A Historical Dare to Protestants

[benedictus2]

I was not evading you, my dear. I have not one speck of need to do that. I needed to wait until I knew how God wanted me to answer…

[/quote]

But the question was not what God wanted you to answer but what is in your heart this very minute. Simple.

.If it was me, as I exist here, knowing what I know, I couldn’t do that. No.

Vunderbar!! My, why did that have to be like pulling tooth?

So the reason you would not do that I presume is because that would be an evil thing to do. Because you love every single child that ensues from you and your wife.

And that is what beats me.

If you a sinner can’t do that, you really think an unfathomably (your adjective) loving God can do that.

So therefore you are more loving that God?

But dear woman I wouldn’t put my son to death on a cross for a bunch of people in rebellion against me either.

And this answer comes only because your understanding of salvation is deficient.

I would suggest you read a book called “Why does God permit evil?” by Dom Brunno Webb.

You will then be more enlightened about the **whole **economy of salvation and not just bits and pieces of it.

God’s ways are so far above the ways of your puny mind and system of reason its beyond comprehension. That is what He says in his word.

Yes, indeed, and His love is far, far greater than we could ever hope to love, and yet you have just shown me that in your mind you are more loving than God.

Remember this, the only reason you could love any one is because God has loved you first. Your love is but a shadow of His unfathomable love.

Now you answer my question: Do you call the God of heaven a murderer for telling His people in the OT to kill all those pagan people,

No. Everyone’s life is his. The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away. Blessed be the Lord.

When we die as all must, how our death happens is all up to God.

or do you judge the “infallable” RCC for teaching that Scripture is the Divinely inspired infallable word of God? Which is it?

There is no OR about it. God is a God of love and He brings good out of the evil that happens in this world AND Scripture (the entire scripture and not the chopped up version) is the INFALLIBLE WORD OF GOD AS PRONOUNCED BY HIS INFALLIBLE CHURCH.

 

[benedictus2]

You are not following very well. I find no fault at all with God. He is perfect in every way. I’m saying if YOU think GOD couldn’t create people He knew were going to hell, then you must also have a problem with a notion of a God who ALLOWS innocent people to be born, knowing that they will be raped, molested by who knows what, die of starvation, etc.

Yes, but the suffering here earth is momentary compared to eternity. The suffering we endure can bring about good, as exemplified by Christ’s dying on the cross.

Hell is completely different. Once there all that is is suffering. Here there is a point to suffering.

Here, our Loving God creates something beautiful out of the most horrible things that happen to us.

We have just been through the worst fire ever to hit Victoria here in Australia and from out of that misery we see so many stories of faith, hope and love. Blessing comes in all shapes and forms and sometimes that which we think is bad turns out to be a blessing.

But to consign someone to hell where there is nothing but misery? Do you really think a Loving God would do that. Create people to send them to a “place” where the final word is death and suffering and nothing else, forever and ever and ever.

He could have prevented all of that. He ordered the Jews to kill whole towns. Do you understand He was perfectly just in doing that?

As I have said above, that is all here on earth. God is bringing about something beautiful all the time. hatever He instructed was necessary because the end goal is salvation of all mankind.

Sometimes the clay needs to be broken for it to be re-fashioned.

Reconcile this in your head if you can.: A God who dies on the Cross to save mankind is at the same time the same God who creates the same mankind simply to send them all to hell.

Read the Bible but please read it with your thinking cap on. God gave you the marvelous faculty called reason. Use that when you read the Bible and you will encounter the God :

• who so lovingly knitted us in our mother’s womb. Who carved us in the palm of His hand.
• Who lifts us up on eagles wings.
• Who on the cross made excuses for our sins by saying :Father forgive them for they know not what they do.
• the shepherd who leaves the 99 behind to search for the one who has strayed.

 

[catholic_daddy]

catholic daddy;4806858:

I was not evading you, my dear. I have not one speck of need to do that. I needed to wait until I knew how God wanted me to answer…

But the question was not what God wanted you to answer but what is in your heart this very minute. Simple.

Vunderbar!! My, why did that have to be like pulling tooth?

