Catholic vs. Protestant: Justification

[Catholic Dude]

New thread! New Thread!

I want more theology in General Theology!

DID you convert to LDS?
You were Catholic last time I was here.
Tell me this is you screwing around with your jokes again...your breaking my heart, you just abandoned Jesus Christ.

 

[CaDan]

DID you convert to LDS?
You were Catholic last time I was here.
Tell me this is you screwing around with your jokes again...your breaking my heart, you just abandoned Jesus Christ.

I'm still The Worst Catholic on the Internet (tm)

Apparently the story of King Christian X of Denmark and his subjects taking up the Jewish star when under Nazi occupation is not true.

But it should be true.

 

[stumpjumper]

I totally disagree. To him justification has nothing to do with imputation, but rather is a decree by God that you are now in the community and through His Spirit this decree ANTICIPATES you will actually be righteous at the end of your walk on earth. From what I have read he takes the exact opposite approach than what you just described.

I tend to think that NT Wright, overall, would call it a flawed question/distinction rather than side with imputation or infusion.

From what I have read of him (two books and a few articles), his stress is that New Creation starts now and that heaven and earth overlap in many ways.

Christianity isn't about doing good works or having proper faith to get to heaven. Christianity is about realizing the overlap between heaven and earth and furthering God's Kingdom on earth. That is the main point in his popular theology book Simply Christian.

 

[Catholic Dude]

The phrase "making righteous" is misleading, if not simply incorrect. For Protestants nothing changes in the soul of the sinner during justification, thus you are not "made righteous" but rather counted/considered righteous.

Our character is changed thru maturing in faith. The sin nature remains resident in our physical being even tho regeneration provides a new living spirit.

On the surface I would agree with what you said, but I dont think we mean the same things.
Catholics believe among the effects of the fall of Adam was that man was subject pain, suffering, physical death, and concupiscence (which is the urge to sin). God's plan of salvation includes reversing these effects, but He chose to have this occur when we receive our glorified bodies on the last day. These effects are not sin themselves, thus though they remain, dont determine whether our soul is righteous or not. If the Spirit is living in you your soul is righteous before God.

Catholics believe we are "made righteous" through our unrighteous souls receiving the Spirit, making us righteous, and on these grounds are justified. Protestants believe justification does not change the status of the soul, but rather through imputation of Christ's Righteousness you can be considered righteous before God.

Guarteed good works is not the assertion. The assertion is that good works flow from faith & prove (justify) the verity & veracity of that faith.

But the Bible clearly shows Christians turning to lives of sin (Corinthians and Galatians come to mind), thus "proving" justification or that you have "real faith" is no indication to others you are saved, or more importantly that you will do the good works God demands.

Catholics are unable to see them.

My cards are on the table, Im not hiding anything here, go check out my two huge threads in the "soteriology" section that are still relatively new. Few, if any, have actually interacted with my main points in those threads, I cant even consider anything but Catholicism if I dont see compelling evidence to the contrary. I have studied both sides here and from the Biblical evidence I conclude the Catholic position has it right. On the other hand I see no such terms or concept as "righteousness of Christ" in Scripture, nor such a thing being imputed.

Imputed righteousness can be seen like a righteous blanket which comes over your UNRIGHTEOUS soul and covers it making it APPEAR righteous on the outside and on this basis God declares you righteous.

The blanket of Christ's blood is righteous. It isn't camoflage. It is the only way a human ever appears righteous to God or gets declared righteous by God.

You appear to be contradicting yourself, on one hand you say it isnt a sort of camouflage, yet it must cover you in such a way that you appear righteous though you are not infact righteous.

Catholics totally reject that as un-Biblical and even blasphemous. God is essentially saying He cant save you unless He lies by considering you righteous when in fact you are not actually righteous.

Fact is, we never are actually righteous. God is essentialy saying that even our best good works are not enough to make us righteous. It takes His merciful act of divine intervention for us to acquire that status legaly, not ficticiously. The status is based on that fact, not fiction. We know we still inhabit flesh corrupted by Adam.

