Arguing with a Protestant?

[irisfromohio]

you are quite right with the problem of grape juice fermentation thus grape juice was the pure clean stuff if it did not go fizzy. You would have thougth grape juice to be more valuable than Coke as it required skill to keep it fresh and clean, but why would you think that for jesus the wine would have been an improvement over the living water and why would he have wanted to hide the truth. It just does not make sense as in the end this miracle would present Jesus as hiding the truth that a family could not afford to have enough wine and make it look that this was something to be ashamed of thus needing a miracle to avert it. Jesus did come to reveal the truth, he made us face it and not to hide it. With him you can cope with any truth, not avoid it

I didn’t say that Jesus thought wine was of more value than the Living Water. You said that. I was speaking of the times. It was a wedding and they ran out of WINE. It may have been the Living Water that tasted like the best wine. Bottom line, for the same reason He taught in parables, he would do something that is tangible to the people he was among. Remember, Jesus never did anything nor said anything of NO VALUE to the Sacred Word. When I explained wine, I was talking about the Jewish culture thousands of years ago. Tell me, did they all drink water at what you refer to as “The Last Supper”?

It was actually their Seder Meal and He didn’t partake of the last ceremonial drink. That is, not until he was given the bitter vinegar at the Crucifixion. Vinegar is not wine, but it is of the grape and the price He paid for our salvation was BITTER. Once again, using something “human” to reveal The Truth to His people.

 

[bmonk]

I was born again august 19 1974 at 3 am in the morning.

In John chapter 3 Jesus said to Nicodemus that unless you are born again you cannot see the kingdom of God. Ephesions 1 :1-5 shows us that we are considered by God to be dead in trespasses and in sins. When a person is born again they are made alive unto God.

Before I recieved Christ as my saviour I came to the place in my life that I knew that I was a sinner and that I was going to hell. I also knew that there was nothing that I could do to save myself, even if I lived a good life and went to church. I knew that it wouldnt help. I was under such conviction. I knew I was going to hell if I died. I remembered a preacher saying if you wanted to be saved read the book of John and it would tell you how. I also remembered a scripture that said seek and ye shall find . This is how I found salvation. Or better said it is how the Lord saved me.

Before one is born again there is a time that they realise that they are not saved. Unless they can come to the place that they are lost and a sinner in need of God’s saveing grace they will never be born again. Next they go through a process of repentance where they turn from their sins and cry out to God for Him to save them from their sins. God hears their prayer in His time. I will add this here that they even though they are turning away from there sins they do not escape them, only God can set them free from them. This prosess has no set length of time That is up to God as to how long it takes.

After I was born again my whole life changed I knew that God had forgiven me of my sins For the first time in my life I had peace. I knew that I was saved and going to heaven. I was brought into a relationship with God through Jesus His son where when I called Him Father it was real. My whole life changed after that point. I was different from the inside I was a new person. I no longer wanted to live in sin. I actually despised them and I found myself free of them. I also had such a hunger for God’s word and prayer. I even loved going to church services something that I used to not like. I couldnt get enough of God I fell in love with Him over and over again and I have never been the same since.

I hope this give an answer to your questions.

Is there anything like this in the Catholic church ? Have any of you ever had something like that happen in your life. ?

I was baptized as an infant, and my parents made sure to raise me in the faith. However, in the Fall of 1981 I came to a realization that I would have to chose my direction in life, and that I wanted, needed God to be part of that. As a result, I chose to explore the tradition I had received through my family, making it active.

There may not be a moment to point to as being born again–but the effect was similar, over some time. But it did depend on the grace received in baptism and other sacraments.

 

[bmonk]

I have noticed something about people. When you corner them with Truth they usually call you a liar. I have heard the same thing from countless Atheist among other people. You should be careful not to call anyone a liar especially the same people that believe lying will send them to hell (Catholics). It’s also funny that you say this has been reverse-engineered when it was taught exactly this way for 1,500 years by itself. So if your logic were true then it would of had to be reversed engineered at the time of Jesus and that ludicrous.

Also, after the Protestants sprung up they started teaching something different and they cannot even agree among each other. Hence the thousands of denominations now. Over the last 500 years the Protestant Churches have been splitting and changing doctrines.

