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

[fbl9]

My problem with Catholic teaching is that, while it might not be against Scripture, some is not well supported by Scripture. To someone who accepts Tradition as a valid basis for doctrine that doesn’t present a problem.

While it might not be a big deal, I do think that the whole concept of canonizing Saints is wrong. The Church essentially judges that those canonized are in Heaven. They may or may not be right. However Paul does warn us not to judge anyone before the time as we don’t know hidden things of a person’s heart. A person can lead an exemplary life and still be rotten inside.

You are absolutely correct regarding the canonizing of the saints. GOD is the only one that has the authority to do that.

Jesus says in JOhn 7:24 stop judging me by external standards, and judge by the true standards.

Interpretation: Humans judge by human nature, and not by spiritual nature. GOD teaches us to discern who is spiritual and who is not. Hosea 5:1 Listen you priests! Pay attention people of Israel! Listen you that belong to the royal family! You are suppose to judge with justice, so that judgment will all on you!

Spiritual judgment is judging with justice.

However, in Hosea 4:4,6 let no one accuse the people or reprimand them, my complaint is against you priests.
6 My people are doomed because they do not acknowledge me.

In Jeremiah 17:10 I, the LORD search the minds and test the hearts of people. I treat each of them according to the way they live, according to what they do. [This is how GOD judges.]

actually the church does not judge them…in the sense that they are in heaven…more like an affirmation that yes these people are in heaven for God has wrought these things through their intercesion…
.for one to become a cannoized saint is not something that is done overnight.

 

[guanophore]

See what I thought was the first Church was started by Peter in Rome and that is why they called it the RCC. Then later the Roman got dropped and then it became Catholic Church. You may be right, I will have to dig deeper. But thanks for the info.

Good guess, but no. The Church was founded by Jesus upon Peter in Palestine. The Church was called Catholic prior to Peter coming to Rome, as we see in the book of Acts. Peter ordained bishops in Antioch and points East prior to coming to Rome. The Latin Rite did not develop as a separate Rite for hundreds of years. The Assyrian and Greek liturgies are even older than the Latin. Peter sent Mark to Egypt, and he founded the Coptic Catholic Church there, where it is still alive and well in the Coptic language.

 

[twb1621]

However I just finished responding to the question asked of me.

My comment was meant for Hisalone not you Martin…

 

[LutheranDK]

Well I guess since they were the only Christians around for so many years I’m just gonna have to believe the history they provided for all those years…

If I read a diary from a famous blacksmith from the 500s and it tells step by step how he made a sword… and then Jon Doe comes along 1500 yrs later and tells me that the blacksmith was wrong… and then begins to tell me that the blacksmith actually made a sword like this yada yada yada… who do you think I’m gonna trust?

SD

Oh…so what you’re saying is that historical facts CAN be determined by partial sources, in spite of common sense and everything else we know?
Ok, so I guess that the nazis were right - there was no Holocaust (and NO, I’m not comparing the RC church to nazis, only using the same line of reasoning, so don’t try to weasel out of it by derailing the thread…), because some of them lived back then, and therefore knew what happened?

Your argument is flawed, and you must see that yourself. You’re applying a line of reasoning that would NEVER stick with ANYTHING else regarding history. If you handed in a history assignment in High School about…say…the Spanish Conquistadors in Mexico, and took the accounts of the conquistadors at face value, claiming that they were right, because they were there at the time, you would get an F. Or at least you SHOULD get an F.

(on another note: It is ALSO a matter of belief to say that the RC church was the only christians until 1500. And one that has very little objective historical data to support it…)

 

[SD_Catholic]

My problem with Catholic teaching is that, while it might not be against Scripture, some is not well supported by Scripture. To someone who accepts Tradition as a valid basis for doctrine that doesn’t present a problem.

While it might not be a big deal, I do think that the whole concept of canonizing Saints is wrong. The Church essentially judges that those canonized are in Heaven. They may or may not be right. However Paul does warn us not to judge anyone before the time as we don’t know hidden things of a person’s heart. A person can lead an exemplary life and still be rotten inside.

