D
- Status
D
DFWChristian
Guest
Well I see this discussion is quickly going down-hill and there is nothing else to discuss and now pride is getting involved in an active discussion. There’s really nothing more to add. I’m glad for the guys/gals that have grown in their faith because of Catholicism. I know many people who have a false sense of security including my parents because of it. My goal is the learn the Bible and only the Bible, and all of us agree with that goal in mind that Protestantism is the best way for me to reach my goal since the Catholic Church relies upon other man made documents for the faith. I’m going to stick learning only my Bible since it is God’s word.
Sure we have huge differences about Mary, Peter, the Bible being the only authority, the infalliability of the Pope, the Pope’s ability to marry, premillennialism vs amillennialism, purgatory, Mass, works, etc. But I see the faith of many of you are very strong and that’s what is truly important. Yes we have differences, but as I have been saying all along there is only 1 way to heaven as Paul tells us:
Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures- 1 Corinthians 15:1-4.
We need three things to be saved- Christ died according to our sins, was buried and rose three days later. If we believe that in our hearts, we will be saved. I wish you boys the best, but with the tone of some responses, there is nothing left here to discuss so I bid farewell.
Have a blessed day.
Sure we have huge differences about Mary, Peter, the Bible being the only authority, the infalliability of the Pope, the Pope’s ability to marry, premillennialism vs amillennialism, purgatory, Mass, works, etc. But I see the faith of many of you are very strong and that’s what is truly important. Yes we have differences, but as I have been saying all along there is only 1 way to heaven as Paul tells us:
Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures- 1 Corinthians 15:1-4.
We need three things to be saved- Christ died according to our sins, was buried and rose three days later. If we believe that in our hearts, we will be saved. I wish you boys the best, but with the tone of some responses, there is nothing left here to discuss so I bid farewell.
Have a blessed day.
S
SimonDodd
Guest
There are plenty of things to discuss. Several people have posed some pretty good questions for you. They stand unanswered. What I think you mean is that you don’t have answers to those questions, and you’re uncomfortable with that. I think you’re particularly uncomfortable with 1 Tim 3:15, which you appear to have only just discovered (à la Kimberley Hahn, see Rome Sweet Home 53-54 (1993)) is in your bible, too.
And you have to understand that no one here (I believe, at any rate) is trying to show you up, or to beat you down in a debate. We’re showing you questions that are important for you to consider, because their answers have serious consequences for your faith.
Which is appealing rhetoric, but ultimately circular; as you have been shown, learning “only the Bible” depends on what books are in the Bible. You have yet to explain why you don’t accept various books as being part of the Bible, nor why the reformers had the authority to delete them.
It is indeed God’s word, but God has more words to say to you than are in your Bible. Can you really be satisfied with having only part of God’s word? If the answer is no, it is incumbent on you to figure out—not for us, here, today, but for yourself, in your own time, albeit with some urgency—whether you can justify excluding several books from what you count as the Bible.
Y
Yoeman65
Guest
Even if we assume that scripture is the perfectly-received word of God, we must use other resources in order to understand it. And when I say “must,” what I really mean is, we do, inescapably, and it only hurts our understanding to pretend otherwise. We have to know the historical context to know, for example, what Naomi was asking Ruth to do in uncovering Boaz’ feet; scripture doesn’t tell us, so we must turn to man-made resources like history, the footnotes in your study bible, and so on.
I agree 100%. Look at the story of the Ethiopian enuch - He was up in the chariat reading the bible and I believe Paul came up and asked him if he understood. His answer reflects ALL of our answers, if we are honest - “How can I unless someone teaches me?”
If we need someone to teach us our alphabet, how much more do we need guidance for translating a ~2000 year old transcript written in what is basically now a dead language? It all comes down to who we give that authority. Jesus knowing all, knew there would be disagreements on HIS teachings so He left an authoritative leadership that would prevail against the gates of Hell.
Think about this - Is there EVER in ALL of the bible a time when God, Jesus or the Holy Spirit disagree? N E V E R!! When we disagree, even in Godly pursuit, that is not holy. The Trinity is one and God’s church is ONE. Anything less is a perversion of the Truth that is Jesus Christ.
That doesn’t mean WE the Catholic Church should submit to others to avoid conflict. It means that when we separate ourselves from the Papal authority that Jesus established we are separating ourselves from the body of Christ Himself and a branch apart from the vine which Jesus established through Peter cannot survive.
