Calling all non-Catholic Christians!

[Kay_Cee]

Forget about the church for a second. I’m talking about you and me walking around in our daily lives. Would we rob a bank? No. Would we commit murder? No. Why?? Because we know it’s wrong. That’s what I’m referring to. I believe the Holy Spirit guides us when it comes to doing right and wrong. Unfortunately you may know it is wrong and still do it. Not that you are deliberately saying “Holy Spirit I’m not listening to you”. Many times we act on impulse. Later we realize how bad we were. Then we go back and try to fix it or apologize. Paul writes of this very thing in his letter to the Romans. He states it almost exactly as I did. The very thing I don’t want to do, that which is wrong, I end up doing anyway. Thank GOD for Jesus. Basically

Uh, I can’t forget about the church for a second. This thread is about how one selects a Protestant church, not how an individual determines if an action is morally right or wrong. Let’s stick to the topic, okay?

You have to look at the bigger picture. They support it in an effort to reduce abortions. The bottom line is teens will have sex no matter what. The ultimate answer is wait until marriage. But if you are going to have sex use protection. I’m going through this now with my son who is 17 and coming out of High School. I remember those days and the lectures my Father gave to me about abstaining. Did I listen? No. Did you? Only you can answer. So in essence if you went to a Priest and said, which is worse having unprotected sex and then having an abortion, or using protection? I’m sure the Priest would say neither you should abstain. But the Priest is also realistic and if forced to decide I’m sure he would say practice safe sex then. As a matter of fact I can introduce you to a Roman Catholic Priest that made this very statement.

And let’s not discuss Catholicism either, okay? I promised I wouldn’t, but you keep bringing it up.

I’m not interested in getting into a discussion about contraception. That would be off topic. I threw it our as an example of a church flipping on its doctrine. If you want to open a thread about contraception, please feel free.

And I agree with you. That would be a church I would not join and I think Christ would have something to say about that. That unfortunately is the result of freedom of Religion, coupled with a society that has become extremely liberal. But the problem of pre-marital sex has always existed and always will. Unfortunately churches now are trying to become more liberal in response to this and in an effort to bring in new members instead of staying with solid morals and trying to teach true right from wrong.

And I’m sure those churches wouldn’t think they’re doing anything wrong. I’m sure they wouldn’t think they’re going against scripture or the Holy Spirit.

This is a tough one no doubt. I’m old school though. I grew up Roman Catholic so I take a harder stance on this like you. So does the church I now attend. I believe if we stick to Biblical principles there is no gray area. Unfortunately some new wave churches try to make it gray. Usually these churches don’t survive though. Here’s what I would submit to you. I believe some things are going to have to be sorted out by GOD HIMSELF. Pastor Gene Getz talks about this in his “measure of a good man” book.

And, in the meantime, until God sorts it out, what then? Souls can be led astray by false doctrine. Is this really the best we’ve got, to wait until God sorts it out? Is that what God really intends for us?

That’s Ok I’m sincerely enjoying this discussion with you. I think we are more alike than different

Maybe, maybe not. I also have a 17 year old child. (She’s graduating high school this year, and I’m proud to say she’s at the top of her class. GPA is 4.89. This is the kid the doctors told me could very well be born mentally retarded.)

I can explain sola scripture and sola fide to you if you like. It’s really quite easy and doesn’t need to be complicated. The problem is most people think they know but they don’t.

And who judges which definition is right? Who has the authority to say “This definition is the right one, and that other one is wrong”?

As far as the Eucharist, I can show you evidence and present an overwhelming case that demonstrates it is not the Real Presence. But then someone else can do the same thing to show the Real Presence. Who’s right and who’s wrong?? Without Jesus here to personally tell us we won’t really know for sure. You might claim that the Holy Spirit guides us to the truth. But the truth can get corrupted. Not by the Holy Spirit but by man because we are not infallible. We are very much fallible. That’s why the first part of Genesis is the great fall of man.

