Catholic vs. Protestant John 3:16?

[Jimmy_B]

Remarks made by Martin Luther

---

**

"We are compelled to concede to the Papists ( Catholic’s) that they have the Word of GOD (Bible), that we received it from them, and that without them we should have no knowledge of it at all."

---

**

**Some other interesting remarks made by Martin Luther…

The Blessed Virgin Mary…
“The great thing is none other than that she became the Mother of God; in which process so many and such great gifts were bestowed upon her that no one is able to comprehend them. Thereupon follows all honor, all blessedness, and the fact that in the whole race of men only one person is above all the rest, one to whom no one else is equal. For that reason her dignity is crowded into a single phrase when we call her the Mother of God; no one can say greater things of her or to her, even if he had as many tongues as leaves and blades of grass, as the stars in heaven and sands on the seashore. It must also be meditated in the heart what it means to be the Mother of God.”

• Die Erklarung des Magnificat - 1521.

**

 

[Jimmy_B]

**

The Didache 50-120 AD

**

Chapter 9. The Eucharist. Now concerning the Eucharist, give thanks this way. First, concerning the cup:

We thank thee, our Father, for the holy vine of David Thy servant, which You madest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant; to Thee be the glory for ever…

And concerning the broken bread:

We thank Thee, our Father, for the life and knowledge which You madest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant; to Thee be the glory for ever. Even as this broken bread was scattered over the hills, and was gathered together and became one, so let Thy Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into Thy kingdom; for Thine is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ for ever…

But let no one eat or drink of your Eucharist, unless they have been baptized into the name of the Lord; for concerning this also the Lord has said, “Give not that which is holy to the dogs.”

Chapter 10. Prayer after Communion. But after you are filled, give thanks this way:

We thank Thee, holy Father, for Thy holy name which You didst cause to tabernacle in our hearts, and for the knowledge and faith and immortality, which You modest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant; to Thee be the glory for ever. Thou, Master almighty, didst create all things for Thy name’s sake; You gavest food and drink to men for enjoyment, that they might give thanks to Thee; but to us You didst freely give spiritual food and drink and life eternal through Thy Servant. Before all things we thank Thee that You are mighty; to Thee be the glory for ever. Remember, Lord, Thy Church, to deliver it from all evil and to make it perfect in Thy love, and gather it from the four winds, sanctified for Thy kingdom which Thou have prepared for it; for Thine is the power and the glory for ever. Let grace come, and let this world pass away. Hosanna to the God (Son) of David! If any one is holy, let him come; if any one is not so, let him repent. Maranatha. Amen.

But permit the prophets to make Thanksgiving as much as they desire.

 

[unworthysinner]

Jimmy B:

If the Catholic Church is “wrong” about the Eucharist, then they were wrong, flawed and sinners, many hundred years before they put the Bible together. How can you believe every word of the Bible, a book produced by the Catholic Church and passed down for hundreds of years, under the full and complete control of the Catholic Church.

The Old Testament Scriptures were complete when Christ was on the earth. The New Testament was finished completely by AD90, distributed completely by the early 2nd century. The Bible was in circulation a good 100-200 years before the regional(not universal) councils rubber stamped the “canon” of Scripture.

Under “full and complete control” as you put it the Bible was restricted from being translated into anything but Latin(which common people couldn’t read). God(through prophets and witnesses of Christ resurrected) gave us the Bible. The Catholic church did nothing to give anyone the Bible, actually quite the opposite.
The Roman Catholic Church did not produce a Bible in English until 1582, two centuries after Wycliffe made the his English Bible, and more than a fifty years after Tyndale made his translation. The Catholic Church had done everything in its power to destroy the Wycliffe and Tyndale English Scriptures, yet so many people deny this historical fact.

We were not there (200-400 AD) when the Catholic Church, (that’s right they were the “Catholic Church” during that time), determined which writings were divine and put together to form the Bible. If we can’t trust that the only Christians of that time, the Catholic Church, got it right with traditions like the Eucharist, then we can’t trust that they got it right with the Bible.

I can look up the exact dates. The original “canon” in 300-400 AD did not contain the books between Malachi and Mathew. Then a later council ADDED those books. Now which one is right? Did divine get left out the first time, or non-divine get added to divine at a later date. The Holy Spirit moved in such a way that the Scriptures were recorded faithfully and were copied down through the centuries, not by church organization but by devoted believers who would risk their lives, and die, at times for the Word of God to be spread.

