A Historical Dare to Protestants

[broski234]

Or you could ask someone how to know for sure that if you die today or tomorrow or fifty years from now, you will be with Jesus in Paradise.

I do not even judge myself. I am not aware of anything against myself, but that doesn’t mean that I am acquitted. It is the Lord who judges me.

 

[catholic_daddy]

It was not the law that doomed them … Christ himself observed all the traditions of a faithful Jew, including circumcision. You are not saying Christ particpated in empty rituals are you? They had a purpose … but not the purpose of the Jews were heaping on them.

There were not far away from the kingdom because of the rituals but why they were observing them … it was inside their heart that was corrupting them … not the law.

What Jesus was pointing out was the mere observance of the ritual does not make you righteous. There is no outward sign I can see on your body or in your actions that make you righteous.

Reading the Scriptures does not make you righteous before God.

The amount of Scripture you can recite does not make you righteous before God.

Observing the 10 commandments does not make you righteous before God.

This is true for Catholics and nonCatholics.

I agree. They had the lineage and the letter of the Law, but not the spirit of it.
When they asked Jesus, “What must we do that we might work rhe works of God?”. Do you know how Jesus answered? He said “This is the work of God, that you BELIEVE on Him whom He has sent!”.

 

[broski234]

like the last ten verses of Rom 8. Or you could ask someone how to know for sure that if you die today or tomorrow or fifty years from now, you will be with Jesus in Paradise.

Can you be more specific about exactly which verse or verses you believe gives us this assurance?

 

[catholic_daddy]

I do not even judge myself. I am not aware of anything against myself, but that doesn’t mean that I am acquitted. It is the Lord who judges me.

He wasn’t talking about his salvation, my friend. He was talking about how his life will stack up for rewards. He had full assurance of his salvation and Roman Catholics don’t. Why? Paul had different doctrine than they do.

 

[Tomster]

You are exactly correct on that. Just as with the proud Jews of Jesus’ day who thought they were ‘children of Abraham’ because they could trace their lineage or prove the absence of foreskin, yet were far away from the kingdom, so today only and all those who hold to the Christ and the gospel of the Scriptures are part of His church. Those who say otherwise do so out of blind allegiance and/or an attempt to vainly protect a vested interest that does not exist

I have been reading your posts on this thread for the past few days and must say that the more you say the bigger the hole you are digging for yourself.

Are you aware that it is a fundamental dogma of Christianity that Christ founded a Church for the sanctification of men? (emphasis on “a Church,” not many) That Christ might have perpetually available the salutary work of redemption, the Eternal Shepherd and Bishop of our souls determined to build the holy Church wherein, as in the house of the living God, all the faithful may dwell united by the bond of one faith and charity? That upon the foundations of Israel Jesus erected a new religious society to be the perfect flowering of Israel, as the true religion and as God’s final arrangement with wayfaring man?

Are you aware that what Jesus did to save us and the merits He won for us are, in theological terms, the objective redemption? Are you aware that the individual, however, does not automatically share in these benefits? Are you aware that it is not enough that the price of sin be paid for the race? Are you aware that in addition every man must be purified of the effects which sin has upon him and be made over supernaturally? Are you aware that a human being must be reborn to God through union with Christ, be healed of the wounds of sin and be made fit for the vision of God? Are you aware that this PROCESS is his sanctification, or, again in theological terms, the subjective redemption?

From what you have been saying on this thread, I do not think that you are fully aware of any of the above.

 

[catholic_daddy]

May I ask where you pick up the misconceptions you say here?
Why do you call yourself catholic daddy when it is so obvious that you do not like what you perceive that the Church teaches?

You can see the documentation in an adjacent post here. I am “Catholic Daddy” because my daddy was raised Roman Catholic.

 

[Tomster]

May I ask where you pick up the misconceptions you say here?
Why do you call yourself catholic daddy when it is so obvious that you do not like what you perceive that the Church teaches?

If I may be so bold as to attempt an answer? Perhaps it was the one morning Catholic Daddy woke up and decided he was qualified to interpret the Scriptures all by himself. Maybe I am wrong about this.