The Catholic Church has taught in line with the gospel of God for 2,000 years now and that is testimony that God is who he says he is. Also testimony that God is serious when he says that Hell will not prevail against his Church.

 

[4tytwo]

Human flesh is of no avail with regard to the miracles of God. For Catholics (and I believe also for Lutherans who accept the foundations of the Lutheran faith found in the confessions), the Scriptures are considered the inspired and inerrant Word of God. What comes to us through them is divine revelation. Scriptures reveal that Jesus changed the water into wine, so we are bound to accept this miracle, whether it makes “sense” or fits with our limited cognitive understanding, or not. It is not for us to determine “why we think” God would work the miracles He has before the face of humanity. It is for us to understand what he is trying to reveal about Himself to us, through those miracles.

Jesus explains this later in HIs ministry, when He tells us He is the Living Water, and that His blood is poured out for the salvation of the world.

1 Cor 1:22-25
22 For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, 24 but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

We are called to set aside our own way of reasoning, and to accept His sacrifice in faith. This does not mean that we don’t use our reason at all, but that human reason functions best when it begins where divine revelation begins.

Luther (SIC) He did depart from what the Apostles believed and taught about reason, for our faith is to seek reason, and vice versa, but it is true that we must recognilze the limitations of human reason. We cannot fathom the mysteries of God. Human reason will always fall short.

This does not mean that we should not try to understand, but when we do so, recognize that there are things such as Eucharist that are beyond us. I would say that it is pride and ego, as much as reason, that struggles against the divine word. Logic does not, by it’s nature, struggle against God. Logic itself emanates from God. We are commanded to grow in understanding and knowledge, though they are not the basis of our faith experience.

so take my understanding that Jesus served at Canaan the “living water” as the Jews referred to the water coming from a spring as a divine revelation. That my divine revelation I had fits with the reason and logic that is God at his purest should make it even more acceptable. I had indeed a revelation and it is a frightening experience when you suddenly feel that you can understand things that make sense beyond what you ever could have thought. I wonder if it might be irresponsible to tell people as it is far more powerful if you suddenly understand yourself that Jesus was so much more than just playing tricks with matter, he did never, not with matter nor with people minds. He showed us the truth on once you accept the truth the miracles become what they are, truth in its finest, truth that is entirely logic. It allows you even to see his crucifixion in a different light that takes away the power of the atheists argument that his crucifixion would have been a farce as he knew that he would survive it so he really did not sacrifice anything because they can’t see his sacrifice. Consider that human sacrifice to God was actually detested by the people at the time. The reason he could not be allowed to be buried on this earth was that no church could not claim his bones as a relic for justifying their holiness as a direct decent from those bones. It made Jesus free for all to be with, independent of their affiliations as long as they want to follow Christ. For Christ to reveal himself to you there is no need to be a catholic or a protestant but it helps to be a Christian, somone who tries to get close to him

 

[PRmerger]

It made Jesus free for all to be with, independent of their affiliations as long as they want to** follow Christ.** For Christ to reveal himself to you there is no need to be a catholic or a protestant but it helps to be a Christian, somone who tries to get close to him

The problem with the above paradigm, 4tytwo, is that we need to know what it means to “follow Christ”.

Does it mean that we must be baptized? In a river? Or by sprinkling? With adults only? Or can infants be baptized as well? Is it an ordinance? Or a sacrament?

Does it mean that we can divorce and re-marry? Or is that adultery?

Does it mean that we participate in the atoning death of Christ through the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass? Or can we simply commune with him in a beautiful forest?

Does it mean that we pray with all the angels and saints, or is it only a “Me and Jesus” relationship?

Do we believe that Jesus is part of the Trinity? Or can I follow Jesus who was a good teacher?

Do you see that to “follow Jesus” requires that His Truth be followed as well?

 

[4tytwo]

“For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who doubt, no proof is possible.”

…KISS…

Jesus loves me, this I know!!

sorry but the story of Thomas already proofs you wrong. Proof to those who doubt is possible. The problem with the proof of God is that it is only revealed to us in our death, as the proof of God lies not in the material world. It is said that noone can see God eye to eye and live but we can see his workings

God would not make it impossible for anyone to come to him, but then to come to him does not require proof, but love. For some it’s just a long hard journey and indeed some may never make it. Blessed be their souls as they need it most.

my take on it would be

For those who love, no proof is neccessary, for those who demand proof, they can not yet love.