And I’m sure people here could show you evidence and present an overwhelming case that demonstrates is is the Real Presence. Open a thread if you’re interested in discussing it. Let’s stay on topic, please.

 

[Kay_Cee]

As I stated in the previous post. The Bible is not gray. It’s black and white to me.

I’m sure it is—*to you. *That is, to the way you’re interpreting it. But that’s the problem, isn’t it? You said earlier you don’t believe in the Real Presence, but there are sincere Protestants who do, and I’m sure they’d show you in black and white where Jesus says, “This is my body.” And they wouldn’t see any wiggle room for turning it into a mere symbol. So, who determines who’s right and who’s wrong?

(Not interested in getting into an off-topic discussion about the Eucharist. Just throwing it out as an example. I could have used Baptism or anything else there is doctrinal disagreement about from one Protestant church to another.)

Unfortunately we try to make it gray. Look how badly lawyers make a black and white law look gray. Thou shall not kill. Someone commits murder. Then immediately it’s; what’s his frame of mind, did he have motive, did he have true intent, this, that, this, that. The bottom line is they killed.

Well, that’s lawyers for you. Let’s stick to what theologians do.

Now here is something that bother’s me with the Roman Catholic church on this. I’m curious to see what you think. The Roman Catholic church tries to do the same thing with sin. Is it mortal, is it venial. Jesus tells us, “you have heard not to commit adultery, but I tell you if you even look at another woman with lust you have already committed adultry”. Jesus says “you have heard thou shall not commit murder, but I tell you if you have hatred in your heart for someone that is the same thing”. Basically. So to me there is no separation. Sin is sin is sin. It’s all really bad. What do you think?? It doesn’t have to be a Catholic discussion. I’m curious about your personal opinion.

Open a thread if you want to discuss it. I made a promise not to discuss Catholicism here. Don’t you think I should stick to my promise?

PEACE my Sister

And to you too.

 

[jmcrae]

(emphasis added)

Ok, I’ll bite.

Can anyone reconcile this statement with the position of the Catholic Church today which is (as I understand it) that Protestant’s can be saved outside the Catholic Church.

Protestants who are not aware of the existence of the Catholic Church can be saved by means of their Baptism (which joins them to the Catholic Church spiritually) if they never commit any post-baptismal mortal sin. In this case, they would be saved through the Church without being aware at all of that fact during this lifetime.

Has the Church changed it’s position?

No. But we recognize that a baptized person who never sins mortally (never commits a gravely immoral act with full knowledge that the act is a sin, or with full consent of the will) is joined to the Church, and he cannot be charged with the sin of separation if he was never aware in the first place that he was separated from the Church (since full consent of the will is required in order for the act of separation to be a mortal sin) - if he never knew in the first place that he was supposed to be Catholic, then he cannot be found guilty of being in schism, because he did not go into schism voluntarily.

 

[Kay_Cee]

This seems to be the sticking point-is doctrinal unity the basis for the church? I would say no. I also believe it to be very important, but I don’t believe it can be the basis. Jesus speaks of others knowing we are believers by our love, Paul speaks of our fruits giving evidence, neither point to a creed that we must affirm to be acknowledged as part of his church.

Oh, I agree it shouldn’t be the basis. You’re right that love should be. However, we both agree doctrine is very important. The reason why I do is I’m concerned about souls possibly being led astray by false doctrine.

John does insist we acknowledge that Jesus has come in the flesh. So there is an element of truth, but from there, both John and Paul seem to judge believers more strictly for their actions and lack of love than they do for their doctrine.

Why? I believe that they recognized that Jesus was the truth as He stated and that the Holy Spirit would lead them into all truth (note that Jesus didn’t put a time limit on when this would happen, nor when his church would be one)

Just so we’re clear, are you saying it’s kind of okay to have doctrinal disunity in the meantime? That’s it’s kind of okay for the church to be split in the meantime? I’m not quite sure what you mean here.

Even Pope Benedict XVI in his book on Jesus recognized that his understanding of Jesus is imperfect and can be improved upon. It is simply the limitations of finite minds trying to grasp infinite truth.