After all, the bible was created by the Catholic Church manner years after the creation of Church doctrine regarding, Confession, the Veneration of Mary, praying to saints and the Holy Eucharist. If you followed Christ during the first 1500 years of Christianity, you were a Catholic, practicing beliefs that Catholics still practice today.

You don’t seem to know your church very well. These are the dates doctrines were affirmed by the Catholic Church. Assumption of Mary(1950), Papal infallibility(1870), baptism changed from immersion to sprinkling(1311), all non-Catholics go to hell(before Vatican II(1965)), Immaculate Conception of Mary(1954), Confirmation(1547), Purgatory dogma(1439), celibacy for priests(1079). And many more…coming soon Mary is part of the trinity.

If a Catholic were to come back to life from 200 years ago they would have no idea of Mary as Co-redeemer, Mediatrix, Queen of Heaven, these are new, very extra-Biblical, and un-Biblical.
Continued…

 

[unworthysinner]

When you say the Catholic Church is wrong or evil, then they were wrong and evil from the very beginning. That would be like rejecting our early (Jewish) fathers from the Old Testament. That would be like saying that Moses, the early church fathers and Profits were wrong. That they were all sinners and caused their followers to sin, but I believe what they had to say in the Old Testament.

No, the Roman Catholic church began in approx 305AD when a Roman Emperor converted to “Christianity” after winning a battle with the sign of the cross on his warriors shields. Rome was turned from polytheistic to monotheistic society almost overnight. Many of the pagan traditions remain to this day(Christmas on a pagan holiday, confession(first practiced in Babylon), sun worship(ever wondered why the monstrace looked like a sun). This “true Church” that can trace its roots back to Peter and Christ, certainly can’t make up its mind about what the doctrine should be. The latest is a trend is of the “Marian” variety. Before 1950, Catholic shrines devoted to Mary had pieces of bone in them. When the doctrine of the Assumption came about, all those shrines were suddenly without any bone. There are dozens others, you really want me to post them I can, but this one has eye witnesses to it because there are some Catholics honest with themselves about their church living before 1950.

You have to trust the information that has been past down to you over many thousands of years, because you were not there. You must have faith that the past is true and good or you have to reject everything which grows out of that.

I don’t put my faith in men, but in God. He promised not one tittle(the smallest Hebrew character) would not pass away from His Word.

Matthew 5
17Think not that I am come to make void the law or the prophets; I am not come to make void, but to fulfil. 18For verily I say unto you, Until the heaven and the earth pass away, one iota or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law till all come to pass. 19Whosoever then shall do away with one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of the heavens; but whosoever shall practise and teach [them], he shall be called great in the kingdom of the heavens.

Your arguments make no sense, when viewed in the context of history. How you intrepid the Bible is irrelevant if the Bible isn’t the truth. For the Bible to be the truth

you have to trust the Catholic Church. The OSAS crowd wasn’t around when the Bible you now intrepid was created.

As has been shown before Paul(among other writers of the NT) was in the heaven or hell, no purgatory, eternal security for the believer that is saved by grace through faith alone crowd.

See Romans 8, Eph 2:4-9, John 20, etc, etc
Much more has been posted in other forums devoted to OSAS. Most non-OSAS has boiled down to Scripture written to those who had heard the truth, but had not placed their faith in a person(the Lord Jesus Christ). Or that it is arrogant to “presume” that we are seated in heaven already(according to God, who exists outside of time) See Ephesians 2 especially. If you don’t agree with me maybe you could find some Scripture that tells of believers who were “unsealed from the Holy Spirit”, “unborn again”, “removed from being seated in the heavenlies”. Surely those verses must exist somewhere, for OSAS is of course as you claim is new and un-Biblical.

 

[Jimmy_B]

Here are just a few examples which line up Catholic Popes and the Catholic Church’s history with other historical events and the Bible.

Catholic Popes

1. St. Peter (32-67)
2. St. Linus (67-76) Didache: Instructions of the Apostles written 65-105 AD
3. St. Anacletus (Cletus) (76-88)
4. St. Clement I (88-97) Pope Clement I, 4th Pope, (mentioned in Phil 4,3), wrote letter to Corinth in 95 called "1 Clement” 91-101 AD
5. St. Evaristus (97-105) 2,3 John written, by “elder”, disciple of John (son of Zebedee)?, “catholic” 100-105
6. St. Alexander I (105-115) 2 Peter written, by ?, not accepted into canon until early 400s, drew upon Epistle of Jude, “catholic” epistle 100-125
7. St. Sixtus I (115-125) – also called Xystus I
8. St. Telesphorus (125-136) Period of Christianity during which the first Bible was assembled – Christians, 125-350 AD
9. St. Hyginus (136-140) “Christian Apologists” writings against Roman Paganism by: Justin Martyr 130-200 AD
10. St. Pius I (140-155) Letters of Marcion, produces his own canon without OT and using only a heavily edited Luke + 10 Pauline Epistles, cites “Western” Gospel text-type Apocalypse of Peter, written in Greek [NT Apocrypha,Schneemelcher,v.2] 140 AD