So the reason you would not do that I presume is because that would be an evil thing to do. Because you love every single child that ensues from you and your wife.

And that is what beats me.

If you a sinner can’t do that, you really think an unfathomably (your adjective) loving God can do that.

So therefore you are more loving that God?

And this answer comes only because your understanding of salvation is deficient.

I would suggest you read a book called “Why does God permit evil?” by Dom Brunno Webb.

You will then be more enlightened about the **whole **economy of salvation and not just bits and pieces of it.

Yes, indeed, and His love is far, far greater than we could ever hope to love, and yet you have just shown me that in your mind you are more loving than God.

Remember this, the only reason you could love any one is because God has loved you first. Your love is but a shadow of His unfathomable love.

No. Everyone’s life is his. The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away. Blessed be the Lord.

When we die as all must, how our death happens is all up to God.

There is no OR about it. God is a God of love and He brings good out of the evil that happens in this world AND Scripture (the entire scripture and not the chopped up version) is the INFALLIBLE WORD OF GOD AS PRONOUNCED BY HIS INFALLIBLE CHURCH.
[/quote]

Your verbosity gets a little in the way. And you, dear, have danced around the issue!! My My!
I did not say I am more loving than God. I said that in my imperfect, not-God state, with my emotions and my experience, I couldn’t do what God does. He creates one vessel for honor and another for destruction. He does whatever He wants. He loves EVERYONE. But He will only save a few. And he will maintain perfect love and perfect righteousness as He weeps and watches billions march into a Christless eternity. Comprende? Jesus spoke more about hell than He did about heaven. And He said FEW would find eternal life. I’m wondering if just maybe you find fault with Him for that.

And by the way, since you said “there is no OR about it” I will take that to mean that you approve of God ordering the Jews to slaughter ALL the people in those towns. It was a horrible but necessary thing, and I approve of God’s decision, but He certainly doesn’t need my or anyone else’s approval. He is the glorious Lord who reigns and is majestic in holiness. “Let God be true and every man a liar!”

 

[catholic_daddy]

Yes, but the suffering here earth is momentary compared to eternity. The suffering we endure can bring about good, as exemplified by Christ’s dying on the cross.

Hell is completely different. Once there all that is is suffering. Here there is a point to suffering.

Here, our Loving God creates something beautiful out of the most horrible things that happen to us.

We have just been through the worst fire ever to hit Victoria here in Australia and from out of that misery we see so many stories of faith, hope and love. Blessing comes in all shapes and forms and sometimes that which we think is bad turns out to be a blessing.

But to consign someone to hell where there is nothing but misery? Do you really think a Loving God would do that. Create people to send them to a “place” where the final word is death and suffering and nothing else, forever and ever and ever.

As I have said above, that is all here on earth. God is bringing about something beautiful all the time. hatever He instructed was necessary because the end goal is salvation of all mankind.

Sometimes the clay needs to be broken for it to be re-fashioned.

Reconcile this in your head if you can.: A God who dies on the Cross to save mankind is at the same time the same God who creates the same mankind simply to send them all to hell.

Read the Bible but please read it with your thinking cap on. God gave you the marvelous faculty called reason. Use that when you read the Bible and you will encounter the God :

• who so lovingly knitted us in our mother’s womb. Who carved us in the palm of His hand.
• Who lifts us up on eagles wings.
• Who on the cross made excuses for our sins by saying :Father forgive them for they know not what they do.
• the shepherd who leaves the 99 behind to search for the one who has strayed.

Cory you cannot pick which Scriptures you will embrace. They are all his. Yes He is doing something incredibly beautiful. Paul says the mystery hidden and now revealed is the Church. A Bride for his Son. “Many are called but few are chosen” to be among that throng who will worship Him forever. His word teaches that the “many” will NOT find life. They will “go away into everlasting destruction.”. I don’t fully understand why, but it is declared by God himself. I know this: if we saw even the best of us through the eyes of Holy God, we would wonder why he didn’t instantly destroy us. We have only the tiniest idea how holy He is. He is a consuming fire and no sin can exist for a milisecond in his presence apart from the atoning blood of the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world. “What can wash away my sins? Nothing but the blood of Jesus! What can make me whole again? Nothing but the blood of Jesus.” Hallelujah.
God Bless. Now go and repent if you have any notions of blotting out any verses from the word of God! Good night.

