would Catholics so vehemently deny, by evasive wording, that they worship the saints?

Because, as I explained earlier in this post, Protestants don't understand English. No, really, we always seem to have a language barrier between children of God. (Kinda the Tower of Babel effect, if you think about it.)

Protestants are taught to believe what their ministers tell them about what the Catholic Church teaches. These ministers, or others, use the definition which they feel best expresses what they believe is going on, from the outside looking in. They don't take the time to understand what the CC actually teaches.

Fortunately, since Vatican II, the Church has embarked on a mission to try and bring the separated Churches closer together, through ecumenism. They come together with members of such Churches as the Lutheran, Pentecostal, Methodist, etc... and talk. Both sides try to explain the language which they use so that both sides can understand how the other uses the words.

There are Declarations between the CC and several Churches regarding matters of faith.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Tzaousios,

I disagree, we do not all bring a filter to our reading of God's Word. Not if we are really students, who then become serious students of His Word, that is part of the problem with Catholicism.

In the area I live, we have a "Catholic Channel" on tv. I've watched several times, intently, as Priest and Friars ramble on about texts they clearly don't truly know, understand or live...then spend substantial time quoting a Bishop, "Holy Father" / Pope or other extra-biblical "saint(s)" ...instead of teaching a line by line verse by verse break-down of His Word. I'm not saying that unfiltered teaching of God's Word is completely absent in Catholicism but it's clearly not wide-spread.

That said, I believe we live in days that Paul spoke of to Timothy:

2Timothy 4:

For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.

I know these conversations can be hard, but only for those who are willing to re-evaluate where they stand, or thought they stood...based on an unfiltered, untwisted, unslanted, unaltered, reading and study of God's Word.

It's hard to address these things. But those who would rather stay right where they are, regardless of what Scripture has to say, set in an easy position, but it's like the frog in the pot.

What happens when two people who just "read what the Bible says" come to two completely contradictory positions?

This is why I don't give credence to anyone who claims to read Scripture without a filter, it's simply wrong. Each of us brings ourselves to the Scriptures, that's why nobody is an infallible interpreter of Scripture.

What seems awfully clear to me about what Scripture quite plainly says isn't necessarily what is clear to you about what Scripture plainly says. That's why you and I aren't the private interpreters of Scripture; but are rather part of a continuum of faith--the Christian Church--which has been wrestling with Scripture for two thousand years.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Albion]

Nah, they teach their sheep to do many of things which we do and call it "faith alone".

It sounds like you don't quite get their POV. Faith alone doesn't mean "avoid, at all costs, performing any good works," you know.

Good works covers anything which we do which God has called us each to do through the Holy Spirit. Without the Holy Spirit, they are useless works. The Holy Spirit needs to be working within us for us to have justifying faith.

That's all true, but it avoids the big question--and that avoidance is exactly what I was asking about.

You are making this claim but I don't know if they are or not. The ones which you are talking about may use those words because many Protestants are lazy with the understanding of English. Purging can have negative connotation for some but it does means the final purification before entering heaven.

Well, it sounds like you didn't have any trouble saying it. I wonder why you are unlike the rest of your fellow Catholics here?

Because anyone who has the slightest understanding of scripture would know that John plainly wrote: "There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written."
Now remember that John wrote that long after the other books which are contained in scripture were already written.

Where in that passage are we told 1) that we are to find additional information or 2) where it is?

It may be just me, but it bothers me when people misuse scripture in that way, penciling in their own thoughts in between the lines of scripture. The fact that Jesus said other things (which we all know is true) doesn't in any way say that we NEED that information. IN FACT, we are specifically tiold that we do NOT need this unrecorded material. But you feel free to find whatever additional commentary by anyone that is out there, and make it into dogma.

Where did God conclude that scripture contained all knowledge?

Where did God tell us that his revelation in scripture was incomplete and unreliable without some additional information that he, alas, omitted to tell us about?

I guess that since he trusted the Catholic Church to give you what was written

If he HAD done that, you'd have a good answer there.

Anyway, I stated my question, so there's no reason for us now to drift off into the usual "whose denomination is best" debate.

 

[Yarddog]

It sounds like you don't quite get their POV. Faith alone doesn't mean "avoid, at all costs, performing any good works," you know.

Oh, I get their point of view. The Augsburg Confession is quite clear but I was joking. The Lutheran Church is a great Church full of many, many good loving children of God.

That's all true, but it avoids the big question--and that avoidance is exactly what I was asking about.

If you think that I'm avoiding a question then be specific and stop beating around the bush. I can only reply to what is asked.

Well, it sounds like you didn't have any trouble saying it. I wonder why you are unlike the rest of your fellow Catholics here?

I know of none that have a problem saying it. There is not much difference between purification and purging. They both describe the removal of any sin which one have before entering heaven.

Where in that passage are we told 1) that we are to find additional information or 2) where it is?

Not in that passage but within scripture:
2 Thess. 2:15
So then, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye were taught, whether by word, or by epistle of ours.

The Apostles and disciples went into the Churches speaking the Gospel and they later wrote to a few of these Churches, reminding them of some of the things which the spoke. The Gospel of Jesus Christ cannot be contained in one book.

It may be just me, but it bothers me when people misuse scripture in that way, penciling in their own thoughts in between the lines of scripture.

Who penciled in thoughts between the lines of scripture?

The fact that Jesus said other things (which we all know is true) doesn't in any way say that we NEED that information.

You "not needing" what else was taught does not take away from the truth of what the ancient Church teaches.