 

[Jimmy_B]

unworthysinner:

**
unworthysinner:
The Old Testament Scriptures were complete when Christ was on the earth. The New Testament was finished completely by AD90, distributed completely by the early 2nd century. The Bible was in circulation a good 100-200 years before the regional (not universal) councils rubber stamped the “canon” of Scripture
**

The Bible was not “in circulation” it was kept and used exclusively by the Catholic Church. The Bible wasn’t “in circulation”, available to “the people” until the advent of the printing press, some 1300-1400 hundred years later, and you prove my point in you own below quote:

**
unworthysinner:
Under “full and complete control” as you put it the Bible was restricted from being translated into anything but Latin (which common people couldn’t read).
**

Once again, you have to trust the Catholic Church.

**
**
unworthysinner:
The Roman Catholic Church did not produce a Bible in English until 1582

Your Protestant Bible was translated from a Catholic Bible. It was the Catholic Church who translated the Bible from Hebrew & Greek into Latin and then into English.

-590-604 AD: Pope

St. Gregory I (the Great)

• 600 AD: Codex Harleianus vg(Z): Latin Vulgate Gospels

Once again, you have to trust the Catholic Church.

 

[Jimmy_B]

Church History and Church Fathers

Early Christian Writings

The Didache 50-120

The Epistle of Barnabas 80-120

The First Epistle of (Pope) St. Clement to the Corinthians 80-140

The Epistles of Saint Ignatius of Antioch 105-115

The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians’ 110-140

The Epistle to Diognetus 130-200

The Martyrdom of Polycarp 150-160

Eusebius (B****ishop) of Caesarea,** **Ecclesiastical History 313-339

---

 

[Jimmy_B]

Chronology of Christianity

1536

Tyndale put to death, left his OT translation in manuscript, English ecclesiastical authorities ordered his Bible burned because it was thought to be part of Lutheran reform

1537-1551
Matthew Bible, by John Rogers (1500-1555), based on Tyndale and Coverdale received royal license but not authorized for use in public worship, numerous editions, 1551 edition contained offensive notes (based on Tyndale)

1536-1541
Michelangelo paints the Last Judgment

1539-1552
Richard Taverner’s (1505-1577) revisions of Matthew Bible, mostly NT revisions since he didn’t know Hebrew, 1st edition most reliable

1539-1569
Great Bible, by Thomas Cromwell, 1st English Bible to be authorized for public use in English churches, defective in many places, based on last Tyndale’s NT of 1534-1535, corrected by a Latin version of the Hebrew OT, Latin Bible of Erasmus, and Complutensian Polyglot, last edition

1543
Parliament bans Tyndale’s translation as a “crafty, false and untrue translation”, although 80% of the words were in the RV

 

[Jimmy_B]

Chronology of Christianity

1545-1563

Council of Trent, Catholic Reformation, or counter-reformation, met Protestant challenge, clearly defining an official theology

1546
King Henry VIII forbids anyone to have a copy of Tyndale’s or Coverdale’s NT

1547-1553
Edward VI ruler of England

1549
Book of Common Prayer (Episcopal Church)

1550-1555
Pope Julius III

1550?
St. Thomas More, Cranmer, and Foxe affirm the existence of English versions of portions of the Bible, including the Gospels (11th century), Mark, Luke, Epistles of Paul (14th century), Apocalypse (11th century)

1553-1558
Mary I ruler of England, publications of English Scriptures cease (except for GenevaNT of 1557), many clerics leave England

1553
PontificalGregorianUniversity founded at Vatican City

1555
Pope Marcellus II

1555-1559
Pope Paul IV

1556
Beza’s Latin NT

1558-1603
Elizabeth I ruler of England

1559-1566
Pope Pius IV

1560
Geneva Bible, NT a revision of Matthew’s version of Tyndale with use of Beza’s NT (1556), OT a thorough revision of Great Bible, appointed to be read in Scotland (but not England), at least 140 editions

 

[Jimmy_B]

Chronology of Christianity

1560

Scotch Presbyterian Church founded by John Knox (1505-1572), due to disagreement with Lutherans over sacraments and church government

1563
39 Articles (Episcopal Church)