 

[benedictus2]

Your verbosity gets a little in the way.

Yes, I am verbose. I try not to be but sometimes, the occasion needs it. But of course you disagree with me on that.

And you, dear, have danced around the issue!! My My!
I did not say I am more loving than God. I said that in my imperfect, not-God state, with my emotions and my experience, I couldn’t do what God does.

But you see this is what I mean by putting you rational cap on.
My conlusion that you are claiming to be more loving than God is because while YOU would not have children for the purpose of torturing them for eternity, you are saying that God will and does.

He creates one vessel for honor and another for destruction. He does whatever He wants. He loves EVERYONE.

Rationality again here. If He loves EVERYONE, why would he create them for the express purpsose of sending some to hell.

People who claim to love other people then maltreat them are usually pronounced insane. Yet here you give the same atrribute to God.
That is why I keep saying, read the Bible but use your rational faculty.

But He will only save a few.

Why save only a few if he loves them all? Again, thinking cap on.

It would be different if the others were created by somebody else. but hey, he created them all.

And he will maintain perfect love

But I’ve just shown that it can’t be perfect love because He creates them for the purpose of torturing them.

and perfect righteousness as He weeps and watches billions march into a Christless eternity.

Why would He weep when the reason He created them is so that they will march into a Christless eternity?

This sounds very much like Nero’s crocodile tears as he burns Rome. The picture is getting uglier by the minute.

Comprende?

No, because the picture you painted is completely IRRATIONAL. It beats reason.

Jesus spoke more about hell than He did about heaven. And He said FEW would find eternal life. I’m wondering if just maybe you find fault with Him for that.

No I don’t. Not with HIm but with your interpretation. Maybe few will find eternal life. But it will not be because God has determined from the beginning that He will bar them from it.

And by the way, since you said “there is no OR about it” I will take that to mean that you approve of God ordering the Jews to slaughter ALL the people in those towns. It was a horrible but necessary thing, and I approve of God’s decision, but He certainly doesn’t need my or anyone else’s approval. He is the glorious Lord who reigns and is majestic in holiness. “Let God be true and every man a liar!”

Hey just as you said, He does not need my approval. I am not “approving” His decision. It is not for me to approve of His decsion. I am merely reconciliing how a loving God can possibly do all those things. You see, when I read the Bible I always proceed from this main tenet: GOD IS LOVE. Then I ask How can a loving God who goes so far as to die for me do something like that?

You see what I mean about putting you thinking cap on.

It doesn’t mean I always come up with an answer though a lot of times if I wait a while somehow God put’s a book, an article or simple enlightenment in my way that sheds light on my dilemna.

I have been verbose again, but there just is no getting away from it at this stage.

 

[Benjamin8o8]

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.

I did not say God dosent do His works on other chuches that He didnt establish, I am just saying the RCC is the Church that Christ established. If you don`t accept that, then name me your denomination or any other for that matter and we will gladly compare the history between the two churches. This is why the title of this thread is called “A historical dare to protestants”…not a dare to RCC. Because we have History, we compiled scriptures, we established sacrements, we did all of this through our Lord Jesus Christ. And thus Peter the first Pope of our Roman Catholic Church did what Jesus commaned Him to do.

I am not trying to say protestants worship the enemy or are enemies of Christ, I am just speaking the truth here, and I am consitently trying to dare protestants with history, but none of you guys are bold enough to face my challenge. I wonder why.

 

[benedictus2]

I did not say God dosent do His works on other chuches that He didnt establish, I am just saying the RCC is the Church that Christ established. If you don`t accept that, then name me your denomination or any other for that matter and we will gladly compare the history between the two churches. This is why the title of this thread is called “A historical dare to protestants”…not a dare to RCC. Because we have History, we compiled scriptures, we established sacrements, we did all of this through our Lord Jesus Christ. And thus Peter the first Pope of our Roman Catholic Church did what Jesus commaned Him to do.