Perhaps we should just let Catholic Daddy answer the question though along with the questions I have asked.

 

[broski234]

He wasn’t talking about his salvation, my friend. He was talking about how his life will stack up for rewards. He had full assurance of his salvation and Roman Catholics don’t. Why? Paul had different doctrine than they do.

“Let anyone who thinks that he stands take heed, lest he fall.” Again, this is a direct quote from Paul (1 Cor 10:12). There are multiple places in scripture that imply that Paul himself doesn’t contend that “if he died today, he would go to heaven”. All I did was take your non-scriptural question and respond with scripture. Paul was indeed speaking of his salvation. Paul speaks of salvation in a past, present and future tense, thus salvation being a process; just as the Catholic Church teaches.

catholic.com/library/assurance_of_salvation.asp

 

[jjoelness]

I would encourage you to read “The Churches The Apostles Left Beyond” By Raymond Brown (a Roman Catholic priest).

It helps to enlighten this conversation. That the Catholic Church did not just pop up from no where but emerged from among many different churches in many different cities.

 

[Tomster]

I agree. They had the lineage and the letter of the Law, but not the spirit of it.
When they asked Jesus, “What must we do that we might work rhe works of God?”. Do you know how Jesus answered? He said “This is the work of God, that you BELIEVE on Him whom He has sent!”.

Just one more question for now, if you please. If you believe what you have said in this post then you must certainly believe all of the things Jesus said and did, correct?

 

[Patrick_Murebil]

I would say almost all the people who post here as RC, if you check what they say when that topic comes up, they are attempting to explain having “been saved” away.

Hi CD,

Thank you for what you said above! Now I understand why you say what you say…you assume things other than what you read or hear.

Regarding your fear of being caught in that II Peter 2 situation? Don’t ever sing the hymn, “Blessed Assurance”, because you have none. You need to take a Sharpie and mark through all those verses where Jesus and Paul give us assurance, like the last ten verses of Rom 8. Or you could ask someone how to know for sure that if you die today or tomorrow or fifty years from now, you will be with Jesus in Paradise.

And here is a perfect example of you coming to a conclusion different from what was said by me.

I said "I also know that if I do not watch and pray, that I will find myself in the situation described so accurately in 2 Peter 2:22.

Watching and praying daily for God’s grace to guide and lead and protect, is part of the Christian life!! By being in prayer and communion with God daily, and making choices for God, we are protected from that situation described in 2 Peter 2:22…and that is not only Blessed Assurance, that is Blessed Living!!!

I never once said that I had FEAR of falling into that situation…but you weren’t listening to what I said, you were hearing what I did not say, or reading what I did not write. You should be aware of that tendency you have when reading the Holy Scriptures.

And while I do not fear falling into that situation because of the Blessed Assurance I have from watching and praying…the possibility is always there for a person, for me and you, to let down their guard and fall into that situation. There are more than a few examples of that in the Bible.

And yet God’s love and mercy is so great, so much greater than our pea brains can comprehend, that if a person falls into that situation, God will lovingly take them back and give them a new beginning again!!! He is the God of New Beginnings!!! And there are many examples of that in the Bible!!!

And because of that I love to sing that beautiful hymn “Blessed Assurance” in thanksgiving and praise to Our Loving God and Father!!!

God bless all!!!

 

[Tomster]

“Let anyone who thinks that he stands take heed, lest he fall.” Again, this is a direct quote from Paul (1 Cor 10:12). There are multiple places in scripture that imply that Paul himself doesn’t contend that “if he died today, he would go to heaven”. All I did was take your non-scriptural question and respond with scripture. Paul was indeed speaking of his salvation. Paul speaks of salvation in a past, present and future tense, thus salvation being a process; just as the Catholic Church teaches.

catholic.com/library/assurance_of_salvation.asp

“Right on, Bro!”

 

[Tomster]

I would encourage you to read “The Churches The Apostles Left Beyond” By Raymond Brown (a Roman Catholic priest).

It helps to enlighten this conversation. That the Catholic Church did not just pop up from no where but emerged from among many different churches in many different cities.

