Ag_nots Catholic Scriptural Challenge - just ONE proven example wins!!

[Cinette]

Purgatory
Marion Doctrines
Praying to the dead are all unbiblical.

Hisalone - you can’t just make allegations. You must state your case and put forward your arguments! The OP said:

The Challenge:

Give me ONE example of something the Catholic church teaches, that is AGAINST Scripture. Read that again. Carefully. A SINGLE teaching, by the Catholic Church, that is AGAINST, or in other words, ANTI - Biblical.
So I think that you must state your case and furnish scriptural PROOF!

You do want to “save her soul” don’t you? So, be convincing!

 

[benedictus2]

The official Roman Catholic understanding of salvation does not line-up with Romans chapter 8. Since you have not been baptized, do you consider yourself to be born from above? Do you believe the Holy Spirit dwells in you?

And how do you know this for a fact? Do you know what the OFFICIAL ROMAN CATHOLIC UNDERSTANDING OF SALVATION.

If you do, can you please tell me what you think it is?

Romans 8

There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending
…
…
…

No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Point 1: Okay, so you have given us the passage. Is that suppose to prove erroneous Catholic’s understanding of salvation? How?

Point 2: Dumping that passage here does not mean anything. Tell me how you understand that passage.

Point 3: How does that passage support your understanding of salvation?

Point 2: For that matter, how does Romans 8 reconcile with John 6, Matthew 16: 13-22, Matthew 25, etc. as regards salvation?

 

[benedictus2]

Hello:
I go by a different standard. I look for sufficient evidence to believe that something is true. If sufficient evidence is lacking, I just will not believe it. Now that does not mean that I believe this is definitely false, it only means I do not have good enough reason to believe it true.

YOU look, YOU believe, YOU conclude.

1st: What makes YOU the authority to make such conclusions? The only way you can claim to be so is by claiming that you are infallibly guided by the Holy Spirit.

2nd: Are YOU singularly capable of coming to the Truth or error of any given doctrine or moral teaching?

3rd: If you can annoint yourself the magisterium (for that is essentially what YOU are doing) that means that everyone else can do the same. If you are all claming to be infallibly guided by the Holy Spirit and came to differing conclusions, only two conclusions could be arrived at :

a) Only one of you is right
b) All of you are right so the Holy Spirit is one confused MPD spirit,.

4th: By your reasoning, Truth is subjective and totally dependent on one’s own conclusion therefore we arrrive at the most ridiculous of all conclusions; Everything is true.

By that standard, there is a whole boatload of Catholic doctrines that I have insufficient evidence to believe as true. There are enough doctrines in this boat to to make me for one very skeptical about believing that your denomination is exclusively “The Church of Jesus Christ” with everything else being some lesser status,

But that is not what you are asking. So I think I will pass on trying to prove a given point of Catholicism as definitively false.

If you are sure that there is a whole boatload, then pick one.

All Ag_Not is asking for is one, which should be extremely easy with a whole boatload of it.

 

[benedictus2]

I’ve been thinking about this for a while…it’s kind of focused…anyway, problem:
Mary’s immaculate conception and 2 Cor 5:14 don’t seem to ‘fit’.

2 Cor 5:14
For the love of Christ impels us,
once we have come to the conviction that
one died for all
therefore all have died

1. Jesus is the ‘one’ that died for ‘all’, Jesus died for Mary, therefore the first ‘all’ includes Mary.

2…
…

1. So, I could rewrite the second half of 5:14 as,“one (Jesus) died for all of set(A), therefore all of set(A) was dead in their sins.” -or-" all of set(A) was dead in their sins to begin with, and then one (Jesus) died for all of set(A)."For me this implies that Mary, of the group that Jesus died for, was also part of that same group which was dead in their sins. Mary was dead in her sins, just like everybody else, before Jesus died for her. But this doesn’t lineup with the CC’s dogma of Mary being immaculately conceived and being sinless.
2. If I start with saying that the CC is correct with its Marian dogma, then I’d have to conclude that1) the two 'all’s are different sets of people: set(A) = [all humanity + Mary], and then in mid-verse set(B) = [all humanity - Mary]. And that 2) the first ‘all’ doesn’t logically flow to the second with the ‘therefore’, ie the ‘therefore’ wouldn’t be functioning properly. Both these two conclusions and the premise that the CC is correct works to give me a bad case of…COGNITIVE DISSONANCE :hypno:

First off: One major glaring error.

