A compelling non-Catholic argument

[xmormon]

It is whatever the Holy Spirit says it is. We will know for sure when Christ returns who has the correct interpritation. My own personal interpritation is clouded unless the HS decides to make it clear.

But by your own confessions of free will, can you not turn away. You say you are prevented from being caried away, not turning away.

Post a link for me also.

Bottom line here protestantman, You have much more to be thankful to the Catholics for then just the preservation, compiling, editing, publishing, etc. of the Bible. The Catholic church also warded off the attempts of 100’s of heretics who led movements to change doctrines like the trinity, resurrection, etc. Catholics proved thousands of times that they alone held the deposit of the faith. Sure there have always been men like yourself determined to destroy the rock and exchange it for autonomy. But, while all you protestants are walking around disagreeing on virtually everything except for thinking your all saved. The Catholic church goes on warding off your attempts to change the clear solid doctrines of Christ’s church. The Catholic Church is the only Bible based church. All others have twisted the interpretation to avoid this obvious truth…

 

[guanophore]

No. The person who assembled the book is nothing compared to the Author.

Do you realize that there were hundreds of texts floating around for hundreds of years, claiming to be inspired-inerrant? It was the Catholic Church that sorted through them all, and chose which should compose the NT. This was done on the basis of the Sacred Tradtiion.

Would you call this a personal attack? You are making a direct reference to me personally. You are being demeaning. You accuse me of doing wrong. I apologize, and in return I get crude joking?

Perhaps it is uncharitable, but you have to admit that there really are hundreds of “truths” out there, all claiming to be from the HS. The question is a just one, and you have not answered. Where did the Bible come from?

 

[Orionthehunter]

In anger to previous posts, I copy pasted text from an A-C source, in an intent to be sarcastic. This response offended you because of its A-C source. I was wrong on two accounts.

1 - acting in anger
2 - offensive material

Is the material offensive to you or are you just apologizing that it offended me and the other Catholics here. I ask this as it appears you are not apologizing for the following:

I hope that this sufficiently satifies the historical requirements for this belief. The Idea of Papal infallibitity is neither Biblicaly nor Historically supported. The clearest evidence is that anyone who has stood against this, has either been excommunicated, killed, or Convinced to recant. The Roman Catholic Churches History is probably not brought up anymore, as it would contradict what they teach now.

It appears that you still believe that the substance of what is said is true.

Papal infallibility is an institution of man, to serve man. It serves no purpouse for Christ.

I assume that you still hold to the belief that INTENT of the Papacy was established to serve man and not Christ. Thus, you are not apologizing for doubting our sincerity in following Christ.

Yes the inquisition is over, but the church continues to persecute anyone who challenges their authority. Are you proud of the history of the inquisition? This is an indisputable fact of the Catholic Churches history. How could such bad fruit come from something that is supposed to be protected from Satan?

The Bible says that this is impossible. “A bad tree CANNOT bear good fruit”

I assume that you are not apologizing for the innuendo that the Catholic Church is a bad tree.

I am not the one who can say if you are a bad tree. But I can say that many bad fruit have come from the catholic church.

Then why does scripture disagree? It says that a bad tree cannot bear good fruit.

Do you believe that a good tree can produce bad fruit? By the process of elimination, it is evident that you believe that the Catholic Church is a bad tree. So I guess, unless you tell us otherwise, you are not apologizing for calling the Church a bad tree.

Despite that, there is still left a bleak history of the Catholic Church. Why did some popes recant in fear of Death? Stephen chose death over recanting, as did Peter, John, Paul, and many many others. Can you explain how Pope Liberius was just in his actions? He only recanted after the Emperor died. This seems like his faith was weaker than his fear.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Liberius

I assume you are not apologizing making the same charges made by Peter de Rosa via “David” and “CatholicArrogance.org”.

The copy and paste was merely to prove a point. . . . .My point is that history is corrupt, and cannot be addressed to proclaim truth, no matter who wrote it.

So you aren’t apologizing for the original deception where you said that these statements put to rest the idea that Infallibility was held in the early Church?

Protestantman, I just want to make sure that I know for sure what you are asking for forgiveness. I do not want to forgive you for something for which you don’t ask forgiveness.

With regard for your disregard for His Story, I would like to know the following:

Does this also mean that you don’t care if information is presented to you that provides evidence of such belief in the Early Church?

You believe it of no import that those taught directly by Christ or His Apostles believe different than you?

You believe you have greater insight into Scripture than those who were most close in time and teaching?

