A Historical Dare to Protestants

[catholic_daddy]

Why do you continue to ignore scripture and repeat your dogmatic assertions?

You can’t just pick and choose the scripture that fits yoru dogma, you must accept it all and then harmonize it as the message of God to us.

Please tell me why you feel entitled to ignore the scripture I posted.

Do you believe that these verses mean something different than what an unbiased reading would communicate?

Try reading them without bias:

Hebrews 10:26-27 “For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries.”

Hebrews 10:29 “How much worse punishment do you think will be deserved by those who have spurned the Son of God, profaned the blood of the covenant by which they were sanctified, and outraged the Spirit?”

1 Chronicles 28:9 “If you seek Him, He will be found by you; but if you leave Him, He will cast you off forever”.

1 Timothy 1:19 “Keeping faith and a good conscience, which some have rejected and their faith has been shipwrecked”.

John 15:1-2 “I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener. He removes every branch in me that bears no fruit. Every branch that bears fruit he prunes to make it bear more fruit”.

John 15:4-6 “Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, unless it abides in the vine, so neither can you, unless you abide in Me. I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me, and I in him, he bears much fruit; for apart from Me you can do nothing. If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch, and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned”.

10"If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love;

There is a sense in which you really don’t deserve this answer, because as I said, there are many other posts by people including myself that have already explained those verses. So it is you that ignore. But one more time with prayer God will open your eyes to Amazing Grace. I will not repeat it all; you’ll have to read back. I have studied these passages for many many years.
But…Jesus spoke before the cross, attempting to show proud Jews and Pharisees they were unrighteous and that the symbol of Israel, the vine, would quickly be pruned. Christians DO love Christ. It is in their nature. But Jesus was making sure the proud understood that it was a law of love they failed to meet.

The Hebrews passages were written to… Hebrews! There were many who were saved and there were many who were ‘tasting’ and had not yet fully come over to embrace the gospel of grace (sound familiar?). Some were falling back to the Law and the old ways as their hope for salvation. The writer of Hebrews is addressing that phenomenon. And if you would look at verse 9 of Chapter 6 you would see proof the writer was not talking about SAVED people-- “But beloved, we are convinced of better things concerning you, and THINGS THAT ACCOMPANY SALVATION, though we are speaking in this way.” Come on!!! There is a similar passage in Peter’s writing. People who may taste, have knowledge, but didn’t, during this historical time of transition to Christianity, go on to full faith in Christ. They went back to Law and trampled his grace. Nowhere does it say these are actual saved people he is talking about (but then you don’t really believe in saved people, do you?! Yet Paul does–in the past perfect tense!)
John summarizes what we believe, (for the hundredth time) when he says, “They went out from us, but they WERE NOT REALLY OF US, for if they had been of us, THEy WOULD HAVE REMAINED WITH US”. Do you understand this? We have explained your proof texts, but you NEVER do the same with the many passges we show you. Why not? You cannot.

One more, and then I will not dishonor the Word again by serving it to someone who is not a hearer…
After Paul talks in I Thess about God’s coming wrath on sinners he says this to the Christians (hear it well): “For God has not destined us for wrath, but for obtaining salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ, who died for us, so that WHETHER WE ARE AWAKE OR ASLEEP (dead) we WILL live together with Him.”

That’s all, though there are many many more passages. These are enough. Without the Holy Spirit these roll off you like the proverbial water on the duck’s back. I pray a different future for you my friend.

 

[elvisman]

Katrina do you think this is really Christ-like behavior? Do you really think Christ is in Heaven saying “you go girl”

Roman Catholicism IS a denomination of Christianity period!! There’s nothing wrong with saying that. The fact you use the label Roman Catholic denotes a denomination. The followers of Christ in scripture are called Christians, not catholics. The church is described as catholic in nature given catholic is an adjective.

**The Catholic Church is not a denomination. If that were true, you would have to call the “The Way” a denomination because that is how it is identified in Acts. **

You are right, though - “Catholic” is an adjective that describes the Universal Christian Church established by Jesus in Matt. 16:15-19. This was what the Church was called since the first century by St. Ignatius, who was the student of St. John the Apostle.

**“Lutheran”, “Baptist”, “Methodist”, “Assemblies of God”, Calvary Church", “Foursquare Gospel Church”, “Cornerstone Church” - those are denominations or "brands" of Christianity that didn’t accept the Universal Christian Church (Catholic) that Jesus set up as the “pillar and foundation of truth” (1 Tim. 3:15). ****The very Church that Jesus identified his very self with in Acts 9:4-5. **
They chose their own “way” - instead of "The Way".

