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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ag_not
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Martin777 said:
I really do appreciate all those verses. I thought I have been careful to make this point: I wholeheartedly embrace those verses and believe that our works will be examined on the last day. But my point is simply this: It is saving faith that gets us into God’s family. Happens in a moment in time (has it happened to you? not being sarcastic).
Absolutely, I have indeed been blessed…
THEN we spend the rest of our lives serving God and doing good works that please Him and glorify Him. On that last day it will be seen that those who were born again–now “in the Spirit” were the ones able to produce works that truly pass the scrutiny of a God who judges the ‘secret motives of men’s hearts’ PAUL SAYS IN ROMANS 8 THAT THOSE WHO ARE IN THE FLESH CANNOT PLEASE GOD. Yet millions who have never been saved (in all kninds of churches) are running around IN THE FLESH doing works that CANNOT PLEASE GOD.
It’s why God promised in the OT that He would one day put his law IN OUR HEARTS! Because apart from that we can do works until we are blue in the face and they are out of wrong motives. Please deal with what I have said here and tell me what you think
Click to expand...
As I understand you here you are acknowledging both faith and works must accompany each other. That God will judge us on our works as according to our sincerity and devotion of heart. This is what we are trying to emphasize if my understanding of your words are correct here so we would now based on this premise be in agreement. That faith alone doesn’t save us but both together. Correct? And if this is correct, the next step would be to determine (based on your raising the issue, which church would be the right Church. Wouldn’t it?
 
benedictus2 said:
I hate to burst your bubble, but there are so many converts from Protestantism who are now at the forefront of Catholic Apologetics. These people hated the Catholic Church that they did they utmost to get people out of the Church.

But when they converted, boy!. Scott Hahn alone is like St Paul.
And there’s Stephen Ray, Marcus Grodi, etc.
And you know what, they were pastors with years of theology under their belt.

As a matter of fact, Tim Staples, converted to Catholicism whilst studying at one of the most anti catholic colleges.

You know what, you should read their stories. Because they were protestant and very anti-catholic you will understand more what we are trying to say from them because they’ve been where you are.

Some of them were Catholics, then they become born again, then realized that they left the true blue real deal Church of Christ so they came back.

Here’s a link to one of them.
catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0088.html

I have heard of many Catholic reverts, you know those who were Catholic, became protestant, then became Catholic again. As a matter of fact, a lot of them are in this forum.

Anyone you know who did the reverse, Protestant, became Catholic, became Protestant again? And I am not talking about those who converted to Catholicism just to get married or something. I mean those who converted to Catholicism for doctrinal reasons, then left to become protestant again.

That was someone else who replied with exactly those verses (I think Luke)🙂
But anyway, yes they were still sanctified, they were still washed, they were still justified. It would be like me seeing a dirty cloth saying : But I washed it. Just now it’s dirty again.Only difference being that, original sin is completely gone. Once washed away, that’s it.

However, the other sins committed after that stain the soul again.

So here’s a question, one of them commited murder and adultery then died. Where would that person go?

Why should I apologize? I am not the one calling people names, helooooo.!

Totally in agreement with that one time redemption.
But that is not what is in question here.

