A compelling non-Catholic argument

[mlchance]

I find it interesting that in any contradiction between my belief and yours, that you dont even except the possibility that you could be wrong. Would you call that proud? I would. Who are you to think you could know all the wisdom of God?

Right back at you. After all, you’re the one frequently making comments such as this:

If you truly understood Gods nature, you would understand that this is impossible. God would never allow anyone who has fallen into sin to speak truth. No one.

Since you’re guilty of doing the very thing you accuse others, why should anyone take you seriously? How is it that your personal interpretation of Scripture is to be held as more authoritative than centuries of consistent Church teaching?

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[savedsinner]

If you truly understood Gods nature, you would understand that this is impossible. God would never allow anyone who has fallen into sin to speak truth. No one.

Well, maybe no one except Caiaphas who prophesied God’s truth while plotting against Jesus. So either your statement is false, or plotting against Jesus was not a sin.

John 11:49-53
But one of them, **Ca’iaphas, who was high priest **that year, said to them, “You know nothing at all; you do not understand that it is expedient for you that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation should not perish.” He did not say this of his own accord, but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus should die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad. So from that day on they took counsel how to put him to death.

And I guess all of the authors of the bible were not sinners when they were writing God’s truth in scripture, or else they were sinners and the bible is not God’s truth.

I guess I don’t truly understand God’s nature, because it seems to me that he uses sinners to spread his truth.

Peter Kreeft wrote that Saints are not the opposite of sinners.
There are only saved sinners and unsaved sinners.

 

[CentralFLJames]

If you truly understood Gods nature, you would understand that this is impossible. God would never allow anyone who has fallen into sin to speak truth. No one.

I thought you believed in once saved always saved and any man of God is free to sin all his days and can do no wrong in the eyes of God since Jesus’ merits cover man’s sin like snow covers a dunghill.

Your statement here is logically and factually absurd.
Peter was a sinner.
Peter wrote two inspired and infallible scriptures.
You hold scripture infallible.
Peter was the first Pope and leader of the Apostles.
Yet you claim a sinful man can not lead The Church and speak for God.
Luke 22:60-62:

[60] Peter replied, “Man, I don’t know what you’re talking about!” Just as he was speaking, the rooster crowed. [61] The Lord turned and looked straight at Peter. Then Peter remembered the word the Lord had spoken to him: “Before the rooster crows today, you will disown me three times.” [62] And he went outside and wept bitterly.

Please admit your statement is utterly defeated by fact as well as logic or there is no choice but to admit you for mental examination.

James

 

[Orionthehunter]

I find it interesting that in any contradiction between my belief and yours, that you dont even except the possibility that you could be wrong. Would you call that proud? I would. Who are you to think you could know all the wisdom of God?

Christ is not a creation of my mind. He is eternal God. I didn’t create His Church. Christ did. I didn’t place authority in His Church. Christ did. I or my Pastor doesn’t run my Church but the Holy Spirit does. This is my Faith. It is not with pride that I accept this but in humility and Faith. As Catholics, we believe that to construct your own church and theology is what is prideful.

By the way, since the wisdom of God is infinite, Catholics don’t believe that the Church as been revealed everything but all that has been revealed to it is True.

Your salvation is not based on whether or no you believe the church. Your salvation is based on whether you believe in Christ.
Christ trumps the Church, because he is the head.

You are so right that salvation comes from Christ. What we believe is that Christ gave us the Church to be a temporal means for us to know the “sure and normal” way toward Salvation.

When we hear all the cacophony of different churches, we don’t see Christ as the sole head but Christ at best as an “advisor” who continually is trumped by the disparate teaching of many different people.

Protestantman, I know this seems harsh. But no more so than your implication that we place the Church above Christ. I know that the concept that Christ and Holy Spirit are mysteriously and perfectly joined to the Church is hard to grasp as it is outside your learning and tradition. I’m just trying to drive the point home so you at least grasp our perspective. It is a thread implied in so much of our conversation. If you miss that perspective, you will miss the nuance of much that we are saying.

Because we have spoken with One unchanging voice since Pentecost, our Faith is reinforced as we see how Christ makes good on His promises to be with us always, that the Holy Spirit is truly guiding us, the Church is the Pillar and Bulwark of Truth, and that the Gates of Hell shall not prevail.