Thus any church, creed, catechism, institute of the christian religion, systematic theology or even Gospel is imperfect. (although the Gospel is inerrant and the church will reach the perfection God intends for it in eternity)

John acknowledged that he didn’t capture every act nor every word of Jesus in his Gospel-and yet he was satisfied that it would accomplish the purpose for which he wrote it. John could have written for his entire life, but he realized that God would have the ultimate role to play in preparing the church for its eternal destiny.

If you mean we puny humans can’t completely understand God, you’ll get no argument from me.

However, how we get to heaven is extremely important, and I can’t envision God not making that part of theology clear to us. This is an area where we shouldn’t have to guess–far too much is at stake. Eternal souls are at stake.

Agreed. That is why most believers, pray, study the Bible, assemble together and try to be open to what God is saying to them. It would seem the key difference between Catholics and protestants here is what priority God gives to doctrinal truth and how leading believers into truth will happen.

Interesting discussion.

Okay, I’m not going to get into Catholicism. However, my main emphasis is that heresy leads people astray. You could have somebody who believes in God, prays, studies the Bible, assembles with other believers, is open to what God is saying, *but still ends up holding the heretical doctrine that Jesus is a mere man, not God. *You could have someone who does all those things you said, but still holds to any heresy you can name: Arianism, Nestorianism, Pelagianism, Gnosticism.

See why I’m concerned?

 

[Kay_Cee]

I’m so in agreement with you on this. So then how do we determine which doctrine is actually right? It all comes down to a matter of interpretation. Someone will actually be wrong about something. Now I’m not taking a cheap shot at the Roman Catholic church, honestly. But they do assert that only they have the truth. Actually the fullness of the truth. What if, they turn out to be wrong on some things. What if the reformers are correct on some of their things. How do we bridge this gap. This is where I look to our spiritual leaders. The pope, all the major heads of protestant religions etc., to come together and have open discussions about these things. Stop saying, I am right you are wrong. I consider myself to be fairly intelligent. I read the Bible and things make complete sense to me. Yet I’ll read someone else’s interpretation and think “Where did you get that”??

What do you think, am I being too hopeful?

I think you’re discussing Catholicism, knowing full well I promised not to discuss that. Please stick to the topic.

Oh yes and people really need to stop that. To me that’s part Joe Blow trying to make money using Jesus and GOD as the vehicle. And people who will not stay true to their Faith. Jesus told us HE HIMSELF nor the Angels knew when GOD would send Jesus back to us. He gave us clues as to what it would be like. But nothing that would enable us to know. Only GOD knows and it is not written anywhere. As Jesus said it would be like a thief in the night. Basically when we least expect it.

And in the meantime, we have many being led astray, don’t we?

Let’s agree though on what the truth is. To me Jesus is THEE truth. HE alone is our savior. HE alone is our only redeemer. It is only by GOD’s grace that we even have Jesus. Sometimes we can get so caught up in doctrine that we lose sight of this. The Pharisees made this mistake. They were so caught up with knowing doctrine that they didn’t realize it pointed to Jesus. This was such a great conversation between Jesus and the Pharisees.

What I’m getting from you here is that having the right doctrine isn’t all that important. (Correct me if I’m wrong.)

Of course Jesus is the truth, but so is correct doctrine. Doesn’t Jesus want us to have the truth, especially when it comes to being saved?

Sometimes we seem to be more focused on interpreting doctrine than proclaiming Jesus. Right now there are Cardinals who are forming a movement to get Mary to be considered Co-redemptrix or something like that. Why?? Why focus on that when there are so many people who either do not know Jesus, or know HIM but don’t believe, or don’t even believe in GOD. That’s what their focus should be. Saving the lost. Staying with Jesus great commission of making disciples.

This is so unfair. You keep talking about Catholicism, knowing full well I’m essentially gagged about it within this thread. Please cut it out.