Answer my question above about the murderer and adulterer who died and maybe we will get somewhere.
Click to expand...
I din’t yet address your point about murderers, etc being saved. You probably know what I am going to say. I believe that the new birth is HUGE. I believe it literally is just as big as our first birth. I believe Jesus when He said ‘few will find it’ but, yes, I believe once a person receives Christ and his gift of ETERNAL life, ALL of his of her sins are forgiven and he is FOREVER justified before God. He receives a brand new nature that will never die, because it is literally part of Christ “in union with Him”. God knew every sin I would ever commit after that point, and He saved me anyway. IF I AM TRULY SAVED, I am not going to want to go out and see how many things I can get away with. If I have that attitude, scripture says I better emamine myself to see if I was really saved back then. So all my future sins were punished on Jesus and “by one oferring He has perfected forever those who are sanctified” WHEN A PERSON UNDERSTANDS WHAT GOD HAS DONE FOR HIM OR HER, HE WANTS TO DO THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF WHAT YOU ARE PROPOSING! (This is what you haven’t seen)
Now, here is antoher place your logic fails: Why do you single out murder and adultery as sins that could cause God to kuick you out of His family? Jesus said if you have any hate in your heart, you are a murderer. If you have lust in your heart, you are an adulterer. Does the RCC class those as ‘mortal’ sins? Why not? do you think Jesus was kidding?
Now here is what you don’t see on this: You can pick any one ‘little’ sin you want to, and if you saw it through the eyes of Holy God (we have NO IDEA!..) you would see that you are far more horrific and worthy of condemnation than is even bearable! Far more. THAT IS WHY THE SINLESS SON OF GOD HAD TO DIE–FOR ALL THOSE SINS. And if you were the only person on earth, and had committed only one sin, He would have had to die for you. Once we see this, repent, and believe on Him for salvation, WE ARE GOD’S CHILDREN FOREVER! Forgiven, in union with Him, seated in the heavenly places (Eph 1) and destined to reign with Him.

Why do I have a feeling that what I have written in the last two posts an the recent one to twb 1621??
 
Martin777 said:
…
Second, what I have been sharing with you are things I have believed for thirty plus years. I have studied the Bible for a very long time, including three years of Greek in the seminary! (… And I had some of the most amazing peopole as professors I could ever hope for). I have a very critical mind and the philosophy and logic I studied in colleege didn’t hurt. But I am over 50 now and my mind…well…I’m not as sharp as I used to be!
Click to expand...
Sincerity and duration of belief do not equate to truth.
OK, I read the story of Scott Hahn you linked. Very moving, BUT…the first two things he said were truning points theologically are flawed: 1. He said that if Jesus’ talk about eating His flesh and drinking His blood were supposed to be only symbolic, He would have said so. Please! This is so faulty. Look at the other times (from John) Jesus spoke similarly and NEVER clarified: “I am the door”, “I am the light of the world”, “I am the vine”. Not one example, yet this was critical in Scott’s decision.
Click to expand...
Here again you are dead wrong in your interpretation and critcism.

Look here at Mark 4:34 And without parable he did not speak unto them; but apart, he explained all things to his disciples.

So the fact is that Our Lord would have told the apostles had He meant something different. Yet, He did not. In fact He makes it a make or break test for them when He says in verse 68, “…Will you also go away?”
Second, he said that when he read in Thessalonians where Paul told the Christians to “hold to the traditions you were taught”, he thought that was a devastating blow to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Ben, I think you know much better than this: Of course Paul said that! At the time he wrote, there was no New Testament Canon! The New Testament we have now was at the time the LETTERS that Paul, Peter, John had written and were circulating among the churches. The Holy Spirit inspired those letters and that is why they later became Canon. That is so obvious, I am amazed that he didn’t see it.
Click to expand...
Wrong again, and I’m a bit surprised that you, as a SS proponent, would put forth this argument when usually the statement is made that the canon existed already.

The fact is that this quote is found in 2nd Thessalonians 2:14, and although IIRC 1st Thessalonians is considered the actual earliest NT writing, this letter was wriitten later on.
II Thessalonians was written at Corinth not long after I Thessalonians
Click to expand...
, for both Timothy and Silas are still with Paul (i, 1), and the silence of the Acts shows that, once Paul left Corinth, Silas was not again his companion in the ministry. There seem to be allusions in iii, 2, to the troublous stay of a year and a half at Corinth (Acts 18); in ii, 14, to the letter quite recently written to the Thessalonians; and in iii, 7-9, to the ministry of Paul among them as not long passed.So though you are correct that there was no canon per se at that time, that is irrelevant to the issue here and actually does support the Catholic position.
 