1566-1572
Pope Pius V

1571
Superior force of Turks intent upon conquering Christian Europe is beaten decisively by Christian sailors reportedly calling upon the name of Our Lady of the Rosary

1572-1585
Pope Gregory XIII

1572-1606
Bishop’s Bible, an inadequate and unsatisfactory revision of the Great Bible checked against the Hebrew text, 1st to be published in England by Episcopal authority

1582
RheimsNT, based on Coverdale, Bishops’, Geneva, follows Wycliffe

1585-1590
Pope Sixtus V

1590-1591
Pope Urban VII

1590
Sistine edition of the Vulgate

1590
Michelangelo’s dome in St Peter’s Basilica completed

 

[unworthysinner]

Jimmy B:

The Bible was not “in circulation” it was kept and used exclusively by the Catholic Church. The Bible wasn’t “in circulation”, available to “the people” until the advent of the printing press, some 1300-1400 hundred years later, and you prove my point in you own below quote:

The Bible was in circulation in the 1st century, many of the NT books were sent to churches(not Catholic) of certain regions, and then circulated by faithful believers. The OT Scriptures were not kept by any Catholic Church for it didn’t exist when the Bereans were searching it(Acts 17), when Christ said “It is written”(Gospels), Ethopian reading Isaiah(Acts as well). You are under a revisionist history mindset.

---

**

Once again, you have to trust the Catholic Church

**.

---

The Catholic church doesn’t agree with the Bible in many points but here are a few:

---

Bible: Peter says all believers are priests(and kings-Rev 1:5)
Church: Only a select few celibate(which wasn’t always the case) priests are priests

---

Bible: Salvation is by grace through faith in Christ Jesus, not of ourselves or works(eph 2:8-9)
Church: Salvation is by infant baptism, mass, last rites, etc.

---

Bible: Christ purged our sins and sat down at the right hand of the Father(Heb 1)
Church: Christ is pulled out of heaven and put before an altar of a roman priest to be unbloodily sacrificed again for sins.

Your Protestant Bible was translated from a Catholic Bible. It was the Catholic Church who translated the Bible from Hebrew & Greek into Latin and then into English.

I don’t think so, the KJV(among other translations I read) is translated from Greek and Hebrew manuscripts from direct copies of the oringinals, not through being translated into Latin, nor by the Catholic church.

**

Once again, you have to trust the Catholic Church

**.

---

Who does the Bible say we are to trust? God, never the church. Your statement is quite revealing of the nature of your relationship with God. The “church” by the way is not an organization but the body of Christ(believers). So should you trust me(part of the church) as well?

 

[Salmon]

unworthysinner:

Bible: Peter says all believers are priests(and kings-Rev 1:5)
Church: Only a select few celibate(which wasn’t always the case) priests are priests

Rev 1:5

5And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,

That passage simply means that the Kingship of Christ is superior to all kingships of men.

Perhaps you mean Rev. 1:6

6 And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

Seek ye the priesthood, also, unworthysinner?

Keep in mind that the Jews were a kingdom of priests, as well, but that not all Jews were included in the ministerial priesthood. The fate of those Jews that claimed the ministerial priesthood are recounted in:
Numbers 16:

1Now Korah, the son of Izhar, the son of Kohath, the son of Levi, and Dathan and Abiram, the sons of Eliab, and On, the son of Peleth, sons of Reuben, took men:

2And they rose up before Moses, with certain of the children of Israel, two hundred and fifty princes of the assembly, famous in the congregation, men of renown:

3And they gathered themselves together against Moses and against Aaron, and said unto them, Ye take too much upon you, seeing all the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the LORD is among them: wherefore then lift ye up yourselves above the congregation of the LORD?

4And when Moses heard it, he fell upon his face

Verse 10:

10And he hath brought thee near to him, and all thy brethren the sons of Levi with thee: and seek ye the priesthood also?

and in conclusion:

30But if the LORD make a new thing, and the earth open her mouth, and swallow them up, with all that appertain unto them, and they go down quick into the pit; then ye shall understand that these men have provoked the LORD.

31And it came to pass, as he had made an end of speaking all these words, that the ground clave asunder that was under them:

32And the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed them up, and their houses, and all the men that appertained unto Korah, and all their goods.

33They, and all that appertained to them, went down alive into the pit, and the earth closed upon them: and they perished from among the congregation.

34And all Israel that were round about them fled at the cry of them: for they said, Lest the earth swallow us up also.

35And there came out a fire from the LORD, and consumed the two hundred and fifty men that offered incense.

You must grasp the significant difference between the priesthood of all believers and the ministerial priesthood. This difference is spelled out in the OT in many places (before and after the golden calf, for example).