I agree 100%. Look at the story of the Ethiopian enuch - He was up in the chariat reading the bible and I believe Paul came up and asked him if he understood. His answer reflects ALL of our answers, if we are honest - “How can I unless someone teaches me?”
If we need someone to teach us our alphabet, how much more do we need guidance for translating a ~2000 year old transcript written in what is basically now a dead language? It all comes down to who we give that authority. Jesus knowing all, knew there would be disagreements on HIS teachings so He left an authoritative leadership that would prevail against the gates of Hell.
Think about this - Is there EVER in ALL of the bible a time when God, Jesus or the Holy Spirit disagree? N E V E R!! When we disagree, even in Godly pursuit, that is not holy. The Trinity is one and God’s church is ONE. Anything less is a perversion of the Truth that is Jesus Christ.
That doesn’t mean WE the Catholic Church should submit to others to avoid conflict. It means that when we separate ourselves from the Papal authority that Jesus established we are separating ourselves from the body of Christ Himself and a branch apart from the vine which Jesus established through Peter cannot survive.
Y
Yoeman65
Guest
Amen - The CDs are free and I believe they are one of the best defenses for the Catholic stance and show the fallacies of the Protestant religions and their beliefs that the bible alone has athourity or that faith alone is biblical or can save us.
Remember it is Grace, WORKING through FAITH that saves. Grace comes from God through Jesus’ saving act where He bridged the gap between man and God. We must accept this Grace on FAITH and use that FAITH to “work out our salvation with fear and trembling”
God Bless this Forum
S
Snerticus
Guest
Hey everyone, lets all give DFWChristian a break. They are ‘relatively’ new to studying the Bible. If I had come here at that tender age (of learning my faith) and tried to explain what I knew to everyone, I’d get torn apart too. Even as a Catholic. (Wait, I think that DID happen!!! 
) There’s nothing worse to someone who is willing to grow in their faith and learn things than having everyone on all sides pulling apart the fabric of what they believe and feeling like they are left in tatters. I know that’s not what we are trying to do, but I’m sure he feels like that. Too many things to think about and they just got here…
Let DFWC do what they say and study their Bible. As an eager to learn Christian, sometimes throwing a ton of passages and ideas at them can be overwhelming. I’m sure DFWC will come back and re-read what y’all have said and if something pops out as especially interesting, hopefully they’ll look into it more.
At least that’s what I would do after getting inundated with all this info…
DFWC, if you really wan to know what Catholics believe, I’d suggest at some point you get hold of a Catechism of the Catholic church. It’s not just another non-Biblical source. It’s a compendium of what we Catholics believe and it also describes why we believe it as well. It gives Biblical sources as well as early Church documents (many from the Apostolic Fathers) to explain where some beliefs originated and why.
I certainly don’t suggest you get it now, as you are still studying the Bible. However, if you want ammunition to debate us here on the boards, knowing our beliefs from the Catechism will help you greatly in your debates with us. You can also find it online too, if you don’t want to pay money for it.
God Bless and happy studying…
Snert
) There’s nothing worse to someone who is willing to grow in their faith and learn things than having everyone on all sides pulling apart the fabric of what they believe and feeling like they are left in tatters. I know that’s not what we are trying to do, but I’m sure he feels like that. Too many things to think about and they just got here…Let DFWC do what they say and study their Bible. As an eager to learn Christian, sometimes throwing a ton of passages and ideas at them can be overwhelming. I’m sure DFWC will come back and re-read what y’all have said and if something pops out as especially interesting, hopefully they’ll look into it more.
At least that’s what I would do after getting inundated with all this info…
DFWC, if you really wan to know what Catholics believe, I’d suggest at some point you get hold of a Catechism of the Catholic church. It’s not just another non-Biblical source. It’s a compendium of what we Catholics believe and it also describes why we believe it as well. It gives Biblical sources as well as early Church documents (many from the Apostolic Fathers) to explain where some beliefs originated and why.
I certainly don’t suggest you get it now, as you are still studying the Bible. However, if you want ammunition to debate us here on the boards, knowing our beliefs from the Catechism will help you greatly in your debates with us. You can also find it online too, if you don’t want to pay money for it.
God Bless and happy studying…
Snert
C
congabongo
Guest
DFWChristian PLEASE respectfully consider reading the following post:
I was a doubting Catholic for many years, being strongly pulled by non-Catholic friend away from the church. I live for analysis, as that is part of my occupation as an engineer, an I was never completely comfortable with Catholic beliefs, even as a cradle Catholic. I always felt like I needed more ‘evidence’ to continue as a Catholic.
