Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Borealis said:Except that the Magesterium is guided by the Holy Spirit; they are not permitted to be incorrect in matters of faith and morals, as promised by Christ when he stated that the church was the pillar and foundation of truth.
Chief117 said:Exactly what I meant. The interpretations and beliefs of early church fathers should be taken into careful consideration, but in no way does their belief or tradition supersede scripture.
The Catholic belief that their papal interpretation of the Bible is infallible is absurd and requires you to overlook several Bible passages in order to accept it.
I'll find some examples showing how the apostles could and did err--opening the door to the idea that even your "infallible" papal authority can be wrong--and showing that the WHOLE catholic church at that time worked together as a united whole to strive.
Summed up: tradition doesn't necessitate truth. Resting all your faith on a single human authority can and will lead you astray--I beg you to pray and read the Bible.
Jesus always takes children to heaven. Regardless of anything. Would you suggest that an unborn child dieing (by miscarriage or abortion) would not go to heaven? Most certainly he would. Children are the special case.
I don't have children, but I did get married just last week!
If I were to describe my hopes for them, they would be baptized around the age of 6. This is an age that allows for my wife and I to teach them about Jesus, and they are capable enough to know of their love and desire to Jesus' will. They will choose to accept Christ. I will not allow them to be baptized not knowing what it means, only to grow up and abuse it before they know what they're doing.
one verse? one verse? There are probably closer to 20 verses that say that faith alone saves us, and work is not required. THE ONLY verse that I am aware of that even suggests faith plus works, and that is James 2:14-26.
However, James here is not arguing for works as a means of earning salvation.
He is arguing for "what is real [legitimate] faith?" Legitimate faith is one characterized by works, but the works themselves do not earn you salvation. One kind of faith, mere belief, is the same faith as the demons. These will not inherit the kingdom of God. Another kind of faith, legitimate faith, fills a person with the holy spirit which leads them to a desire to do good for the common man.
The works characterize the faith and separate it from a dead faith. The works themselves do not earn you salvation. James is not disagreeing with Paul in Romans, he is taking the idea a bit further.
Don't get me wrong, I don't have a "thing" against Catholics. There are millions of people out there with the completely wrong idea and many are guilty of this accusation. However, with the Lord as my authority, I lead my life Biblically, and by my faith I am a member of the true, catholic church.
I'd quote some passages, but I just woke up so I'll have to jump back in this thread later. Let it be said though, that "Faith +Grace" alone saves us.
The faith without deeds is dead, but the deeds do not earn us salvation, they merely separate us from the demons. This also separates us from those who idly sit in church and say, "Hey I'm resting secure in salvation and I don't have to do a thing about it."
The only thing I wish to say to you is this: amateur or not, you have the Holy spirit and more than fully capable to understand and interpret the Bible.
These things are spiritually discerned, revealed by the Holy Spirit, not by a papal authority. They have just as much (if not more) room for error than many true Christian Protestants.
Funny about this compounding/multiplying comment. You know, the very apostles who spent all their time with Jesus were not always right--not even Peter, who you must view as infallible since he was your first pope, and the papal authority according to you is infallible.
Acts has a couple examples of how the church was expanding, and the apostles worked together to decide interpretations and courses of action. Peter wasn't always the final authority. In fact, in Acts 15, it was James who passed final judgment (over both Peter and Paul).
There is also a very high chance that this was not James the apostle, as I believe he was already killed by Herod, but rather, James Jesus' brother. Funny a non-apostle might have this authority.
Peter was once wrong, and Paul had to confront him about his actions.
The early, catholic church (the root of all present-day Christianity, and not the beginning of the Roman Catholic Church) was characterized by their unity, working together and instructing each other. None was greater than another. Yet, their ability and inclination to err and produce fallacies did not prevent any church from obtaining the New Testament, nor did it prevent the church from expanding.
InquisitorKind said:Bulldog wasn't writing about whether or not the Magesterium is infallible or not. The question was whether or not you have to fallibly interpret the your denomination's teachings. The answer to that question is not affected by your response.
~Matt
Borealis said:Except that the Magesterium is guided by the Holy Spirit; they are not permitted to be incorrect in matters of faith and morals, as promised by Christ when he stated that the church was the pillar and foundation of truth.
Borealis said:It's not up to us to interpret Scripture; that is a gift given to those who are selected as part of the Magesterium. I trust that Christ will not allow the Church to teach me incorrectly; why should I assume that I would know better than they would?