You are absolutely correct regarding the canonizing of the saints. GOD is the only one that has the authority to do that.

Jesus says in JOhn 7:24 stop judging me by external standards, and judge by the true standards.

Interpretation: Humans judge by human nature, and not by spiritual nature. GOD teaches us to discern who is spiritual and who is not. Hosea 5:1 Listen you priests! Pay attention people of Israel! Listen you that belong to the royal family! You are suppose to judge with justice, so that judgment will all on you!

Spiritual judgment is judging with justice.

However, in Hosea 4:4,6 let no one accuse the people or reprimand them, my complaint is against you priests.
6 My people are doomed because they do not acknowledge me.

In Jeremiah 17:10 I, the LORD search the minds and test the hearts of people. I treat each of them according to the way they live, according to what they do. [This is how GOD judges.]

I enjoy you’re honesty… God also told us that a bad tree could not produce good fruit… I’m not real familiar with the painfully long process that is required for sainthood… but I’m sure that every aspect of that person’s life is picked apart for years… and just to add a little something… if those they declare to be saints weren’t actually in heaven then I have a feeling hell is gonna get pretty crowded

SD

 

[twb1621]

Not true. Historical facts can, for one thing, be verified by third-party sources. We know for a fact that the Napoleonic Wars happened. We know for a fact that Britain fire-bombed Copenhagen in 1807. We know for a fact that there has been a person called Martin Luther. We know for a fact…etc.

The only “sources” we have that claims that the RC church is the original church…is the RC church itself! And therefore, the question remains a matter of belief, not of historical facts.

Hate to break it to you but it is historically recorded by non-Christians from that time.

 

[Shai22]

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.

Catholics are in the tradition of praying to saints.

GOD clearly says “do not pray to no one but me”.

Exodus 20:4 Do not make for yourselves images of anything in the heaven or on earth, or in the water under the earth.
Exodus 5 Do not bow down to any idol or worship it, because I am the LORD your GOD and I tolerate no rivals.

Bowing down, and worship constitutes prayer also, as well as idolatry.

Before you think about saying that the Laws and Commands of the OT does not apply for modern day, I ask you to consider Matthew 5:17 Jesus says, he is not here to do away with the law of Moses or the teachings of the prophets, he is here to make them come true.

 

[Ag_not]

…Ok, so I guess that the nazis were right - …

And you were doing so well, right up to when you invoked Godwin’s Law

 

[LutheranDK]

And you were doing so well, right up to when you invoked Godwin’s Law

Godwin’s law? Never heard of it?
Although I’m not a law student, so that might be the reason why

 

[SD_Catholic]

Oh…so what you’re saying is that historical facts CAN be determined by partial sources, in spite of common sense and everything else we know?
Ok, so I guess that the nazis were right - there was no Holocaust (and NO, I’m not comparing the RC church to nazis, only using the same line of reasoning, so don’t try to weasel out of it by derailing the thread…), because some of them lived back then, and therefore knew what happened?

Your argument is flawed, and you must see that yourself. You’re applying a line of reasoning that would NEVER stick with ANYTHING else regarding history. If you handed in a history assignment in High School about…say…the Spanish Conquistadors in Mexico, and took the accounts of the conquistadors at face value, claiming that they were right, because they were there at the time, you would get an F. Or at least you SHOULD get an F.

(on another note: It is ALSO a matter of belief to say that the RC church was the only christians until 1500. And one that has very little objective historical data to support it…)

I have no plans on weaseling out of anything… but how nice of you to put it that way before even giving me a chance to respond …

You said the only proof we have that the CC was the first is from the CC itself… implying therefore it’s hard to believe… my comparison was to show that if there seemed to be 10 ways to make a sword and the blacksmith had a dairy telling me how he made it, but yet someone comes along 1500 years later and said that he wasn’t right without any proof that he wasnt right(just their ideas and thoughts on it)… then guess what I’m gonna roll with the blacksmith…

Flawed??? it’s a simple comparison… of course there’s holes in it… I wasn’t writing a 300 page novel!