Henning said:
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. The second all, ‘all’ have died. Have died/dead in what respect? Either:a) have died/dead to sin, or
b) have died/dead in sin. The first option, to sin, wouldn’t make sense seeing there is overwhelming evidence that humanity outside of Christ is much alive to sin (eg, Vegas). So that leaves dead in sin such as found in these three verses:Eph 2:1 “You were dead in your transgressions and sins.”

Eph 2:5 “Even when we were dead in our transgressions…”

Col 2:13 “And even when you were dead in transgressions …”
  1. The two alls. The first all (παντων) and the second all (παντες) are the same, ie they are referring to the same group, especially when: a) the two are linked by the ‘therefore’. It would make no sense if they were two different groups so that, “one died for set(A) therefore set(B) has died”. The ‘therefore’ (αρα) wouldn’t be functioning to draw a conclusion.
b)The second observation is a simple one in that the two 'all’s are in the same verse separated by only one word, ‘therefore’ (αρα οι-). How could it be possible that Paul would all of a sudden shift in mid-verse the second ‘all’ to a different set. So to me the two 'all’s are referring to the same group of people.
  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.
  1. If I start with saying that the CC is correct with its Marian dogma, then I’d have to conclude that 1) 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:
Click to expand...
Look this over and tell me what you think

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4540024&postcount=514
 
Henning said:
there is still seems to be a problem with 2 Cor 5:14 and the Immaculate conception see post #46
Click to expand...
consider 2 ways people can be saved.
  • AFTER one falls into a pit and is retrieved
  • BEFORE one falls into a pit.
    Both get saved, NOT on their own power, but by God saving them.
Mary was in the 2nd category
 
steve_b said:
consider 2 ways people can be saved.
  • AFTER they fall into a pit and are retrieved
  • BEFORE they fall into a pit.
    Both were saved, NOT on their own power, but by God saving them.
Mary was in the 2nd category

**Hi Steve,👋 **
**I remember you saying that a while ago on another thread. It is so true, and so easy to understand:thumbsup: Protestant only seem to believe in the rescue method of salvation. Of course, an analogy isn’t the same thing as being the same thing.-, but your’s works in this case very well. They won’t get it,:rolleyes: but you tried!👍 **
Click to expand...
 
steve_b said:
consider 2 ways people can be saved.
  • AFTER one falls into a pit and is retrieved
  • BEFORE one falls into a pit.
    Both get saved, NOT on their own power, but by God saving them.
Mary was in the 2nd category
Click to expand...
I’m not really familiar with that 2nd mode of salvation (I have some deficiencies with my Mariology :), any good textbooks?), but I do ‘get it’.
 
steve_b said:
Look this over and tell me what you think
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4540024&postcount=514
Click to expand...
Yes, I agree with your post. The only problem (kinda minor) I have with ‘full of grace’ is that
full of grace (kecharitomene)
full of grace (plaras karitos, eg John 1:14)
you can’t tell the difference between the two greek expressions in english…so if
highly graced-or-favored one (kecharitomene)
full of grace (plaras karitos)
now can tell the difference. Don’t know if that’s what the NAB translators were up against when they translated kecharitomene as ‘favored one’ 🤷

But to me it doesn’t take away from, as you said, “sin cannot be in her if she is perfectly and permamently graced”.
 
rinnie said:
How about this little tid bit of info.

quote:
If God gives the chestnut the possibliity of being conceived nourised and formed under thorns, but remote from them, could he not grant the human body which he was preparing for himself to be a temple in which he would dwell bodilly, that although she was conceived among the thorns of sin, she might be RENDERED COMPLETLEY IMMUNE FROM THEIR PRICKS?
He COULD do it therefore, if he WILLED IT. HE DID IT. unquote
(Eadmer)

Quote: St John of Damascus a greek theologian who lived form about 675-749 Anne gave birth to a Child, whose EQUAL HAD NEVER BEEN CREATED AND NEVER CAN BE. unquote

Martin 6 hard to believe you never came across that one.