I am not trying to say protestants worship the enemy or are enemies of Christ, I am just speaking the truth here, and I am consitently trying to dare protestants with history, but none of you guys are bold enough to face my challenge. I wonder why.

An interesting fact is that when protestants started reading history they converted.

So catholic daddy don’t read history or the Chruch Fathers. They’re quite lethal to Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide.

 

[Benjamin8o8]

An interesting fact is that when protestants started reading history they converted.

So catholic daddy don’t read history or the Chruch Fathers. They’re quite lethal to Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide.

Yes, I notice that too.

 

[benedictus2]

Cory you cannot pick which Scriptures you will embrace. They are all his.

Hallelujah! Yes, yes, yes. We need to embrace all of Scripture.

And they all speak of His tender love even though sometimes it does not seem so.

Now the task is to reconcile seemingly contradictory passages in Scripture.

BTW, How did you find out my real name?
Guess 1: You checked my first post.
Guess 2: A protestant I am in conversation with told you.
Guess 3: You really know me personally. Hmmm scary thought. I just hope you don’t know me well enough to blackmail me

Yes He is doing something incredibly beautiful. Paul says the mystery hidden and now revealed is the Church. A Bride for his Son.

Indeed She is the Bride of His Son.

“Many are called but few are chosen” to be among that throng who will worship Him forever.

If you re-read this passage from Matt 22. Verse 10 goes:
"The servants went out into the streets and gathered all they found, bad and good alike, and the hall was filled with guests. "
And surpise, surprise the only person the king took an issue with was A (one) man not dressed in a wedding garment.

Think about verse 10. The guests were plucked from the streets just so the hall will be filled. What are the chances that they were all dressed in a wedding garment? Yet the king takes an issue with just one.

His word teaches that the “many” will NOT find life. They will “go away into everlasting destruction.”.

And as I have said in my previous post that is probably true.** But not because from even before they were created, God has already determined that they will go to hell.**

Why people will end up in hell will be because they, of their own free will, will choose to disobey God. Not because God will cause them to sin so he can punish them, but because in spite of God sending His Son to grant us forgiveness, they refuse to repent.

I don’t fully understand why, but it is declared by God himself. I know this: if we saw even the best of us through the eyes of Holy God, we would wonder why he didn’t instantly destroy us.

Yes indeed. We are vile as vile can get. And that shows you even more How loving He is. Vile as we are, He dies for us so that we may live. I cannot comprehend how a God like that can “form someone in his mother’s womb” just so He can burn him in hell for all eternity.

We have only the tiniest idea how holy He is. He is a consuming fire and no sin can exist for a milisecond in his presence

Amen! which is why He washes our sins away with His blood.
apart from the atoning blood of the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world. “What can wash away my sins? Nothing but the blood of Jesus! What can make me whole again? Nothing but the blood of Jesus.” Hallelujah.
Amen, Amen, Amen.

God Bless.

Blessings on you too! Anonymous friend.

Now go and repent if you have any notions of blotting out any verses from the word of God! Good night.

I have many sins to repent of but blotting out any verses from His word is never one of them. Sweet dreams! Sleep tight. Don’t let the bed bugs bite.

 

[Protestant101]

So is the murderous god all of you protestants have been painting here the God of the Bible?

Alright! Hold your horses!! “All Protestants” is quite out of place and not quite fair!!

The person you were replying to is very very wrong in saying that God would create people just to send them to hell!! That is a nasty belief!! Sounds like something Jonathan Edwards would say…

It is so clear, the Bible tells us that “God is Love,” in 1 Jo.4:8 and that “Love NEVER FAILS.” HISTORY DOES BEAR THIS OUT!!

I am of the impression that the “Historical Dare To Protestants” should have different parameters to show where the Christian world got such beliefs about God. That answer, to me, is a little scary!!