We who can love God are blessed of having seen his love through somone around us. Blessed are those poor souls who lack that experience.

 

[4tytwo]

The problem with the above paradigm, 4tytwo, is that we need to know what it means to “follow Christ”.
…

Do you see that to “follow Jesus” requires that His Truth be followed as well?

Wanting to follow Christ means to follow the law, to love and honour God and to love our neighbour like we love our own.

 

[PRmerger]

Wanting to follow Christ means to follow the law, to love and honour God and to love our neighbour like we love our own.

Indeed.

And what does that mean?

Does that mean that we reject the rest of the teachings of Christ?

Does that mean that I can be “Me and Jesus” alone?

Does that mean that I can give money to the Salvation Army once a year and claim that I have loved my neighbor?

How does the above paradigm look for a Christian “follower of Christ”?

The only way to really answer the above questions is to submit to the authority of the Church.

 

[4tytwo]

Indeed.

The only way to really answer the above questions is to submit to the authority of the Church.

No I only submit to the authority of Christ alone. The “church” as an institution has prooven it’s corruptness far too often thus disproven it’s claim to authority. In fact in it has on occasions dishonoured the name of Christ. In the end, hier stehe ich und kann nicht anders.

 

[PRmerger]

No I only submit to the authority of Christ alone.

But without the Church, His Body, you cannot know a single thing that Christ has revealed.

 

[PRmerger]

The “church” as an institution has prooven it’s corruptness far too often thus disproven it’s claim to authority. In fact in it has on occasions dishonoured the name of Christ. In the end, hier stehe ich und kann nicht anders.

Do not be duped by the Evil One into confusing Christians with Christianity.

Any Muslim who looks at how Christians act in general as a representative of what Christianity proclaims would never convert.

But rather, if a Muslim looks to what Christianity proclaims, he might convert.

 

[pablope]

No I only submit to the authority of Christ alone.

Hmmm…Where did Christ say this in the Bible? Chapter and verse?

And did Jesus say He will build a church? And did He no hand over the keys of the kingdom to somebody…as I recall Him saying?

The “church” as an institution has prooven it’s corruptness far too often thus disproven it’s claim to authority. In fact in it has on occasions dishonoured the name of Christ. In the end, hier stehe ich und kann nicht anders.

 

[guanophore]

  so take my understanding that Jesus served at Canaan the "living water" as the Jews referred to the water coming from a spring as  a divine revelation. That my divine revelation I had fits with the reason and logic that is God at his purest should make it even more acceptable. I had indeed a revelation and it is a frightening experience when you suddenly feel that you can understand things that make sense beyond what you ever could have thought. I wonder if it might be irresponsible to tell people

I think the trouble you are having here is that you seem to be forwarding your own private revelation over and above the public revelation that we have received from the Apostles. We can accept private revelation as long as it is not contradictory to the Teaching of the Jesus that is infallibly preserved in the Church.

Your revelation is not contrary except that you seem to be saying that the Gospel account is untrue. So long as one accepts that Jesus did actually and truly change water into wine at the wedding party, one can also think of this as the living water of divine revelation. Such an understanding on a spiritual and metaphorical sense fits well, as you say, with the whole revelation of Christ.

What we can’t accept is your private revelation INSTEAD of the Gospel.

as it is far more powerful if you suddenly understand yourself that Jesus was so much more than just playing tricks with matter, he did never, not with matter nor with people minds. He showed us the truth on once you accept the truth the miracles become what they are, truth in its finest, truth that is entirely logic. It allows you even to see his crucifixion in a different light that takes away the power of the atheists argument that his crucifixion would have been a farce as he knew that he would survive it so he really did not sacrifice anything because they can’t see his sacrifice. Consider that human sacrifice to God was actually detested by the people at the time. The reason he could not be allowed to be buried on this earth was that no church could not claim his bones as a relic for justifying their holiness as a direct decent from those bones. It made Jesus free for all to be with, independent of their affiliations as long as they want to follow Christ. For Christ to reveal himself to you there is no need to be a catholic or a protestant but it helps to be a Christian, somone who tries to get close to him

I do agree with you that Jesus did not do signs for their own sake, and certainly not as a magician. But the Apostles also taught that His changing of water to wine in Cana was a pre-figurement of how He would later change the wine into His Own Blood at the last supper.

