Debating with protestants who just won't listen

[guanophore]

Simply believes?.. Simply believes in Jesus as the Christ. If this is the case, then they, according to Jesus himself have eternal life.

You have to admit, there are people that believe, once they have said the “sinner;s prayer” they are saved forever, and it does not matter how they behave. For Catholics, saving faith is faith that works - it is the obedience of faith.

Heretic or Schismatic is nothing more than crazy making.

I am glad we can agree about something!

I said that those words don’t curry any favours.

No, and they are not properly applied to most modern protestants. People who use such language are usually acting in contradiction to the Church’s teaching.

The bible is the inspired word of God. This is why we rely on it and trust it. Any other source must be scrutinized with suspicion simply because it does not have the inspiration of the holy Spirit as it’s authority. Why is that so unreasonable?

I would not call it “unreasonable”, just underinformed. Jesus breathed upon the Apostles, and gave Him HIs Spirit with a promise to lead them into “all Truth”. He created the Church to be the pillar and bulwark of the Truth. These promises were not revoked when some parts of the Gospel were committed to writing. We still have the apostolic command to preserve the Sacred Traditions as they were passed down to us.

Traditions, customs, or simple opinions may all fall short if not tested. Upon the mouth of two or three witnesses let every word be established.

You don’t seem to recognize that there is a difference between Sacred Tradttion and human tradition (customs). As far as the witnesses, it seems that you have rejected the early witnesses to the faith of the Apostles, ,and replaced it with human traditions emanating from the Reformation.

 

[tgGodsway]

is curious why someone who so strongly embraces anti-Catholic beliefs would WANT to identify themselves as Catholic!

Your beliefs have nothing to do with being universal in my view. Catholic is not the problem here, false doctrine is. I do not wish to become Catholic, I am Catholic. But so what! More than that, I am a follower of Jesus who is the Christ. I stand with millions who do the same.

 

[tgGodsway]

You don’t seem to recognize that there is a difference between Sacred Tradttion

Sacred tradition is a concept found nowhere in sacred scripture. It does not exist as sacred. Tradition itself is treated with care because of human involvement. Jesus gave warnings to it.

 

[guanophore]

Paul told us to submit to one another as equal individuals with a collective community purpose.

Yes, but that does not negate that authority is also present in the community. He taught Timothy and Titus to exercise “all authority” in their role as bishops and to suffer no divisions. Ultimately, the lack of unity in the Church always gets back to authority.

We say we are saved by faith AND works. But Protestants insist on twisting our words.

Do you understand the conjunction, “and”?

I think it is unnecessarily confusing for Protestants. The theological gap is better addressed by characterizing it as “faith, working through love” and “faith that works” (saving faith is a faith that produces good works). Otherwise, it sounds too much like Pelagianism to them.

We don’t see the terminology, “free” gift, in Scripture.

"For ye are saved by grace, through faith; and this not of yourselves; it is God’s gift: 9not on the principle of works, that no one might boast " Eph. 2

Many bibles have the word “free” preceeding “gift” in this passage.

You are right about this. It is a salvation of faith plus works…

I don’t suppose you could be pursuaded by any official Catholic documents?

But you see the Church as an entity of organization. I see the Church as living souls out in the public all over the world. There are Evangelicals all over the world shedding the light of Christ. I’m sure there are some in non-Christian countries as well. The Church for us is as Peter saw it, made up of “living stone built up to a spiritual house …” 1Pet.2:5.

For us, it is both. The Apostles taught that the Church is visible in the world, that it has organization and hierarchy. There is also an invisble Church the members of which may not be visible to all. We find the modern evangelical defintion of “Church” being “the believers all over the world” to be deficient. It lacks all the signs the Apostles taught us to recognize the true Church.

Ask @TgGodsway. I’m pretty sure he’ll be happy to explain to you that it is sinful to try to keep the Commandments.

really?!

WHAT… ?? That isn’t right.

He is more likely to say that we can strive to do so, but that is not possible.

 

[guanophore]

I would love to add to Jesus’ work. I am a worker at heart raised with a good work ethic. But what is not stated here is WHY should I work? for what purpose? What do I hope to accomplish by working?

For ye are saved by grace, through faith; and this not of yourselves; it is God’s gift: 9not on the principle of works, that no one might boast. 10For we are his workmanship, having been created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God has before prepared that we should walk in them. Eph 2

Does it not fulfill the purpose for which you have been created? You are not saved by doing them, you are saved FOR doing them! Saving faith is faith that works!

