Catholocism the only true choice

  • Thread starter Thread starter David_Vestal
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Your term “infallible guideance” is catholic I am sure. Yes the Holy Spirit leads us into all understanding but there can be no perfect understanding as we are all still sinners and men. THAT and the fact that God, by His wisdom has also chosen to be couriously quiet about many things. IF YOU ARE IMPLYING that there is no indwelling of the Holy Spirit in believers then again you are quiet mistaken again. It is through the Baptism of the Holy Spirit that believers are one in body of Christ. The mode of the Holy Spirit’s presence before Pentecost is that of “omnipresence” the mode after Pentecost is that of “residency”. In the OT the Holy Spirit was able to leave., Witrness David!. In the NT testement the Holy Spirit for the first time has taken residency in believers on earth. This, the restrainer is what is removed at rapture. Because the Chruch is gone. Taken away.

John 16:12-14 is often quoted by catholics to support the equality of mans written word regarding things to follow. The fact is simple. God, in His sovergienty has chosen to leave out what He left out and to write what He would have written. That is the supremacy of scripture.

You have to add the words “greater context” to your argument or it will fall apart. Lets say I agree with you. He is talking to the Apostles. Yep. BUT it is a word for the church as well. It is congruent with all other verses related to indwelling such as Eph 1: 11 chosen, Eph 1:13 recieving the Holy Spirit as a seal, a guarantee. , Rom 8:16 defended by the Spirit, Gal 4:6 …in our hearts, 1 John3:24 indwelt,
Teaches us: Luke 12:12, John14:26, 1Cor 2:13, 1 John 2:27??? I am giving you just scripture. I encourage you to explore and pray over 1 John 4:6,
Matthew is largly a book written to Israel. The NT books are classified as Historical Matthew to Acts, Episilatory, Romans to Jude and Prophetical Revelation. Further, the gospels as manifestation, Acts as Propagation, the Epistles as explination and Revelation as consumation, With that understanding I say I agree with you in terms of the unique advantages and priviledges awarded the Apostles that are NOT awarded today. Theologically speaking, everything EVERYTHING, changed when the Bible was completed. Men no longer hads to rely on “traditions” you mention of Paul’s words. They had to until that point as there was no NT avalible to them. Furhter there is no recorded evidence as to when if ever these early home churches recieved an eb
tire NT. They had only traditions handed down to them. Everything changed with the ressurectionm of Christ and everything chqanged with the closing of the Bible. Gone were the gifts as given to start the church. Gone were the earthly miracles as a general experience. (I say that because I believe these thing still happen from time to time but are rare)
Your use of Galations is curious. Paul corrected the church for trying to mix law and grace and works and grace. A point the cc should get but has not. Following a diferent doctrine, no matter how well intentioned, will not save you.
When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face! Strong words for someone to accuse a pope of don’t you think.
More Gal 3:3 trying to end with works what they began with the spirit.
You again ask how there can be divisions if everyone was guided by the spirit. Well not everyone is guided by the spirit. If you are stuck in your sin you are out of fellowship with the Father are you not? He does not leave you but cannot communicate with you. Those who are living within the will of the Lord will have aggreement. I have seen this time and time again. Without that there can be no agreement.
I long for the day for 1 Cor 1:10 nto happen. but we are a fallen people with our sin natures still around. The new creation that we are is not fully realized. I pray that I continue to grow in maturity as a Christian and find myself able to be given more and more buy the Holy Spirit.
Now I am not ignoring scriptures and I do want to not make things personal in attacks so If you feel I have done that I apologize to you
 