 

[Aschecte]

I think the trouble you are having here is that you seem to be forwarding your own private revelation over and above the public revelation that we have received from the Apostles. We can accept private revelation as long as it is not contradictory to the Teaching of the Jesus that is infallibly preserved in the Church.

Your revelation is not contrary except that you seem to be saying that the Gospel account is untrue. So long as one accepts that Jesus did actually and truly change water into wine at the wedding party, one can also think of this as the living water of divine revelation. Such an understanding on a spiritual and metaphorical sense fits well, as you say, with the whole revelation of Christ.

What we can’t accept is your private revelation INSTEAD of the Gospel.

I do agree with you that Jesus did not do signs for their own sake, and certainly not as a magician. But the Apostles also taught that His changing of water to wine in Cana was a pre-figurement of how He would later change the wine into His Own Blood at the last supper.

Said perfectly …

 

[rfournier103]

No I only submit to the authority of Christ alone. The “church” as an institution has prooven it’s corruptness far too often thus disproven it’s claim to authority. In fact in it has on occasions dishonoured the name of Christ. In the end, hier stehe ich und kann nicht anders.

1Tim3:15: But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.

 

[4tytwo]

I think the trouble you are having here is that you seem to be forwarding your own private revelation over and above the public revelation that we have received from the Apostles. We can accept private revelation as long as it is not contradictory to the Teaching of the Jesus that is infallibly preserved in the Church.

who claims that the church is infallible. Is it not made from humans? Does the church have a monopoly on the holy spirit? If so, which church?

Your revelation is not contrary except that you seem to be saying that the Gospel account is untrue. So long as one accepts that Jesus did actually and truly change water into wine at the wedding party, one can also think of this as the living water of divine revelation. Such an understanding on a spiritual and metaphorical sense fits well, as you say, with the whole revelation of Christ.

What we can’t accept is your private revelation INSTEAD of the Gospel.

It does not change a word of the Gospel my friend, just how your understanding of the words. Does Jesus ever claim to have made wine?

 

[PRmerger]

who claims that the church is infallible.

The Scriptures do.

The Infallibility of the Catholic Church Proved from Scripture-- originally posted here by Randy Carson

The following verses suggest that the Catholic Church is prevented from teaching error in matters of faith and morals by God Himself. I provide questions below each verse to illustrate why it is applicable to our understanding of infallibility.

Matthew 16:18
And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

Q: If Jesus promised to build his own church and that Church ever fell into doctrinal error, would this mean that a) Jesus was a liar, b) Jesus did not have the power to protect his own church, or c) Jesus was incompetent as a church builder?

Matthew 28:20
And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.

Q: If the Church fell into doctrinal error at any time during the 1500 years before the Protestant Reformation, would that suggest that Jesus did not remain with the Church “always”?

John 14:15-16
15"If you love me, you will obey what I command. 16And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever—

Q: If the Church ever fell into doctrinal error, would that mean that Jesus did not give the Counselor or that the Counselor simply failed to remain with the Church “forever”?

John 14:18
18I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you.

Q: If the Church ever fell into doctrinal error, would that imply that Jesus actually did leave us as “orphans” during all that time?

John 14:26
26But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

Q: If the Church fell into error despite this promise, would that mean the Holy Spirit failed to teach the Church “all things” or to remind the Church of the things that Jesus had said to the Apostles?

John 16:13
But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.

Q: Could the Holy Spirit fail to guide the Church into all truth - or allow the Church to fall into error - if Jesus promised otherwise?

Now, consider the following three verses:

1 John 4:4
4You, dear children, are from God and have overcome them, because the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world.

1 Timothy 3:13
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.

Mark 3:27
27In fact, no one can enter a strong man’s house and carry off his possessions unless he first ties up the strong man. Then he can rob his house.

Q: Is Satan stronger than Jesus, is the Church the household of God, and can Satan rob the Church of the deposit of truth by “binding” Jesus in any way?