 

[guanophore]

Sanctification, (contrary to the CC) comes after justification.

Were you under some misapprehension that the CC taught differently? How do you define “justification”?

I refuse to read into the passage an idea that is not actually there.

On the contrary, tgG, you do this consistently. You read and interpret the Scriptures through your theological perspective.

Just for the record, I do agree with you that the meaning of words used can be understood from their context. However, I think your construct around Eph. 6 is quite a stretch. I think we would agree that Paul is using the metaphors of Roman body armor and weapons to talk about spiritual truths. Since he was on house arrest, he may have been looking at a fully equipped soldier when he wrote that passage. So what is the function of a helmet? Does it not protect the head? How does protecting ones’ head give hope for salvation?

I would say that this reference to salvation is both temporal, and eternal. In this life, if our minds are not protected then our very thoughts can lead us astray from the Gospel. Scripture gives us much instruction on how to guard and focus our thoughts.

Since Catholics are not OSAS, we would also see the helmet of salvation as armor to help protect and preserve us throughout this lifetime until we attain our heavenly reward.

The nation of Israel had not had the voice of God since Malachi.

This is a common anti-Catholic statement that reflects a rejection of the deuterocanonicals.

By forcing the metaphor to mean an eternal pathway without the actual word on the page, we have actually “read-into” the passage an idea not actually in the passage. We have manipulated the author’s intent.

This is a good example of how Catholics read and understand scripture differently. Catholics read throgh the lens of the Apostolic faith. This perspective is that of those who wrote the words. You "read into’ the passage your reformation theology. We are both using the same method, we just have different lenses.

Since the gospel of Matthew really offers no call to eternal life contained,

What can you possibly mean by such a statement??!

we can safely find another solution. Could the narrow gate and difficult way be about DISCIPLESHIP? …

For Catholics, there is no separation between discipleship and eternal life. They are two parts of the same thread.

it is a difficult pathway leading to LIFE

But since you don’t find the word “eternal” inserted there, discipleship is for this life only? Honesly, I do not know how you can possibly live in your own head!

“If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.” 1 Cor 15:19

 

[guanophore]

There is nothing that can reverse the birth and adoption.

Yes, I agree. Scripture is clear that, once a person has been transformed in these ways, if they choose to abadon their birthright, their last state is worse than the first.

The particulars in this passage do not address the loss of salvation

What do you believe the particulars are addressing?

why repentance and not eternal life?..

Do you imagine that one can obtain eternal life without repentance?

What does any of this have to do with the fact that I’ve been born into the family of God and His spiritual DNA runs through my spiritual veins.

Believers can deny the faith they espoused and fall from grace. Adopted persons can spurn the blood that bought them.

Okay, so that if I were to go back to let’s say, the 1st century apostolic writings I will see this word?

Yes. It first appears in Acts 9:44, and by the time Ignatius writes at the turn of the century, it was in common usage, as reflected in his epistle.

Ignatius was no authority at the level of the apostolic circle.

It is important for you to deny that the Bishops, successors to the Apostles, had their authority because such an admission would destroy the anti-Catholic doctrine on Church structure to which you cling. But let us sit this aside.

Even if the epistle were not written by a successor of the Apostles, it cannot be denied that the modifier “catholic” was commonly used to describe the Church founded by Christ.

But let me remind you of the sins of the 4th. century when the Church at Rome strong-armed the rest of the world by forcing submission to their rule.

Can you give an example of this? Perhaps the ratification of the New Testament canon? or is there some other? I am curious to know who this rule was 'forced" upon anyone.

I’m not sure what your word study was all about, it proved absolutely nothing.

In proves that the word Catholic was used from the first century to describe the Church founded by Christ.

 

[JamalChristophr]

Your title is kind of funny. Why would you want to debate with a person who is not listening? Seems like a donkey might be more amenable to coming over your side.

I think Patrick Madrid always said pray first, then decide whether to speak or not.

 

[guanophore]

The word Church means “called out” ones… People called out into the public with their faith. This is the way the 1st. Century Church understood it, and the way I believe it today.

For the Apostles, it meant called out of the world, to live as pilgrims and strangers on the earth as we travel to our heavenly home.

Actually he gave a potential example and not a real situation.

You have just contradicted yourself. You stated it referred to converted Jews who went back to temple rituals to avoid persecution. Now you are saying it is not a reference to what you described?

But nowhere can I find the concept that these people ceased to be God’s people or that eternal life was relinquished in any way…

There are none so blind as those who do not wish to see.