The Catholic Church was born from the side of Christ on Calvary and confirmed on Pentecost. Puhleeese.

 

[catholic_daddy]

very cute, but if you disagree why don`t you claim your church is the apostolic church and we can compare the history of our churches. I made a new thread for this reason (The History of The Roman Catholic Church) Go reply if you dare and then we can simply see without beating around the bush to see which church, and I mean exactly which church can trace back to the apostles.

You are making a vain attempt. The RCC claim to exclusivity or even validity is no more tied to a human succession than the is the Jews lineage a claim to be God’s only people. There are legitimate and powerful churches all over the globe. Just as Paul said “He is not a Jew who is one outwardly…but inwardly…” In the same way, a church is a New Testament church only if it holds to the “faith once delivered”, has biblical leaders (elders and deacons), and practices baptism and the Lord’s Supper. God is doing incredible things through non RCC churches all over the planet. Don’t walk into one unless you are ready to have your bubble bursted.

 

[Tomster]

You are making a vain attempt. The RCC claim to exclusivity or even validity is no more tied to a human succession than the is the Jews lineage a claim to be God’s only people. There are legitimate and powerful churches all over the globe. Just as Paul said “He is not a Jew who is one outwardly…but inwardly…” In the same way, a church is a New Testament church only if it holds to the “faith once delivered”, has biblical leaders (elders and deacons), and practices baptism and the Lord’s Supper. God is doing incredible things through non RCC churches all over the planet. Don’t walk into one unless you are ready to have your bubble bursted.

Answers please!

Tomster

 

[Tomster]

We “Protestants” don’t just come here and tell you what we believe. Some of us come here and tell you our understanding of it - but such characterizations are not needed, and are likely highly inaccurate, atleast in some cases.

The places here at CAF where Catholics “defend” works suggests a different picture than what you paint; although I have no problem accepting what you say at face value; I have questions about the general thinking of Catholics on this issue. The Reformation did not seek to eliminate works from the equation; only to clarify their rightful place.

By “We Protestants” are you saying all Protestants or some Protestants. It is an historical fact that within Protestantism agreement on essentials and non-essentials cannot be found.

Where is the Holy Spirit within this tower of Babel?

 

[catholic_daddy]

Just one more question for now, if you please. If you believe what you have said in this post then you must certainly believe all of the things Jesus said and did, correct?

Yes, but that sounds like a loaded question, so be careful not to waste your time. I beieve in applying all the principles of hermeneutics to any passage. That means observing both the immediate and largest context to the passage. What’s your text?

 

[catholic_daddy]

Answers please!

Tomster

You have your answer. You can’t see it there and you won’t recognize it anywhere else.

But I have news for you. The penence you perform is both unbiblical and powerless to provide atonement for your sin. And it comes from an unauthorized source.

 

[ncgolf]

The RCC claim to exclusivity or even validity is no more tied to a human succession than the is the Jews lineage a claim to be God’s only people.

They never made that claim … they were God’s chosen people … not only. Chosen not on their accord … I don’t recall Abraham calling to God asking to be the father to all … God chose him … hence a chosen people.

Where do Jews claim to be God’s “only” people. God did make a convenant with them … and only them … so yes there was exclusivity … but your bone to pick is with God … not the Jews. Man is unable to build a covenant with God … it is totally a response on our side.

So yes … God can be exclusive and decide the way He wants to spread His message. Your bone to pick is with sender of the message … not the messanger.

Peter, if I recall, never asked to be the rock … people are chosen by God … is your question … why them and not me?

 

[elvisman]

So many posts, so little time! Some posts are simply not high priority. I never fear answering a post. Just have to be a good steward of the time God gives me! The people I was referring to are anyone who embraces teaching which cannot be supported in God’s Word. Calling Bible reading a sin, for instance, which the RCC did for about 900 years, until they suddenly had a new revelation. Dig yourself out of that one while I attend to a few other posts.

Provide proof for the ridiculously ignorant claim that the Church deemed it a sin to read Scripture.

This is an unsubstantiated lie that is unsupported by history.

I’m waiting . . .