I understand the concept of imputation. What you say here and elsewhere confirms what I have already described, you believe man is considered righteous by God but in not actually righteous. Catholics call this a legal fiction at the very least least, a lie by God at most.

This is un-Biblical (Heb 12:14-15; Rev 21:27) and illogical. You are basically saying a person can fail in being made righteous but are still worthy of Heaven because of imputed righteousness.

Imputed righteousness is the only acceptable kind. Our own is as filthy rags compared to Christ's.
What is illogical is thinking you are righteous & that your righteousness will gain you salvation.

I disagree with all of what you just said. Imputed righteousness is not the only acceptable path, and next this was never about "our own" compared to Christ's, and lastly that it is about Jesus making us righteous not us making ourselves righteous of our own power.

I can't speak for Lutherans but you're right except for the part about salvation can be lost.

There is clear Biblical testimony that salvation can be lost, so your only option is to ignore such references (eg Mat 18:25-32; Gal 5:19-21)

Basically correct. See my signature for an example of Abraham being justified multiple times in life (growing in righteousness). Gen 12 (Gal 3:8; Heb 11:8), Gen 15 (Rom 4:3); Gen 22 (James 2:21-24).

That's why you get accused of preaching another gospel, that of "works" - you earn & merit salvation rendering grace no longer grace, turning mercy into merit.

The problem here is your definition of "grace" and "works" is incorrect. The Catholic model can explain Abraham's life according to the Biblical evidence, while the Protestant model doesnt fit it at all.

The question now is do you reject the Catholic model because it sounds "too hard" or because it is un-Biblical? It looks to me you are rejecting it because it sounds hard and doesnt give you a guarantee of Heaven. The fact is when we are connected to the Vine we can and must bear good fruit (Jn 15:1-10; Gal 6:7-9; Rom 2:6-8).

Not "too hard"... BIBLICALY IMPOSSIBLE.

In your opinion it is "impossible" but I see clear Biblical evidence to the contrary.

Catholics basically see it like this: With the Protestant view God is declaring a soul to be righteous which IN FACT is actually unrighteous.

Again, that's why Prots are saved by mercy & Cats are saved by merit.

All you are admitting is that God has to lie/pretend that you are righteous in order to save you.

This is not how God operates (Mat 23:25-28) and the concepts of imputation are totally foreign to Scripture.
Being saved by grace means your soul is cleansed of unrighteousness, this is infused grace (Acts 15:9-11; 2 Thes 2:13).

Legaly cleansed. Your rap sheet is whited out by His blood. You don't lose your sin nature until you lose your body or it is glorified.

There is no such thing as "legally cleansed" in the Gospel. Cleansing is first and foremost a quality of your soul, either it is clean when God looks at it, or it is not.

 

[stumpjumper]

How 'bout some Rahner

"We can and must, therefore, hold the doctrine "by grace alone" with an ardour that is both Christian and Catholic. And much of what provoked the protest of Evangelical Christianity at the time of the Reformation, for example, the doctrine of freedom, the doctrine of merit, and the doctrine of so-called infused grace, could perhaps at the time, and certainly can now, be recognized as a mutual misunderstanding and can be laid to rest. Freedom does not abolish the absolute gratuity of salvation, and the doctrine of grace intends to say nothing else but that by an act of God, by a free act of God which can not be coerced, a person really and truly is changed interiorly from being a sinner to being justified. He is a justified person who can never judge about this justification because it is constantly threatened, and because it is a hidden reality in him.* To this extent even as justified he cannot assume an autonomous position in relation to God." ~ Karl Rahner Foundations p. 360

​

 

[Catholic Dude]

Infusion and Imputation are mutually exclusive terms. Picture our souls as dirty diapers. Infusion is equivalent to putting that dirty diaper in the wash so it becomes a clean garment again. Imputation is equivalent to wrapping that dirty diaper in a clean cloth and declaring that dirty diaper to be "clean" because the "outside" is clean, though the inside, the actual dirty diaper, is unchanged.