Those who fall away do not cease to be God’s people. They are His people who have chosen to separate themselves from His plan for them (eternal life).

Your beliefs have nothing to do with being universal in my view. Catholic is not the problem here, false doctrine is. I do not wish to become Catholic, I am Catholic. But so what! More than that, I am a follower of Jesus who is the Christ. I stand with millions who do the same.

Apparently my question provoked a lot of defensive hostility. I am curious why someone with such passionate anti-Catholic hostility would come to a Catholic Answers forum.

Sacred tradition is a concept found nowhere in sacred scripture. It does not exist as sacred. Tradition itself is treated with care because of human involvement. Jesus gave warnings to it.

The fact that you refuse to acknowledge it does not make it disappear from the text, tgG. And your attitude of descrating it does not make it lose it’s sacredness for the rest of us who have received it.

Yes, human traditions must always be treated with care, and we must heed warnings about it. Just as we must heed the commandments to preserve the sacred tradition.

 

[JamalChristophr]

I think it is referred to as “sacred” by the Church is because of what Saint Paul said when he emphasized in his letter of “holding fast to the traditions” that you were taught. Holding fast would mean they are pretty critical, and that would make them integral to the Church’s identity. I think that is why they came to be called “sacred”.

---

So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.

2 Thessalonians 2:15

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

I’ve given you scripture AND Early Church writings from apostolic times properly referenced.You can’t dodge that,

I’ve not only not dodged it, I am running toward it…

You’re dodging.

tgGodsway:

Ignatius was NOT of the rank of the Apostles under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Therefore any opinion of his must come under the scrutiny of the Apostolic teaching.

What part of what Ignatius taught are you not seeing in the scriptures I quoted? Ignatius didn’t invent anything.
It’s all in scripture. He learned at the feet of St John the apostle.

tgGodsway:

Now we are back to my point. The concept of a Catholic Church ruling from Rome, as it is today, was never in the thinking of the apostolic circle, and without any merit scripturally. His opinion or words about being Catholic is not inspired by God’s word.

Again, your opinion backed up with your opinion.

Peter is the head of the Church. Peter’s see was Rome. We’ve been over this before. I included your posts to me as well.

1. Matthew 16:18 controversy - #242 by steve-b
2. Matthew 16:18 controversy - #243 by tgGodsway
3. Matthew 16:18 controversy - #253 by steve-b
4. Matthew 16:18 controversy - #257 by steve-b
5. Matthew 16:18 controversy - #264 by steve-b
6. Matthew 16:18 controversy - #284 by steve-b

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Re: the Protestant revolt back in the 16th century, that action alone by Protestants is condemned in scripture as are those who did it and do it, and continue to keep it going.

Really… remember Steven ( In Acts ) who stood up for speaking the word of God in front of an organized, legitimized, established religious rule. He was stoned to death for his boldness to speak. Remember Paul who was rebuked by the established religious rule because they couldn’t see it the way he saw it. I could go on.

You’re talking about Saul, who would ultimately convert to the true faith by Jesus intervention, and who became Paul.

tgGodsway:

Luther saw that the just shall live by faith… and his eyes were open to the fact that he was ALREADY JUSTIFIED, he didn’t have to earn it… This truth was not accepted by the established religious church of his day… if they could they would have killed him too.

Luther was wrong, and he was excommunicated as a heretic. As far as I know, unless someone knows differently, he died in his own bed, a heretic.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Paul’s letter to the Church of Rome, the same Church that is here today, with Pope Francis at the helm

Not hardly steve-b … The Church at Rome in Paul’s day was not a Church who demanded the world to submit to it’s authority. That Church kept it’s authority local, the way God intended it and Paul approved it in its time.

Again, your uninformed opinion supported by your uninformed opinion.

Peter’s see is Rome.

1. Ignatius, a disciple of John the apostle, among the 6 letters he writes to the Church in 6 locations, his letter to the Church of Rome, he writes, this Church holds the presidency. No other Church did he say that. That’s because the Church of Rome is the chair of Peter
2. Irenaeus, Bishop of Smyrna, one man away from the apostle John, writes, "All must agree with this Church (the Church of Rome) on account of it’s preeminent authority. [Bk 3, Chapter 3, v 1-3] http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm and he gives the succession of the bishops of Rome from Peter, and he explains why where and why the Church of Rome has this authority.

2 saints, writing in their day.

BTW, do you even know where you Got the bible?

tgGodsway:

But, again, in the 4th. century Rome got top-heavy with pride and power. They demanded and forced the Churches around the world to submit to them. These are not the signs of God’s way of doing things. Luther finally figured it out. The Church is so much grander than Rome.