Also in:
Numbers 25:

11Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, hath turned my wrath away from the children of Israel, while he was zealous for my sake among them, that I consumed not the children of Israel in my jealousy.

12Wherefore say, Behold, I give unto him my covenant of peace:

13And he shall have it, and his seed after him, even the covenant of an everlasting priesthood; because he was zealous for his God, and made an atonement for the children of Israel.

From this point on, not all Levites were to be part of the ministerial priesthood. Only descendants of Phineas.

All the Jews may have been part of a “royal priesthood”, but not all the Jews were ministerial priests. Could any Jew touch the Ark of the Covenant without repercussions?

Peace in Christ…Salmon

 

[RyanL]

Unworthysinner,

I’m very disappointed with you. You are better than this. If you’re truly coming to spread the light of God, you need to first understand those with whom you’re speaking, and second need to treat us with respect and love. This is not your finest post. To address a few points before continuing:

unworthysinner:
Bible: Peter says all believers are priests(and kings-Rev 1:5)
Church: Only a select few celibate(which wasn’t always the case) priests are priests
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church (or as you might post “Church:”)
1546 Christ, high priest and unique mediator, has made of the Church "a kingdom, priests for his God and Father."20 The whole community of believers is, as such, priestly. The faithful exercise their baptismal priesthood through their participation, each according to his own vocation, in Christ’s mission as priest, prophet, and king. Through the sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation the faithful are "consecrated to be . . . a holy priesthood."21
784 On entering the People of God through faith and Baptism, one receives a share in this people’s unique, *priestly *vocation: "Christ the Lord, high priest taken from among men, has made this new people ‘a kingdom of priests to God, his Father.’ The baptized, by regeneration and the anointing of the Holy Spirit, are *consecrated *to be a spiritual house and a holy priesthood."209
941 Lay people share in Christ’s priesthood: ever more united with him, they exhibit the grace of Baptism and Confirmation in all dimensions of their personal family, social and ecclesial lives, and so fulfill the call to holiness addressed to all the baptized.

unworthysinner:
Bible: Salvation is by grace through faith in Christ Jesus, not of ourselves or works(eph 2:8-9)
Church: Salvation is by infant baptism, mass, last rites, etc.

1811 It is not easy for man, wounded by sin, to maintain moral balance. Christ’s gift of salvation offers us the grace necessary to persevere in the pursuit of the virtues. Everyone should always ask for this grace of light and strength, frequent the sacraments, cooperate with the Holy Spirit, and follow his calls to love what is good and shun evil.
1889 Without the help of grace, men would not know how "to discern the often narrow path between the cowardice which gives in to evil, and the violence which under the illusion of fighting evil only makes it worse."13 This is the path of charity, that is, of the love of God and of neighbor. Charity is the greatest social commandment. It respects others and their rights. It requires the practice of justice, and it alone makes us capable of it. Charity inspires a life of self-giving: "Whoever seeks to gain his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life will preserve it."14

We have a word for people who think they can earn salvation by their own merits - HERETICS!! Look up the Palagian Heresy, and the resulting Ecumenical Council and their decree about works based salvation and grace based salvation. Please quit this silly “Your church says you have to merit salvation by yourself” stuff. It’s silly and childish.

unworthysinner:
Bible: Christ purged our sins and sat down at the right hand of the Father(Heb 1)
Church: Christ is pulled out of heaven and put before an altar of a roman priest to be unbloodily sacrificed again for sins.

This does not deserve a response.

unworthysinner:
**Who does the Bible say we are to trust? God, never the church. **

1 Tim 3:15b: " the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth."

Read the full passage for context, but suffice it to say it sounds like God’s word wants us to trust the Church.

In loving kindness,
RyanL

 

[big_guy144]

BlestOne:

hmmm…let me give you my answer to protestants that try to tell me that Catholics are wrong about this verse. Remember these folks are not taught to think things out for themselves, rather to regurgitate what they have been taught so you have to use their thinking to show them.
In this verse indeed it does “sound” to some as if it is by faith alone that we are saved. But, if we are truly “saved” we will want to live a Christ like life. Christ performed works to show us how to live. He never quit performing “works” Indeed his crucifiction was a work was it not? Did he not save us from our sins by dying for us? So it can be said that unto his death he was showing us the way that we might have salvation. Therefore I say that if we are truly saved, we will perform works of goodness, mercy and selflessnes to imitate the life that Christ taught us to lead. If at some point you do not feel God’s mercy and grace you will not act as Christ did, helping even our most pitiful brethern. So if this were to happen aren’t you turning your back on others? Aren’t you then turning your back on Christ? Because Jesus said that when you do for the least of my brethern so you do unto me. Faith without works is dead…it is no different than saying that you believe but act as if you didn’t. Christ wouldn’t and didn’t do that and neither should you.
I have several Protestant friends that have tried to argue that with me. In fact one that had plans to be a missionary, i.e. very well versed in the bible, was so stunned that he could not argue with me. I don’t try to spout Bible verses because against some I would be way out of my league. OK against most I would be way out of my league. I truly believe that you have to live the Word not just read it.