The bottom line is that if the Catholic Church is merely a denomination, then so is Jesus because he cannot be separated from his Church - His Body (again, Acts 9:4-5).

Peace, my brotha

 

[seekdatruth]

What if the father was a drunk and beat the children and refused to give the children proper clothes and food? Would they not have the right to go elsewhere?

My question was:
What if all children were to have the right and ability to just up and leave their parents before they were of age, simply because they thought their parents weretoo strict?

not whether or not the parent was an alcoholic.
Does the Catholic Church beat you? If so, how?

 

[nsper7]

My question was:
What if all children were to have the right and ability to just up and leave their parents before they were of age, simply because they thought their parents weretoo strict?

not whether or not the parent was an alcoholic.
Does the Catholic Church beat you? If so, how?

Remember that, historically, the Catholic Church has its share of ‘going too far’ occasions. Otherwise, why would Pope John Paul II have issued all those apologies?

 

[seekdatruth]

Remember that, historically, the Catholic Church has its share of ‘going too far’ occasions. Otherwise, why would Pope John Paul II have issued all those apologies?

IS IT HURTING ANYONE** TODAY**?

 

[nsper7]

IS IT HURTING ANYONE** TODAY**?

Is the Catholic Church as an organization hurting anyone today? I do not honestly think so; however, there are certain individuals (and, no, I am not just talking about the Priest abuse scandals) who claim to represent Catholicism who do hurt people.

 

[seekdatruth]

Is the Catholic Church as an organization hurting anyone today? I do not honestly think so; however, there are certain individuals (and, no, I am not just talking about the Priest abuse scandals) who claim to represent Catholicism who do hurt people.

There are people who claim to be salesmen and they are just casing your house to break in when you’re not home.
There are people who claim to be Christians, yet wouldn’t give the poor a single penny.
Get the idea?

 

[nsper7]

There are people who claim to be salesmen and they are just casing your house to break in when you’re not home.
There are people who claim to be Christians, yet wouldn’t give the poor a single penny.
Get the idea?

But how is a non-Christian or a non-Catholic Christian to necessarily know the difference? And there is a reason why many people refuse to allow salesmen in their house. It seems there are two types of Catholics who try to leave the Catholic Church:

A) Those who have a serious disagreement on Catholic doctrine. It is not that they believe that the Roman Catholic Church is the historical Church founded by Christ and choose to leave anyway, it is that they have serious doubts as to certain Catholic claims.
B) Those who truly just do not like the rigidity of certain elements of Catholic doctrine (i.e. no contraception, women cannot be ordained, Priests cannot marry, homosexual and extra-marrital heterosexual activity is a sin, etc.). For these, it is not that they believe Catholicism is wrong or not the True Church, but they just want to do their own thing because it is easier.

 

[Benjamin8o8]

Thank you for defending me. I just lost control again at someone named jonathan.
NDfan said I think I’m being Christ-like and God is saying “you go, girl” but I don’t believe that.
I usually pray that the Holy Spirit will help me “speak the truth, in a loving way.”
I fell short of that and for that I AM SORRY.
Please forgive me. Same to jonathon, my ‘outburst’ was unkind and uncalled for.

lol, no problem Reverend K.

Its good that you apologized but I have to admit, that was hilarious though.

 

[mmplps7783]

The Catholic Church is not Roman, the Roman is the Catholic Church. What do Catholics have that Protestants dont? to be humbly honest...authority. Dont you think it will be wrong for me if I seperate from the Catholic Church, and then establish my own Church and claim I can change bread and wine to the Real Blood of Jesus Christ? Of course it would. The Roman Catholic Church traces back to the Apostles, not just their “teachings”. Holy Orders is important as it was back then as it is now.

To answer your question about the blood i would have to say not really. If you were given that authority as a catholic why would it go away just b/c u’r not anymore? And how would I know the difference anyway. The eucharist is something that you believe in it is not a scientifec fact. I am sure that when you accept communion it does not have the taste nor the texture of blood.

If the Catholic Church put together the books of the Bible and the Bible is what we are all striving to follow, then doesn’t that mean that Protestants would have “authority” as well? Oh and by authority you mean what? The authority to teach the Bible? Who gives the authority to the current priests or fathers? Aren’t they “called” first to the ministry?