Stop with you uninformed opinions backed up by your uninformed opinions. You apparently think you are your own unimpeachable source

BTW, Luther admitted he knew where he got the bible. It was the Catholic Church

"We concede–as we must–that so much of what they [the Catholic Church] is true: that the papacy has God’s word and the office of the apostles, and that we have received Holy Scriptures, Baptism, the Sacrament, and the pulpit from them. What would we know of these if it were not for them?” (Sermon on the Gospel of John, chaps. 14-16 (1537), in vol. 24 of Luther’s Works, [St. Louis, Mo.: Concordia, 1961], p. 304).”

He condemned himself with those words

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Then I showed you Gal 5 which you also didn’t open. Those who divide and remain divided from the only Church the apostles are building, won’t be going to heaven. Not my words they are from Paul.

Words taken out of context again, steve-b… I know exactly what Galatians 5 has to say and agree with it totally.

Then you know you’re in trouble.

tgGodsway:

When you force others to unite with you under the penalty of hell and then turn around and say, “see, you are rebelling against God’s church! …” it is more than manipulation, it is a high sin that grieves the heart of God and needs repentance and mercy. I hope you will consider that.

Who wrote Galatians? Me? Who wrote those warnings and consequences? Me?

I’ll just say this tg. Fear of God (the Lord) is the beginning of wisdom. ( that’s a quote from scripture) . Those who don’t fear the warnings and consequences for disobedience to commands in scripture, are fools. Not my words it’s from scripture. Note: In my posts I quote my sources copiously. You don’t have a problem with me, you have a problem with my sources.

 

[guanophore]

I think that is why they came to be called “sacred”

I don’t disagree with your statement, but there is a higher reason. Sacred Tradition is revelation from God, and is divine because of the Source. It is preserved in the practices (liturgy, prayers, rituals, and apostolic perspective) handed down from the Apostles. It is part of the once for all deposit of faith that the Holy Spirit infallibly guards in the Church.

Ignatius was NOT of the rank of the Apostles under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Therefore any opinion of his must come under the scrutiny of the Apostolic teaching.

No one is suggesting that the writings of the Early Fathers are on par with the Scriptures. On the other hand, Ignatius represents the Apostolic teaching, having been a direct recipient of it. His writings, along with others, reveal how the disciples understood and applied what the Apostles taught.

Now we are back to my point. The concept of a Catholic Church ruling from Rome, as it is today, was never in the thinking of the apostolic circle, and without any merit scripturally. His opinion or words about being Catholic is not inspired by God’s word.

I agree that the Aposltes had no way of knowing how important the See of Rome would eventually become in the life of the Church. They could never imagine modern methods of communication, either, or a site like CAF. The fact that such things were beyond their imagination does not make these things somehow invalid.

Of course you cannot admit that the scriptures support the structure found in the CC. If you did, you would have to become Catholic, so you cannot allow yourself to “see” those parts of scripture.

As far as Ignatius’ writings not being inspired by God’s word, this is quite a jump that seems insupportable by the evidence. Even a cursory review of his writings demonstrates a preponderance of scripture.

His opinions and words about being Catholic are reflective of the common use of the term in his day. We use the same method to understand the use of koine Greek. When we find recipes, poetry, and other documents written around the New Testament era, it helps us better understand the daily use of these words. Discounting this type of historical and literary criticism reveals a gross degree of bigotry and narrow mindedness.

 

[guanophore]

Really… remember Steven ( In Acts ) who stood up for speaking the word of God in front of an organized, legitimized, established religious rule. He was stoned to death for his boldness to speak. Remember Paul who was rebuked by the established religious rule because they couldn’t see it the way he saw it. I could go on.

Yes, but it will have no value to support your assertion. These examples are people that were annointed by God to do such things.

Luther saw that the just shall live by faith… and his eyes were open to the fact that he was ALREADY JUSTIFIED, he didn’t have to earn it… This truth was not accepted by the established religious church of his day… if they could they would have killed him too.

At some point tgG, you may find it expedient to study the life of Luther, who appeared to suffer from scrupulosity. On the contrary, many of his superiors, confessors, and spiritual companions tried without success for YEARS to help him understand God’s grace. Thankfully he finally came to the realization that we cannot earn forgiveness, that God’s grace is a free gift, and the right response is to abandon ourselves to trust Him.