Luke 1:46-55 My sould magnifies the Lord and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior for he has regarded the low estate of his HANDMADEN. Martin did you catch that Hand Maiden. For behold henceforth all generations will call me blessed.

Blessed Martin, not a sinner. Call me BLESSED, Not they will say Im like the rest of the world a sinner,

How about put a little of this in the ole pipe and smoke it baby, listen up

FOR HE WHO IS MIGHTY HAS DONE GREAT THINGS FOR ME AND HOLY IS HIS NAME. What filled her with sin Please…

Can’t anyone see that Mary is a sign of UNITY not Division. She belongs to ALL who call her SON SAVIOR AND LORD. aLL WHO CALL HER SAVIOR AND LORD BELONG TO HER.

Now as a girl I used to work with said and listen up folks

NOW THAT IS WHAT THE CHURCH BE TEACHING. AND YOU BEST BE LISTENING! YOU’S PEOPLE JUST DON’T WANT’S TO HEAR THE TRUTH! LORD HAVE MERCY ON YOUR SOUL!
Click to expand...
God can do anything He wants. We all know that. Mary was surely blessed. So were and are a lot of other people. Jesus said that there was no one born of women greater than John the Baptist, but that the least in the kingdom is greater than him. Frankly if the RCC wants to belive Mary was sinless, have at it. It simply is whimsical and less supported by scripture than it’s opposite.
 
twb1621 said:
part 2 of 2

"…Among the Scripture verses which are frequently twisted by protestants are Romans 11:6, Galatians 2:16, and Romans 4:1-8. These verses have been twisted by protestants, who, through misunderstanding and lack of knowledge, are under the delusion that they refute the Catholic stance on works and salvation. Let us start with Romans 11:6. Permit me to cite the verse in question:
Romans 11:6 [DR] And if by grace, it is not now by works: otherwise grace is no more grace.
If salvation were to come by works, done by nature, apart faith and grace, salvation would not be a grace or favor, but a debt; but such dead works are indeed of no value in the sight of God towards salvation. It is not the same with regard to works done with and by God’s grace; for to such works as these he has promised eternal salvation (see the above-cited verses on this question).
The Church does not say that grace is not necessary for salvation, nor does She say that Faith is not necessary for salvation. And She is most certainly not saying that one can be saved by works alone. All three of the above are necessary for salvation. Faith without grace and works is dead, just as works without faith and grace would be dead. It is through a misunderstanding of Catholic teaching that this verse is commonly used by Protestants against Catholics, and against the necessity of works for salvation.
… to cite Galatians 2:16, which says:
Galatians 2:16 [DR] But knowing that man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ; we also believe in Christ Jesus, that we may be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: because by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.
As the Haydock’s Bible says concerning this verse:

It might be very well to point out here that taking Scripture verses out of context (in an attempt to prove an erroneous belief), is a thing which was used by Satan himself against Christ when Satan tempted Christ in the desert.
Thus falls the theory of salvation through faith alone, not to mention the erroneous interpretations which are frequently given to several verses in the Sacred Scriptures.
catholicapologetics.info/…eral/saved.htm
Click to expand...
Let me ask you a question: What is the purpose of the Law of God?
 
fbl9 said:
just what are these wrong motives Martin 777??you seem to think these peolpe do good works in vain because that is what you have been taught by some misinformed pastor?why do you do good works?or do you even try to help your fellow man?and i do not mean by preaching to them,for what good ii it to preach salvation and then leave the person without food? give them food first then preach because your preaching would then be already accepted by your actions…one does good works out of love and where does that love come from?
Click to expand...
Why is that such a hard statement to embrace? I’m not singling out Catholics when I talk about that. You need to calm down. Paul said that when our works are thrown into the fire (the only post-death purging the Bible knows anything about, incidentally), much will be burned up–the ‘wood, hay and stubble’. Look it up. He said on that day God will judge the motives of us all. He says that if there is gold in what we have done, it will stand the test of the fire. What’s so hard to understand about that? If you are a parent, would you want, say, your 16 year old to bring you a birthday gift because they were hoping that in doing so you wouldn’t beat them later on, or that you would love them if they could bring you a good enough gift? Of course not, and neither does God want that. But that is what a lot of people are bringing Him and, guess what bro? Those works will be burned to a crisp at the Judgement. Comprende?
 