 

[Benjamin8o8]

To answer your question about the blood i would have to say not really. If you were given that authority as a catholic why would it go away just b/c u’r not anymore? And how would I know the difference anyway. The eucharist is something that you believe in it is not a scientifec fact. I am sure that when you accept communion it does not have the taste nor the texture of blood.

If the Catholic Church put together the books of the Bible and the Bible is what we are all striving to follow, then doesn’t that mean that Protestants would have “authority” as well? Oh and by authority you mean what? The authority to teach the Bible? Who gives the authority to the current priests or fathers? Aren’t they “called” first to the ministry?

Good questions, but to refute the first thing you said; the Eucharist is a scientific fact. Did you not know the Bread did change into real flesh to a doubtful priest? Have you never heard of the Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano? Let give you some FACTS about it. (Im quoting from a book I have.)

1. The blood of the Eucharistic Miracle is real blood and Flesh is real flesh.
2. The Flesh consists of the muscular tissue from a heart (myocardium)
3. The Flesh and the Blood belong to the human species.
   4)The blood type is identical in the Blood and in the Flesh and this very probably indicates that the source is a single person, although there remains a possibility they could have come from two different persons with identical blood type.
4. In the Blood there were found proteins in the same normal proportions (percentage-wise) as are found in the sero-proteic composition of fresh, normal blood.
5. In the Blood there were also found these minerals: chlorides, phosphorus, magnesium, potassium, sodium in reduced quantity, whereas calcium was found in larger quantity.

The well-known scientists, enlarging on these conclusions, affirmed that-
a) for the Flesh, origin by anatomic dissection from an existing human heart is impossible:
b) no chemical process of preservation was ever employed to conserve the Flesh and the Blood.

These are real scientists examining this Miracle, so nobody can say the Eucharist is not scientific. It is. But then again, God is not going to perform miracles over and over again, because at the end of the day, what we accept is still going to be a matter of faith. Because God wants us to choose to believe rather than being convinced by His work.

With that being said, what gives us the right to break the sucesion of the apostles who walked, slept, ate, drank, spoke, with Jesus? If Holy Orders was important in the 1st century, why would it be not so important now? If God talked about A gathering of people (aka Church) why are you trying to say gatherings of people (aka churches) is okay? Jesus apointed one Holy Apostolic Church, this gives nobody a right to break off the succesion thus, gives nobody authority to some sacraments. I never said, a protestant has no authority to preach the bible, they even the authority to baptize in the name of The Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. But as far other Sacraments are concerned, only the Catholic Church has authority over them.

 

[mmplps7783]

When things start to get awkward during discussions with my Protestant friends and relatives, they say, “There will be no denominations in Heaven.”
How does one answer to that? Something like, “Then why are there so many here on earth?”
My sister that I described in another thread on Assemblies of God, doesn’t believe Catholics are “saved”. But she believes our brother who was an atheist and is now a Quaker, will go to heaven because he is “part of our family, and families are together in heaven.”
What?
My friend who was raised Lutheran but is now non-denominational charismatic told me that she explained to a Muslim that “Catholics are just a denomination, like Lutheran or Methodist.”
That made me so angry we didn’t speak for a year. (Sometimes when I don’t speak to someone it is because I am afraid I will yell at them, and sometimes, I just don’t know what to say.)
My sister (see above) doesn’t like Oprah’s belief that “all roads lead to God.” But I think all those denominations lead away from God, since each one splintered off because of a disagreement of some sort. Even the Great Schizm was a disagreement over the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son. Or not.
To me, this is just confusion! Maybe when they are “babbling” in tongues, that’s what they’re trying to say.

I agree…I as well believe there will be an absence of denominations is heaven. If you believe that only Catholics go to heaven you should believe the same. You won’t be a catholic in heaven you’ll be an angel. Will there be a need for a church in heaven? I don’t think so. To say that there will be denominations in heaven is like saying there will be sadness and pain as well. On earth we are not perfect. (therefore since we can’t agree on much of anything we have many religions)But in heaven we are perfected. And to say that all of the “denominations” lead away from God is in fact pretty funny. If that were the case no one would really care about Christ or “true religions” and you wouldn’t be in a huff about the whole debate. Those religions that broke off did so because of the legalism of other religions. They just wanted to get back to root of Christianity and that would be CHRIST. I spend time in my Bible because I am hungry for it. I go to church on Sunday because I like to reunion and worship with fellow saints. Not because I am afraid of going to hell because it is a mortal sin. For some people legaliam works. For others it is a distraction. As long as the focus is on the Creator and not on the creation who are you to judge?