I do agree, though, about the killing. Because of the conflation of Church and State, people who did not comply with the official religion (whatever it was) were considered treasonous and were often banished or otherwise punished, including to death. Protestants continued this practice when coming into political power.

When you force others to unite with you under the penalty of hell and then turn around and say, “see, you are rebelling against God’s church! …” it is more than manipulation, it is a high sin that grieves the heart of God and needs repentance and mercy. I hope you will consider that.

For what it is worth, I agree with you. Unity in the Body comes through adherance to the Truth. We will all be in unity when we are all one in the Truth. This is not a condition that can be forced upon people.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Either is the specific term Trinity.

However,

I gave you the text from Acts, which is where the name Catholic Church comes from

And

I do not understand why you gave me the Acts passage. The word Catholic is not there. … The word Trinity is not there either, but it’s concept is…

I gave you the understanding all properly referenced. Not only that, it is the continuous name used in writing, by the Church, from the 1st century. A person would have to be ignorant of history not to see that.
Irenaeus gave quite a good definition in his writing “Against Heresies”

1st, he acknowledges the Church he belongs to, the Catholic Church. From [Bk 1 Chapter 10 v 3] http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103110.htm And he finishes v3, “while the Catholic Church possesses one and the same faith throughout the whole world, as we have already said”.

Isn’t that what Acts 9:31 said?
the church throughout all ἐκκλησία καθ’ ὅλης τῆς

As in Everyone throughout all is to agree with THIS Church, as in universal agreement… according to the whole, complete universal accord.

Translation:
ἐκκλησία = church http://bibleapps.com/greek/1577.htm ,
καθ’ = according to http://bibleapps.com/greek/2596.htm ,
ὅλης = whole / all / complete / universal http://bibleapps.com/greek/3650.htm ,
τῆς = the http://bibleapps.com/greek/3588.htm
= the Kataholos Church = the Catholic Church.

tgGodsway:

The concept of a universal Church ruled by a bishop in Rome is not only not there, it flies against everything that is there.

So why did Ignatius, a first century bishop, ordained by the apostles, direct disciple of John, say that the Church of Rome holds the presidency? Ignatius BTW, is from Antioch in Syria.

tgGodsway:

God’s Church is ruled from heaven as a theocracy, not from Rome. Christ is seated at the right hand of God ruling his Church. This is the concept taught in scripture.

So Jesus is NOT God? What kind of Protestant are you? Oneness Pentecostal maybe?

Who did Jesus say He would build His Church on? Peter
Who did Jesus give the keys to His kingdom of heaven to? Peter
Who (as individual) did Jesus give the power to bind and loose on earth as is in heaven, to? Peter

All from Mt 16. But I’VE already given you this information before.

 

[tgGodsway]

Isn’t that what Acts 9:31 said?

the church throughout all ἐκκλησία καθ’ ὅλης τῆς

steve-b I’m not sure what you are trying to get at here with this Acts 9:31 passage. You lifted it out of its context very conveniently. the verse says, … “Then the churches THROUGHTOUT ALL… all what?.. all Judea, Galilee and Samaria had peace and were edified.”

As in Everyone throughout all is to agree with THIS Church, as in universal agreement… according to the whole, complete universal accord.

You are dreaming my friend. This has to be the hardest sell ever…

Listen, I don’t have a problem with the word Catholic. You are right, the Church is suppose to be Catholic, universal. But Acts 9:31 or any other passage doesn’t make the Church local, from Rome, and yet universal. No passage talks about one city Church ruling all the Churches of the world. There is no concept or idea of this nature anywhere in inspired scripture. Therefore it wasn’t God’s idea.

 

[tgGodsway]

We don’t see the terminology, “free” gift, in Scripture.

By definition of Gift, we know that it is free. Who pulls out his wallet to pay for a gift he received without cost.

"Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. Ro. 3:24.

 

[tgGodsway]

For us, it is both. The Apostles taught that the Church is visible in the world, that it has organization and hierarchy

It does have organization and even hierarchy, but submission one to the other is the rule. Treating others better than yourself is the rule.

Yet in Rome, dominance by the CC over other groups is the demanded rule.

Can you imagine what it would look like if you met the pope face to face and knelt down to kiss his ring?.. and then he too knelt down to kiss your ring? …

Can you imagine what it would look like if you were invited to dinner with all of the Cardinals in Rome at a fancy banquet table. And all of the servants to wait on the tables were the Cardinals themselves? Can you imagine that?

This is what Christ had in mind when He gave us organization and hierarchy. The first shall be last and the last first.