Is Sola Scriptura Self-refuting?

[fhansen]

It certainly isn't, though that's less of a problem for someone not claiming that their church is "the church" than it is for someone who believes that their church is the true manifestation of the church. When you claim that all other churches are deficient in comparison to yours, the deficiencies of yours become far bigger of a concern.

Again there can only be one church, with one faith. And only a visible church can possibly maintain such a thing.

 

[Fervent]

So you're an expert on church structure, how it should look, how it might evolve, what might be necessary for it to survive and navigate through this world. Of course. All of that is peripheral anyway BTW. The church is just an ark carrying and preserving a precious treasure through this messed up world that it must deal with, including dealing with its own people at times. You seem to think the church was/is unnecessary and that's a dream, some fairytale ideal. And all churches or denominations have to deal with one central problem: people.

I leave such things to God, who seems to have seen fit to divide the church into denominations since there are saints in every denominational confession.

 

[Fervent]

Again there can only be one church, with one faith. And only a visible church can possibly maintain such a thing.

Real faith doesn't require such totems.

 

[fhansen]

You seem to miss my actualy contention, which your responses do not address. Because while the reformers certainly brought the issue to the forefront, it was already present within the church because it is a natural consequence of vicarious guilt and vicarious satisfaction, both of which were already presently taught within the church.

You're actual contention was that I misrepresented Catholic teachings, so I showed teachings with the very verses I had quoted. Regardless of which atonement theory one holds to the question remains, what does reconciliation with God mean? Will God be satisfied if Jesus doesn't finally accomplish triumph over sin in His creation? Or does it really mean that, as long I believe, my sins, past, present, and future, are now forgiven regardless of what I do after that fact? Or does faith guarantee the overcoming of sin? The church teaches, again, that justification means the infusion of justice/righteousness, generally defined as faith, hope, and love, into us. Faith is part of what constitutes justice for man, while hope, and especially, love, complete it (1 Cor 13:13). And love obeys, by its nature. So 5 centuries ago the church put it in these words at council:
"For faith, unless hope and charity [love] be added to it, neither unites man perfectly with Christ nor makes him a living member of His body."

Here are the main teachings from Trent on the nature of justification:

CHAPTER VII
IN WHAT THE JUSTIFICATION OF THE SINNER CONSISTS, AND WHAT ARE ITS CAUSES

This disposition or preparation is followed by justification itself, which is not only a remission of sins but also the sanctification and renewal of the inward man through the voluntary reception of the grace and gifts whereby an unjust man becomes just and from being an enemy becomes a friend, that he may be an heir according to hope of life everlasting.[30]

The causes of this justification are:
the final cause is the glory of God and of Christ and life everlasting; the efficient cause is the merciful God who washes and sanctifies[31] gratuitously, signing and anointing with the holy Spirit of promise, who is the pledge of our inheritance,[32] the meritorious cause is His most beloved only begotten, our Lord Jesus Christ, who, when we were enemies,[33] for the exceeding charity wherewith he loved us,[34] merited for us justification by His most holy passion on the wood of the cross and made satisfaction for us to God the Father, the instrumental cause is the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith,[35] without which no man was ever justified finally, the single formal cause is the justice of God, not that by which He Himself is just, but that by which He makes us just, that, namely, with which we being endowed by Him, are renewed in the spirit of our mind,[36] and not only are we reputed but we are truly called and are just, receiving justice within us, each one according to his own measure, which the Holy Ghost distributes to everyone as He wills,[37] and according to each one's disposition and cooperation.

For though no one can be just except he to whom the merits of the passion of our Lord Jesus Christ are communicated, yet this takes place in that justification of the sinner, when by the merit of the most holy passion, the charity of God is poured forth by the Holy Ghost in the hearts[38] of those who are justified and inheres in them; whence man through Jesus Christ, in whom he is ingrafted, receives in that justification, together with the remission of sins, all these infused at the same time, namely, faith, hope and charity.

For faith, unless hope and charity be added to it, neither unites man perfectly with Christ nor makes him a living member of His body.[39]

For which reason it is most truly said that faith without works is dead[40] and of no profit, and in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything nor uncircumcision, but faith that worketh by charity.[41]

This faith, conformably to Apostolic tradition, catechumens ask of the Church before the sacrament of baptism, when they ask for the faith that gives eternal life, which without hope and charity faith cannot give.