Please don’t read attitude in my words. I am neither upset or frustrated. Just simply trying to voice an opinion. I would not be on this site if I wasn’t open minded.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

I don’t know as much about the Bible as many people on this site (which is one reason I am so fascinated by the Catholic religion…you know how to back yourselves up) but here is my problem. In mybible I have yet to see where it announce Catholicism as the "true church or religion so where do you get that from. Believe me I do look everyting up for myself and if it is in your bible I have axcess to one and would like the book scripture and verse please. If that can be provide I don’t see the point in a debate.

A few points.

The disciples didn’t call the Church catholic, they just called it the Church. There was only one Church. The first written mention of the Catholic Church was in about 105 AD. It was in an epistle from Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans. Ignatius was a disciple of John’s, so we can be fairly sure that he was not trying to undermine a previous understanding.

Also, the books of the bible were selected by the Holy Spirit through the Catholic Church. The bible was compiled in its current form until almost 300 years later.

Some quotes for you to consider:

Matthew 18

17If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

Luke 10
16"He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me."

1 Timothy 3
15if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

St. Ignatius writing to the Smyrnaeans(circa 105 AD):

Chapter 8. Let nothing be done without the bishop
See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.

newadvent.org/fathers/0109.htm

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

I agree…I as well believe there will be an absence of denominations is heaven. If you believe that only Catholics go to heaven you should believe the same. QUOTE]

That’s not what the Catholic Church teaches.

Here’s the official teaching regarding non Catholics:

818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272

819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."276

 

[jblake]

Benjamin8o8;:

You must learn about the History of the Bible.[/qutoe]

Then you need to learn the history of early Christianity.

There was a Church when they compiled the books of the Bible.

Orthodox Christianity.

Thus, it gives no reason for anybody to start a new church.

What do you do when the leader of a church teaches doctrine and practices that are in conflict with the traditional teachings and practices of that church? Which is what the pope was doing.

jonathon

 

[jblake]

Benjamin8o8;:

need to do some research how the Catholic Church got its name RCC. It has to do with the protestant adopting the name for them as an insult

I guess you’ve forgotten about the German Catholic Church, and the French Catholic Church. (Both of which predated Luther.)

jonathon

 

[SD_Catholic]

You won’t be a catholic in heaven you’ll be an angel. .

Actually you would be a saint… angels were never human.

SD

 

[catholic_daddy]

A few points.

The disciples didn’t call the Church catholic, they just called it the Church. There was only one Church. The first written mention of the Catholic Church was in about 105 AD. It was in an epistle from Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans. Ignatius was a disciple of John’s, so we can be fairly sure that he was not trying to undermine a previous understanding.

Also, the books of the bible were selected by the Holy Spirit through the Catholic Church. The bible was compiled in its current form until almost 300 years later.

Some quotes for you to consider:

Matthew 18

17If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

Luke 10
16"He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me."

1 Timothy 3
15if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

St. Ignatius writing to the Smyrnaeans(circa 105 AD):

Chapter 8. Let nothing be done without the bishop
See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.

newadvent.org/fathers/0109.htm

That is actually misleading. ‘Catholic’ meant universal and this was just a reference to all believers everywhere, rather than an attempt to distinguish one group of followers from some lesser group! Looking back on it the way you are now is kind of like saying that when we say ‘Kleenex’, we can only mean the Kleenex brand of tissues, when in reality there are a lot of legitimate tissues that get called kleenex, just because that was the name when they were first invented. You are wanting to say that its not a tissue unless it is a Kleenex brand.
This isn’t a perfect analogy, but I think you get the idea.

 

[elvisman]

I guess you’ve forgotten about the German Catholic Church, and the French Catholic Church. (Both of which predated Luther.)

jonathon

Sorry, Jonathon - that’s inaccurate.
The Catholic Church in Germany, the Catholic Church in France and the Catholic Church in England, etc., were all part of the Catholic Church. They weren’t and still aren’t “different” Churches.

It’s not the “American Catholic Church” or the “German Catholic Church” or the “French Catholic Church”.
It’s the Catholic Church in America, Germany and France.

 

[catholic_daddy]

mmplps7783;4773769:

I agree…I as well believe there will be an absence of denominations is heaven. If you believe that only Catholics go to heaven you should believe the same. QUOTE]

That’s not what the Catholic Church teaches.

Here’s the official teaching regarding non Catholics:

818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272

819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."276

So we’ve got that going for us, which is good.