Doctrine is great and helps us to get to know who Jesus was and what he did. But opening your heart to HIM and letting HIM live in you spiritually is what HE desires most. Not your expert knowledge of doctrine. When you open your heart and let Jesus in I believe HE will absolutely lead you to the truth. I don’t believe that kind of truth is written on a piece of paper.

PEACE

Agreed that we don’t need a certain level of doctrinal knowledge in order to be saved. But that’s not my point.

What happens when your average Joe Christian who doesn’t have much doctrinal knowledge gets visited by a couple of JW’s? What happens when they start quoting scripture to him to “prove” Jesus is not equal to God the Father? And because he’s not well versed in doctrine, he falls for it? Such things do happen.

 

[wisdomseeker]

If Jesus wanted us to come individually each direct to Him, then there is really no need for a Church is there?
why He even bothered in mention it?
just a thought.

 

[Elric]

Which church is right?

Short answer: none.

What do you do about it?

Figure out where it went wrong and fix it. I think a start would be to stop with the petty squabbling.

 

[guanophore]

You have to look at the bigger picture.

I moved some of your post to another thread. I wanted to respond to the issues, but thought my focus was too far afield for this thread. I am already having a struggle staying on track here!

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=3323357#post3323357

As far as the Eucharist, I can show you evidence and present an overwhelming case that demonstrates it is not the Real Presence. But then someone else can do the same thing to show the Real Presence. Who’s right and who’s wrong??

This is a great topic for another thread.

Without Jesus here to personally tell us we won’t really know for sure.

I agree with you, which is why I think Jesus appointed His Apostles in His stead. What else could it mean “he who hears you, hears me”. The question is, then, where is this apostolic authority today, that represents the voice of Jesus?

You might claim that the Holy Spirit guides us to the truth. But the truth can get corrupted. Not by the Holy Spirit but by man because we are not infallible. We are very much fallible. That’s why the first part of Genesis is the great fall of man.

I do not agree with this. the Truth cannot be corrupted. Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. He is incorruptible. Our perception of truth may get corrupted, because we are fallible, but Truth itself cannot. So, where do we find incorruptible truth here on earth? Does it exist anywhere?

 

[guanophore]

The Lord left us a sheperd to lead us into the will of God. just like God chose Moses to lead the jews. God did not do it Himself, He chose a visible man to do the job. the last time the decision was left to the people, the people crucified Jesus.

“and I know that you love me if you obey my commandments.’”

Ok, but since the Catholic Church and it’s visible head are off limits, how is one to find the one that God chose elsewhere? (see original post)

 

[guanophore]

As I stated in the previous post. The Bible is not gray. It’s black and white to me. Unfortunately we try to make it gray. Look how badly lawyers make a black and white law look gray. Thou shall not kill. Someone commits murder. Then immediately it’s; what’s his frame of mind, did he have motive, did he have true intent, this, that, this, that. The bottom line is they killed.

Now here is something that bother’s me with the Roman Catholic church on this. I’m curious to see what you think. The Roman Catholic church tries to do the same thing with sin. Is it mortal, is it venial. Jesus tells us, “you have heard not to commit adultery, but I tell you if you even look at another woman with lust you have already committed adultry”. Jesus says “you have heard thou shall not commit murder, but I tell you if you have hatred in your heart for someone that is the same thing”. Basically. So to me there is no separation. Sin is sin is sin. It’s all really bad. What do you think?? It doesn’t have to be a Catholic discussion. I’m curious about your personal opinion.

PEACE my Sister

Please start a new thread for this excellent topic.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Ok, but since the Catholic Church and it’s visible head are off limits, how is one to find the one that God chose elsewhere? (see original post)

The catholic church is that shepperd.

 

[jmcrae]

I can explain sola scripture and sola fide to you if you like. It’s really quite easy and doesn’t need to be complicated. The problem is most people think they know but they don’t. As far as the Eucharist, I can show you evidence and present an overwhelming case that demonstrates it is not the Real Presence. But then someone else can do the same thing to show the Real Presence. Who’s right and who’s wrong?? Without Jesus here to personally tell us we won’t really know for sure.