But, still, that sin is removed because of Christ’s sacrifice is it not? [1] At some point, we are given and judged with a righteousness that is not our own. [2] In both theologies, at some point, God judges us according to the work of his son, not our own works. [3] Also, if the inside is clean, then how is further sin possible. If the grace and righteousness is infused in us, how is it possible to fall short and sin at all? I guess how there can be any concupiscence if grace is infused. [4] Unity is why we are not able to sin in heaven. How is an infusion of grace any different than this? [5]

[1] No, the imputation model leaves the soul still unrighteous. Protestants believe sanctification immediately starts AFTER justification, but it is unacceptable to declare/consider the dirty diaper to be clean during justification.

[2] It is not "our own" in that it did not originate in us, but it is "our own" in that it was a gift given to us and has become part of us. Places like 1 Cor 3:16ff describe our souls as "temples of the Holy Spirit". The Holy Spirit is given to us and Indwells in us.

[3] True. But you have to remember we have different understandings of what Jesus did. For example Catholics reject the Protestant idea the Father punished Jesus with the punishment we deserved.

[4] It is possible in the same sense Adam was originally righteous and was able to sin, he used his will. Part of the effects of the fall is as I have already said an effect call "concupiscience" which is not sin itself but as part of our fallen nature the "urge" to sin. Think of the warnings of Paul for us not to use our newly given gifts and freedom to satisfy the desires of the flesh.

The merits of Jesus will one day go towards undoing the effects of Adam such as pain, suffering, physical death, and concupiscence, but God chose to save that for when we receive our glorified bodies. At this point in time grace is given to make our souls righteous, which is the more important of the effects that need to be undone.

[5] Im not sure what you mean by "unity" nor why this prevents sin in Heaven.

Catholic super-theologians like St Augustine and St Thomas Aquinas rightly explained we cant sin in Heaven because at that point there is no delusion whatsoever as to what is True.
The way I understand it when it comes to making a choice there are two components involved, Intellect (recognizes the available options to chose from) and Will (choosing one of those options). Adam and the original Angels were not originally present to the Beatific Vision (seeing/experiencing God as He is to the degree a creature is capable), rather they were created in a lesser place and thus their Intellects were not fully enlightened so there was not a full knowledge/appreciation of what is good. From this they were able to chose to sin mistakenly thinking that what they chose would make them happy. The saints that are in Heaven now partaking in the Beatific Vision have their Intellects fully enlightened and with this freely choose (Will) to love, serve and obey God, and that is why they dont/cant sin in Heaven.

This is how I understand it, and it makes perfect sense to me. Hopefully I didnt confuse you or anyone else.

Again, I think our definitions may be different because I think your first diaper analogy fits imputation better than infusion. We receive the holy spirit but the “stain” of original sin remains and is slowly and cooperatively? Removed in sanctification.

You need to remember imputation and infusion is in the context of justification. The Protestant model has God declaring the dirty diaper to be clean because the dirty diaper is wrapped in a clean cloth (imputation) and making it appear clean (though the dirty diaper is unchanged). To Catholics that is a blasphemous and un-Biblical starting point for God to save man, especially when "nothing is hidden from His sight" (Heb 4:13; Mat 23:25-28).

Furthermore, how do you deal with the Greek words used in Rom 4:5 that pretty much seems to say that it was imputation . . . “it was reckoned as righteousness . . .”

This is a very good question. The English term "reckon" is the Greek term "logizomai". Protestants, with the assumption of imputation, believe "reckoned as righteousness" means the person is "imputed/reckoned" to be righteous though in reality is not righteous. The FACT is logizomai is hardly ever, if ever, used in the Protestant sense, take these passages for example where logizomai also appears (in red):

Rom 3: 28For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law.

Rom 6:11In the same way, count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus.

Rom 8: 18I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us.
​

In each case what is being "logizomai" is in fact true, NOT imputed to be true. If you swap the Protestant "impute" definition in those passages the verses will become absurd. Thus the correct interpretation is when "faith is 'logizomai' as righteousness" that means God considered that act of faith was an actual righteous act. And Scripture explicitly proves this in Rom 4:18-22 (quoting Gen 15:5-6) where we see faith was a window to Abraham's soul and he performed a righteous act and God justified him.