Raymond E. Brown: Roman Catholics who appeal explicitly to Spirit-guided church teaching are often unaware that their church has seldom if ever definitively pronounced on the literal meaning of a passage of Scripture, i.e., what the author meant when he wrote it. Most often the church has commented on the on-going meaning of Scripture by resisting the claims of those who would reject established practices or beliefs as unbiblical. Raymond E. Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament (New York: Doubleday, 1997), p. 31.
PaladinValer said:1. Now that the thief's faith was initiated, wouldn't he wanted to have been baptized?
PaladinValer said:2. The Resurrection hadn't happened yet. The New Covenant between God and the world through Himself hadn't started yet. Thus, the Church hadn't been founded yet, and thus, no one yet could be baptized into the Church and into His Mystical Body.
InquisitorKind said:I have seen the same thing with large groups of Catholics, even on issues that should be clear within Catholicism, such as when a group of Catholics I used to be involved in was actively debating whether or not homosexual relationships were sin. To make things even more confusing, the priest was advocating homosexual relationships, but I don't take this example as representative of the norm. Your example of confusion isn't representative of the whole, and neither is mine; since I don't generalize from the particulars, neither should you.~Matt
BBAS 64 said:Good Day, Borealis
As I have posted in # 13, you are claiming something that does not exist. The Roman Catholic Church has never explained one single passage's meaning.
billychum said:If it's not symbolic, then what is it?
Billy <><
Borealis said:It's not up to us to interpret Scripture; that is a gift given to those who are selected as part of the Magesterium. I trust that Christ will not allow the Church to teach me incorrectly; why should I assume that I would know better than they would?
Borealis said:It's not up to us to interpret Scripture; that is a gift given to those who are selected as part of the Magesterium. I trust that Christ will not allow the Church to teach me incorrectly; why should I assume that I would know better than they would?
Borealis said:Except that the Magesterium is guided by the Holy Spirit; they are not permitted to be incorrect in matters of faith and morals, as promised by Christ when he stated that the church was the pillar and foundation of truth.
Albion said:I think it's worth noting that there are a lot of qualifiers in Brown's statement (below). The Church has "seldom" done this, not "never." More than that, he was saying that it has not usually spoken "definitively." As most of us know, that language means that it may teach it as God's truth for centuries on end, but unless it is formalized by the action of a Council or Ex Cathedra pronouncement, what is always presented as the truth according to the Church is not called "definitive." Then too, it was only to the "literal" meaning that the Church is said to have spoken seldom; it extrapolates from and interprets the supposed meaning of Bible verses routinely.
seldom if ever definitively pronounced on the literal meaning of a passage of Scripture,
Raymond E. Brown: To the best of my knowledge the Roman Catholic Church has never defined the literal sense of a single passage of the Bible. Raymond E. Brown, The Critical Meaning of the Bible (New York: Paulist Press, 1981), p. 40.
It's not up to us to interpret Scripture; that is a gift given to those who are selected as part of the Magesterium. I trust that Christ will not allow the Church to teach me incorrectly; why should I assume that I would know better than they would?
Chief117 said:Exactly what I meant. The interpretations and beliefs of early church fathers should be taken into careful consideration, but in no way does their belief or tradition supersede scripture. The Catholic belief that their papal interpretation of the Bible is infallible is absurd and requires you to overlook several Bible passages in order to accept it. I'll find some examples showing how the apostles could and did err--opening the door to the idea that even your "infallible" papal authority can be wrong--and showing that the WHOLE catholic church at that time worked together as a united whole to strive.
Summed up: tradition doesn't necessitate truth. Resting all your faith on a single human authority can and will lead you astray--I beg you to pray and read the Bible.
Jesus always takes children to heaven. Regardless of anything. Would you suggest that an unborn child dieing (by miscarriage or abortion) would not go to heaven? Most certainly he would. Children are the special case.
I don't have children, but I did get married just last week! If I were to describe my hopes for them, they would be baptized around the age of 6. This is an age that allows for my wife and I to teach them about Jesus, and they are capable enough to know of their love and desire to Jesus' will. They will choose to accept Christ. I will not allow them to be baptized not knowing what it means, only to grow up and abuse it before they know what they're doing.
one verse? one verse? There are probably closer to 20 verses that say that faith alone saves us, and work is not required. THE ONLY verse that I am aware of that even suggests faith plus works, and that is James 2:14-26.