Whence also they hear immediately the word of Christ:
If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.[42]

Wherefore, when receiving true and Christian justice, they are commanded, immediately on being born again, to preserve it pure and spotless, as the first robe[43] given them through Christ Jesus in place of that which Adam by his disobedience lost for himself and for us, so that they may bear it before the tribunal of our Lord Jesus Christ and may have life eternal.

CHAPTER VIII
HOW THE GRATUITOUS JUSTIFICATION OF THE SINNER BY FAITH IS TO BE UNDERSTOOD

But when the Apostle [Paul] says that man is justified by faith and freely,[44] these words are to be understood in that sense in which the uninterrupted unanimity of the Catholic Church has held and expressed them, namely, that we are therefore said to be justified by faith, because faith is the beginning of human salvation, the foundation and root of all justification, without which it is impossible to please God[45] and to come to the fellowship of His sons; and we are therefore said to be justified gratuitously, because none of those things that precede justification, whether faith or works, merit the grace of justification.

For, if by grace, it is not now by works, otherwise, as the Apostle says, grace is no more grace.[46]

 

[fhansen]

Real faith doesn't require such totems.

Real faith requires right information, as its based on knowledge.

 

[fhansen]

I leave such things to God, who seems to have seen fit to divide the church into denominations since there are saints in every denominational confession.

God did that? Or man? Either way saints abound outside the visible confines of the church, even outside of Christianity IMO. They'd be saints either way. But we have the surest understanding of what that means and how to get there inside those confines. And every denomination believes it provides the surest means-or else there'd be no division. I'm really only saying, if one would stop and listen, that the Catholic as well as the EO teachings on what it means to be right in the eyes of God are the soundest. I see this revived to a large extent in the teachings of John Wesley, for one, as well as in the beliefs of many non-Catholics right here in these forums, usually without realizing it themselves.

And, based on wrong beliefs I'm not sure if many self-professed Christians are necessarily Christian anyway. Just read the Didache, the earliest catechism we know of. Faith is implied and presumed in such writings, as it was written by believers to new believers. Faith is the very reason that they’re there to begin with; there’s no question that faith isn’t required, they’ve already turned to God. The first paragraph:

There are two ways, one of life and one of death; but a great difference between the two ways. The way of life, then, is this: First, you shall love God who made you; second, your neighbour as yourself; and all things whatsoever you would should not occur to you, do not also do to another. And of these sayings the teaching is this: Bless those who curse you, and pray for your enemies, and fast for those who persecute you. For what reward is there, if you love those who love you? Do not also the Gentiles do the same? But love those who hate you, and you shall not have an enemy. Abstain from fleshly and worldly lusts. If someone gives you a blow upon your right cheek, turn to him the other also, and you shall be perfect. If someone impresses you for one mile, go with him two. If someone takes away your cloak, give him also your coat. If someone takes from you what is yours, ask it not back, for indeed you are not able. Give to every one that asks you, and ask it not back; for the Father wills that to all should be given of our own blessings (free gifts). Happy is he that gives according to the commandment; for he is guiltless. Woe to him that receives; for if one having need receives, he is guiltless; but he that receives not having need, shall pay the penalty, why he received and for what, and, coming into straits (confinement), he shall be examined concerning the things which he has done, and he shall not escape thence until he pay back the last farthing. Matthew 5:26 But also now concerning this, it has been said, Let your alms sweat in your hands, until you know to whom you should give.


"At the evening of life we shall be judged on our love." Catechism of the Catholic Church 1022

 

[fhansen]

If such a situation were truly possible.

So do you think Paul was just speaking nonsense into the air? Or was He emphasizing a truth? Augustine put it his way:
"Without love faith may indeed exist, but avails nothing."

A unified body of beliefs? Are you saying there are no disagreements among Catholics?

Who cares? Of course there are. But "Catholics" don't define Catholicism; the church does. That's the whole point.

At the heart of those disputes was the relationship between justification and sanctification, though it wasn't being put that way. Whether or not human works were necessary to preserve the justified state, and if such works could constitute a complete defection. So long before the reformers there were disputes within the church about the relationship between faith and works, that is to say what role our works play in salvation.

I've never heard where the ancient churches, in the east or west, ever taught that one did not have to have good fruit in their lives, including the overcoming of sin. Faith is to embark on a journey, nearer and nearer to God and to realizing His image within our own selves.