Once you recognize this you can also note that nowhere does Rom 4 mention the "righteousness of Christ", let alone it being imputed.

How do you deal with the scripture that says that without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins? Or that Jesus was made a curse? Protestants don’t believe that Jesus died so that we might live . . . we believe that Jesus dies so we might die and that he rose so that we also could rise with him. This seems obvious in the scriptures to me.

God chose as part of His plan the shedding of blood as the way He would forgive sins. The OT scarifies foreshadowed Jesus sacrificing His life in perfect love and obedience. The "becoming a curse" is not to be taken literally (Jesus was a Spotless Lamb). That passage comes from Deut 21:22f where we see that dying on the cross is the most humiliating way for a person to die, but Jesus would undergo even that. Jesus was never punished however, punishment means the criminal deserved it and Jesus didnt so could never be punished. The suffering Jesus underwent was physical at the hands of wicked men unjustly punishing Him (as opposed to Divine Wrath, which did not occur). Those men sinned and sinned gravely, yet Jesus in His love would not turn and condemn them. Nowhere in the NT is the Father shown to be punishing Jesus.

I’ll read the scriptures you gave me on the Abraham thing and get back to you

I await your response.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

DID you convert to LDS?
You were Catholic last time I was here.
Tell me this is you screwing around with your jokes again...your breaking my heart, you just abandoned Jesus Christ.

You forgot to mention the Pope also

Reve 18:4 And I hear another voice out of the heaven, saying, `Come out/exelqete <1831> (5628)! out of Her the People of Me, that no ye may not being together-communioning to the Sins of her, and out of the blow/stripes of her that no ye may be getting.

2 Corin 6:16 "Any yet agreement sanctuary of God with idols? For ye are a sanctuary of God are, living, according as said the God: `That I will dwell in them, and will be walking-about, and I will be to them God, and they shall be to Me a People,
17 wherefore, come Ye out-forth/exelqete <1831> (5628) out of midst of Them, and be separated, saith Lord, and an unclean-thing do not touch, and I--I will receive you,

 

[CaDan]

You forgot to mention the Pope also

Reve 18:4 And I hear another voice out of the heaven, saying, `Come out/exelqete <1831> (5628)! out of Her the People of Me, that no ye may not being together-communioning to the Sins of her, and out of the blow/stripes of her that no ye may be getting.

2 Corin 6:16 "Any yet agreement sanctuary of God with idols? For ye are a sanctuary of God are, living, according as said the God: `That I will dwell in them, and will be walking-about, and I will be to them God, and they shall be to Me a People,
17 wherefore, come Ye out-forth/exelqete <1831> (5628) out of midst of Them, and be separated, saith Lord, and an unclean-thing do not touch, and I--I will receive you,

Shaka, when the walls fell. Kadir, beneath Moh Moteh.

 

[Catholic Dude]

You forgot to mention the Pope also

Reve 18:4 And I hear another voice out of the heaven, saying, `Come out/exelqete <1831> (5628)! out of Her the People of Me, that no ye may not being together-communioning to the Sins of her, and out of the blow/stripes of her that no ye may be getting.

2 Corin 6:16 "Any yet agreement sanctuary of God with idols? For ye are a sanctuary of God are, living, according as said the God: `That I will dwell in them, and will be walking-about, and I will be to them God, and they shall be to Me a People,
17 wherefore, come Ye out-forth/exelqete <1831> (5628) out of midst of Them, and be separated, saith Lord, and an unclean-thing do not touch, and I--I will receive you,

LOL, gotta love those Fundies.

and a HUGE p.s. to go along with this post, Catholics are listed in the Christian (Nicene) section of the forums while LDS are not Christians by definition (non-Nicene faiths in these forums).


BUT anyway PLEASE, lets NOT derail this thread on hit and runs and one liners.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

LOL, gotta love those Fundies.

I made their list as "fundie in a nutshell". They just missed the subtle "sarcasm" in it LOL.