backfrmthebrink said:
For someone who claims to only recieve interpretation from the church. You must be busy with communication with bishops each and every minute to have such numerous opinions on so many scripture verses. Are you sure you understood so many things correctly from your church bishops? I hope you can see how crazy that thought is. As I am sure you recieved very little if any of this from your bishop. I will address your issues in another post for size reasons
Click to expand...
Please, simply answer the questions in my post, and the following:
  1. where is it written that every single passage must be passed through a bishop to ensure proper understanding?
  2. I posted scriptures that support the Catholic view of authority and the importance of holding proper doctrine, as well as refuted your assertion that you’re infallibly guided by the Holy Spirit into proper understanding, or I believe you said, “enlightened.” Why have you chosen to ignore them, all the while asserting that your scriptures (of which you have posted comparatively few) soundly defeat Catholicism?
  3. We do not receive revelation (or interpretation) only from the Church. We receive it through 3 sources - the Church, Sacred Scripture (the Bible) and Sacred Tradition.
This is an interesting attempt on your part to avoid addressing the issues raised by the scriptures I posted, and I’m a bit flabbergasted. I’ve stuck with scripture to ensure we’d have a bit of common ground (and in so doing, I have limited myself to only 1/3 of my sources of authority, while you’re not limited at all). And it’s darned if I do, darned if I don’t… if I post scripture, you say, “gee, you must be communicating with bishops a lot to have all your proper interpretations lined up.” If I post writings of the Early Church Fathers or other historical Church documents, you say things like, “gee, what’s your problem with the Bible? Cantcha face up to what it says, buddy?”

That’s hardly a way to engage in a search for the truth.

My fellow Catholics and I have been preached to, lectured, condemned to hell, called heretics, idolaters, pagans and worse for far longer than you’ve been alive. And yet, people like you continue to come back with the same tired, worn-out arguments (likely having their roots in the atrocious writings of Loraine Boettner), thinking… well, I don’t know what you’re thinking. If you’re thinking that you’re gonna win us all back from the brink of so-called pagan idolatry with your stunning scriptural refutations of our most holy faith, I’m afraid you’re sadly mistaken - and woefully unconvincing in your attempts 🤷
 
there is a difference between revelation and interpretation. You all say you believe only the interpretation of the Bishops for scripture that it is ofd no private interpretation yet now you are telling me that you can interpret scripture without this magical authority.
I am sure it gets old being attacked and I wish that were not the case. Frankly I am ready for Christ to take his church now if you know what I mean. BUT what if this same old thing you are hearing is the same old truth? What of your soul and all those who have tried to witness to you?
BTW I have been attacked here plenty ofr times already. It can be a bit dog eat dog.
I was under the impression that I supported my statements with scripture significantly. What else do you want. If it were a debate I would have answered and clarified all of your assertions. I have given you at least 10 or 15 different verses to explore as well as the theology surrounding them. What more can I do when you don’t see them?
I don’t mean to be frustrating you but really reread it
 
backfrmthebrink said:
Is that a serious question. It was the moment he accepted Christ as his savior. Was that when the scales fell off. I would think so because the text seems to indicate that. But therre would be a degree of speculation on anyones part to say otherwise would it not?
Click to expand...
Actually it was a very serious question. Catholics would suggest that he was “saved” when he was baptized.

However the brilliant apostle understood that he was not once saved always saved. He believed, and he taught, that we must continue in the process, and work out our salvation in fear and trembling.

Further, he believed, and taught that others could pray that he not fall away… lose his salvation.

As for the various churches of the day… the were most assuredly extension of the one church. As St Paul traveled (we see in ACTS), he recognized those “churches” which had a bishop in union with the Church… and those that had no shepherd yet. You can see the way he approached both, with deferenc to the local bishop.

Even in those early days, a heirarchy existed to safeguard the oral (and eventual written) Truths of the Catholic Church.

thus, I would say, his actual and un-loseable salvation came upon his entry into the Beatific Vision, in heaven. Until our last breath, we (and St Paul) all have a free will to deny Christ… and a free will and available graces to accept and love Him.

Catholicism is a both/and, not an either/or grace from Jesus.