You may find it so, but it certainly doesn't seem that way to me.

Probably not-but it's the gospel.

None of your gish gallop implies that men merit salvation, and if I were to attempt to demonstrate that I would have quoted Romans not 1 Cor. 1

If you go back you'll see that you were trying to oppose that concept with 1 Cor 1.

Their works are important because not all will survive the testing by fire, but their salvation does not depend on those efforts. And by throwing out a great number of verses without comment or explanation for how they support(or contradict) what you believe them to show(or contradict) is nothing but an attempt to overwhelm the issue with extraneous data. It doesn't show how the verse that I put forward isn't saying that those who are not properly sanctified will still be saved purely on the foundation of Christ, should they persist in their faith in Christ. All doing so in response to a Scriptural passage does is try to set the passage I have put forward against the rest of Scripture, as if Scripture contradicts Scripture.

Nonsense. You used Scripture to maintain that works have only to do with rewards because you opposed the idea that anything we do might contribute to meriting salvation, even if those works are matters of grace. I used verses that were on track, not addressed to rewards while showing that man can, indeed, lose his salvation by what he does or fails to do. One verse or many doesn't change that fact.

 

[Fervent]

Real faith requires right information, as its based on knowledge.

Real faith is based on relationship, as it's based on trust. It doesn't require such totems as a "true" church. The church transcends any and every denomination, despite what certain denominations want to claim.

 

[fhansen]

Real faith is based on relationship, as it's based on trust. It doesn't require such totems as a "true" church. The church transcends any and every denomination, despite what certain denominations want to claim.

Okay. Truce today. Merry Christmas

 

[Fervent]

Okay. Truce today. Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas, and I do want to say I appreciate the thoughtfulness you show in these discussions.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

It's not a pejorative, it's an accurate description. Simply because the Roman church thinks it is the church does not make that so.

Sure, but the catholic church is not the Roman church. Rome is simply a usurper.

What is the basis of your claim? It is not an accurate description. It was a name given by a detractor and is an oxymoron. Catholic means universal. To call it Roman Catholic puts limitations on it that do not exist in the word.
It like saying it is the not universal, universal church.

Rome is the Holy See, as it was the bishopric of Peter and Paul. The rock of the Church and the writers of the majority of the New Testament

 

[Fervent]

What is the basis of your claim? It is not an accurate description. It was a name given by a detractor and is an oxymoron. Catholic means universal. To call it Roman Catholic puts limitations on it that do not exist in the word.
It like saying it is the not universal, universal church.

Rome is the Holy See, as it was the bishopric of Peter and Paul. The rock of the Church and the writers of the majority of the New Testament

It's an accurate description, because it is not the universal church but its membership insists on laying claim to the name. So those of us who recognize that it is not the universal church, but is instead a denomination/faction based on supposed Petrine descent and Roman bishopric can only call it a Roman church, not as a pejorative unless you believe that recognizing it as a denomination is pejorative. So since it has fashioned to call itself the Catholic church, those who dispute that catholicity can only refer to it as Roman Catholic, and so recognize that it belongs to the Catholic church but is in fact a denomination/faction of that church.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

It's an accurate description, because it is not the universal church but its membership insists on laying claim to the name. So those of us who recognize that it is not the universal church, but is instead a denomination/faction based on supposed Petrine descent and Roman bishopric can only call it a Roman church, not as a pejorative unless you believe that recognizing it as a denomination is pejorative. So since it has fashioned to call itself the Catholic church, those who dispute that catholicity can only refer to it as Roman Catholic, and so recognize that it belongs to the Catholic church but is in fact a denomination/faction of that church.

Again, that is your opinion. I asked your basis of that opinion. You are stating that there is no Catholic Church visible to believers, rather she consists divided amongst numerous denominations.

When did this start? Scripture says Christ is not divided. What then is the origin of denominations? You have your opinion, is it not the other opinions of men?
Do we base our eternal destiny on our own opinion? How is that not pride?

Surely there is more to this

 

[Fervent]

Again, that is your opinion. I asked your basis of that opinion. You are stating that there is no Catholic Church visible to believers, rather she consists divided amongst numerous denominations.

Are all Christians members of the Roman Catholic Church? Are all Christians members of any single visible church institution? Or do disciples of Christ exist spread across denominational lines?