 

[Protestant101]

I did not say God dosent do His works on other chuches that He didnt establish, I am just saying the RCC is the Church that Christ established. If you don`t accept that, then name me your denomination or any other for that matter and we will gladly compare the history between the two churches. This is why the title of this thread is called “A historical dare to protestants”…not a dare to RCC. Because we have History, we compiled scriptures, we established sacrements, we did all of this through our Lord Jesus Christ. And thus Peter the first Pope of our Roman Catholic Church did what Jesus commaned Him to do.

I am not trying to say protestants worship the enemy or are enemies of Christ, I am just speaking the truth here, and I am consitently trying to dare protestants with history, but none of you guys are bold enough to face my challenge. I wonder why.

Jesus was a Protestant. Thats easy to see in the Bible. Your “history” is no more credible than the 50 other versions of “true history” held so dear by so many other religions and denominations. You keep making the claim, but cannot supply clear proof. Only Catholic denominationally oriented dogma.

Protestants have existed as long as Catholics. And the Bible does not say that Peter was a “Pope.”

 

[catholic_daddy]

An interesting fact is that when protestants started reading history they converted.

So catholic daddy don’t read history or the Chruch Fathers. They’re quite lethal to Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide.

That’s something I don’t have to worry about. I have too many friends who were intelligent, sincere Roman Catholics, found out through someone outside the RCC how to be saved, and have never gone back. My Dad was in that boat as well.

 

[rinnie]

Jesus was a Protestant. Thats easy to see in the Bible. Your “history” is no more credible than the 50 other versions of “true history” held so dear by so many other religions and denominations. You keep making the claim, but cannot supply clear proof. Only Catholic denominationally oriented dogma.

Protestants have existed as long as Catholics. And the Bible does not say that Peter was a “Pope.”

Actually it does. Peter is translated to Papa which is translated to Pope. Jesus changed Simon to Peter which means rock which all leads to Papa which again leads to Pope. Also if you read what the names mean in the ancient readings Abram is what Abrahams name was first. God changed it to Abraham the same as he changed Peters names. Abraham also means rock, which translated to Peter which Translated to Papa which translates into Pope. Read up on it, you will see I am correct. And that is how the name Pope came about.

Also you said Protestants existed as long as Catholics. How can that be, Protestants did not come along until after Catholics because what does Protestant mean? It means to protest the Catholic Church. So how can protestants been here first. Because the first Christians were considered Catholic. Then they broke away from the Catholic Church, thats how Protestants started.

 

[rinnie]

Also Jesus started the first Church, which was the Catholic Church. How could Jesus be a protestant, that would mean he protests his own Church. THis makes no sense to me.

The First Church has 4 marks. One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic. Where does it say in the bible that the first church was Protestant, (opposed to the Catholic Church). And where does it say that we are to go against Tradition and SS. It says actually quite the opposite.

 

[catholic_daddy]

Also Jesus started the first Church, which was the Catholic Church. How could Jesus be a protestant, that would mean he protests his own Church. THis makes no sense to me.

The First Church has 4 marks. One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic. Where does it say in the bible that the first church was Protestant, (opposed to the Catholic Church). And where does it say that we are to go against Tradition and SS. It says actually quite the opposite.

‘Catholic’ simply means ‘universal’. Jesus founded his Church and the only churches that are part of his Universal church are those who hold to the original gospel, are led by elders and deacons, follow the teachings of Scripture and practice baptism and the Lord’s Supper.

 

[ncgolf]

‘Catholic’ simply means ‘universal’. Jesus founded his Church and the only churches that are part of his Universal church are those who hold to the original gospel, are led by elders and deacons, follow the teachings of Scripture and practice baptism and the Lord’s Supper.

I want to point out a couple of things in your posting. … the original gospel was orally taught … by the Apostles … we read about those in Acts and the Pauline letters.

So to truly follow what the original Apostles taught is where you want to be … hence why we are an Apostolic Church. That is what Tradition is … the confidence that we have the same teaching we receive today is the same teaching taught by the Apostles. Paul would have no bone to pick with what Catholics derive from his writings.

I understand why Guanophore continually uses Apostolic in many of his responses … it is true that many have lost the Apostolic connection. It is even in his signature. The Gospel does not change … it can’t … Paul would not have taught one way in 49 and another way in 2009 … any Christian must reconcile their understanding to the original Apostles undertanding in all matters of faith … a church cannot be mostly right. Catholcism does this … though not all believe but the reasons why a Church must be Apostolic still hold. If a church is not Apostolic then there is legitmate reason to distrust what it teaches.