God and Man
Virgin and Mother
Faith and Works
Oral and written

etc etc

.
 
backfrmthebrink said:
there is a difference between revelation and interpretation. You all say you believe only the interpretation of the Bishops for scripture that it is ofd no private interpretation yet now you are telling me that you can interpret scripture without this magical authority.
I am sure it gets old being attacked and I wish that were not the case. Frankly I am ready for Christ to take his church now if you know what I mean. BUT what if this same old thing you are hearing is the same old truth? What of your soul and all those who have tried to witness to you?
BTW I have been attacked here plenty ofr times already. It can be a bit dog eat dog.
I was under the impression that I supported my statements with scripture significantly. What else do you want. If it were a debate I would have answered and clarified all of your assertions. I have given you at least 10 or 15 different verses to explore as well as the theology surrounding them. What more can I do when you don’t see them?
I don’t mean to be frustrating you but really reread it
Click to expand...
That is the difficult situation we face. You and many others have come to CAF with scripture statements which appear to support their understanding of a particular facet of theology.

Unfortunately many of them at so at odds with their own results on the same topic.

That is where the Catholic Church rises to the top. All doctrines have remained the same from day one (or year 33 if you wish). Those who reject (heretics, uninformed, ignorant, or rebellious), could still be members of the Body of Christ in the church (body of believers?), but they are separated brethren.

Much like the prodigal son, they grabbed their inheiritance (merited by baptism of water and the Spirit), and choose to squander it… but the Father will still run to meet and welcome you back.
 
backfrmthebrink said:
there is a difference between revelation and interpretation. You all say you believe only the interpretation of the Bishops for scripture that it is ofd no private interpretation yet now you are telling me that you can interpret scripture without this magical authority.
I am sure it gets old being attacked and I wish that were not the case. Frankly I am ready for Christ to take his church now if you know what I mean. BUT what if this same old thing you are hearing is the same old truth? What of your soul and all those who have tried to witness to you?
BTW I have been attacked here plenty ofr times already. It can be a bit dog eat dog.
I was under the impression that I supported my statements with scripture significantly. What else do you want. If it were a debate I would have answered and clarified all of your assertions. I have given you at least 10 or 15 different verses to explore as well as the theology surrounding them. What more can I do when you don’t see them?
I don’t mean to be frustrating you but really reread it
Click to expand...
You’re “new” here, Brink so I don’t want to be reaching into the ‘gear-bag’ for the baseball bat yet. You have to understand that your views have been bandied about for a ‘lifetime’ in here.

Perhaps you might be better served to ‘read around’ first on your various issues or points for they have been addressed repeatedly, year after year, from what I’ve seen.

For your above post, for instance, Catholics are free to ‘interpret’ Scriptures EXACTLY AS YOU DO. Sometimes, we feel our interpretations are a revelation of the Holy Spirit to us also.

The difference between us is that, we have a place to MEASURE our private interpretations against. That is, The Church’s interpretation, whereas you do not have that luxury!

You can quite freely walk around with a “I know something you don’t” smirk on your face and be content.

We, on the other hand, have to check what The Church holds about any passage of Scripture because we understand that we are not infallible! Otherwise, there will be 1billion different versions which are all infallibly correct!!??!!

When we find The Church’s version differs to ours, we study some more because since Christ established The Church and Promised IT guidance, The Church IS correct, and we need to research our interpretations. We do not run off and start our own version of ‘church’ just so our private interpretations can be accepted.

If I asked you where do you go to check your version, you will most likely say, The Bible! That’s fine, but which version of The Bible? You might even say, your denomination has the truth, but which denomination? Why that one and not the others?

BOTH can be verified! Trace the denomination to where or WHO started it. Trace every version of Scriptures the same way.

**There is ONLY ONE CHURCH that can trace itself AND The Bible to its Source! **

It ain’t yours.

Happy researching…

:cool:
 
**Quote:
Originally Posted by backfrmthebrink
wisdom seeker live up to your name for once. who are “you people” The catholic church did not exist back then. The word catholic was widely used and not as an institution. It would be like me deciding to say that Benjamin Franklin was the first amway salesman because he peddled his inventions throughout town and then claim amway is the oldest company in retail eye glasses ever. Its trickery. There is the word catholic a term and there is the catholic church. two different things. **