 

[protestantman]

You can be a Jehovah’s Witness or a Mormon, groups that are not considered Protestant. You are either Calvinist or Arminian. You cannot be both or neither. Each theology has its variations - Calvinists (5 pointers, 4 Pointers, etc. ) and Arminians (Wesleyan and OSAS) - but there are only two camps when it comes to predestination/ free will. But by identifying yourself as Protestant, you are identifying yourself with a theology - a fractured one - but a theology nonetheless. How were you first exposed to Protestantism?

God Bless,
Michael

The first church I ever attended was Presbyterian, but was still an infant. Since then I was reared in a Non-denominational church. The church is pastored by my father. I was reared to seek an understanding of scripture from the Holy Spirit. My beliefs on predestination are very calvinistic, wheras my belief in other areas are not. I would rather just be called Christian, or member of the Body. I dislike denominational labels. You can put me into any catagory you wish, but I believe it only creates steroetypes.

 

[protestantman]

And who assembled it? Who did God use?

God bless,
Michael

I just stated that this was of no importance to me. So you can tell me who if you wish, but I will still only care about the author.

 

[mikeledes]

It is whatever the Holy Spirit says it is. We will know for sure when Christ returns who has the correct interpritation. My own personal interpritation is clouded unless the HS decides to make it clear.

Really? That’s a very subjective answer. So the Holy Spirit led Martin Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, Anabaptists, Arminius, Wesley, etc. in different and contradictory directions? It seems that the Gospel itself is clouded because no Protestant can agree on what it means. The issue of predestination/ free will is crucial to many Protestants because for many, it is the core of the Gospel. They will argue if you don’t understand how God saves, then you don’t understand the gospel at all.

But by your own confessions of free will, can you not turn away. You say you are prevented from being caried away, not turning away

You can freely turn away by rejecting that teaching authority God established.

God bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

I just stated that this was of no importance to me. So you can tell me who if you wish, but I will still only care about the author.

How do you know they correctly assembled those books? That a book that doesn’t really belong is in your collection. How do you know all of the books you consider inspired are really inspired? Just because something is accurate or true does not make it inspired.

God bless,
Michael

 

[protestantman]

It is much more than “transcription”. The men that wrote those books (NT) believed what they wrote with all their heart, soul, mind and strength, and all of them gave their lives for their beliefs.

Yet the Holy Spirit chose to write THROUGH them. The Holy Spirit was the perfectly infallible party. The Pharisees also acted with all their heart, soul, mind, and strength, yet because they were not under the dierection of the HS, it amounted to nothing.

This is Reformation theology. It is not Apostolic Teaching. What made a person a member of the Body before the NT was written? If Jesus did not give the Church the Authority to teach, what is the Great Commission saying?

No one was a member of the body in the OT. They were members of a different covenant. They were members of the covenant of the Law. The body had to be crucified before anyone could be a part of it. Christ gave the Apostles the Authority to teach what is written in the Bible. The Word is Christ. Revelations says that his name is “THE WORD OF GOD.”

 

[kepha1]

My point is that my seperation was not one that was willing. In order for me to rejoin the Catholic church, I would have to accept certain things that I do not believe. I would never be allowed to take communion because I do not agree with the True Presence in the Eucharist.

I pray you will discover for yourself all the arguments that oppose the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist are based on Gnosticism.

Prove it to me in scripture.

Prove to me that only doctrines explicitly found in scripture are trustworthy, using scripture only. This cannot be proven in scripture, because it is not in scripture. It is a man-made reformist tradition.

Not this protestant. I have never even read the 95 thesis.

I try not to preconcieve anything when I read the Bible. I do not study Luther or Calvin to find biblical interpretation.

It’s not a matter of finding biblical interpretation, it’s a matter of premises. Anyone can determine the correct interpretation of scripture. In fact, it is a reformist premises that anyone can interpret the Bible for themselves. The problem I have with Protestants is they deny this fundamental right to Catholics thus revealing the hypocrisy of their system. You don’t study Luther or Calvin, but you follow their traditions. You claim the Bible says the Holy Spirit will interpret the Bible to you.

No. I have not said that. When I read scripture, the Holy Spirit will often interpret scripture to me…

OK, fine. And if the Holy Spirit interprets something different for the same scripture to your neighbor, you have no way of knowing whose ‘holy spirit’ is right. If I read the same scripture, and the holy spirit tells me it means something different from what has always been believed, then I have to place my interpretation to have more authority than the ones who spoke the same language as the original scripture, and lived in the same culture when the scriptures were written. Therefore my explanation becomes superior to those who proved inspiration and canonized the Holy Books of the Bible and all the great saints and doctors of the Church. Everybody with the holy spirit is a pope except the Pope himself. That is the final conclusion of the “me, the bible and the holy spirit” mentality that is reformism to the core that you claim not to follow.