And the way Jesus will tell us is by sending those who were right to Heaven, and those who were wrong to Hell.

Is there really no way to know, ahead of time, before the Judgment Day is upon us? Because I think it’s important that people be given the opportunity to be able to choose correctly, so that they can go to Heaven.

But Jesus promised us the Church, and that the gates of Hell could not prevail against it. So, if we follow the teachings of the Church, we will be taught correctly, and (as long as we follow the teachings of His Church, without rebelling against it) we will be among those who go to Heaven.

That’s why it’s so important to figure out which Church is Christ’s Church - so that we can follow its teachings, and make it to Heaven.

 

[guanophore]

The catholic church is that shepperd.

You are missing the point of the thread. For the sake of discussion, we are assuming that the Catholic Church has gone off the rails. The question under discussion here is, how can one tell which is the right church?

 

[qui_est_ce]

Fulgentius of Ruspe

Topic for the following thread
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=214286&highlight=salvation+outside+the+church

(emphasis added)

Ok, I’ll bite.

I was tempted to bite too, but it’s off topic! The original poster of this post should have gone to the above thread. One of the reasons I like this thread is because it is staying on topic, and free of much of the vitriol and bickering that causes threads to go off topic, and thus the OP is never resolved.

 

[wisdomseeker]

You are missing the point of the thread. For the sake of discussion, we are assuming that the Catholic Church has gone off the rails. The question under discussion here is, how can one tell which is the right church?

sorry! i guess i misunderstood.

 

[qui_est_ce]

So far (omitting references to Catholic Church posts)The True Church would agree on the following characteristics:

1. We have to Love one another
2. We shouldn’t sin
3. We should believe in Scripture, that it is the inspired-inerrant word of God. (j4)
4. The Trinity (therefore Mormons and JW’s are out)
5. It should teach the Gospel message
6. “Mine” (Rightly Divide)
7. The Holy Spirit will lead “me” to the Truth.
8. We should pray about this.
9. Doctrine is not as important as Living the Gospel message
10. Bickering over Doctrine Divides people and keeps them from following the Gospel message.
11. Jesus died on the cross for our sins
12. "You will find the truth in a Messianic congregation that believes Yeshua HaMashiach is God incarnate. This is the Biblical church (which is an organism, not an organization). "(Sola Fide)
13. It couldn’t be the Catholic Church
14. It’s possible it could be the Catholic Church.
15. It has to teach Truth

Which Protestant Church Best Teaches all these? In order for me to accept this Protestant Church as true, it has to give me evidence that EVERYTHING Jesus and the Apostole taught in the Bible is the rule of their Church.

 

[Deacon110]

Gluttony is on the list of the Seven Deadly Sins in the Examination of Conscience, so yes, eating without being hungry, or eating more than will satisfy you is, in fact, a sin, according to the Church.

That’s true. I’m not talking gluttony though. How about if your normal diet just prior to the point of glutony is one that is detrimental to the body?? I wouldn’t say my brother-in-law is a glutton. To the contrary he probably doesn’t eat enough. But what he ate severly contributed to his heart attack. So let me re-phrase it then. Is an unhealthy diet, minus the gluttony, a sin if it’s detrimental to your body

The same with smoking - and while the Church makes no comment on the practice itself, if someone is smoking more than is good for them, or if they have acquired an addiction, then yes, this falls under the sin of Gluttony, which refers to the use of anything in excess.

But you are implying a little smoking is OK. We know any smoking from a strict health perspective is detrimental to your health. Even 1 a day. So it’s the same as above. Take gluttony out of the picture. Is it acceptable to do anything that is detrimental to your body? Would that be a sin?