Notice I did not say everyone must understand all aspects … I think if one is honest there are passages are that are confusing … that my mind cannot reconcile to the true meaning of the entirety of the Bible … so if I want an answer I want the answer the Apostles would have given. I want an authentic answer and not an opinion.

I know you will disagree but hear me out … look at what some other religions have done to begin their cause … they sever their ties to the Apostolic teaching … like the Great Aposasty … if you can sever those ties to the original Apostles you are indeed seemingly free to do whatever you want.

I know you will not agree but that’s never stopped me before.

 

[Tomster]

I really feel sorry for you, then because you just don’t get it.
You can be as smug and prideful as you want on this forum - BUT, you can’t be when you are judged by God.

OSAS is an invention of men and has absolutely no basis in Scripture or within the historic Christian faith.

I agree. OSAS is a man-made invention nowhere to be found Scripture.

God demands human co-operation in the work of sanctification. Just read the Sermon on the Mount. For, as St. Augustine observes, “He who made you without your knowing it, does not justify you without your willing it.” Therefore, every man must freely approach the means of salvation won by the cross and apply them to himself. If anyone, however, is incapable of a rational act, some other man must act for him. But even this co-operation in his own sanctification lies beyond man’s natural power. To be recreated in justice, live a supernatural life, and die in the friendship of God, a man needs a special help form God. Hence salvation is the work of God us. The beginning, middle, and happy end of man’s journey to the vision depend upon a mysterious combination of God’s action and man’s co-operation.

A man’s attainment of salvation results primarily from God’s grant of grace and secondarily from man’s co-operation with grace. God calls him by actual grace, He sanctifies him with habitual grace, He restores it should he lose it, and He provides that he end his life in His favor. A man, however, can reject grace and therefore become the author of his ruin. “He who rejects me and does not accept my words, has one to condemn him. The word that I have spoken will condemn him on the last day.” (John 12:48) Christ’s doctrine is rejected by failure to believe in it or to live in accordance with it. Without a most special revelation from God no one knows in his lifetime whether he is saved or not but he discovers this immediately after death at the particular judgment. One and the same conclusion of life awaits all: “I learned that [wise man and fool] were to die both alike.” (Eccles. 2:14)

 

[Tomster]

If water means baptism, it is difficult to understand why our Lord rebuked
Nicodemus for his ignorance. Christian baptism was not yet instituted, nor
had the facts that it signifies occurred yet, namely the death, burial and
resurrection of Christ. So Nicodemus could not understand “water” to mean
baptism. Yet Christ expected this teacher of Israel to know about being
born of water, “Are you the teacher of Israel, and do not know these
things?” Evidently, Christ meant something other than baptism, which
Nicodemus could have known from the Old Testament Scriptures.

In John’s Gospel, water is symbolic of the Holy Spirit and the spiritual
life He gives (John 4:14; 7:38, 39). Jesus speaks “of water and Spirit”
not because there are two sources of regeneration but to describe the Holy
Spirit working like water. The two are taken together to describe
different aspects of the same reality. The Holy Spirit alone regenerates
(John 3:6, 8), and in so doing, He acts like water cleansing and renewing
the soul (John 3:5). The Scriptures elsewhere explain that it was “not by
works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He
saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy
Spirit” (Titus 3:5). The cleaning and renewing of the heart is performed
by the Spirit. There is no mention of the rite of baptism, much less that
it causes regeneration.

Similarly, God speaks by the prophet Ezekiel: “Then I will sprinkle clean
water on you, and you shall be clean; I will cleanse you from all your
filthiness and from all your idols. I will give you a new heart and put a
new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh
and give you a heart of flesh. I will put My Spirit within you and cause
you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them.”
(Ezekiel 36:25-27). The clean water is applied by God - “I will sprinkle
clean water on you” - and not by the priest, midwife or pastor, and by so
doing, He cleanses and renews the heart.