You’re conclusion that the passage means
"Christ died for all therefore all died in sin" is already illogical since if Christ died for ALL and ALL DIED IN SIN then Christ’s dying is TOTALLY USELESS since ALL DIED IN SIN none the less.

But isn’t it that as Christians we believe that Christ died for all so that we will NOT DIE IN SIN but rather die TO sin?

If ALL DIED IN SIN, then that means WE ARE ALL DAMNED BECAUSE TO DIE IN SIN IS TO BE DAMNED FOR ALL ETERNITY.

And if ALL DIED IN SIN, then that would include Abraham, Moses, Elijah and all the prophets so all these prophets are damned.

Therefore the Transfiguration is one major hallucination and Jesus lied when he said that Lazarus was with Abraham in heaven.

Therefore there is no such thing as the elect because ALL DYING IN SIN and therefore All being damned, NO ONE ever gets to heaven.

Conclusion: God created man for the sole purpose of sending them to Hell.

So the crucifixion was God’s cruel joke?

Wow! If that is your God, no thanks. I’ll stick to my own.

 

[Cinette]

Dying you destroyed our death,
Rising you restored our life,
Lord Jesus, come in Glory.

We say this at Mass frequently - it is a reminder of Jesus’ gift of salvation. It is an acclamation of the mystery of Faith

Beautiful.

 

[benedictus2]

I’ve been thinking about this for a while…it’s kind of focused…anyway, problem:
Mary’s immaculate conception and 2 Cor 5:14 don’t seem to ‘fit’.

2 Cor 5:14
For the love of Christ impels us,
once we have come to the conviction that
one died for all
therefore all have died

1. Jesus is the ‘one’ that died for ‘all’, Jesus died for Mary, therefore the first ‘all’ includes Mary.

Reply part 2

The Immaculate Conception does not mean that Christ did not save Mary. Mary was still saved by Christ.

Whereas Christ saved us after we have fallen into the pit, thereby necessitating Him washing us and tending to our wounds, Christ catches Mary before she falls into the pit. It is much like Superman diving down to catch Lois Lane in the Christopher Reeve version of Superman.

For us who live in the space-time continuum, it is hard to imagine that a saving event that happens later can actually save someone way before it happens.

God made available to Mary the graces brought about by Christ’s life, death and ressurection even though the event happened way after Mary’s conception.

That is why Mary was hailed as full of grace.

Here is a link to the a much fuller explanation of the why’s of this dogma.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm

 

[benedictus2]

I can’t comment without violating Ag_not’s rules. Therefore, I remain silent.

Can you PM me your response. I’d be very interested to know.

 

[Hisalone]

Hisalone - you can’t just make allegations. You must state your case and put forward your arguments! The OP said:

The Challenge:

Give me ONE example of something the Catholic church teaches, that is AGAINST Scripture. Read that again. Carefully. A SINGLE teaching, by the Catholic Church, that is AGAINST, or in other words, ANTI - Biblical.
So I think that you must state your case and furnish scriptural PROOF!

You do want to “save her soul” don’t you? So, be convincing!

I gave three however if you want me to narrow it down to one I will.

Purgatory.
Show me where it is in the bible?

 

[Hisalone]

Reply part 2

The Immaculate Conception does not mean that Christ did not save Mary. Mary was still saved by Christ.

Whereas Christ saved us after we have fallen into the pit, thereby necessitating Him washing us and tending to our wounds, Christ catches Mary before she falls into the pit. It is much like Superman diving down to catch Lois Lane in the Christopher Reeve version of Superman.

For us who live in the space-time continuum, it is hard to imagine that a saving event that happens later can actually save someone way before it happens.

God made available to Mary the graces brought about by Christ’s life, death and ressurection even though the event happened way after Mary’s conception.