But when put into Christian terms… if person X tells me this and person Y tells me somethingthing else and they both make sense according to the source they’re giving me… then like you said I’ll go for the third party source for confirmation on which one is more likely to be true… when I search the ECFs and their writings and compare them with Scripture then there’s only one Church that I can see that passes that test… So even if you want to flunk me the Church I follow passes with flying colors… how about yours?

SD

 

[LutheranDK]

Hate to break it to you but it is historically recorded by non-Christians from that time.

Show me a non-Christian source from that time which describes the Christians as being:

1. ONE unified church under the “supreme command” of the leader of the church in Rome.

2: People who not only believe that Christ rose from the dead, but who also invoke the dead, asking them to pray for them, and who believes that the mother of Christ is co-redemptrix, Queen of Heaven, etc.

3: People who believe that salvation is by faith AND works, not faith alone, which is then followed by good works.

etc.

I’m betting that you can’t. Simply because the non-Christians at the time didn’t give a flying fiddle-stick about those issues. What they cared about was who on Earth these “Christians” were; why they wouldn’t acknowledge the Emperor as a god, and why they didn’t honor the other gods along with theirs.

 

[twb1621]

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.

Catholics are in the tradition of praying to saints.

GOD clearly says “do not pray to no one but me”.

Exodus 20:4 Do not make for yourselves images of anything in the heaven or on earth, or in the water under the earth.
Exodus 5 Do not bow down to any idol or worship it, because I am the LORD your GOD and I tolerate no rivals.

Bowing down, and worship constitutes prayer also, as well as idolatry.

Before you think about saying that the Laws and Commands of the OT does not apply for modern day, I ask you to consider Matthew 5:17 Jesus says, he is not here to do away with the law of Moses or the teachings of the prophets, he is here to make them come true.

oh, here we go with this old one now. Just tell me, are you here to find out the truth or to try to stir up really old accusations that never panned out when they were first made…? One I will be glad to help you out and the second one you should read more about first…

 

[SD_Catholic]

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.

Catholics are in the tradition of praying to saints.

GOD clearly says “do not pray to no one but me”.

Exodus 20:4 Do not make for yourselves images of anything in the heaven or on earth, or in the water under the earth.
Exodus 5 Do not bow down to any idol or worship it, because I am the LORD your GOD and I tolerate no rivals.

Bowing down, and worship constitutes prayer also, as well as idolatry.

Before you think about saying that the Laws and Commands of the OT does not apply for modern day, I ask you to consider Matthew 5:17 Jesus says, he is not here to do away with the law of Moses or the teachings of the prophets, he is here to make them come true.

Whoaaaa… slow that pony down brother… if you have a couple days go back and read this thread or about 50 others that will answer your accusations against the CC… you might be a little late to bring this one up again on this thread… the main thing with you’re accusations is you misunderstand Catholic teaching and have a misconception on what you** think** we are doing… take some time and look it up (on this or another Catholic site)

SD

 

[guanophore]

"Ag_not:

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.

Catholics are in the tradition of praying to saints.

GOD clearly says “do not pray to no one but me”.

Exodus 20:4 Do not make for yourselves images of anything in the heaven or on earth, or in the water under the earth.
Exodus 5 Do not bow down to any idol or worship it, because I am the LORD your GOD and I tolerate no rivals.

Bowing down, and worship constitutes prayer also, as well as idolatry.

Welcome to the thread Shai. No, you are mistaken. Asking someone to pray for you is NOT the same as worship. While worship is a form of prayer, so is supplication, intercession, praise and many other forms of prayer. Not all of them equal worship,a nd CAtholics do not worship saints. They are our role models, and we ask for their support in our spiritual journey.

"Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching…"1 Tim 5:17

We do not stop giving them double honor just because they go to be with the Lord.

Before you think about saying that the Laws and Commands of the OT does not apply for modern day, I ask you to consider Matthew 5:17 Jesus says, he is not here to do away with the law of Moses or the teachings of the prophets, he is here to make them come true.

Jesus fulfilled the Law. It’s ordinances were nailed to the cross. The Law of Moses was a shadow of what was to come, and we now are under the Law of Christ.

 

[SD_Catholic]

Show me a non-Christian source from that time which describes the Christians as being:

1. ONE unified church under the “supreme command” of the leader of the church in Rome.

2: People who not only believe that Christ rose from the dead, but who also invoke the dead, asking them to pray for them, and who believes that the mother of Christ is co-redemptrix, Queen of Heaven, etc.

3: People who believe that salvation is by faith AND works, not faith alone, which is then followed by good works.

etc.

I’m betting that you can’t. Simply because the non-Christians at the time didn’t give a flying fiddle-stick about those issues. What they cared about was who on Earth these “Christians” were; why they wouldn’t acknowledge the Emperor as a god, and why they didn’t honor the other gods along with theirs.

Such bitterness … it’s scary… especially from a Lutheran!.. I might have to go round up Jon NC to calm you down.

SD

 

[guanophore]

Show me a non-Christian source from that time which describes the Christians as being:

1. ONE unified church under the “supreme command” of the leader of the church in Rome.

This is a bogus request. This is not how the Church is defined. The four marks of the Church are that it is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. It has nothing to do with supremacy, or the city of Rome.

2: People who not only believe that Christ rose from the dead, but who also invoke the dead, asking them to pray for them, and who believes that the mother of Christ is co-redemptrix, Queen of Heaven, etc.

This is another bogus request. Catholics have always believed that those who are die in friendship with their saviour are “alive forevermore”, and to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord. Catholics have never “invoked the dead”.

The Marian doctrines might be as difficult to show as the canon of scripture, since they were both defined around the same time. Do you think your Bible is not valid because it was developed later?

3: People who believe that salvation is by faith AND works, not faith alone, which is then followed by good works.

This is a third bogus request. The Catholic Church has always taught that saving faith is fath that works, obedient faith. A faith that produces no fruit is a dead faith.

etc.

Yes?

I’m betting that you can’t. Simply because the non-Christians at the time didn’t give a flying fiddle-stick about those issues.

No, and neither do Catholics of today.
Only enemies and detractors that wish to make up false claims would be entrenched in such nonsense.

What they cared about was who on Earth these “Christians” were; why they wouldn’t acknowledge the Emperor as a god, and why they didn’t honor the other gods along with theirs.

And they “ate their god, and drowned their children.”

 

[steve_b]

Not true. Historical facts can, for one thing, be verified by third-party sources.

1st, 2nd, AND 3rd party are ALL verifiable sources of truth, especially since the Church of Rome is scriptural and was there from the apostles.
luther:

We know for a fact that the Napoleonic Wars happened. We know for a fact that Britain fire-bombed Copenhagen in 1807. We know for a fact that there has been a person called Martin Luther. We know for a fact…etc.

The only “sources” we have that claims that the RC church is the original church…is the RC church itself! And therefore, the question remains a matter of belief, not of historical facts.

Your problem is you’re hung up on Roman Catholic. The official name of the Church is the Catholic Church. The Roman qualifier came into play during the Anglican revolt. newadvent.org/cathen/13121a.htm