NOWHERE in scripture does it say the Holy Spirit will guide the individual into all truths. That is a reformist doctrine that is unbiblical. Yes, the Holy Spirit will guide us, but NEVER apart from the Church’s teachings.

 

[guanophore]

The first church I ever attended was Presbyterian, but was still an infant. Since then I was reared in a Non-denominational church. The church is pastored by my father. I was reared to seek an understanding of scripture from the Holy Spirit. My beliefs on predestination are very calvinistic, wheras my belief in other areas are not. I would rather just be called Christian, or member of the Body. I dislike denominational labels. You can put me into any catagory you wish, but I believe it only creates steroetypes.

Ok. But you have to admit that you stereotyped yourself with your username.

I just stated that this was of no importance to me. So you can tell me who if you wish, but I will still only care about the author.

That is just the point, protestantman. The HS spoke through men. It was a cooperative creation. The men that wrote believed the things they wrote. The writings were never meant to be separated from the beliefs that produced them.

It is whatever the Holy Spirit says it is.

This is true, of course, but how are we to determine through whom the HS is speaking?

We will know for sure when Christ returns who has the correct interpritation. My own personal interpritation is clouded unless the HS decides to make it clear.

Yes, we will then see as we are seen, but Jesus did not intend for us all to be confused until He returns. He established a Teaching Authority and promised to be with them till the end of the age,and He sent the HS to guide them into all truth. He instructed them,when they had a dispute, to “take it to the Church”. How was this to be done, if there was no visible Church, and no authority to make determinations in disputes?

But by your own confessions of free will, can you not turn away. You say you are prevented from being caried away, not turning away.

Is this your statement, or somenone else’s? I am not going to respond to it now, since I am not sure.

 

[CentralFLJames]

No. The person who assembled the book is nothing compared to the Author.

Would you call this a personal attack? You are making a direct reference to me personally. You are being demeaning. You accuse me of doing wrong. I apologize, and in return I get crude joking?

1. You have the wrong book since the one you have was assembled by an enemy of God.
2. No this is not a personal attack. This is an attempt to wake you up to the apparent naivety in not seeing that there are unscrupulous people operating as agents of Satan who want to sell you something that is not theirs to sell nor is it something that you think it is. What appears as a bridge to salvation is a bridge to corruption and hell.

You have the wrong “scriptura’ by which to solo on. What you have is a deconstructive and incomplete work of man formed through demonic cooperation to base your eternal salvation on. Not a good idea.

Let me for a moment stoop into your “hood” of fundamentalism to see if I can appeal to your way of looking at the world:

The Protestant Bible contains 66 books and the Catholic Bible contains 73 books. Is it a coincidence that the Catholic Bible possesses the numbers that signify completeness and spiritual perfection, seven and three, and the Protestant Bible, the number of man, and the anti-christ, number six? The Catholic Council of Florence approx. 1442 A.D. gives evidence that the Deutro-canonicals were included in the Scriptures. This was almost eighty years before the Protestant Reformation!
Significance of numbers in canonicity of Catholic vs Protestant Bibles:

Original Material Here: Bible Canon
Let’s fight fire with fire shall we?
Look at the following works by Dr. Bullinger, a great English Protestant Scholar, regarding the spiritual significance of numbers. Numbers used in Scripture have spiritual significance. “Three” denotes completeness, as three lines complete a plane figure. Hence, three is significant of Divine perfection and completeness. The third day completes the fundamentals of creation-work. The number three includes the resurrection.
“Six” denotes the human number. Man was created on the sixth day; and this first occurrence of the number makes it and all multiples of it the hall-mark connected with man. Althaliah usurped the throne of Judah for six years. The great men who have stood in defiance of God, Goliath- 1 Samuel 17:4-7 Nebuchadnezzar- Daniel 3:1 and the Antichrist- Rev.13-18 are all emphatically marked by this number.
“Seven” denotes spiritual perfection it is the number or hall-mark of the Holy Spirit’s work. He is the author of God’s Word, and seven is stamped on it as the water-mark is seen in the manufacture of paper. He is the Author and Giver of life; seven is the number which regulates every period of Incubation and Gestation, in insects, birds, animals, and man.
When we look at the spiritual significance of numbers, look at the number of books in the Protestant Bible. The Protestant Bible contains 66 books! the Catholic Bible contains 73 books! Is it a coincidence that the Catholic Bible possesses the numbers that signify completeness and spiritual perfection, seven and three, and the Protestant Bible, the number of man, and the anti-christ, number six. The Catholic Council of Florence approx. 1442 A.D. gives evidence that the Deutro-canonicals were included in the Scriptures. This was almost eighty years before the Protestant Reformation. The official canon was listed at the Catholic Council of Trent, because the Reformers deleted the seven books. The following Protestant sources give evidence that the Apocrypha, the Deutro-canonicals, were always included in the Bible by the Church:

James

 

[guanophore]

Post a link for me also.