That is why Mary was hailed as full of grace.

Here is a link to the a much fuller explanation of the why’s of this dogma.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm

Ro 3:23 -for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

 

[benedictus2]

Game on. As I said last night, let’s discuss what I think is far and away the most (name removed by moderator)ortant deviation from Scripture by the Catholic church, the break from the pure gospel of grace. Let’s talk about what Paul meant in Ephesians 2:8,9 and look at it in light of Romans 3 and 4. We could throw in that passage where Jesus was asked, “What must we do to work the works of God?” Do you remember what he said?

Ok.

!st: Tell me why you think the Catholic Church broke from the pure gospel of grace. Explain in detail.

2nd: What do you think Paul meant in Eph 2:8, 9 and why you think this supports your claim that the Caholic Church broke from the gospel of pure grace. Same question of support for Romans 3 and 4.

3rd: How do you reconcile John 6:28-29 with Mathew 25: 31-46 or with Matthew 7:12-23.

As you will notice once you put your answers together, this all hinges on your understanding of what the Catholic Church teaches, and a lot to do with Grace and Free Will.

 

[Cinette]

so I can say ‘Mary was dead in her sins’…when…like before she was conceived…‘Mary was dead in sinfullness before she was conceived’…she was dead before she was conceived…or something like that??? (me :hypno:… )

Just before Jesus said “It is finished” he turned to John and said “Behold thy Mother” and then he turned to Mary and said “Behold thy son”. This was while he was suffering on the cross and just before he gave his last breath - this was his last instruction before He “gave up His spirit”.

Do you think Jesus was being frivolous? Do you think that Jesus might have added to Mary “Don’t forget to feed the cat” or something like that?

Don’t you think that Jesus loved Mary so much that his last thought was for the woman who bore him, his flesh and blood, Mary who suffered with him, who loved and cared for him, who influenced Him? * Do you not think that Mother Mary,* who points us to Jesus always, deserves our love too?

Do you not think that God would have prepared a special woman to become Mother of His Son - “Mother of God”? God instructed us to honour our Father and our Mother - this is something God takes seriously so don’t you think that he would take His Mother seriously also and love her so much?

“Hail Holy Queen” by Scott Hahn is a very good book and would help you to understand that the Catholic view of Mary is a thoroughly Christian view.

How can you speak of her the way you do?

 

[benedictus2]

Ro 3:23 -for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

If you isolate that verse on it’s own like you have done, than that means Christ has sinned as well for All would mean All. No exceptions.

 

[benedictus2]

I gave three however if you want me to narrow it down to one I will.

Purgatory.
Show me where it is in the bible?

The word Purgatory is not in the Bible and neither is the word Trinity, Incarnation and for that matter the word BIBLE.

But that aside, theChurch gave the name purgatory to the final purification of the elect which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned.

Matthew 12:32 “And whoever says a word against the Son of man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit wil not be forgiven, either in this age or IN THE AGE TO COME.”

This passage refers to a time beyond the earth where we can still be forgiven and make reparation for our sins. It cannot be Hell because reparation for sin is no longer possible there and in Heaven it is no longer needed. This state where the sin against the Son of Man can be forgiven in the age to come, theChurch calls purgatory.

Purgatory (from the latin purgare - purge - to cleanse).

In 2 Macabees 12:44-46 (which you probably will not have in your Bible since the protestants have exised that book) we find Judas Maccebeus atoning for the dead to make reparation for their sins.

In 2 Tim 1:16-18, St Paul prays for the dead Onesiphorous that God grant him mercy. If there is only Heaven or Hell, it would be pointless for Paul to pray for him becuase if Onesiphorous is in Hell there is not helping him and if in Heaven he does not need it.

In Rev 21:27 it says that nothing unclean will enter heaven. Now if you have professed Jesus as Lord and Saviour and truly believe in Him but happened to tell a lie just before you die, does that mean that you will end up in Hell since according to this verse, you are unclean ,so cannot enter heaven.

And Jews believed in it way before Christ’s time. Orthodox Jews of today still pray the Mourners’s Qaddish for 11 moths after a death to speed up the purification process.