When did this start? Scripture says Christ is not divided. What then is the origin of denominations? You have your opinion, is it not the other opinions of men?
Do we base our eternal destiny on our own opinion? How is that not pride?

Sometime in the early 1st milennium, an errant pope excommunicated the Eastern churches and Roman Catholics decided that "we follow Peter." Further divides came later, but as soon as the church went into schism the notion of a visible universal church went out the window.

Surely there is more to this

 

[fhansen]

Real faith is based on relationship, as it's based on trust. It doesn't require such totems as a "true" church. The church transcends any and every denomination, despite what certain denominations want to claim.

We come to trust God as we come to know Him. And revealing the true face of God, His nature and will, is why Jesus came. We enter and remain in relationship with God to the extent that we believe in, hope in, and love Him and prefer doing His will over our own.

The visible church has played it’s important role in receiving, preserving, and proclaiming the faith against those who claimed to have it right while having it wrong. So a particular group assembled the New Testament canon while others wanted to include other gospels, letters, etc. A particular group defended the faith at council against Arianism and other heresies while many, many others supported them. That “particular group” and their actions are part of the common legacy of all Christians.

 

[Fervent]

We come to trust God as we come to know Him. And revealing the true face of God, His nature and will, is why Jesus came. We enter and remain in relationship with God to the extent that we believe in, hope in, and love Him and prefer doing His will over our own.

Sure, but none of that requires a "true" church among the many denominations in which people come to know Christ.

The visible church has played it’s important role in receiving, preserving, and proclaiming the faith against those who claimed to have it right while having it wrong. So a particular group assembled the New Testament canon while others wanted to include other gospels, letters, etc. A particular group defended the faith at council against Arianism and other heresies while many, many others supported them. That “particular group” and their actions are part of the common legacy of all Christians.

Sure, a common legacy to all authentic expressions of Christianity. That legacy doesn't belong to a particular modern church, though, but is common to all who follow Christ. And in each of those instances, the church was not separated among those who say "I follow Peter" or "I follow John" or "I follow James," whereas the modern Roman church claims its authenticity comes because they purportedly follow Peter.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

Are all Christians members of the Roman Catholic Church? Are all Christians members of any single visible church institution? Or do disciples of Christ exist spread across denominational lines?

Sometime in the early 1st milennium, an errant pope excommunicated the Eastern churches and Roman Catholics decided that "we follow Peter." Further divides came later, but as soon as the church went into schism the notion of a visible universal church went out the window.

There is only one Church, so all Christians are members of the Catholic Church by baptism, not all submit to authority so they are separated brethren. Most don’t give the Church a second thought because they believe propaganda and refuse to study the Catechism and review the history. They believe the Catholic Church is pagan, idolatrous, the harlot of Babylon, mark of the beast, works based, preaches another gospel, etc.. I know because I was once one of those. They point to defects of persons throughout history and make a judgement on the Church. I too did that before, and I know it is a convenient way to avoid looking at the Catechism. I have yet to see someone that rejects the Catholic Church, only what they think the Catholic Church to be.

Willfully not baptized? Then one is not a member of Christ’s Church. That person is in disobedience to a clear declaration of Christ. “He who believes and is baptized shall be saved.” I said willfully because mortal sin requires an act of the will. There is no point in arguing the necessity and effect of baptism. Christ commanded it and even underwent it Himself to fulfill all righteousness, so those that refuse are without excuse.

As to your summary of history. It is flawed for a simple reason. The visible Church cannot go out the window, else Christ’s promise to Peter is not true, and if the contention is that Christ did not keep His promise, then there is no Church visible or otherwise.

Three facts challenge the conscience in that all can agree.
1. God is not a man that He should lie
2. Christ promised to build a Church against which the gates of hell shall not prevail
3. The Catholic Church still exists today, despite hundreds, if not thousands of attempts at schism.

Was the excommunication of the Eastern churches unjust? For the sake of argument, we assume that it was. Then was the schism a godly act? Not so fast. What is the godly response to excommunication? Is it vengeance and schism, or humility and healing? God tells us in Scripture, that vengeance is mine says the Lord, I will repay. Return not evil for evil, but overcome evil with good. Love your enemies, etc. There is none of that behavior in an act of schism. Schism comes from pride, which is sin. He is hurting me unjustly, so I have the right to raise my hand against God’s anointed. I know there is supposed to be a visible Church, but I don’t see it, so I will start my own. Oh really, did God tell us to do that or lead us in the way of vengence?