Bottom line here protestantman, You have much more to be thankful to the Catholics for then just the preservation, compiling, editing, publishing, etc. of the Bible. The Catholic church also warded off the attempts of 100’s of heretics who led movements to change doctrines like the trinity, resurrection, etc. Catholics proved thousands of times that they alone held the deposit of the faith. Sure there have always been men like yourself determined to destroy the rock and exchange it for autonomy. But, while all you protestants are walking around disagreeing on virtually everything except for thinking your all saved. The Catholic church goes on warding off your attempts to change the clear solid doctrines of Christ’s church. The Catholic Church is the only Bible based church. All others have twisted the interpretation to avoid this obvious truth…

I agree with all of this except the very last part. I would go so far as to say that none of Catholic doctrine is “bible based”.

 

[mikeledes]

The first church I ever attended was Presbyterian, but was still an infant. Since then I was reared in a Non-denominational church. The church is pastored by my father. I was reared to seek an understanding of scripture from the Holy Spirit. My beliefs on predestination are very calvinistic, wheras my belief in other areas are not. I would rather just be called Christian, or member of the Body. I dislike denominational labels. You can put me into any catagory you wish, but I believe it only creates steroetypes.

If your views of predestination is Calvinistic, then you are in essence a Calvinist. There are different kinds of Calvinists. Hence the major influence in your thought has been John Calvin (i.e. Presbyterianism, etc.). Whether you want to accept it or not is a different story.

To be continued…

God Bless,
Michael

 

[protestantman]

origionally from xmormon

The Catholic Church is the only Bible based church. All others have twisted the interpretation to avoid this obvious truth…

origionally from Gaunophore

I doubt that you will make peace with Catholics, since Catholicism is not a Bible Based religion. Why are you here?

I am confused.

 

[Stephen_C]

I am confused.

I guess a better way of putting this is the Bible is a Catholic book. Written by Catholic’s (NT) Lead by the Holy Spirit was deemed inspired (NT/OT) by the Catholic Church.

 

[guanophore]

Yet the Holy Spirit chose to write THROUGH them. The Holy Spirit was the perfectly infallible party. The Pharisees also acted with all their heart, soul, mind, and strength, yet because they were not under the dierection of the HS, it amounted to nothing.

Yes, the HS is the infallible party. The HS is the Soul of the Church, and that is why the Church is infallible. I am not sure that most of the Pharisees really were that wholehearted. I think Saul was, even before he became Paul. But I think his practices were a minority. It did not “amount to nothing”, either, because Jesus told everyone to follow their teaching, because they sat on Moses’ seat.

. Christ gave the Apostles the Authority to teach what is written in the Bible. The Word is Christ. Revelations says that his name is “THE WORD OF GOD.”

I am not sure what you mean by this. I agree that Jesus is the Word, but how could the Apostles teach what had not yet been written? The earliest letters were not for some 20 years. What did they teach all that time?

 

[Orionthehunter]

I am confused.

It is because of the concept both flow from Jesus Christ in union. Neither is based upon the other. They are from Jesus. Also, the Church preceded the Bible and it is the Bible that came from the Church.

 

[Eschato]

It seems to me(Please correct me if Im wrong) that when I attend a mass, that the Catholic church does not fully accept me unless I am a member of the Catholic Church. Often when I take communion with them(being not a member of that church) I have been told that it is inappropriate. It would This does not seem to be biblical to me.

Then your beliefs are unbiblical and that is something that needs to be dealt with. You need to look at your beliefs and ask if you are in communion with the Pope before you take communion with the Pope…

 

[CentralFLJames]

If your views of predestination is Calvinistic, then you are in essence a Calvinist. There are different kinds of Calvinists. Hence the major influence in your thought has been John Calvin (i.e. Presbyterianism, etc.). Whether you want to accept it or not is a different story.

To be continued…

God Bless,
Michael

Excellent Michael. You have accomplished the first thing and have named the error. Now its time to correct it…

James

 

[guanophore]

I am confused.

Understandibly. None of the Teachings of the Catholic Church came from the Bible. They all come from Jesus Himself, through the Apostles. The reason the Catholic Church is the most appropriate to clarify what is in the Bible is because it was produced through the Catholic Church. It represents Catholic Teaching (the NT) at least, and the Church interprets all of the scripture in the same way that Jesus and the Apostles did. Hope that helps.