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=27920045#post27920045

http://www.fstdt.com/fundies/comments.aspx?q=16047
[2006-Oct-16]

quote: From what I've seen, LLJ is a bit of a bible-quoting robot. Often he posts things in General Apologetics that are quite off-topic. At least he doesn't call Atheists deluded unlike most Christians. I think that he's too far gone to be saved at this point.

Never before has Fundamentalism been summed up more succinctly.

You know, they're so far gone that I'm convinced that if God himself came to earth and said, "Look, the bible is really just a collection of mythology and was never meant to be taken as literal truth," then they still wouldn't be swayed.

 

[Catholic Christian]

Shaka, when the walls fell. Kadir, beneath Moh Moteh.

LOL

 

[Giver]

Justification is, without a doubt, the central issue in the Catholic-Protestant divide, even if we often get caught up in the lesser issues (papal infallibility, purgatory, Marian doctrines). Even the debate over Holy Communion cannot compare, as many on the Protestant side ally themselves with the Catholics in the real presence debate; no such exceptions exist when discussing justification.

Unfortunately, the debate is racked with oversimplifications. Far too often, it is cast as a debate of faith vs. works. This, of course, is not the case.

Rather, the debate is over: forensic justification though faith alone vs. process justification through faith and meritorious works.

The Protestant position is that justification (= making righteous) is an instantaneous event, whereby God himself proclaims the sinner legally righteous (forensic) solely on the basis of their possession of faith.

Two important notes: First, authentic, saving faith, according to historic Protestants, is not merely intellectual assent (assensus). 'Mere belief' does not save us. Authentic, saving faith also includes fiducia, meaning faithfulness and trust, that consists in love for the content of faith, which of necessity inspires good works within us. Thus good works are not absent from the Protestant doctrine of justification, but automatically flow from it.

Second, it's important to note that God's declaration of righteousness happens because, as the sins of the person are legally credited to Christ, the holiness of Christ is legally credited (imputed) to the person in question (this is called double imputation). Thus, from the moment of conversion, the person is fully and completely righteous as Christ is fully and completely righteous. The process of sanctification, mirroring the Catholic process of justification in some respects, most continue after this to bring the sinner's actions into accord with the proclamation of justification. But where justified sinners fall short in the process of sanctification, they can fall back on their imputed righteousness.

The Catholic position is that justification is an extended process, which begins when the person first has faith, and then continues as the righteousness won by Christ on the cross is transfused into them both through the continued outpouring of God's love and as the believer merits additional righteousness through good works.

A corresponding note: The process of justification begins solely because the sinner processes saving faith. Moreover, the process continues solely because God continues to pour out his blessings on the person in question. Yet, and herein lies the crucial distinction, God, in his grace, has also allowed the works of the adopted sinner to contribute to the process. They are not required in the same sense as the law requires them of the unbeliever, but the person is called upon to contribute to their justification in cooperation with God. They are only able to do so because God is willing to view the works of his children as meritorious, as something that adds to what he accomplishes within them, but it does place much of the responsibility for completing the process on the shoulders of the adopted sinner.

I'll make an argument for the Protestant view in another post. But hopefully this will help clear up the issue so that we don't have insidious strawmen floating about. I hope Catholics feel I've done justice to their view.

It all sounds to me like people who want to believe they are super intelligent trying to figure out God. Do you really think which way someone believes, about this subject, will bring him or her closer to God?

All this sort of thinking does is separate people from one another.

Jesus gave us his Holy Spirit to teach and guide us. We all learn at a different pace. The goal for all of us is to hear God’s Word and live it. His Word will be our judge on the last day.

 

[Catholic Christian]

It all sounds to me like people who want to believe they are super intelligent trying to figure out God. Do you really think which way someone believes, about this subject, will bring him or her closer to God? All this sort of thinking does is separate people from one another. Jesus gave us his Holy Spirit to teach and guide us. We all learn at a different pace. The goal for all of us is to hear God&#8217;s Word and live it. His Word will be our judge on the last day.