You are absolutely right, faith without works is dead. That is true 100%. The point Unworthysinner is trying to make is that we are saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ our Lord. Once we are saved, it is our moral obligation to perform good works, otherwise we are liars. "They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate," Titues 1:16.

The question here is not whether or not good works are neccessary, because they are. What is faith without works? Faith is dead without works. That was James’ argument. He is right. But, works is not what brings salvation. It is the blood of Jesus Christ that washes away our sins, and believing in him gives us eternal life.
"And without shedding of blood is no remission," Hebrews 9:22.

And I believe 100% that someone can depart from the faith. Christ tells us to endure unto the end. It is our faith in Him alone that we are accounted worthy to receive eternal life. Works without faith in Christ are done in vain. “For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins…It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God,” Hebrews 10:26,31

We are not only to have faith in Christ, but we are to do good works, leaving aside our former selves (leaving our sinful lives, in other words, repenting). The Bible tells us to “draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water. Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering (for he is faithful that promised and let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works,” Hebrews 10:22-24.

“If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth.” 1 John 1:6.
"He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him." 1 John 2:4

The question here is not whether or not good works are neccessary… but the question is this: Who gives salvation? The Church? Sacraments? Good Works? or Jesus Christ who said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life; no man cometh unto the Father but by me.” John 14:6

"I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance,"Luke 5:32.

 

[RyanL]

big_guy144:

we are saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ our Lord…The question here is not whether or not good works are neccessary, because they are. What is faith without works? Faith is dead without works. That was James’ argument. He is right. But, works is not what brings salvation. It is the blood of Jesus Christ that washes away our sins, and believing in him gives us eternal life. And I believe 100% that someone can depart from the faith. Christ tells us to endure unto the end.

This all sounds VERY Catholic.

big_guy144:

It is our faith in Him alone that we are accounted worthy to receive eternal life.

We now part ways. Sola Fide…not quite.
scripturecatholic.com/justification.html

big_guy144:

Works without faith in Christ are done in vain…We are not only to have faith in Christ, but we are to do good works, leaving aside our former selves (leaving our sinful lives, in other words, repenting).

Surprisingly, still very Catholic.

big_guy144:

The question here is not whether or not good works are neccessary… but the question is this: Who gives salvation? The Church? Sacraments? Good Works? or Jesus Christ

This is a false dichodomy. The Church makes absolutely no claim that ANYTHING it does is in ANY WAY effectual without Jesus Christ. Could it be that Jesus Christ offers us salvation THROUGH the Church and the Sacraments and good works done in His name? The answer, of course, is YES, it COULD BE!! So next time you ask the question, ask:
"Who gives salvation? The Church? The Sacraments? Good Works? Faith alone in Jesus Christ? Or Jesus Christ, working through the Church that He established and guaranteed He would be with until the end of the ages, steadfastly preventing the gates of Hell from prevailing against it, and to which He quite clearly gave the powers of “Binding and Loosing” and the power to forgive sins?"

The answer is a little more clear when you put it that way…

May the peace of the Lord Jesus Christ be always with you,
RyanL

 

[Pax]

Well I must say that I wish that I had not missed all of the fun before unworthysinner got spanked with a suspension.

I noticed that the thread has jumped around to a few new topics. So the old bait and switch worked. This is a typical tactic for those that cannot defend the question at hand (i.e. OSAS) or any other subject when they run out of ammo.

Since this is the case, I will assume that OSAS is now dead and buried as far as this thread is concerned.

I must say that I found unworthysinner’s comments concerning the history of the bible to be at best incomplete. Even though I find little significance in Wyclif’s bible, particularly since it had many errors, unworthysinner seems to think that its timing and place in history against the Church has some significance. Naturally, nothing could be farther from the truth. Protestants have never been told about English scripture translations that predate Wyclif.

Please be aware of the following:

The English Language as we know it today did not emerge as a definite language until the 15th century.