Show me in scripture where it says to do that. We even have the example of David, whom was the victim of the most uprighteous king we could think of in Saul. David has the chance to slay Saul with his own spear, yet David said I cannot lift my hand against God’s anointed and he let Saul live, nor did David rejoice at Saul’s death when it finally happened according to God’s will, but he executed the man that slew Saul.
Jesus accepted the most unjust judgement ever conceived in His passion. Every false charge, every drop of spittle, every word of mockery, all the drops of blood and tearing of flesh in the scourging, the crown of thorns, and the nails of crucifixion in addition to the blood of sweat in the agony, was unjust and undeserved, yet He opened not His mouth. Do we then rise up and say, not so Lord, that is unjust and we cannot let you build your Church that way. We know better and we will avenge you, even though you said you would do it yourself but we cannot wait that long. What did Jesus say to Peter when he told our Lord to pray that suffering would not happen to Him? Was it not get thee behind me Satan? You think of the things of men rather than of God? Do you think that schism follows our Lord to the cross? Or does it annihilate the cross in an attempt to achieve resurrection?

I can only tell you my testimony. I was excommunicated by the Catholic Church, and I rose up in pride in an attempt to destroy her, and I rejoiced in 2002 when the sex abuse scandal broke, as I thought they are finally being shown for the frauds that they are.

God had other plans. I longed to be with the people of God, yet was constantly frustrated wherever I looked. People wanted to be told they were saved, but very little wanted to practice repentance. All the activity was to grow the numbers so the group could make money and be “seeker friendly” There was a constant struggle to preach Calvinism vs Arminianism. Some told me that I needed to trust in the sovereignty of God and we could never stop sinning so don’t worry. You believe in Jesus, so all your sins, past present and future are under the so don’t sweat it. Come to church, sing songs, raise your hands in praise and pay your tithe so we can grow numbers and everything is ok.

But it was not ok. I did all that and thought I believed in Jesus, yet I could not stop sinning. I wanted to believe what others told me that the sin is under the blood but my conscience would not let me. I talked to some others and returned to the Catholic Church of my youth, but still I could not be set free from my sin. I had a doubtful conscience regarding Church teaching
It was only when I humbled myself and submitted to Church teaching in what only the Catholic Church teaches regarding sexuality, that the sin that so easily beset me was gone. The grace of God flows through the sacraments and called me to repentance. I accepted and God’s grace has not failed me since. We do cooperate with God’s grace but it is not works based, but humble submission. What schism did not do for me, God did through humility
No your narrative may have correct facts, but it does not offer godly solutions

Peace be with you and may God’s grace find you

 

[Fervent]

There is only one Church, so all Christians are members of the Catholic Church by baptism, not all submit to authority so they are separated brethren. Most don’t give the Church a second thought because they believe propaganda and refuse to study the Catechism and review the history. They believe the Catholic Church is pagan, idolatrous, the harlot of Babylon, mark of the beast, works based, preaches another gospel, etc.. I know because I was once one of those. They point to defects of persons throughout history and make a judgement on the Church. I too did that before, and I know it is a convenient way to avoid looking at the Catechism. I have yet to see someone that rejects the Catholic Church, only what they think the Catholic Church to be.

I suppose if you invent ways of rationalizing people who reject the RCC as "not rejecting the Catholic Church" then you might be able to maintain that all Christians are secretly Roman Catholic.

Willfully not baptized? Then one is not a member of Christ’s Church. That person is in disobedience to a clear declaration of Christ. “He who believes and is baptized shall be saved.” I said willfully because mortal sin requires an act of the will. There is no point in arguing the necessity and effect of baptism. Christ commanded it and even underwent it Himself to fulfill all righteousness, so those that refuse are without excuse.

I'm not sure the relevance of this, since I'm only aware of a few fringe groups that reject the practice of baptism.

As to your summary of history. It is flawed for a simple reason. The visible Church cannot go out the window, else Christ’s promise to Peter is not true, and if the contention is that Christ did not keep His promise, then there is no Church visible or otherwise.

Nope, just an understanding of Christ's words to Peter that originated in the 4th century. But it's rather question begging to presume that how the RCC interprets those words is how they are best interpreted.

Three facts challenge the conscience in that all can agree.
1. God is not a man that He should lie

Ok, relevance?