Christ doesn’t trump the Church. Christ IS the Church. You can’t believe in one and not the other.

Well, it is possible to believe in Christ and reject the Church as many obviously do. The critical question is whether the rejection is by intentional sin or uninintentional ignorance.

Protestantman, I beg that you not over-react to the very strong response to your assertions. This is our Faith. Catholic Christians should believe it so strongly that we are prepared to die for it as so many Saints before us have done.

You asked some very good questions and made some very pointed assertions. This is good as it is dialogue. I took no offense at anything you asked or said. I hope you too no offense at my response.

Your summary of your faith was illuminating to me. I hope that what we are doing is illuminating to you. Besides just gaining better understanding of us, I hope that you are getting a sense that Catholics believe and do what we do out of submission to Christ. We might not be able to reconcile our differences and I’m not trying to promote some type “I’m OK, you’re OK” relativism so much as I want that impressions you have of the Church based on false information gets removed.

I feel much better when someone of your spirit and heart says:

“I understand Catholic teaching on the Eucharist but I’m not convinced. I understand Catholic teaching on Authority but I’m not convinced.” And the list goes on.

Maybe this is helpful. There is much that the Church teaches as True that I can’t get my head or heart around. As a Catholic I’m asked to assent in obedience of Faith to these teachings as obedience grants me graces for my battle with Satan. But I must always bring my heart in prayer and mind in learning to be acting not from obedience but understanding and love. There is no sin in this so long as I’m pursuing a reconciliation with sincerity. I make not condemnation or admonishment of you because you have the same “failing” . I have no vision into your interior life and how the Holy Spirit is working in you.

And, part of the reason that I might not have my head and heart around these teachings is that I have a false understanding of the teaching. It is not the teaching that is false but my understanding. My false understanding may be from sin which requires that I remove that with God’s help. My false understanding can be from bad information which requires me to remove that with God’s guidance. While following this false understanding of the teaching in obedience isn’t ideal, I believe that God gives me graces in reward of obedience such that the false understanding will not be an impediment to my Salvation but ultimately lead to future true illumination.

There are some teachings that I have just my head around but not my heart. For these, I’m working on my Spiritual development so that my heart can embrace them as I believe the Holy Spirit desires. This is the focus of my prayer life.

There are some teachings that I have my heart around but not my head. For these, I participate in CAF discussions, read and learn from various sources, etc.

And there are others that the Church teaches as True that I do have my head/heart around because the Holy Spirit has convicted me of the Truth. It is these that I cling to with a fervent heart and mind as I know this is my path to Salvation.

It is my suspicion that most Catholics are similar. Sometimes you will see this in tone, focus, and arguments/comments. For instance, I will sometimes make a really good intellectual argument (in my mind at least) but it lacks heart and passion. I’m trying to bring my mind to where my heart is. Conversely, when I show too much passion, I’m trying to bring my heart where my mind is.

I thank God that I believe that I have my heart and mind around Authority and Real Presence. I’m convicted. I’m working feverishly as so many of my prudential judgments do not give me peace where my heart and mind conflict. If you stick around, you will find these areas by reading some of my other posts.

P.S. Protestantman: Does some of this go in your testimony thread?

 

[guanophore]

If you truly understood Gods nature, you would understand that this is impossible. God would never allow anyone who has fallen into sin to speak truth. No one.

Apparently you are not as well acquainted with “God’s nature” as you think. God’s truth can be spoken from rocks, and the mouths of donkeys, and people who have fallen into error. Even the Jewish High Priest made such a prophesy about Christ, that He should die for the people, before he treacherously sent Him to pilate for execution.

The fact that you say that the Pope could turn from God and still maintain sound teaching, is absolutely unbiblical. I warn you that there is SEVERE consequences for altering scripture.

Fortunately, the Catholic faith is not based on the Bible, so your erroneous understanding of it’s contents is irrelevant. God is able to watch over HIs word to perform it, and He is more powerful than all the errors of men. The Catholic Church wrote the NT, preserved, and promulgated it. The NT is the product of the Church, not the other way around.