The King James version was first published in 1610. The seven dueterocanonical books were included at the back of the 1610 edition and there was a penalty of one year in prison if a KJV bible was printed without these books.

Reformation began in 1517

Wyclif’s was a pre-Reformation, Old English translation written around 1380.

Aelfric, Catholic Archbishop of Canterbury from 994 to1005, translated 1st seven books and the Book of Job into old English.
Between 721 and 901, various writers (i.e. Bede, Eadfrith, Alcuin, and King Alfred are believed to have translated parts or all of the bible into ‘‘Old English.’’ This is the history of the English translation of the bible, not some fabricated story about Wyclif.

 

[Church_Militant]

Unworthysinner said:

No, the Roman Catholic church began in approx 305AD when a Roman Emperor converted to “Christianity” after winning a battle with the sign of the cross on his warriors shields. Rome was turned from polytheistic to monotheistic society almost overnight. Many of the pagan traditions remain to this day(Christmas on a pagan holiday, confession(first practiced in Babylon), sun worship(ever wondered why the monstrace looked like a sun). This “true Church” that can trace its roots back to Peter and Christ, certainly can’t make up its mind about what the doctrine should be. The latest is a trend is of the “Marian” variety. Before 1950, Catholic shrines devoted to Mary had pieces of bone in them. When the doctrine of the Assumption came about, all those shrines were suddenly without any bone. There are dozens others, you really want me to post them I can, but this one has eye witnesses to it because there are some Catholics honest with themselves about their church living before 1950.

Every last bit of this statement is fiction. If the Catholic Church only came into being in 305AD then they have certainly fooled A&E and many other historical documenmtaries out there that are non-biased. Also…if we went pagan as he alleges then why was it that Emperor Julian the Apostate instituted a persecution of the church only 48 years after Constantine because it wasn’t pagan. The allegations about Marian shrines are false as well as his understanding of what various declarations by the church have meant. SSDD.
See this thread : forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=36068
Pax vobiscum

 

[Pax]

Our Protestant brothers and sisters need to understand what a sacrament is. A sacrament is an oath and an outward sign instituted by Christ to give grace. Protestants should, at the very least, recognize that the sacraments come from Jesus the source of our salvation. Anything and everything that comes from, or by way of, Jesus Christ is part of the New Covenant and is part of God’s plan for us.

Since Jesus said, “Man shall not “live” by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.”[Matt 4:4], it would seem a bit blasphemous to belittle such things as the sacraments. The word “live” when spoken by Jesus has great spiritual significance and ultimately refers to our salvation. Since we are to live by every word that comes from the mouth of God, we should be circumspect in how we discuss matters of serious spiritual import. Surely, baptism and all that scripture says about it, deserves better than the condescending treatment contained in some of the prior posts.

If I am wrong on that, I challenge our non-Catholic brothers and sisters to demonstrate it from scripture.

 

[Pax]

unworthysinner:
The Bible was in circulation in the 1st century, many of the NT books were sent to churches(not Catholic) of certain regions, and then circulated by faithful believers. The OT Scriptures were not kept by any Catholic Church for it didn’t exist when the Bereans were searching it(Acts 17), when Christ said “It is written”(Gospels), Ethopian reading Isaiah(Acts as well). You are under a revisionist history mindset.
…
…
So should you trust me(part of the church) as well?

unworthysinner,

Although you have been suspended, I hope that you will at least peruse the forums and read the following:

You are the one suffering from a revisionist historical mindset.
You are so utterly clueless of historical facts and the truth in general that I am amazed that you even attempt to comment on the topics at hand.

The Catholic Church existed at the time of the events recorded in the book of Acts. Credible secular historians, including those that are not friendly to the Catholic Church, support this historical fact without exception.

You contend, erroneously, that Churches weren’t Catholic in the 1st century. This is utterly laughable nonsense. Try reading Ignatius of Antioch, a Catholic bishop, ordained by the Apostle John. He uses the word “Catholic” to describe the Church. Your appalling ignorance of these things is nearly equaled by the insulting character of your remarks.

You make a comment about the Bereans which is totally nutty. The OT scriptures used most widely at the time were those of the Greek Septuagint translation. It is highly probable that the Bereans used this very same set of OT scriptures. Even Jesus and the apostles used the Greek Septuagint. Most NT quotes where Jesus or the apostles refer to the OT clearly come from the Greek Septuagint. Now to add a little more understanding to your under developed knowledge of the OT scriptures, and the current Protestant and Catholic canons of scripture, I would point out the following: The Catholic OT canon contains seven OT books not found in the Protestant canon. These seven books were, however, contained in the Greek Septuagint.