:confused: :confused: :confused:
 
backfrmthebrink said:
there is a difference between revelation and interpretation. You all say you believe only the interpretation of the Bishops for scripture that it is ofd no private interpretation yet now you are telling me that you can interpret scripture without this magical authority.
I am sure it gets old being attacked and I wish that were not the case. Frankly I am ready for Christ to take his church now if you know what I mean. BUT what if this same old thing you are hearing is the same old truth? What of your soul and all those who have tried to witness to you?
BTW I have been attacked here plenty ofr times already. It can be a bit dog eat dog.
I was under the impression that I supported my statements with scripture significantly. What else do you want. If it were a debate I would have answered and clarified all of your assertions. I have given you at least 10 or 15 different verses to explore as well as the theology surrounding them. What more can I do when you don’t see them?
I don’t mean to be frustrating you but really reread it
Click to expand...
Just one question. How old is your theology?

:bowdown: :bowdown2:
 
kansasdad:
sorry I missed that post but read it now. Sorry though I 1) do not put creedence in writings that contradict the Word of God.

*“There is one God and one Christ, and one Church, and one chair founded on Peter by the word of the Lord. It is not possible to set up another altar or for there to be another priesthood besides that one altar and that one priesthood. Whoever has gathered elsewhere is scattering” (Letters 43[40]:5 [A.D. 253]). *

There is no more alter. That is part of the message to the Hebrews. It is basically saying what are they going to do as there is no more alter, no place for them to bring their sin for repentence other than Christ Jesus. He is the final everything. In fact there in lies many problems for the catholic faith. Christ died once and for all. No more is sin the issue for death as it has been delt with but rejection of Christ is the issue. Not rejection of the cathoilic church, CHRIST. I cannot put any even partial emphasis on other writings to support cath when they go against scripture’s very words. That is a cath ploy.
Man is fallible, even the pope. He is not Christs vicar and Christ is not brought down time and again to be consumed in your communion. THAT is not scriptural. Man being fallible cannot record history correctly from day to day much less over a time of 1600 years. The Bible has been the only document to do that and that is because it is a superhuman act of our God.
 
estesbob said:
backfrmthebrink;3913481:
ChurchMilitant:
Looks ot me like you are getting very close to accepting pre-destination here. But then that is another Proetstant innovation(well for those elect Proestatnts where the Spirit has whispered it into their ears that is.

You have yet to explain to anyone how it is if the Sprit leads us to the Truth there are so many different protestant denominations. Unless you are imlying pre-destination and the Spirit leads only a select few to the truth.

The above is a perfect eaxmaple of the inherent flaw of Sola Scriptura. You have created a theology out of you personal interpretation of one random verse of Scripture. To accpet your view we have to ignore the reat of Scripture and the beliefs and teachings of all who went before us for the first 1,500 years of Chritianity.

In spite of you attempts to paint this as the rest of Christianity against the catholics Sola Fideli and OSAS are not even accpeted by a large number of Protestants-the reason being that it is not suporrted by Scripture or are they Doctrines that was even hinted at by ayone prior to 500 or so years ago…
Click to expand...
OSAS is perhaps the most discussed issue scripturally. I do see that there are those who think differently but that does not change the fact that of all the verses related to our salvation the bulk of the text is clear without ddebate or exception. The other very few verses and by that perhaps 3 or 4 are unclear to those who do not know how to study doctrinal scripture, How anyone can discard the clarity of the bulk of the verses. Verses, that are inarguable, and hang a hat on James 2 for example as the reason you can lose your salvation is a mystery to me. One that by far boggles me more than anything I have studied in the Word.
Click to expand...
 
backfrmthebrink said:
roughly 4000 years how old is yours?
Click to expand...
You said it. now, back up. prove it.

How old is mine? let me see. since the Creation time. when God decided to create all things. then, He began to chose man to give His message to the people. Then, Jesus the Son of God came and also chose people to continue His message throughtout the ages until He comes again in Glory to judge the living and the dead. Jesus even build a Church through His chosen ones to keep and safeguard His message so we all can learn from generation to generation through his Church which has been here since the times of the apostles. the CC the Pillar and Ballwark of the Truth, according to St Paul. only one Church can claim that and no other because she is protected by the Lord Himself because it is His Church. that is why there is Oral Tradition.

make no mistake my friend, Jesus is the One given Authority not the Bible.
 
wisdomseeker said:
You said it. now, back up. prove it.