Your salvation is not based on whether or no you believe the church. Your salvation is based on whether you believe in Christ. Christ trumps the Church, because he is the head.

This is a secular and power based misunderstanding of the church. Jesus completely identifies HImself as One with the Bride, whom He has cleansed for Himself. He loves the Church, and gave Himself up for Her. He does not “trump”! He made it clear that He is speaking through the Church ("he who hears you, hears me).

 

[protestantman]

Christ doesn’t trump the Church. Christ IS the Church. You can’t believe in one and not the other.

Christ is the foundation of the church. It does not say that Christ is the whole body, it says he is the Head. He is the premis on wich the church is built.

 

[protestantman]

If Pharaoh did not have a choice why did God send the plagues to get him to change his mind and release the Jews? Eventually Pharaoh changed his mind when his first born son was killed by God. Judas too had a choice. He chose to follow Jesus and then chose to betray him. He then chose to kill himself.

Are you suggesting here that you are infallible and in fact have taken God’s seat to judge and condemn these two men to eternal hell? I agree they seem to have committed some grave sins. But only God know for sure if He condemned them to hell or not. Or are you suggesting a new Protestant definition for the word “sovereign” that puts the power of judgement to the people in the pews in the same manner the revolution declared them infallible through a self teaching scripture?

James

Scripture specifically says that they wer called for that purpouse. It says that God hardened Pharohs heart. Are you denying that it was Gods will? Is God not Sovereign? Does it not say that he is the Potter, and he raises up some for noble purpous but other he hardens? Your belief does not correspond with scripture.
Romans 9
10Not only that, but Rebekah’s children had one and the same father, our father Isaac. 11Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: 12not by works but by him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.”[d] 13Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”[e]

 

[protestantman]

Right back at you. After all, you’re the one frequently making comments such as this:

Since you’re guilty of doing the very thing you accuse others, why should anyone take you seriously? How is it that your personal interpretation of Scripture is to be held as more authoritative than centuries of consistent Church teaching?

– Mark L. Chance.

No, I do not judge you, and I do believe that my interpretations could be wrong. But if you say something that is unbiblical, then I am commanded to rebuke you. There is a difference. I never said that you were sinning, I said that you were contradicting scripture. I must search the Spirit daily so tha He may interpret the scriptures to me. God does not care how old your teachings are. That has nothing to do with anything, especially salvation. If you can scripturally show that there is basis for this, then post it.

 

[Orionthehunter]

Christ is the foundation of the church. It does not say that Christ is the whole body, it says he is the Head. He is the premis on wich the church is built.

This sure seems to indicate that Peter is upon whom Christ himself built the Church. What you say seems to indicate that man was to build the Church on Christ.

Mathew 16:15-19 "He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter said in reply, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.
And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

Also note, that in addition to ordaining Peter as the rock which is to become the Pillar and Bulward of Truth, Christ illuminated something else. Peter didn’t say this because it was Peter’s self-determined opinion that Jesus is God but because it was inspired by God. Christ made it clear that it was Peter who He had especially selected among His Apostles for special Holy Inspiration and insight.

 

[protestantman]

Huh? So a fallen sinner would not be physically capable of declaring that his only hope for salvation is through faith in Jesus Christ? If this were true no sinner could ever admit to being a sinner.

This is excactly what I am saying. Thus it was by Gods design and not mans will. Otherwise, men could boast.

No, Catholics base their faith on countless men who, over a 2000 year period, interpreted Matthew that way.

You mean 2000 years all agreeing with one mans interpretation.

You base your faith on your interpretation of the entire word of God. Your interpretation just happens to be one of many.

No. I base my faith on the Holy Spirits interpretation. Interpretation from the Holy spirit is the ONLY TRUE interpretation.

The actual word Jesus used doesn’t matter?

Yes it does. IT IS THE WORD OF GOD.

If Jesus is the head of the Church, then it would mean Jesus is wrong. That is something I highly doubt. I’ll pose the same question to you: If your personal interpretation is wrong, then what?

So if it contradicts with your belief than you blame the creator? Interesting.

How could Catholics possibly believe that? There are countless biblical interpretations floating around out there. I think Catholics believe that the Church’s interpretation is the correct one rather than the only one. The history of Christianity has a tendency to support that claim.