That is wrong. When Jesus, in John 16:13, says "But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth", He was speaking only to the apostles, not ALL of His followers. Why? Because Jesus established a teaching Church (cf. Matt 29:20), and He needed to make sure that Church taught the truth. Jesus promised, "I will build my Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it" (Matt. 16:18).

Among the Christian churches, only the Catholic Church has existed since the time of Jesus. Every other Christian church is an offshoot of the Catholic Church. The Eastern Orthodox churches broke away from unity with the pope in 1054. The heretical protestant churches were established during the Reformation, which began in 1517. Only the Catholic Church existed in the tenth century, in the fifth century, and in the first century, faithfully teaching the doctrines given by Christ to the apostles, omitting nothing. The list of popes can be traced back to Peter himself, the first pope. Here is a list: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm

Jesus&#8217; Church is called catholic ("universal" in Greek) because it is his gift to all people. He told his apostles to go throughout the world and make disciples of "all nations" (Matt. 28:19&#8211;20). For 2,000 years the Catholic Church has carried out this mission, preaching the good news that Christ died for all men and that he wants all of us to be members of his universal family (Gal. 3:28).

Unfortunately, since so many Christians reject Christs Church these days, we must engage in these debates to let the truth be known. I suggest you learn more at this link:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Pillar.asp

 

[chestertonrules]

Because they don't prove that we aren't predestined. They only address cause & effect within the overarching context of predestination.
Predestination doesn't eliminate cause & effect, it directs it.
Calvinists don't throw any of that out, they just understand it fits into predestination.
They aren't under the misguidance that teaches predestination makes us robots, destroys the will, etc.

You can make that claim, but it is not accurate.

Predestination, by definition, makes us robots.

If we can only seek God if he makes us seek him, then we are powerless and we don't have a will.

Question:

If God desires that all men be saved, then why aren't all men saved?

 

[Melethiel]

Can we not derail the thread? This thread is about justification.

 

[Catholic Christian]

Can we not derail the thread? This thread is about justification.

okay

 

[Catholic Christian]

I just stumbled upon an excellent website with resources that present the Catholic view on justification. Here is an exerpt:

Essential Catholic Teaching on Justification

Without God, you're dead (Eph. 2:5), and there's absolutely nothing - not works, not faith, not anything - a dead person can do to make himself alive (Council of Trent, Decree on Justification chapter 8). A dead person cannot be a cause in his own regeneration (Council of Trent, Decree on Justification chapter 7). Unfortunately for us, this is the state into which we were born, in Adam, deprived of grace and spiritual life (Council of Trent, Decree on Original Sin, Decree on Justification chapter 1).

However, when the Father gratuitously recreates you in Christ (2Cor. 5:17-18), gives you supernatural life by "the Spirit of sonship" (Rom. 8:15-17), and gives you faith, hope, and charity (the virtues of 1Cor. 13:13), He can empower you with His grace to do anything (Council of Trent, Decree on Justification). After all, "all things are possible with God" (Mk. 10:27) and "nothing will be impossible to you" (Mt. 17:20). Jesus promised "you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you" (Acts 1:18). To what purpose? "We have received grace... to bring about the obedience of faith" (Rom. 1:5; also known as "faith working in love" in Gal. 5:6, which Paul calls "good works" in Eph. 2:10). The Lord says "My grace is sufficient for you" (2Cor. 12:9), and we answer "by the grace of God I am what I am" (1Cor 15:10), a child of God the Father (1Jn. 3:1).

Our Father really does have both the love and the power to completely transform men, in Christ and by the Holy Spirit, into beloved sons.
If you can understand and remember this, you can understand Catholic teaching about justification.
(END)



Here is the link:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Atrium/8410/just-resource.html

 

[Giver]

That is wrong. When Jesus, in John 16:13, says "But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth", He was speaking only to the apostles, not ALL of His followers. Why? Because Jesus established a teaching Church (cf. Matt 29:20), and He needed to make sure that Church taught the truth. Jesus promised, "I will build my Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it" (Matt. 16:18).
Where did you ever get the idea that only the apostles would be taught by the Holy Spirit? Scripture says you are wrong. Here are just a few verses that say you are wrong.

