A compelling non-Catholic argument

[protestantman]

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:

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

I have already said that I do not hold them to be true. I have done this on more than 1 occasion. So your answer is, A LOUD A RESOUNDING< NO I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THE SUBSTANCE OF WHAT I SAID IS TRUE.

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.

I do not doubt your sincerity as an individual. I doubt the sincerity of the claim of Papal infallibility.

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

Are you accusing me of quoting scripture? Am I wrong to do that?
Whether or not the Catholic Church is a bad tree is up to God, but I will not apologize for quoting scripture. It is here that you twist the intent and context of my words.

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.

I was stating that from my own point of view, bad fruit has come from the Catholic Church. What would you say on the matter? You are assuming that I was making a judgement.

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

This was not the site it came from. I did not claim these charges for being my own, yet I have apologized for posting them.

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?

This was not my own words, but part of the copy and paste which i have said I do not agree with.

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?

That is correct. Unless you were present, I cannot assume that it is without error.

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

No, this is untrue. Yet I do not believe that it has been fully upheld, or properly interpreted.

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

No, but I share the same source of insight. The Holy Spirit is the only one who can reveal Gods truth.

 

[protestantman]

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.

I cannot say whether or not any of those men acted in league with the Spirit or of their own sinfull nature. The nature of contradictions within the word of scripture is due to a lack of understanding.

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

How do you know that the Catholic Church has not done that?

 

[protestantman]

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

I set myself up to be stereotyped. The stereotypes that come with the name, I did not create.

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.

This is all-conclusive within the text.

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

The fruits of the Spirit. This is difficualt, as sometimes what may look like kindness, is sometimes only a mask for self-centeredness. This is why I tend to rely on my own interactions with the Holy Spirit, and not others. If I draw close to God, he will reveal more and more. The truth is imparted in Full by the scriptures, but it is only revealed in pieces.

Yes, we will then see as we are seen, but Jesus did not intend for us all to be confused until He returns.

But Satan is the principalities of the air. This is his intention: Divide and conquer. He even used scripture to tempt Christ.

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

This is what I have been told here on this forum.

 

[protestantman]

1. 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.

It was personal. Your remark was that I was easily persuaded. Then you proceeded to make a joke of it. If you continue to do so, I will report you to the forum administrators with quotes from your post. Your inability to admit that it was offensive is on you.

 

[protestantman]

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

You are judgeing me now? You claim to know what influenced me most? When did you gain knowlege of these things? My friend, you are making assumptions so that you can neatly label me and file me accordingly. So I would ask that you do not continue this argument. If you insinst, I will ignore it.

 

[richardwy]

How do I know the early Church fathers were right?

Partial Answers:

Because the ensuing Councils and history show them to been right.

The objection would be, “Yeah, but the Roman Catholic Church won the day. Of course, the ‘winners’ are going to say ‘the early Church fathers were right!’”

If the guy be sincere, then there’s a reason to discuss. But if he’s merely using you to whap the Catholic Church, then oh, how tedious!

Jesus said he would build his Church. Would the fellow be hard pressed to answer “when?” Or, “has Christ built his Church?”

History (versus non-history) is our friend and the friend of truth. If he heads towards tropes, then, well that’s unassailable. “Here it’s literal, here it’s figurative” and to the question “who gets to say?” and “where does it end” his answer would be “I get to say” and “It ends where I say it ends because the Holy Spirit tells me.”

Infallibility of the individual believer sort of thing.

Again, history mocks that. But recourse to figurative language is the bastion of error in cases like this.

 

[guanophore]

I set myself up to be stereotyped. The stereotypes that come with the name, I did not create.

You are right. We all make assumptions. When I read your posts, it seemed to me that my assumptions were confirmed.

This is all-conclusive within the text.

No, it is not. If it were, there would be unity in the Body. The fact that there are so many denominations, all of them based on how they interpret scripture differently proves that the Bible was never meant to be separated from the beliefs of the persons that wrote it.

The fruits of the Spirit. This is difficualt, as sometimes what may look like kindness, is sometimes only a mask for self-centeredness. This is why I tend to rely on my own interactions with the Holy Spirit, and not others. If I draw close to God, he will reveal more and more. The truth is imparted in Full by the scriptures, but it is only revealed in pieces.

I agree that a true believer will evidence fruit of the Spirit. But still, one’s individual assessment of fruit is still a subjective standard.

But Satan is the principalities of the air. This is his intention: Divide and conquer. He even used scripture to tempt Christ.

Right, and that is why Jesus founded a church, and prayed for unity. It is only through unity that we can defeat the wiles of the devil.

This is what I have been told here on this forum.