2. Christ promised to build a Church against which the gates of hell shall not prevail

There are multiple issues with this, primarily that what a "church" is and what is meant by "gates of hell" aren't necessarily what Roman Catholics claim them to be. Especially since "gates" are defensive, not offensive, in nature.

3. The Catholic Church still exists today, despite hundreds, if not thousands of attempts at schism.

Sure, except the Catholic Church is not the Roman Catholic Church. As we have already established, the church cannot be divided and there are members of the church that exist outside of the Roman Catholic Church. So while the Catholic Church may still exist, it transcends the denominational borders of those who claim to belong to Peter.

Was the excommunication of the Eastern churches unjust? For the sake of argument, we assume that it was. Then was the schism a godly act? Not so fast. What is the godly response to excommunication? Is it vengeance and schism, or humility and healing? God tells us in Scripture, that vengeance is mine says the Lord, I will repay. Return not evil for evil, but overcome evil with good. Love your enemies, etc. There is none of that behavior in an act of schism. Schism comes from pride, which is sin. He is hurting me unjustly, so I have the right to raise my hand against God’s anointed. I know there is supposed to be a visible Church, but I don’t see it, so I will start my own. Oh really, did God tell us to do that or lead us in the way of vengence?

Seems you're evaluating a speck, while not first removing the plank.

Show me in scripture where it says to do that. We even have the example of David, whom was the victim of the most uprighteous king we could think of in Saul. David has the chance to slay Saul with his own spear, yet David said I cannot lift my hand against God’s anointed and he let Saul live, nor did David rejoice at Saul’s death when it finally happened according to God’s will, but he executed the man that slew Saul.
Jesus accepted the most unjust judgement ever conceived in His passion. Every false charge, every drop of spittle, every word of mockery, all the drops of blood and tearing of flesh in the scourging, the crown of thorns, and the nails of crucifixion in addition to the blood of sweat in the agony, was unjust and undeserved, yet He opened not His mouth. Do we then rise up and say, not so Lord, that is unjust and we cannot let you build your Church that way. We know better and we will avenge you, even though you said you would do it yourself but we cannot wait that long. What did Jesus say to Peter when he told our Lord to pray that suffering would not happen to Him? Was it not get thee behind me Satan? You think of the things of men rather than of God? Do you think that schism follows our Lord to the cross? Or does it annihilate the cross in an attempt to achieve resurrection?

Pot, meet kettle.

I can only tell you my testimony. I was excommunicated by the Catholic Church, and I rose up in pride in an attempt to destroy her, and I rejoiced in 2002 when the sex abuse scandal broke, as I thought they are finally being shown for the frauds that they are.

Ok?

God had other plans. I longed to be with the people of God, yet was constantly frustrated wherever I looked. People wanted to be told they were saved, but very little wanted to practice repentance. All the activity was to grow the numbers so the group could make money and be “seeker friendly” There was a constant struggle to preach Calvinism vs Arminianism. Some told me that I needed to trust in the sovereignty of God and we could never stop sinning so don’t worry. You believe in Jesus, so all your sins, past present and future are under the so don’t sweat it. Come to church, sing songs, raise your hands in praise and pay your tithe so we can grow numbers and everything is ok.

But it was not ok. I did all that and thought I believed in Jesus, yet I could not stop sinning. I wanted to believe what others told me that the sin is under the blood but my conscience would not let me. I talked to some others and returned to the Catholic Church of my youth, but still I could not be set free from my sin. I had a doubtful conscience regarding Church teaching
It was only when I humbled myself and submitted to Church teaching in what only the Catholic Church teaches regarding sexuality, that the sin that so easily beset me was gone. The grace of God flows through the sacraments and called me to repentance. I accepted and God’s grace has not failed me since. We do cooperate with God’s grace but it is not works based, but humble submission. What schism did not do for me, God did through humility
No your narrative may have correct facts, but it does not offer godly solutions

It's good you've managed to overcome whatever it was you were struggling with, but your testimony says little about the veracity of the claims of Rome. It certainly speaks to the failing of certain teachings you were embroiled in, but it seems as though you've exchanged one form of pride for another.

Peace be with you and may God’s grace find you

God's grace found me long ago, and I continue to abide in it. Without need for the pride of belonging to a "true" church. I'm able to embrace all who call on Christ as brothers in the struggle, and not elevate my faction above those who find Christ expressed in other denominations.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

Are all Christians members of the Roman Catholic Church? Are all Christians members of any single visible church institution? Or do disciples of Christ exist spread across denominational lines?