In light of the above, is it possible for the Church to fall into doctrinal error? Taken individually, each of these verses creates a problem for those that assert that the Church “went off the rails” at some point in history or that the Church is fallible.

Taken as a whole, they portray Christ’s own involvement in building, nurturing and protecting His Church until the end of time. The Catholic Church remains strong and vibrant – not by her own efforts or innate qualities – but because God Himself is leading and guiding her to ensure that “the gates of hell will not overcome it.”

 

[PRmerger]

Does the church have a monopoly on the holy spirit? If so, which church?

You seem to be operating under the misapprehension that the Catholic Church claims to “have a monopoly on the holy spirit.”

She does not. :nope:

 

[guanophore]

who claims that the church is infallible.

Jesus, and the Apostles.

Is it not made from humans?

No. It is made from Christ. He is her Head, and she is ensouled by the Holy Spirit. It is her divine members that make her infallible. Fallible men are attached to her, some in unity with her, some imperfectly, some are “dead” members. Jesus established the Church, and Jesus builds it, not humans.

Does the church have a monopoly on the holy spirit? If so, which church?

Not at all. Although Jesus promised the HS to the Church He founded, the HS is not confined to the Church. the HS works outside His visible body, through nature and through reason to draw all men unto Himself.

It does not change a word of the Gospel my friend, just how your understanding of the words. Does Jesus ever claim to have made wine?

We believe the Scriptures to be the inspired, inerrant Word of God, and the Scriptures tell us that He did, indeed, make wine.

Although I disagree with Randy Carson that anything can really be “proved from Scripture”, PR has posted many good verses to support what I have said.

 

[paul_c]

No I only submit to the authority of Christ alone. The “church” as an institution has prooven it’s corruptness far too often thus disproven it’s claim to authority. In fact in it has on occasions dishonoured the name of Christ. In the end, hier stehe ich und kann nicht anders.

You do of course realize that Jesus established the Church to administer his sacraments and to teach the truth about salvation, right? And you also realize that it was that same church that created the Bible you use through divine inspiration, right? And you also realize that Jesus said that the gates of Hell would not prevail against His One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church (Matthew 16) and that He would be with it until the end of the age, right?
And yes, the Church has seen its share of corruption. In fact, the first Pope denied Jesus three times. But its never been about the personal sanctity of the Popes, but about the sanctity of Jesus. And all the Popes, regardless of their personal holiness, have taught the Truth and have kept Church Doctrine pure. If you study the Church fathers, you will see the same teachings in 100AD as in the present and you can trace the lineage from the current Pope to St. Peter and Then Jesus himself…

You see, ultimately you get what you know about God and salvation from the Church. In your case, you see it through the lens of Lutheran Tradition. Because the source of this Tradition is a man, Martin Luther, the lens is a little blurry and some of the Truth is obscured. You can get the full clarity of the Truth only through the Catholic Tradition which came directly from the Apostles and was the basis on which the Bible was written.

To give you some concrete examples of how the Truth has been obscured, lets look at a few core Lutheran Doctrines. Lets start with Sola Scriptura because its the basis for Lutheran teaching and its so easy to discredit. You see, if all you needed to get to the Truth is to read scripture, then everyone who read it would come to the same conclusions. This is obviously not true. In fact, everyone understand scripture through the lens of their own Faith Traditions. As a Catholic, for instance, I would interpret James 2:17–> So also faith of itself, if it does not have works, is dead
as meaning that you need to have faith as well as works to gain salvation. As a Lutheran, you have been taught that Faith alone is required for salvation so you must interpret this verse differently. This is a clear example of how Church Tradition is fundamental to Bible interpretation and nullifies the argument for Sola Scriptura. This example also shows the weakness of the Lutheran intepretation since it militates against the clear reading of scripture. This is not to say that their isn’t some Truth in the Lutheran view. Indeed, the Catholic Church teaches that to get into the state of Grace requires only the Faith to become baptized and that prior works are not a requirement… Where Lutheranism deviates from the truth is that by claiming salvation is by Faith alone, it fails to recognize that to stay in the state of grace, you must do the works of God and avoid Mortal sin. This is why St. Paul made such a point of saying that Love is more important than Faith in 1corinthians 13. In his definition, Love is doing things for others without expecting anything in return (i.e, a synonym for charity).