(1 John 2:27) “But you have not lost the anointing that he gave you, and you do not need anyone to teach you, the anointing he gave teaches you everything; you are anointed with truth, not a lie, and as it has taught you, so you must stay in him.”

(1 Corinthians 2:10-16) “These are the very things that God has revealed to us through the Spirit, for the Spirit reaches the depts. Of everything, even the depths of God. After all, the depths of a man can only be known by his own spirit, not by any other man, and in the same way the depths of God can only be known by the Spirit of God. Now instead of the spirit of the world, we have received the Spirit that comes from God, to teach us to understand the gifts that he has given us. Therefore we teach, not in the way in which philosophy is taught, but in the way that the Spirit teaches us: we teach spiritual things spiritually. A spiritual man, on the other hand, is able to judge the value of everything and his own value in not to be judged by other men. As scripture says;’ who can know the mind of the Lord, so who can teach him?’ But we are those who have the mind of Christ.”

(Hebrews 8:7-13) “If that first covenant had been without a fault, there would have been no need for a second one to replace it. And in fact God does find fault with them; he says: See, the days are coming-it is the Lord who speaks-when I will establish a new covenant with the House of Israel and the House of Judah, but not a covenant like the one I made with their ancestors on the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt. They abandoned that covenant of mine, and so I on my side deserted them. It is the Lord who speaks. No, this is the covenant I will make with the House of Israel when those days arrive-it is the Lord who speaks. I will put my laws into their minds and write them on their hearts. Then I will be their God and they shall be my people. There will be no further need for neighbour to try to teach neighbour, or brother to say to brother, ’Learn to know the Lord’. No, they will all know me, the least no less than the greatest, since I will forgive their iniquities and never call their sins to mind. By speaking of a new covenant, he implies that the first one is already old. Now anything old only gets more antiquated until in the end it disappears.”

(1 John 2: 27) “But you have not lost the anointing that he gave you, and you do not need anyone to teach you; the anointing he gave teaches you everything: you are anointed with truth, not with a lie, and as it has taught you, so you must stay in him.”

(Acts 2:38-39) “You must repent, Peter answered and every one of you must be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. The promise that was made is for you and your children, and for all those who are far away, for all those whom the Lord our God is calling to himself.”



Among the Christian churches, only the Catholic Church has existed since the time of Jesus. Every other Christian church is an offshoot of the Catholic Church. The Eastern Orthodox churches broke away from unity with the pope in 1054. The heretical protestant churches were established during the Reformation, which began in 1517. Only the Catholic Church existed in the tenth century, in the fifth century, and in the first century, faithfully teaching the doctrines given by Christ to the apostles, omitting nothing. The list of popes can be traced back to Peter himself, the first pope. Here is a list: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm

Jesus’ Church is called catholic ("universal" in Greek) because it is his gift to all people. He told his apostles to go throughout the world and make disciples of "all nations" (Matt. 28:19–20). For 2,000 years the Catholic Church has carried out this mission, preaching the good news that Christ died for all men and that he wants all of us to be members of his universal family (Gal. 3:28).

Unfortunately, since so many Christians reject Christs Church these days, we must engage in these debates to let the truth be known. I suggest you learn more at this link:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Pillar.asp

Because people have been sold the bill of good that only the church could teach about God they have been led astray.

Jesus once told me to tell everyone that no matter, who tells them anything about God, be it a priest. Bishop or anyone, they were to ask Jesus if it was right or wrong.

John 10:14-16) “I am the good shepherd; I know my own and my own know me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for my sheep. And there are other sheep I have that are not of this fold, and these I have to lead as well. They too will listen to my voice, and there will be only one flock, and one shepherd.

 

[Catholic Christian]

...Jesus once told me to tell everyone...

Ah, I see now. Ooookay.

 

[Giver]

Ah, I see now. Ooookay.

Make fun all you want. Did you read the verses?

(John 10:27) “The sheep that belong to me listen to my voice; I know them and they follow me.”

Do you belong to Jesus?
Have you heard his voice? Don’t use the lame excuse that the church is his voice. Remember Paul heard him.