Sometime in the early 1st milennium, an errant pope excommunicated the Eastern churches and Roman Catholics decided that "we follow Peter." Further divides came later, but as soon as the church went into schism the notion of a visible universal church went out the window.

What is the proper response to excommunication? What does God say?

Does He say to rise up like Cain and take vengeance against the injustice?

Love your enemies and do good to those who persecute you. A member of the Apostolic Church hurt your pride? This is an outrage. Let’s toss all the promises of Jesus that the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church and build a new one because He could not get it right. Sound like a good idea?
Return not evil for evil but overcome evil with good. Hmmm the words of God and the actions of the excommunicants do not seem to be lining up here. Something’s wrong

Humility is a hard choice, but is one that we are commanded to make. Any other examples?

Christ tells us of the rich man that asked how to obtain eternal life. Christ said you know the commandments and the man responded that he kept them from his youth up, and Christ told him that he lacked one thing. Sell your possessions and give up all you have and follow me. The man rejected Christ and went away sad because he loved his possessions and would not follow Jesus.

The devil always gets to get you into a situation where he can convince you that the laws of God do not apply. God will allow you to get into that situation to see whether you believe him.

Those excommunicated were given a choice. Respond with humility, obey God and find a proper solution to the problem, or ignore God, rise up, walk away and do their own thing. History shows us the choice they made.

Now 500 or a 1000 years later we live with the consequences. We can still choose to follow their folly or repent.

If you think the Catholic Church is false, then prove it from the catechism. What does she teach that is wrong? Where is the error? You will need full study not slogans or proof texts to be convincing.

I use the same argument that the Pharisees used when they tried to repress Christianity. There have been many messiahs that have come and gone. Let them go. If they are not of God, the movement will die as others have in the past, but if we continue to fight it at all costs, we may find ourselves fighting against God.

The Catholic Church is still here, and it’s been 2000 years. She has survived despite countless attempts to destroy her. That does deserve careful study and not rash dismissal.

Humility is the command of God, and that is what the Catholic Church teaches. Pride is the primary sin of Satan. He says we will not serve

What will you do? God gives you free will. I chose to fully examine the Catholic Church

 

[Fervent]

What is the proper response to excommunication? What does God say?

Does He say to rise up like Cain and take vengeance against the injustice?

Love your enemies and do good to those who persecute you. A member of the Apostolic Church hurt your pride? This is an outrage. Let’s toss all the promises of Jesus that the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church and build a new one because He could not get it right. Sound like a good idea?
Return not evil for evil but overcome evil with good. Hmmm the words of God and the actions of the excommunicants do not seem to be lining up here. Something’s wrong

Humility is a hard choice, but is one that we are commanded to make. Any other examples?

Christ tells us of the rich man that asked how to obtain eternal life. Christ said you know the commandments and the man responded that he kept them from his youth up, and Christ told him that he lacked one thing. Sell your possessions and give up all you have and follow me. The man rejected Christ and went away sad because he loved his possessions and would not follow Jesus.

The devil always gets to get you into a situation where he can convince you that the laws of God do not apply. God will allow you to get into that situation to see whether you believe him.

Those excommunicated were given a choice. Respond with humility, obey God and find a proper solution to the problem, or ignore God, rise up, walk away and do their own thing. History shows us the choice they made.

Now 500 or a 1000 years later we live with the consequences. We can still choose to follow their folly or repent.

If you think the Catholic Church is false, then prove it from the catechism. What does she teach that is wrong? Where is the error? You will need full study not slogans or proof texts to be convincing.

I use the same argument that the Pharisees used when they tried to repress Christianity. There have been many messiahs that have come and gone. Let them go. If they are not of God, the movement will die as others have in the past, but if we continue to fight it at all costs, we may find ourselves fighting against God.

The Catholic Church is still here, and it’s been 2000 years. She has survived despite countless attempts to destroy her. That does deserve careful study and not rash dismissal.

Humility is the command of God, and that is what the Catholic Church teaches. Pride is the primary sin of Satan. He says we will not serve

What will you do? God gives you free will. I chose to fully examine the Catholic Church

Repeating the same line about the speck in someone else's eye doesn't change anything.