Recently, I stumbled across the fact that many highly educated protestant ministers and theologians, (PHD’s, etc.) once enlightened in true Catholic teachings found there way into the Church, at almost always an extreme cost, i.e., loss of their families and profession occupations, but came into it regardless, because they were convinced by what they researched. Most if not all had ‘studied’ their way into the church as opposed to being ‘converted’ by others’ persuasion.
So…what intrigued me was WHAT exactly convinced them? Turns out it’s the timelime BEFORE the canon was established….the early fathers, the evidence in from what the christian’s writings said about actually exteriencing Peter, Paul in their own lifetime.
So with that said, from whom do you believe the earliest of Christians, following the ascension of Jesus unto his Father’s house, learned of Christ’s teachings? If the surviving disciples were charged to go and witness to the life and teachings of Christ, how was this accomplished? Did this not happen until the writings were compiled (by early Catholic bishops) into the canon of what is now as the bible several hundred years later? In other words was there a void or lull in Christianty until they finally got a bible in hand? And even then, in those time how could ordinary folks even get bibles, since they were hand written and took years to write?
DFWChristian, my brother in Christ, if we put all biblical/non-biblical/church authority arguments aside, one must be able to reconcile the following:
The only means the 11 disciples (Judas needed to be replaced – how was this accomplished? Apostolic succession…another topic) had to authoritatively witness and propagate Christ’s teachings was thru oral teachings.
How do you, as a strong believer in sola scriptura, resolve these facts?
Consider this scenario:
Consider your great, great grand mother for a moment. Suppose you found a photo album of hers with many pictures, depicting various family events. You see people dancing, or maybe what looks like a Thanksgiving celebration. From looking at the pictures, you can interpret what they were doing. But for a moment, suppose how much more informed you would be if she could tell you about why they where wearing/doing what they were doing, what the mood was like, what they felt/ what they always do at these events or were talking about at the time? How much more complete would your understanding of the pictures would be, combined with her knowledge of the experience………
The point is to please keep in mind that none of the above takes away from scripture – it supports its’ roots – and adds to it – without contradiction!
Peace.
C
chagen44
Guest
Back on Point, I just noticed that there is a conference in Florida next month with Alan Keyes, a catholic, as the headliner, but the list of speakers includes Chuck Missler! Could this be the same Missler who so hates the Catholic Church?? Say it ain’t so…
B
bgoins2
Guest
I just wanted to write to thank all of you for this wonderful and thought-provoking discussion. I am a cradle Catholic married to a now devout Baptist, although he didn’t attend church at all when we were first married. I can’t tell you the struggles we have had in our marriage over these issues, especially once we began to have children. I recently questioned my Catholic faith immensely (when my husband began to actually grow in and practice his Baptist faith). We certainly don’t have things all figured out yet, but I believe I am to a point where I don’t question my faith at all any more. Now, I can’t defend my faith nearly as eloquently as many of you, but through much reading (Bible included) and many hours a day in prayer, I am able to disagree with my husband without panicking, knowing that what I believe is TRUE. I am not familiar with Chuck Missler, but I am assuming he is very similiar to Jack Chick. I discovered him through all my studying and researching, and boy was I mess after reading his stuff.
My husband recently told me that he believes God is calling him to be a Baptist preacher, even though he has only just begun reading his Bible. He’s been reading it for about 6 months now. Again, we obviously don’t have things figured out, but both of us have certainly grow exponentially in our faiths.
Again, thank you all (including DFW…I think that is your screen name). I will be praying for you, and I know that there are many, many Baptist men and women who are full of faith and full of love for Our Lord Jesus.
My husband recently told me that he believes God is calling him to be a Baptist preacher, even though he has only just begun reading his Bible. He’s been reading it for about 6 months now. Again, we obviously don’t have things figured out, but both of us have certainly grow exponentially in our faiths.
Again, thank you all (including DFW…I think that is your screen name). I will be praying for you, and I know that there are many, many Baptist men and women who are full of faith and full of love for Our Lord Jesus.
L
LittleSoldier
Guest
I’ve just entered this thread and would like to ask you what you make of the following Scripture passage:
And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen. [John 21:25, KJV]
I used the bible that I think you might use to show that it is written there, just as in the NAB or the Douay-Rheims.