IN FACT, we are specifically tiold that we do NOT need this unrecorded material.

Where? Not in scripture.

But you feel free to find whatever additional commentary by anyone that is out there, and make it into dogma.

Why should I want to make something into dogma. I am just one of the sheep. I do what God has called me to do and that does not include Holy Orders.

Where did God tell us that his revelation in scripture was incomplete and unreliable without some additional information that he, alas, omitted to tell us about?

We can do this all day but God did not call scripture complete or that all knowledge is contained within scripture. Scripture is good and reliable for teaching. It contains great mysteries which can only be known through revelation from his Holy Spirit but it cannot contain all knowledge about God, as we know from John.

If he HAD done that, you'd have a good answer there.

He did that and it was a good answer. Maybe it went over your head. Just kidding.

Anyway, I stated my question, so there's no reason for us now to drift off into the usual "whose denomination is best" debate.

I certainly don't want to get into that either. It is never fruitful. I have great respect and love for all Churches and Christians who love God. I don't wish to cause separation but instead, as much understanding as possible.

I don't care if other embrace Catholicism, I just wish to close some of the void which people allow to separate us.

 

[thegospel4all]

Again, some of the very basic issues and problems are;

1) The elevation of a leader over God's people to the point that he is called, "The Holy Father"

Jesus said you have one father, your heavenly Father. My understanding is that, within Catholicism, the apostle Peter was the first Pope? Is that correct?

2) I'd have to think that Peter and Paul as well, would be very displeased, seeing Mary elevated to a status that even The Lord Jesus didn't bestow upon her.

I think they would be startled and upset over believers being elevated by men, to a special "saintly" status and then both they and Mary being prayed to.

Especially in this manner, "Holy Mary, mother of God, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death..."

Was Mary appointed as our intercessor before God? Can you please show where that is in Scripture?

Is that how and to whom Jesus taught us to pray?

They would be apalled at the pomp, elaborate clothing, titles, let alone the monetary embelishments afforded to leaders within the churches, including many Protestant churches.

Yes, you can find error in many churches, both Catholic and Protestant and they all will be judged accordingly, by a returning Savior and King, who when he was here, wore garments given to him as gifts and said that, "Foxes have their holes and birds have their nests but The Son of man has no place to lay his head..."

His name is The Word of God and He will judge us by His Word. His fully revealed word is ours, in our hands, so why do we look for men or women or any other extrabiblical source to bring some new revelation, some super-spiritual experience and mystical montra or "new" word from God?

Those place in religious leadership over God's people, who say things like, "It's a mystery...we can't understand it." etc, seek to keep those under them in a position of ignorance, acting as the oracle of God to them.

We are to study to show ourselves approved before God, rightly dividing The Word of Truth.

I do my best to measure every church I may attend, relationships, my conduct and this world, by His complete and revealed Word, which we have to our blessing.

 

[James4_14]

[/color][/b]

It was chronology. The widening circle from Jerusalem to all nations.

And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.




There was a covenant at Sinai and one at Zion. They are completely different.

Mt 7 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

Mt. 21:43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.

That's what happened.

***Matt 15:24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
***Acts 11:19 Now they which were scattered abroad upon the persecution that arose about Stephen travelled as far as Phenice, and Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching the word to none but unto the Jews only.
***Gal 2:8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles
***Acts 13:46 Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you (JEWS): but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles.
***Rom 11:24
24 For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be graffed into their own olive tree?

When they went to all nations it was still Israel as a prominent people. There were a vast number of Jews that were converted to the kingdom Gospel of Christ and a scant few Gentiles in comparison.

 

[James4_14]

There is no void. There is a curtain of idolatry. No room for compromise.

 

[James4_14]

***Jer 2:13
13 For my people have committed two evils; they have forsaken me the fountain of living waters, and hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water.

 

[OpenDoor]

The bishop of Rome (the Pope) is the rightful successor of St. Peter.

I would have to disagree

 

[Jipsah]

I would, however, rather know more about the Scriptures than the history of the Church.

But if the topic under discussion is the history of the Church, then at least a cursory knowledge of the subject would be a plus, don't you think?

We live in the now and I know what I see.

That leaves us a wonderful license to make it up as we go, doesn't it?

2 And if any man think that he knoweth anything, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know.

Would that apply to folks who loudly proclaim their knowledge of the Bible, as well?

The only tradition I hold to is Master Chef coffee and Luzianne tea.

I'm willing to bet a substantial sum that isn't true.

 

[Jipsah]

Without using tradition, list the number of books in the Bible. Table of Contents are not counted.

One really long book.

 

[Jipsah]

Church history is pregnant with murder, mayhem and destruction. Not only did this destruction include the destruction of lives and property but also truth in history. Many documents were destroyed. Satan was at work via the elevated testosterone levels of the "alpha male".

Wow, you have a lot of opinions on a history of which you profess to be proudly ignorant. Hmmmm...

 

[Jipsah]

the gates of hell (power of the grave)shall not prevail against it.

Secuse me, Jim, but your traditions are showing.

 

[GenetoJean]

I wish now I would have asked the question in the OBOB forum.

 

[Jipsah]

Islam is pretty much a majority.

Well no, it isn't. About one third of the people in the world profess Christianity in one form or another, while only about 20% follow Islam.

 

[Jipsah]

For Catholics to come here and cry about mistreatmentand play the victim card as the underdogs of history is rather absurd.

Then it's probably good that no one here did any such thing.