OK. I think we should reserve the issue of the “loss” of salvation for another thread. Is that ok?

 

[protestantman]

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.

Until the New Covenant, it did amount for nothing. After the New covenant, it was credited to them as faith.

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?

They taught what they had witnessed.

 

[protestantman]

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.

Jesus is the Word. Thus the word preceded creation. The church only preceded the word in its written form. The word itself was with God in the begining.

 

[deanarrca]

Sorry, Protestant Man a couple things in your post above have jumped out at me.

I was stating that from my own point of view, bad fruit has come from the Catholic Church. What would you say on the matter? You are assuming that I was making a judgement.

If that is your judge of churches then all have had bad fruit at some time in history. The protestant churches have committed heinous crimes against each other and against the Catholic church. The Southern Baptist were very racist and did horrid things during the time of slavery up until very recently.

You don’t specify in your profile your denomination.

No, but I share the same source of insight. The Holy Spirit is the only one who can reveal Gods truth.

I agree to a certain extent. I feel the Holy spirit gives us more discernment in what is truth.

I will bet it is not the Bible alone with the help of the Holy Spirit teaching you. I will lay odds it is the Interpretation of your Church and Pastor and they no doubt come from a school of thought and teaching such as (These are just examples)-- Dallas Theological Seminary, Scoffield, Moody, Calvin etc. When passages are difficult, confusing, or hard to understand I am sure you have sought out more than the Holy Spirit to teach you. I am sure you have sought out your pastor, those in your congregation, Bible teachers, commentaries or even online websites to help you.

Which of the thousand of denominations have the Holy Spirit and the truth? How are you able to discern? or do you believe that you alone have the guidance of the Holy Spirit and anyone therefore who disagrees with you must not?

My key to discernment the Holy Spirit and Knowing who my teachers are which is Christ the Ultimate teacher, then those he taught and on down the line.

2 Timothy 3:14-17 (New International Version)

14But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, 15and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

( Note the holy Scriptures refers to the scriptures of Tomothy’s youth - that would be the Spetuigent (sp?) not the New Testament of today.)

I will trust Christ’s teaching and those he taught, the Apostles teachings and those who they taught on down the line (which I have come to be truly covinced is the catholic Church) rather than Moody or Scoffield or any of the numerous modern Bible scholars. Note I am a convert to Catholicism after 20+ year as a fundamentalist evangelical.

I trust the Catholic Church because they can trace their teaching and History back to the Apostles. The Apostles and many close disciples knew the Author of the Bible and his intent and meaning.

History is very important . You can not take a book 1500 years out of context and try to interpret it without looking at history and the context it was wriitten. Any English major or student of linguistics knows that. Expressions, idioms, hyperbole, allusions, etc. need to be understood in context

Sorry for the long ramble-

 

[protestantman]

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

James

Now you claim I am possesed?

Either way, I will make a formal complaint of your remarks, and will also hereby refreain from answering any of your posts.

 

[protestantman]

Right, and that is why Jesus founded a church, and prayed for unity. It is only through unity that we can defeat the wiles of the devil.

QUOTE]

And yet we are not unified.

 

[justasking4]

Whether they like it or not, Protestants turn to the author’s biggest fan for understanding - Martin Luther (Lutherans), Wesley (Methodists, Nazarenes, Holiness, Pentecostals, etc. ), John Calvin (Reformed, Presbyterians, Reformed Baptists, etc. ), Dispensationalists (John Nelson Darby) etc.

God Bless,
Michael

It looks like your pope is also a fan of Martin Luther. Have you seen this recent article?