Read my question again. Your answer disagreed and then agreed. You answered No then Yes. I said," Do you really believe that your interpretation is the ONLY one that is possible(or true)?".

“Do as they say, not as they do.” I think I read that somewhere.

This does not relate at all.

 

[protestantman]

Right back at you. After all, you’re the one frequently making comments such as this:

Since you’re guilty of doing the very thing you accuse others, why should anyone take you seriously? How is it that your personal interpretation of Scripture is to be held as more authoritative than centuries of consistent Church teaching?

– Mark L. Chance.

Sre you saying that I am living in sin? Are you really going to pass judgement? God is the only one who knows if I am in sin or in the spirit. It is not your place to call me a sinner, only Gods. In light of that, if I am in sin, then let him swiftly discipline me.

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;3400381]

Fortunately, the Catholic faith is not based on the Bible, so your erroneous understanding of it’s contents is irrelevant. God is able to watch over HIs word to perform it, and He is more powerful than all the errors of men. .

Your statement—“the Catholic faith is not based on the Bible” highlights clearly the differences between biblical protestants and roman catholics. This explains how the catholic church can come up with so many unbiblical doctrines and practices. Actually it is your church that errors in thinking this.

The Catholic Church wrote the NT, preserved, and promulgated it. The NT is the product of the Church, not the other way around

This is not entirely true and is disengenous on your part to say this. The NT has its source in Christ and it is by His Spirit that made these writings inspired-inerrant. No human institution can create something this is inspired-inerrant.

This is a secular and power based misunderstanding of the church. Jesus completely identifies HImself as One with the Bride, whom He has cleansed for Himself. He loves the Church, and gave Himself up for Her. He does not “trump”! He made it clear that He is speaking through the Church ("he who hears you, hears me).

How can you say He loves your church when you just denied that your church is not based on His word? Christ speaks to us not through the church but His Word the Scriptures.

 

[protestantman]

Well, maybe no one except Caiaphas who prophesied God’s truth while plotting against Jesus. So either your statement is false, or plotting against Jesus was not a sin.

John 11:49-53
But one of them, **Ca’iaphas, who was high priest **that year, said to them, “You know nothing at all; you do not understand that it is expedient for you that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation should not perish.” He did not say this of his own accord, but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus should die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad. So from that day on they took counsel how to put him to death.

And I guess all of the authors of the bible were not sinners when they were writing God’s truth in scripture, or else they were sinners and the bible is not God’s truth.

I guess I don’t truly understand God’s nature, because it seems to me that he uses sinners to spread his truth.

Peter Kreeft wrote that Saints are not the opposite of sinners.
There are only saved sinners and unsaved sinners.

This is irrelavent, because it does not say that Peter was living in sin anywhere in the scriptures. So yes his teaching is absolutely true, but it does not adress my statement.

 

[justasking4]

Hm, I just wonder why that author didn’t write about Alexander VI or Sixtus IV if he was to describe the bad popes.

And “Borja” is incorrect. It should be “Borgia”.

The Popes are sinners just as me, you or the Apostle Peter. The Catholic position is that the passages in Is 22:20-22, Mt 16:19 and Mt 18:18 refer to the infallibility of the Church’s teaching, not to individual members’ impeccability.

Are you sure that “The Catholic position is that the passages in Is 22:20-22, Mt 16:19 and Mt 18:18 refer to the infallibility of the Church’s teaching, not to individual members’ impeccability”? I thought the roman catholic church claims to be built on Peter and not church teachings. I guess i was wrong.

 

[justasking4]

They are protected from teaching errors in faith and morals when teaching from the chair, that is ex cathedra.

They are not protected from sinning.

How often has a pope spoken from the chair i.e. ex cathedra?

 

[protestantman]

I thought you believed in once saved always saved and any man of God is free to sin all his days and can do no wrong in the eyes of God since Jesus’ merits cover man’s sin like snow covers a dunghill.

Your statement here is logically and factually absurd.
Peter was a sinner.
Peter wrote two inspired and infallible scriptures.
You hold scripture infallible.
Peter was the first Pope and leader of the Apostles.
Yet you claim a sinful man can not lead The Church and speak for God.