However, James here is not arguing for works as a means of earning salvation. He is arguing for "what is real [legitimate] faith?" Legitimate faith is one characterized by works, but the works themselves do not earn you salvation. One kind of faith, mere belief, is the same faith as the demons. These will not inherit the kingdom of God. Another kind of faith, legitimate faith, fills a person with the holy spirit which leads them to a desire to do good for the common man.
The works characterize the faith and separate it from a dead faith. The works themselves do not earn you salvation. James is not disagreeing with Paul in Romans, he is taking the idea a bit further.
Throw them out? Nope. Never. I don't pick and choose. The Bible is not self-contradictive. Catholics are one of the most guilty parties of this accusation. Don't get me wrong, I don't have a "thing" against Catholics. There are millions of people out there with the completely wrong idea and many are guilty of this accusation. However, with the Lord as my authority, I lead my life Biblically, and by my faith I am a member of the true, catholic church.
"But for the authority of the Church, I would not believe the Gospel."[/size]
St. Augustine...
I'd quote some passages, but I just woke up so I'll have to jump back in this thread later. Let it be said though, that "Faith +Grace" alone saves us. The faith without deeds is dead, but the deeds do not earn us salvation, they merely separate us from the demons. This also separates us from those who idly sit in church and say, "Hey I'm resting secure in salvation and I don't have to do a thing about it." /{QUOTE]
And you can add "Works" to that equation. Again, Catholics don't believe works will help you any better. But it isn't a one time event as many "sola-fide" believe.
The only thing I wish to say to you is this: amateur or not, you have the Holy spirit and more than fully capable to understand and interpret the Bible. These things are spiritually discerned, revealed by the Holy Spirit, not by a papal authority. They have just as much (if not more) room for error than many true Christian Protestants.
That I do. Actually, they have no room for error as they have the Holy Spirit teaching them. That is the beauty of the Magisterium. Without it, the Church would be left to nothing as man's free will to distort the Truth would run rampant...and has been
Funny about this compounding/multiplying comment. You know, the very apostles who spent all their time with Jesus were not always right--not even Peter, who you must view as infallible since he was your first pope, and the papal authority according to you is infallible. Acts has a couple examples of how the church was expanding, and the apostles worked together to decide interpretations and courses of action. Peter wasn't always the final authority. In fact, in Acts 15, it was James who passed final judgment (over both Peter and Paul). There is also a very high chance that this was not James the apostle, as I believe he was already killed by Herod, but rather, James Jesus' brother. Funny a non-apostle might have this authority.
Not sure what this is. But perhaphs it is relating to how the Catholic Church use the Office of Holy orders in the Holy see.
God
Pope- leader of the church on Earth
Patriarch- Leader of a larger group of diocese with in certain rites
Archbishop- leader of a group of diocese
Bishop- leader of a group of parishes
Priest- leader of a parish
It is the Hierarchy of the Catholic Church. There is more to it than what is here. But this is the basic breakdown of who is the authority. Remember, without the Pope (the leader of the Church on earth), there would be Anarchy which is what has been happening for a long time now.
Peter was once wrong, and Paul had to confront him about his actions. The early, catholic church (the root of all present-day Christianity, and not the beginning of the Roman Catholic Church) was characterized by their unity, working together and instructing each other. None was greater than another. Yet, their ability and inclination to err and produce fallacies did not prevent any church from obtaining the New Testament, nor did it prevent the church from expanding.
True, but the Roman Catholic Church has been the only Church (other than Orthodox, Angilican) to follow and hand down the traditions from that early "catholic" church. And again, the bible wasn't even around for 300 years. So following the "bible alone" is a moot point for me on this.
"Again, the attack on sola fida (faith alone for those who didn't know) by the Catholic Church can only be construed as an arrogant denial of Scripture. The New Testament says time and time and time again that we are saved by God's grace alone, and that faith alone is required to receive it."
InquisitorKind said:How do you know that your fallible interpretation of your denomination's infallible teachings is better than those Catholics that disagree with you on what Catholicism teaches? How do you come to any reasonable conclusion about religious matters? Just as you might research the evidence, consult teachers, scholars, reliable authorities, primary sources, etc., so would Protestants. ~Matt
Now I can say True true to you!Wild_Fan4Christ said:True true...
And, for you sola-fide/sola-scriptura, No where in the bible does it say "...bible alone..." If you can find it, prove me otherwise. But it is false...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?