**That Martin Luther? He wasn’t so bad, says Pope **
Richard Owen in Rome
Pope Benedict XVI is to rehabilitate Martin Luther, arguing that he did not intend to split Christianity but only to purge the Church of corrupt practices.
Pope Benedict will issue his findings on Luther (1483-1546) in September after discussing him at his annual seminar of 40 fellow theologians — known as the Ratzinger Sch�lerkreis — at Castelgandolfo, the papal summer residence. According to Vatican insiders the Pope will argue that Luther, who was excommunicated and condemned for heresy, was not a heretic.
Cardinal Walter Kasper, the head of the pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, said the move would help to promote ecumenical dialogue between Catholics and Protestants. It is also designed to counteract the impact of July’s papal statement describing the Protestant and Orthodox faiths as defective and “not proper Churches”.
The move to re-evaluate Luther is part of a drive to soften Pope Benedict’s image as an arch conservative hardliner as he approaches the third anniversary of his election next month. This week it emerged that the Vatican is planning to erect a statue of Galileo, who also faced a heresy trial, to mark the 400th anniversary next year of his discovery of the telescope.
The Pope has also reached out to the Muslim world to mend fences after his 2006 speech at Regensburg University in which he appeared to describe Islam as inherently violent and irrational. This week Muslim scholars and Vatican officials met at the pontifical Council for Inter-Religious Dialogue in Rome to begin laying the groundwork for a meeting between the Pope and leading Muslims, also expected to be held at Castelgandolfo.
Cardinal Kasper said: “We have much to learn from Luther, beginning with the importance he attached to the word of God.” It was time for a “more positive” view of Luther, whose reforms had aroused papal ire at the time but could now be seen as having “anticipated aspects of reform which the Church has adopted over time”.
The Castelgandolfo seminar will in part focus on the question of apostolic succession, through which the apostles passed on the authority they received from Jesus to the first bishops. After the Reformation Protestants took the view that “succession” referred only to God’s Word and not to church hierarchies but some German scholars have suggested Luther himself did not intend this.
Luther challenged the authority of the papacy by holding that the Bible is the sole source of religious authority and made it accessible to ordinary people by translating it into the vernacular. He became convinced that the Church had lost sight of the “central truths of Christianity”, and was appalled on a visit to Rome in 1510 by the power, wealth and corruption of the papacy.
In 1517 he protested publicly against the sale of papal indulgences for the remission of sins in his “95 Theses”, nailing a copy to the door of a Wittenberg church. Some theologians argue that Luther did not intend to confront the papacy “in a doctrinaire way” but only to raise legitimate questions - a view Pope Benedict apparently shares.
Luther was excommunicated by Pope Leo X, who dismissed him initially as “a drunken German who will change his mind when sober”.

From The Times
March 6, 2008

Don’t suprised if someday the catholic church makes him a saint to…

 

[protestantman]

Sorry I have been just a couple things in your post protestant man have jumped out at me.

If that is your judge of churches then all have had bad fruit at some time in history. The protestant churches have committed heinous crimes against each other and against the Catholic church. The Southern Baptist were very racist and did horrid things during the time of slavery up until very recently.

You don’t specify in your profile your denomination.

I agree with all of this. This is also evidence that many claim to be saved, but have proved otherwise.

I do not have a denomination, nor do I want to. Denominations seperate the body of Christ.

 

[guanophore]

Until the New Covenant, it did amount for nothing. After the New covenant, it was credited to them as faith.

This is not consistent with what scripture records, or with what Jesus taught. However, I think this issue also belongs on another thread.

They taught what they had witnessed.

I can agree with this for the most part. Paul was not a witness, and taught what had been directly revealed to him by God through the Church, and the Scripture, and direct revelation…

None of that teaching was based on the NT, because it was not yet written.

Jesus is the Word. Thus the word preceded creation. The church only preceded the word in its written form. The word itself was with God in the begining.

Yes, I agree. But the point is that the NT was created out of the revelation given to the Apostles by Jesus. The Church did not come from the Scripture, but from Jesus. that is why the Teachings of the Church are based onJesus,and not the NT. The NT reflects these, but was never meant to be separated from the Teachings of Jesus handed down to us through the Apostles.
(Edited)
Certainly not! You are the one who pointed out that the devil is the author of division. I agree with you on that point. Let us begin by not taking things personally, and allowing the devil to separate us. I think the post was made to another forum member, anyway. Why are you so sensitive? You came in here with your gatlin gun flaming against Catholicism. I agree that you should be treated with courtesy in spite of that, but did you really expect that no one would be offended?

I found a number of your posts very offensive. However, I do believe that you are sincere, in spite of all that. My first posts here were pretty offensive too.

 

[guanophore]

It looks like your pope is also a fan of Martin Luther. Have you seen this recent article?