How old is mine? let me see. since the Creation time. when God decided to create all things. then, He began to chose man to give His message to the people. Then, Jesus the Son of God came and also chose people to continue His message throughtout the ages until He comes again in Glory to judge the living and the dead. Jesus even build a Church through His chosen ones to keep and safeguard His message so we all can learn from generation to generation through his Church which has been here since the times of the apostles. the CC the Pillar and Ballwark of the Truth, according to St Paul. only one Church can claim that and no other because she is protected by the Lord Himself because it is His Church.

make no mistake my friend, Jesus is the One given Authority not the Bible.
Click to expand...
:eek: why do you do that. Paul never stated that for the cc.
The Church didn’t exist until after the ressurection and then it is a spiritual church of a body of believers not an institution
Other than those erroneous parts I like your answer;)
 
I just started here on Mon or Tue how I have 90 posts is beyond me. I think I talk too much. Be nice:shrug:
 
backfrmthebrink said:
:eek: why do you do that. Paul never stated that for the cc.
The Church didn’t exist until after the ressurection and then it is a spiritual church of a body of believers not an institution
Other than those erroneous parts I like your answer;)
Click to expand...
you still didnt show prove of your theology. let me guess there is no prove. right?
 
So, backfromthebrink…

have you had a chance to search any of the many other threads on this topic, or on OSAS etc?

You will find two things…

1- many of the same old “arguments” are presented. They have been answered, from Scripture, for the last 1600+years since the Catholic Church gave the Canon to the world.

2- there is some consistency in the use/abuse of certain verses. But the fact remains, no two verses of Scripture, when properly interpreted, will ever contradict each other… never.

So while you may have some self-confidence in what you think some or many verses mean to you, and you have some admission that there are a “few” other verses that say something else…

please remember that the Holy Spirit will not lead one into error by confusing the Scriptures.

At least one of your interpretations must be wrong. But that does not make you unique.

Without all three witnesses to the Truth, you will find yourself being intellectually boxed into a corner. Perhaps not as severe at Calvin, but boxed in nonetheless.

The three witnesses… Tradition, Scripture, and the Magisterium or Teaching Authority that all come from God and are all protected by the Holy Spirit.

That fullness of the faith is NOT found outside the Catholic Church… not the body of believers church… and not the light under a bushel… but the visible, living and growing Church described in ACTS with Priests, Deacons, and Bishops.

I hope you have many more than 90 posts if they are productive for you, and lead you to the Truth.

.
 
As always I offer proof as anyone else who is a non-cath does on this site and you cannot accept it. My proof is in the Word of God.
Yours is in the cath church and their writings.
Mine is in the finished work of the cross
Yours is in the decisions of the pope and your works
Mine is a salvation by grace for I am not worthy
Yours is in the ability of Mary to appeal for you
Mine is in the direct relationship with my Father and my ability to bring my sins to Him
Yours is in a priest and the amount of pennence you have to do
Mine is by being indwelt and sealed in the Holy Spirit
Yours is by rituals of infant baptism, confirmation mass and the eucharist
You have an alter
My alter is Christ
As I said my proof is in the Word of God. Thanks be to Him because if it was in me I would blow it for sure.
 
backfrmthebrink said:
:eek: why do you do that. Paul never stated that for the cc.
The Church didn’t exist until after the ressurection and then it is a spiritual church of a body of believers not an institution
Other than those erroneous parts I like your answer;)
Click to expand...
St Paul did not have to state that. why? because the Church wasnt fully formed yet. read the history of the Church so you can have a better understand how things developed.

God did not become visible to build an invisible Church. that is your excuse because your lack of understanding of the Word of God. you make no sense when you say that. if the Church is invisible why do you bother going to your gathering to hear a man preach to you? where did you get the idea of going to church if the church is invisible? you could just stay home and imagine your invisible church.

👍
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top