Notice the progression

• Paul’s letter to the Romans was written to the Church of Rome (FACT)
• This Church everywhere in the 1st century is called the Catholic Church by Ignatius of Antioch, (letter to Smyrna) 1st century bishop, disciple of St John the Apostle in one of 6 letters he wrote to the Church in 6 locations. (FACT)
• Ignatius wrote, the Church of Rome holds the presidency in his (letter to the Romans) FACT
• 2nd century, Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons, who was originally from Smyrna, and disciple of Polycarp who was bishop of Smyrna and also disciple of St John, said ALL must agree with the Church of Rome because of its superior origin i.e. founded by Peter and Paul, and because it was the chair of Peter. He was writing against heresies. (FACT) FYI, For something to be a heresy, something must be against the formal teaching of the Church everywhere. Which means what Irenaeus wrote here is the understanding.
• 3rd century, Cyprian bishop of Carthage, wrote The Church of Rome is the chair of Peter, and source of all priestly unity, in his letter on the unity of the Catholic Church (FACT)
• 4th century, 1st Ecumenical council of Nicea, the creed professes we believe in One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. This is the faith. FACT
  Now if someone wanted to make Roman Catholic out of that I would in a technical sense stop them. It wouldn’t be accurate OR fair to Eastern Catholics who have traditions uniquely Eastern but still 100% Catholic who are united to the chair of Peter. As I said, the official title of the Church is the Catholic Church, which is headquartered in Rome, chair of Peter. (FACT)

Now if you want to look in the Catechism of the Catholic Church search engine for “Roman Catholic” just erase what’s in the search box and insert Roman Catholic.

scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

 

[LutheranDK]

Such bitterness … it’s scary… especially from a Lutheran!.. I might have to go round up Jon NC to calm you down.

SD

For the love of…

Ok, yeah, go ahead and call me bitter every single time I don’t fall flat on my face and say: “The RC church is right! The RC church is right!”. That’s very solid reasoning…

I’m not bitter, but like everyone else, I get defensive when attacked. Especially when faced with uncohesive arguments that describe themselves as valid, and then have the audacity to want to correct me, because I don’t accept them. And when I’ve heard that enough times, well, then yes, I WILL probably get a little bitter. But at that time, I don’t think it will be my fault alone…

 

[Angels_Unaware]

The only “sources” we have that claims that the RC church is the original church…is the RC church itself! And therefore, the question remains a matter of belief, not of historical facts.

Oh, yeah… like how the Church established the canon in the 4th century. No need to believe it was correct on that, is there?

2: People who not only believe that Christ rose from the dead, but who also invoke the dead, asking them to pray for them, and who believes that the mother of Christ is co-redemptrix, Queen of Heaven, etc.

3: People who believe that salvation is by faith AND works, not faith alone, which is then followed by good works.

Wow, you know nothing about Church history I guess, do you?

Number 2: The first Church worshipped over the bones of the martyrs, which became relics, and invoked the help of the Saints in prayer.

Number 3: You are sorely mis-educated
That is NOT what we teach. Can’t you find a copy of the Catechism? Salvation is by faithful cooperation with grace to produce good works. This is what the Church teaches.

 

[Martin777]

Are you and I reading different versions of the same thread

All right…I have an extremely busy life, and I don’t get to read all the posts, though I try to search for responses to mine. (Maybe someone can give me some help on shortcuts?) Any way, tell me the answers to these questions:
Does the RCC teach that ALL Christians are saints, as Paul indicates at the outset of most his letters to the churches?

Second, I have not seen a solid explanation as to why this verse doesn’t shatter the notion that a truly born again person needs to be in fear of punishment (I’m not talking about the Father’s loving, earthly chastening)–
"For you have not received a spirit of slavery leading to fear again, but you have received a spirit of adoption as sons by which we cry out, “Abba! Father!” "–Rom 8:15
What you proclaim carries with it a note of fear. And the assumption is that if you don’t instill some fear in people, they just won’t perform! That is LAW, my friend. And the truly born again person is out from under that system. (It never worked in the OT either)

Paul says it is no longer about fear and bondage! It is about unconditional acceptance from a Father who has the power, love, desire and promise to complete the work He has begun in me, and to be to me FOREVER the perfect Father. That’s a critical difference between the RCC and Evangelicals.

Let’s deal with those two for now.