**That Martin Luther? He wasn’t so bad, says Pope **
Richard Owen in Rome
Pope Benedict XVI is to rehabilitate Martin Luther, arguing that he did not intend to split Christianity but only to purge the Church of corrupt practices.
Pope Benedict will issue his findings on Luther (1483-1546) in September after discussing him at his annual seminar of 40 fellow theologians — known as the Ratzinger Sch�lerkreis — at Castelgandolfo, the papal summer residence. According to Vatican insiders the Pope will argue that Luther, who was excommunicated and condemned for heresy, was not a heretic.
Cardinal Walter Kasper, the head of the pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, said the move would help to promote ecumenical dialogue between Catholics and Protestants. It is also designed to counteract the impact of July’s papal statement describing the Protestant and Orthodox faiths as defective and “not proper Churches”.
The move to re-evaluate Luther is part of a drive to soften Pope Benedict’s image as an arch conservative hardliner as he approaches the third anniversary of his election next month. This week it emerged that the Vatican is planning to erect a statue of Galileo, who also faced a heresy trial, to mark the 400th anniversary next year of his discovery of the telescope.
The Pope has also reached out to the Muslim world to mend fences after his 2006 speech at Regensburg University in which he appeared to describe Islam as inherently violent and irrational. This week Muslim scholars and Vatican officials met at the pontifical Council for Inter-Religious Dialogue in Rome to begin laying the groundwork for a meeting between the Pope and leading Muslims, also expected to be held at Castelgandolfo.
Cardinal Kasper said: “We have much to learn from Luther, beginning with the importance he attached to the word of God.” It was time for a “more positive” view of Luther, whose reforms had aroused papal ire at the time but could now be seen as having “anticipated aspects of reform which the Church has adopted over time”.
The Castelgandolfo seminar will in part focus on the question of apostolic succession, through which the apostles passed on the authority they received from Jesus to the first bishops. After the Reformation Protestants took the view that “succession” referred only to God’s Word and not to church hierarchies but some German scholars have suggested Luther himself did not intend this.
Luther challenged the authority of the papacy by holding that the Bible is the sole source of religious authority and made it accessible to ordinary people by translating it into the vernacular. He became convinced that the Church had lost sight of the “central truths of Christianity”, and was appalled on a visit to Rome in 1510 by the power, wealth and corruption of the papacy.
In 1517 he protested publicly against the sale of papal indulgences for the remission of sins in his “95 Theses”, nailing a copy to the door of a Wittenberg church. Some theologians argue that Luther did not intend to confront the papacy “in a doctrinaire way” but only to raise legitimate questions - a view Pope Benedict apparently shares.
Luther was excommunicated by Pope Leo X, who dismissed him initially as “a drunken German who will change his mind when sober”.

From The Times
March 6, 2008

Don’t suprised if someday the catholic church makes him a saint to…

The article contains many errors. I think you post things like this for the purpose of fanning the flames of hostility and division. These are not fruits of the HS.

 

[guanophore]

Right, and that is why Jesus founded a church, and prayed for unity. It is only through unity that we can defeat the wiles of the devil.

And yet we are not unified.

I think this is because unity revolves around truth. Since everyone has a different perception of truth, we have splintering. This is why Jesus empowered the Apostles to teach His truth, and founded the Church to protect the Truth.

 

[protestantman]

I found a number of your posts very offensive. However, I do believe that you are sincere, in spite of all that. My first posts here were pretty offensive too.

This question was targeted toward CentralFLJames. I also asked that if I did offend anyone, that they bring it to my attention. My intention is not to make jokes or a mockery of what you believe. If I offended you I apologize. Central continues to make a mockery of me with jokes, despite the fact I have asked him not to. This is why I wish to ignore him. Yet if he apologized and refrained from continuing his jokes, I would gladly forgive him and continue the conversation.

 

[Sean_Boyle]

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.

It amounted to nothing? Then why did Christ live under those same laws. He maintained them though out his life, he did clarify the intention of those law from time to time, but still lived under them. If those laws meant nothing why would God be subject to them?

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.”

Those people in the OT were God’s “chosen people.” Does that mean nothing?

Christ gave the apostles the authority to teach. Where did Christ require them to write all that was taught down as a bible?

 

[CentralFLJames]

It was personal. Your remark was that I was easily persuaded. Then you proceeded to make a joke of it. If you continue to do so, I will report you to the forum administrators with quotes from your post. Your inability to admit that it was offensive is on you.

Getting testy are we after you insulted every Catholic with your anti-Catholic copy/paste and the other rhetoric? I think everyone here including myself has shown you amazing courtesy and restraint given the severity of the offensive comments and lack of sincerity you have shown. No, I won’t deny that I think you are very gullible and naive as well as unfit and ill equipped to be teaching scripture. So let me use the term and expression you yourself used when you offended all Catholics by mocking our faith with the rubbish you posted earlier: “I rebuke you in your hypocrisy and insincerity”. Is that any less offensive?

So what are you really doing here and what do you expect to accomplish? You now have just about zero personal credibility in these forums and are wasting everyone’s time - including your own.

You don’t think that you can use the Christian teaching about loving one’s enemies as a way to force attention and affection to yourself? Again why are you here?

Do you think Judas was entitled to an extraordinary and special charity up and above the norms simply for exposing himself as an enemy of Christ? Do you think Jesus returned Judas’ betraying and insincere kiss as he told him to get about his true business? Do you think the disciples who had trusted Judas as a “brother”, broke bread with him and confided in him would have shown affection for him or had anything to do with him if they had known what he was about to do? I don’t think so.

Why are you here? Get about your business.

James