It is of faith that Christ Himself designed baptism in water as the rite of entry into the Church. For He said to Nicodemus: “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.” (John 3:5) Again He commanded the Apostles: “Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” (Matthew 28:19)

Baptism is the divine remedy for original sin which involves the separtion from God and supernatural death. Since we came into the world dead to God, we need to be reborn unto Him: for (once again) “UNLESS A MAN BE BORN AGAIN OF WATER AND THE HOLY SPIRIT, HE CANNOT ENTER IN TO THE KINGDOM OF GOD.” (JOHN 3:5)

“CAN YOU SEE THE LIGHT? ! !”

 

[Tomster]

I want to point out a couple of things in your posting. … the original gospel was orally taught … by the Apostles … we read about those in Acts and the Pauline letters.

So to truly follow what the original Apostles taught is where you want to be … hence why we are an Apostolic Church. That is what Tradition is … the confidence that we have the same teaching we receive today is the same teaching taught by the Apostles. Paul would have no bone to pick with what Catholics derive from his writings.

I understand why Guanophore continually uses Apostolic in many of his responses … it is true that many have lost the Apostolic connection. It is even in his signature. The Gospel does not change … it can’t … Paul would not have taught one way in 49 and another way in 2009 … any Christian must reconcile their understanding to the original Apostles undertanding in all matters of faith … a church cannot be mostly right. Catholcism does this … though not all believe but the reasons why a Church must be Apostolic still hold. If a church is not Apostolic then there is legitmate reason to distrust what it teaches.

Notice I did not say everyone must understand all aspects … I think if one is honest there are passages are that are confusing … that my mind cannot reconcile to the true meaning of the entirety of the Bible … so if I want an answer I want the answer the Apostles would have given. I want an authentic answer and not an opinion.

I know you will disagree but hear me out … look at what some other religions have done to begin their cause … they sever their ties to the Apostolic teaching … like the Great Aposasty … if you can sever those ties to the original Apostles you are indeed seemingly free to do whatever you want.

I know you will not agree but that’s never stopped me before.

“. . . free to do whatever you want.” Exactly! Like OSAS!

The Church is catholic or universal (unlike Protestantism) because she is meant for all men of all time (again, unlike Protestantism). Therefore, as one and the same thing, she is diffused through the world and spread through time. From the time of St. Augustine, who popularized the phrase, she has been called the Catholic Church to distinguish her from the sects which imitate her or fall from her and fade away.

The Catholic Church is apostolic because Christ founded her upon the Apostles and, since she is changeless, she must always be apostolic. At any given moment in history, she is the religion which derives its origin from the Apostles, teaches the full doctrine of the Apostles, and has for rulers those who legitimately trace their authority to the Apostles, something Protestantism cannot do.

 

[elvisman]

**So what? You’re reduced **to taking her word on her teachings being truth without knowing for sure. She claims that only she can rightly interpret Scripture; therefore, you have no way of knowing whether or not she’s telling the truth because she’s excluded you from her ability to rightly divide the word.

**But one thing the prideful and stubborn mind of the anti-Catholic understands, and notes, **is the conspicuous absence of the word, “CHURCH” from the verses you’ve cherry-picked above.

Not a good job of interpretation… :nope:

Neither do you. Again, according to your Church only she has the ability to rightly divide scripture (the Mother of all circular arguments, by the way), and you’ve differentiated yourself from the Church in this statement:IOW, you are not the Church, and cannot rightly divide the scripture, and so you have no way of knowing with certainty whether or not she teaches truth.

:tiphat:
Sorry, my confused friend - we are not forbidden to interpret the scriptures. We are guided by the pillar and foundation of truth (the Church) in that interpretation - whereas you’re not. That’s why there are thousands of bickering denominations that all claim to be “the church”.

Besides, Jesus guaranteed that the Holy spirit would giude the Church into ALL truth. Who do you think he meant when he said this? Do you think he was kidding?

Don’t forget - the gates of hell will not prevail against his Churvch (1 Church - not thousands) Matt. 16:18. The rest of you have no guarantee because you’re not part of his Church.