You also need to spend considerably more time learning about Church Councils. The Canon of scipture was not settled until the late fourth century. There was considerable dispute prior to this as to just what books and documents were in fact scripture. The canon was finally settled by the Councils of Hippo, Carthage, and Rome and accompanied by “The Decree” of Pope Damasus. This Canon was affirmed again at the Council of Florence (1431-1437) and again at the Council of Trent. Now please keep in mind that the Council of Florence was the seventeenth Ecumenical Council of the “Catholic Church,” and that no Council before it ever contradicted the canon of scripture established by the Church in the 4th century. Your statement that the canon was “rubber stamped” by Church Councils is pathetic, bigoted, and ignorant. No books were ever “added” to the canon by the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church established the Canon and is the witness to what is and is not scripture.

Under the leadership of Martin Luther 7 books of the OT were permanently removed from the Protestant canon. If Luther had been able to have his way, he would have also removed the book of James, Jude, Revelation and possibly others.

These are all historical facts that can be easily verified. Luther’s own writings attest to this.

It would be worth your while to do a little more research and revise your own “personal” revisionist version of history. A little knowledge would go a long way.

Should we trust you? Absolutely not. The Church is trustworthy but often its members are not. Your credibility and mine depend on whether or not we are faithful to the constant teaching and witness of the Church. Your contributions on this thread do not withstand that test or any other test of scrutiny whether provided by scripture, history or logic. You have no credibility whatsoever.

 

[Pax]

unworthysinner:
You don’t seem to know your church very well. These are the dates doctrines were affirmed by the Catholic Church. Assumption of Mary(1950), Papal infallibility(1870), baptism changed from immersion to sprinkling(1311), all non-Catholics go to hell(before Vatican II(1965)), Immaculate Conception of Mary(1954), Confirmation(1547), Purgatory dogma(1439), celibacy for priests(1079). And many more…coming soon Mary is part of the trinity.

If a Catholic were to come back to life from 200 years ago they would have no idea of Mary as Co-redeemer, Mediatrix, Queen of Heaven, these are new, very extra-Biblical, and un-Biblical.
Continued…

Unworthysinner,

Your remarks are all nonsense. You might try understanding a few things before you once again drop into the pit of biblical and historical illiteracy. Please note that,using your rules of logic(?), even the doctrine of the Trinity had an infallible Church declaration made rather late in the game. In response to the Arian heresy, which was huge and difficult to stamp out, The First Council of Nicaea in 325 condemned Arius and formulated the Church’s teaching concerning the Trinity in the Nicene Creed.

Now what you need to understand is that the Church usually makes these kinds of doctrinal and dogmatic proclamations in response to heresies and problems. The Church does not contradict a prior teaching. The doctrine of the Trinity was held before the Council of Nicaea, just as the doctrines you criticized were held prior to Papal and Conciliar statements that affirmed them as non-negotiables.

You need to read a lot of history about the doctrines upon which you have disagreement. Your historical knowledge is virtually non-existent and your knowledge of scripture is limited. The Assumption of Mary is found in written data and in the prayers of the faithful as early as the 4th century. Similarly all other teachings are historically found long before Papal and Counciliar declarations were made. In a similar vein scripture was written prior to the Canon being established. In order to quench debate on what truly was scripture, it was the Church Councils and Pope Damasus in the late 4th Century that declared the infallible canon of scripture.

You made a huge faux pas when you said that the Church changed the form of Baptism from immersion to sprinkling. Please read the Didache which is a first century apostolic, but non-inspired, document. This will teach you a few things about baptism that you are not aware of. Also please keep in mind that the Church never eliminated immersion and that the Church teaches that immersion is the fullest sign of the sacrament. There is a lot more on this that I could share with you but time does not allow it.

You obviously do not understand the terminology of such things as co-redemptrix and mediatrix. These terms do not mean what you think they do. Your claim that the Catholic Church is going to make the Blessed Virgin part of the Trinity is an out and out lie. Please provide verifiable proof from reliable Catholic sources to bolster this outrageous remark. I will say this only one time. Your claim is a lie and it will never happen, and you cannot support the attack. Please do your research before making such absurd and blatantly dishonest remarks. Your sources are not Catholic. Your sources are anti-Catholic bigots.

I want to also point out another area where you need some education. You confuse the “discipline” of priestly celibacy with doctrine and dogma. A discipline can change but a doctrine/ dogma cannot change. And please be aware that the discipline of priestly celibacy can easily be defended by scripture. Please do your home work and learn to use common sense and logic before attempting to make up what you believe to be the body of Catholic teaching as you go along.