 

[benedictus2]

Purgatory
Marion Doctrines
Praying to the dead are all unbiblical.

I have explained Purgatory.

Marian Doctrine I have already touched on as far as Immaculate Conception. The assumption presupposes an acceptance of the Immaculate Conception.

Mother of God (Theotokos) well I can explain that too if you want, just let me know.

We do not pray to the dead. We pray FOR the dead. St, Paul as I have mentioned prayed for the dead. In fact it is a common practice among the early Christians to pray for the dead. In the Catacombs (the tombs of the early Christians) there is an inscription on the tomb “Peter and Paul pray for Victor”.

Let me put purgatory in a simpler term.

Heaven is a banquet where everyone is beautiful, clean and smells wonderful.

Now God has forgiven you your sin so invites you to the banquet. But you find that your sins, though forgiven has made you smelly and dirty. So you look at this party and you look at it with longing because your Beloved is there but you find that you just can’t join in in the state you are in. So God says well you can go into this ante room to freshen up and get cleansed and done up and there 's a brand new beautiful dress ready for you. The process is painful, but you would rather do it than front up to the party the way you are. This changing and shower room combined is purgatory.

 

[benedictus2]

I believe there is only one sin we can’t be saved from–What Jesus called the 'blasphemy of the Holy Spirit" I believe a ‘sin unto death’ is when one of God’s CHILDREN (saved) sins to the point that God takes him home–kills him, takes him off the street!

God takes him home and kills him. Play that scene in your mind a few time jus to make sure.

And you believe in such a God?

You think you can reconcile this with the God who so loved the world that He gave His only Son to die on the Cross for us?

So whatever happened to neither sin nor death can separate us from Christ?

It is interesting that you mention that passage. Re-read it and read my post regarding purgatory.

Anyway, can you give me an explanation of what you think is the sin against the Holy Spirit?

 

[benedictus2]

All I can say to you then is that you have some wonderful discoveries to make, my friend! God’s word is sufficient, and Paul’s words in Romans and Galatians are incredibly clear. We’ll talk again.

Okay Martin,

1st: What do you mean by God’s Word is sufficient? Sufficient for What? Sufficient in what way?

2nd: I’m dumb. Tell me which words exactly in Romans and Galatians attest to this.

 

[Roamin_Xian]

The Assumption of Mary. Absolutely no Biblical testament that she was brought to Heaven in such a manner.

 

[Cinette]

I gave three however if you want me to narrow it down to one I will.

Purgatory.
Show me where it is in the bible?

Hisalone you are “naming” the issues. You must state your case - in other words produce the evidence, the proof - scriptural proof - how else are you going to convince the OP?

 

[benedictus2]

And IF you are born again, friend, then “He who began a good work in you will complete it until the day of Jesus Christ!”

Now we come to the meaty part.

For us to be saved, we have to be saved from something and there is something we are saved for.

In your doctrine:
1st: What are we being saved from?
2nd: How is this salvation effected?
3rd: What are we saved for?
4th: Is redemption and salvation the same?

 

[tqualey]

Hi, With Questions,

Yes, proving a negative is difficult…

Proving a certain theology false is a more difficult proposition that it seems. For a given theology to be proven Scripturally false, that theology must be directly contradicted by Scripture.

Of course, that was the Challenge as listed in the title.

But, instead of trying to rise to this Challenge, it appears as though making negative remarks is as high as you wanted to get:

By that standard, there is a whole boatload of Catholic doctrines that I have insufficient evidence to believe as true. There are enough doctrines in this boat to to make me for one very skeptical about believing that your denomination is exclusively “The Church of Jesus Christ” with everything else being some lesser status,

Well, while different from the title (which apparently has not been successfully chanllenged yet - and, I really do not think it will be) why not unload just one of the items in your boat - and see if it sinks or not. Chance are, taking off some of that load from your boat may help you stay afloat - transfering it over to the Barque of Peter is something that may prove helpful.

Naturally, the criteria you stated above about using your own and unbiased self as the judge of believability will remain.

Looking forward to hearing from you.

God Bless