What of this? Why is the bible your only source for knowledge on the Christ? Jesus has given us so much more and that is one reason I am a Catholic and feel very blessed to be one. One limits oneself severely by relying solely on the bible. Surely God has the power to give His message to those belonging to the Church He declared would be safe from the gates of hell!! Apostolic tradition is one of the bases of our knowledge of the Christ, as it should be. To ignore Apostolic tradition is to ignore much of the teachings of Jesus. Surely the bible cannot hold everything we need to know.
L
LittleSoldier
Guest
BTW, I think I should point out that some of the participants in this thread are not boys or gentleman, but women. I do not mean that as a complaint but to let everyone know that females also have thoughts, read the bible, and are Catholics.
C
clmowry
Guest
There are thinking bible reading Catholic women! You are making that up.
“Everyone knows” that Catholics [male or female] don’t read the bible or think for themselves.
Chuck
PS How does one type in a sarcastic tone?
S
Snerticus
Guest
I like to insert the remark in the [sarcasm] and [/sarcasm] tags.There are thinking bible reading Catholic women! You are making that up.
“Everyone knows” that Catholics [male or female] don’t read the bible or think for themselves.
Chuck
PS How does one type in a sarcastic tone?
L
LittleSoldier
Guest
It was obviously sarcastic!!There are thinking bible reading Catholic women! You are making that up.
“Everyone knows” that Catholics [male or female] don’t read the bible or think for themselves.
Chuck
PS How does one type in a sarcastic tone?
Although I suppose there are many men (and some women) who believe it!
Read the bible? You mean actually get a copy of the bible and sit down and look at each page and attempt to comprehend the printed word?
:bigyikes:
G
gehill
Guest
I’m working on a PhD. in Biblical Studies and have heard Dr. Missler state the anti-Christ will be an Assyrian from the Eastern Roman Empire which outlasted the Western leg by over 1,000 years. He has never said that the anti-Christ would be the Pope to my knowledge. As to the Assyrian, which is Biblical by the way.
Here is the history:
In A.D. 284 , Emperor Diocletian restored efficient government to the empire after the near anarchy of the 3rd century. He divided the Empire into two legs (just as Daniel had predicted when he interpreted Nebuchadnezzar’s dream nine centuries earlier).
His reorganization of the fiscal, administrative and military machinery of the empire temporarily shored up the decaying empire in the West and laid the foundation for the forthcoming Byzantine Empire of the East.
In A.D. 312, the Emperor Constantine relocated the capital of the empire to its eastern leg, to Byzantium, naming it Constantinople (the “New Rome”).
After Constantine’s death in 395, Emperor Theodosius divided the empire between his two sons and it was never again reunited.
(It was Theodosius who made Christianity the sole religion of the empire, and subsequently Constantinople assumed preeminence over the West.)
In the late 5th century, the western leg began to disintegrate, but the eastern leg, commonly dubbed the “Byzantine Empire,” endured until 1453 when it finally was overrun by the Muslims.
There are a number of Biblical texts that strongly suggest that the coming world leader, commonly called the Antichrist, will emerge from the region of the eastern leg of the Roman Empire, and that profoundly impacts our prophetic perspectives.
It is provocative that the Prophet Micah refers to this final conqueror as the “Assyrian”:
And this [one] shall be the peace, when the Assyrian shall come into our land: and when he shall tread in our palaces, then shall we raise against him seven shepherds, and eight principal men.And they shall waste the land of Assyria with the sword, and the land of Nimrod in the entrances thereof: thus shall he deliver us from the Assyrian, when he cometh into our land, and when he treadeth within our borders. - Micah 5:5, 6
Isaiah and Ezekiel also employ this very term.
The Assyrian empire preceded the Babylonian empire by several centuries. This empire embraced the region we know today as Syria and Iraq.
The first world dictator was Nimrod (whose name means “we rebel”), who ruled from Babylon. It is interesting that Micah also refers to this “land of Nimrod” in his passage quoted above. Could it be that this final world dictator will be, in some sense, a return of Nimrod?
This may add an additional dimension to the mysteries surrounding the future of Babylon: is it just used as a symbol, or will Babylon literally rise to prominence on the banks of the Euphrates once again?
Isaiah and Jeremiah clearly describe a destruction of Babylon that has never happened-yet. Zechariah seems to hold the key.
So I think with a little research you can see that Dr. Missler in no way advocates the Pope as the anti-Christ. Perhaps some should repent from impunning a brother. God’s blessings, Gary Hill, MA Biblical Studies
F
Farsight001
Guest
Chuck doesn’t appear to have a doctorate of any kind, so he’s just a Mr.
But more importantly, we are not supposed to revive old threads, and the last post before yours was in 2010.
- Status