Martin777 said:
Why is that such a hard statement to embrace? I’m not singling out Catholics when I talk about that. You need to calm down. Paul said that when our works are thrown into the fire (the only post-death purging the Bible knows anything about, incidentally), much will be burned up–the ‘wood, hay and stubble’. Look it up. He said on that day God will judge the motives of us all. He says that if there is gold in what we have done, it will stand the test of the fire. What’s so hard to understand about that? If you are a parent, would you want, say, your 16 year old to bring you a birthday gift because they were hoping that in doing so you wouldn’t beat them later on, or that you would love them if they could bring you a good enough gift? Of course not, and neither does God want that. But that is what a lot of people are bringing Him and, guess what bro? Those works will be burned to a crisp at the Judgement. Comprende?
Click to expand...
I think you missed his point. It is not a hard statement to comprende. It is hurtful and frustrating to Catholics to be constantly accused of Protestants who believe they are so much more spiritual and wiser than Catholics of having an empty, man-made religion of works, and of not understanding new life in Christ and being born again. (Not saying you’re doing that, though)

Just because we do not organize this concept in the same way, and just because our rhetoric looks different, it does not mean that we do not teach that and get that on a spiritual level. We have a process-oriented teaching of salvation that encompasses both baptism and sanctification as opposed to a one moment in time/forever perfectly sanctified teaching.

That does that mean that the basis for salvation itself is works. Protestants cannot seem to comprende that sometimes.
 
Martin777 said:
God can do anything He wants. We all know that. Mary was surely blessed. So were and are a lot of other people. Jesus said that there was no one born of women greater than John the Baptist, but that the least in the kingdom is greater than him. Frankly if the RCC wants to belive Mary was sinless, have at it. It simply is whimsical and less supported by scripture than it’s opposite.
Click to expand...
**Hi Martin:wave: **
It is supported by scripture. over and over again ~ Even Steve Wonder can see that! :cool: But none are so blind as those that will not be allowed to see. 2 Timothy 2:26

God Bless
 
Angels_Unaware said:
I think you missed his point. It is not a hard statement to comprende. It is hurtful and frustrating to Catholics to be constantly accused of Protestants who believe they are so much more spiritual and wiser than Catholics of having an empty, man-made religion of works, and of not understanding new life in Christ and being born again. (Not saying you’re doing that, though)

Just because we do not organize this concept in the same way, and just because our rhetoric looks different, it does not mean that we do not teach that and get that on a spiritual level. We have a process-oriented teaching of salvation that encompasses both baptism and sanctification as opposed to a one moment in time/forever perfectly sanctified teaching.

That does that mean that the basis for salvation itself is works. Protestants cannot seem to comprende that sometimes.
Click to expand...
You are right. It is important that people don’t jump to conclusions just because they don’t hear the right ‘lingo’. Obviously the truly important thing is that the person has in fact been born again. A lot of people don’t realized that just as I there was an exact moment I was physically born into this world, and it only happens once, so the same thing is true spiritually. Not everybody knows the exact time it happened, but the important thing is knowing that it really did happen. John said, "These things I have written unto you that you may KNOW (Not think or hope…) that you have eternal life. I talk to so many people who don’t know and don’t even think you can know.
 
Realcatholicgk said:
**Hi Martin:wave: **
It is supported by scripture. over and over again ~ Even Steve Wonder can see that! :cool: But none are so blind as those that will not be allowed to see. 2 Timothy 2:26

God Bless
Click to expand...
And as I think Will Rogers once said, “Saying it doesn’t necessarily make it so!”
Can you list just one verse that clearly states Mary was sinless? Don’t need two right now, just one. The stage is all yours.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top