Yes, but when it came to doctrinal matters, St. Paul was a hard-liner.
If you didn’t believe in the saving power of Christ (Romans 8), if you behaved irreverently at Mass, (I Corinthians 11), St. Paul was all over you like an angry mother-in-law

Yes Paul was a hard liner no doubt. But with the example you are using it’s not mis-behaving that Paul is referring to. The people of the church in Corinth were following different leaders. Some were following Peter, some Apollos, others Christ. They were following the individual that baptized them yet they all were partaking in the Lord’s supper. This is what Paul is referring to when he tells them they have Jesus blood on their hands. They were divided with respect to whom they followed. They also were keeping out the poor people who followed Christ and were not letting them partake in worship or the Lord’s supper.

Additionally they were abusing the Lord’s supper consuming alcohol to the point of intoxication. This is what Paul is referring to when he asks them don’t you have homes to get drunk in. He then takes the opportunity to re-educate them on the Lord’s supper.

• he certainly wasn’t shy about excommunicating people who didn’t follow the doctrine of the faith, and there is no way to argue that he was an “anything goes” kind of a guy when it comes to the kind of deep doctrinal differences that we see between Catholicism, Calvinism, Lutheranism, Mennonism (? if that’s a word), and Anglicanism.

Here’s what I would submit to you. If Paul was living today I would expect him to address the different denominations to clarify their doctrinal mis-interpretations. And this includes any that the Catholic church has made. I don’t believe Paul would excommunicate any of these churches because their foundation is Christ. If Calvinism is wrong about prevenient grace then he would correct them. But that doesn’t mean they don’t believe in Christ. And I hardly think that Jesus would turn HIS back on anyone because they may have misunderstood some doctrine. I don’t believe any church is trying to interpret doctrine for the sole purpose of moving away from Christ. If anything most churches believe their doctrinal interpetations bring them closer to Christ.

If you want to get to know GOD you read the Bible. If you misinterpret or don’t understand something I don’t think GOD is waiting to punish you. If your heart has pure intentions of loving GOD and wanting to know HIM, then this is what GOD I believe focuses on. I always refer back to the Pharisees who were so prideful for knowing doctrine yet Jesus criticized them for not seeing HIM in the doctrine. All Christian denominations see Jesus in the doctrine. They just think they have figured out more of the details of what he was saying.

PEACE

 

[jmcrae]

Here’s what I would submit to you. If Paul was living today I would expect him to address the different denominations to clarify their doctrinal mis-interpretations.

I am just curious - if St. Paul were to rise again from the dead today and resume his ministry - in the hierarchies of the Protestant churches, what authority would St. Paul have, to tell them what to do?

Why would they be required to obey him? Or would they be?

 

[qui_est_ce]

He then takes the opportunity to re-educate them on the Lord’s supper.

You are referring to Paul here. So you would add the Lord’s Supper to the list of requirements.

If anything most churches believe their doctrinal interpetations bring them closer to Christ.

Which Protestant Church has the doctrinal interpretations that bring people closest to God? And what are they?

If you want to get to know GOD you read the Bible.

Which one?

If you misinterpret or don’t understand something I don’t think GOD is waiting to punish you. If your heart has pure intentions of loving GOD and wanting to know HIM, then this is what GOD I believe focuses on.

So you would say that a sincere JW church or a sincere Mormon church could possibly be the keeper of the Truth?

I always refer back to the Pharisees who were so prideful for knowing doctrine yet Jesus criticized them for not seeing HIM in the doctrine.

Are you saying the the Pharisees could be the True Church?

All Christian denominations see Jesus in the doctrine. They just think they have figured out more of the details of what he was saying.

PEACE

Which details are the correct ones that the Protestant Church should hold as true, inspired-inerrant?

I’m sorry if I’m being obtuse, but I’m trying to read Deacon’s post on topic.

 

[khutcheson]

Topic for the following thread
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=214286&highlight=salvation+outside+the+church

I was tempted to bite too, but it’s off topic! The original poster of this post should have gone to the above thread. One of the reasons I like this thread is because it is staying on topic, and free of much of the vitriol and bickering that causes threads to go off topic, and thus the OP is never resolved.

You’re right. Sorry to all.