Please admit your statement is utterly defeated by fact as well as logic or there is no choice but to admit you for mental examination.

James

Peter** was **a sinner.

Romans 8 makes a distinction between living in sin and living in the spitit.

1Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus,[a] 2because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death. 3For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature,** God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering.[c] And so he condemned sin in sinful man,[d] 4in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit.
5Those who live according to the sinful nature have their minds set on what that nature desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. 6The mind of sinful man[e] is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace; 7the sinful mind[f] is hostile to God. It does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. 8Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God.

9You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ. 10But if Christ is in you, your body is dead because of sin, yet your spirit is alive because of righteousness. 11And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit, who lives in you.

12Therefore, brothers, we have an obligation—but it is not to the sinful nature, to live according to it. 13For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live, 14because those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. 15For you did not receive a spirit that makes you a slave again to fear, but you received the Spirit of sonship.[g] And by him we cry, “Abba,[h] Father.” 16The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God’s children. 17Now if we are children, then we are heirs—heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory.

If Peter was living according to the Spirit, than he was not living in sin. Notice what it says about the man who lives in sin. Notice that if you are living by sin nature, it is impossible to please God
or submit to his Law. As far as OSAS, that IS what I believe. My argument here is to show how one catholic belief contradicts another.**

 

[Orionthehunter]

If you truly understood Gods nature, you would understand that this is impossible. God would never allow anyone who has fallen into sin to speak truth. No one.

No, I do not judge you, and I do believe that my interpretations could be wrong. But if you say something that is unbiblical, then I am commanded to rebuke you.

I find it interesting that in any contradiction between my belief and yours, that you dont even except the possibility that you could be wrong. Would you call that proud? I would. Who are you to think you could know all the wisdom of God?

Read what you said to MLChance above. Do you not think you should ask yourself if he shouldn’t think you are doing the following to him?

You specifically said “if you really knew God’s nature” and you claim that your interpretation gives you the right to rebuke him. Keep in mind, it is you who said that only the worthy can properly interpret the Truth which means by implication you find your self worthy. Seems rather prideful.

Sre you saying that I am living in sin? Are you really going to pass judgement? God is the only one who knows if I am in sin or in the spirit. It is not your place to call me a sinner, only Gods. In light of that, if I am in sin, then let him swiftly discipline me.

“Thou protests too much, me things” Shakespeare

 

[wanner47]

Christ is the foundation of the church. It does not say that Christ is the whole body, it says he is the Head. He is the premis on wich the church is built.

Christ is the foundation but he is also the entire reason for the Church to exist. Why do you think He established the Church in the first place if everyone was meant to interpret Scripture for themselves and draw their own conclusions to live by? Seems kind of pointless to establish a Church at all if that was His intent, don’t you think?

Christ is the Church as well as the Head of the Church. You can’t separate Christ from His Church. Likewise, the Church cannot and has not and will not contradict Christ’s teachings when it comes to matters of faith and morals, so your assertion that Christ can or could ever “trump” the Church is ridiculous.

 

[Orionthehunter]

This is irrelavent, because it does not say that Peter was living in sin anywhere in the scriptures. So yes his teaching is absolutely true, but it does not adress my statement.

He was a sinner as you say below. The denial of Jesus during His Passion is all the evidence we need.

Peter** was **a sinner.

If Peter was living according to the Spirit, than he was not living in sin. Notice what it says about the man who lives in sin. Notice that if you are living by sin nature, it is impossible to please God
or submit to his Law. As far as OSAS, that IS what I believe. My argument here is to show how one catholic belief contradicts another.

I think you have opened a can of worms.

Non-Catholics are so critical of good works as it doesn’t define us. But your argument points to a theology that “bad works” define a person. You can’t have it both ways.

This being said, I’m not sure I grasp your point or relevance.

 

[jmcrae]

Christ is the foundation of the church. It does not say that Christ is the whole body, it says he is the Head. He is the premis on wich the church is built.

“Why persecutest thou Me?” Acts 9:5

Jesus and His Church are one and the same. When Saul was persecuting the earthly Church and harassing its human leaders, Jesus was feeling the wounds.