Defending the Catholic Faith

[prochrist1]

oops sorry yeah forgot his death ! duh…

 

[benidict]

OK, now we have several books in the Bible (even if yours left out a few books, don’t we?) There we go. Do you want us to start linking from, oh, say, the Douay Rheim’s on line Bible? Because that’s where I’d start. Why don’t y’all go to Genesis, right now, read the Douay (www.drbo.org) and then when you start disagreeing from the Catholic teaching there, make a note. Continue through the entire Bible, again, making notes where you disagree with the Catholic teaching (check the footnotes). Here, I’ll start you. Genesis 1, 1: drbo.org/chapter/01001.htm Then you can come back and explain why you disagree. Once we’ve finished with the Bible, with which you should be quite familiar, we’ll move on to the Catechism. But we can’t really address the catechism until you’ve read all the way through the Bible and understand the Catholic teaching of the Bible, because that is what the Catechism bases itself on, and then builds on using the early Church Fathers (that’s the NEXT part that you can read through, there are even tracts on this site), etc.

God bless you my friend. love the douay rheims translation. the kjv which i am very familiar with seems like a cheap translation in comparison.

 

[benedictus2]

Are you talking about the Gospel that Christ said to for us to share with the world ?

from what I understand the meaning of “gospel” it means to preach about the birth of Jesus, the life of Jesus and his resurrection

Gospel means “good news”. And the Good News i Jesus Christ.

 

[benedictus2]

John 10:16

And I have other sheep that are not of this fold (Protestants, Anglicans, Orthodox). I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd.

Jesus was referring to the gentiles, that is us non Jews

But yes you are right. One day there will be one flock and one shepherd for one day we will all be Catholic.

So why wait for later, come and join us now. We are eagerly awaiting your return. COME HOME! :extrahappy::hug1:

 

[2nd_Adam]

gospel means “good news”. And the good news is Jesus Christ.

The birth of ECT 3 started on Catholic Answers.

seekgod.ca/ect.htm

 

[2nd_Adam]

Jesus was referring to the gentiles, that is us non Jews

But yes you are right. One day there will be one flock and one shepherd for one day we will all be Catholic.

So why wait for later, come and join us now. We are eagerly awaiting your return. COME HOME! :extrahappy::hug1:

I know . I was just having fun with you. Mormons will use the other sheep Scripture, and the correct answer is the Gentiles as the other sheep.

 

[2nd_Adam]

oops sorry yeah forgot his death ! duh…

You are right to mention His life! It is His perfect life and His death that we have been reconciled to God, and adopted into His Family. We are Sons of the most High because of Christ.

 

[guanophore]

My brother in Catholicism & Christ, if we are to have this particular conversation I would like to throw this out and let me say, this is “One”.

TITUS 3:8-11

8 It is a faithful saying: and these things I will have thee affirm constantly: that they, who believe in God, may be careful to excel in good works. These things are good and profitable unto men. 9 But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law. For they are unprofitable and vain. 10 A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid: 11 Knowing that he, that is such an one, is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned by his own judgment.

Now that I have stated the conditions under which I engage in this conversation, I’d first like to tell you that I was not having a conversation with you. If it offended you, then you must not look in places you know could be a possibility of being a place where grown ups talk.

It seems that you are saying my taking issue with you about whether or not Paul had his own gospel is foolish and contentious?

Or, perhaps you think that both 2nd and I are heretics? Have you given both of us “warnings” and are you ready to move on?

Secondly, as I informed him, he was wrong in accusing me of not knowing scripture.

I does not help your case when you deny Paul had “my gospel”. This claim is repeated several places in his writings. Acting like it is not there does not make it go away.

Thirdly, There is Paul. The minister. Proclaimer of the Gospels. You can throw whatever you like at me scripture-wise. There is NO Gospel according to Paul. Paul’s ministry was to proclaim the gospels to the nations.

Proclaim the “gospels” to the nations? You mean you think Paul was going around reading Matt. Mark, Luke, and John, to the masses?

How do you account for the many verses where he claims “my gospel”?

There is the Gospel of Mark, the Gospel of Matthew, the Gospel of John, and the Gospel of Luke. They’re out of order so I can hang on to your attention. The teachings in the gospels are what Paul set out to do, got arrested for.

I agree that He did set out to communicate what is in those gospels, but since most of them were written after he was martyred, I am pretty sure he got his material somewhere else.

You can see his trials & tribulations in doing so.  None the less, that is not a gospel.  IF that is a gospel, to you, then GOSPEL in the context in which I'm using it, does not mean what YOU think it means.

My beloved brother, the two are not separated from one another. That which Paul preached was handed down to him through Christ, and through the Church. He is quite clear about this.

I agree with you that the lifestyle taugth in the four gospels is not separated from the evangelistic message, but the kerygma came first.

This is attempt one of two. I will break it down for you only once more if I need to. After that, I will do as Titus 3 8-11 says when dealing in these matters. ** Thank you**.:coffeeread:

You seem to be quite intolerant of any view other than your own. You may wish to consider staying off the non-Catholic religion area, since the purpose of this area is to discuss differences. Labeling people heretics and shunning them is not very productive fore discussion.

 

[guanophore]

The verses really save the room & trouble of a whole chapter or letter. Again, I agree that verses are to be taken in the context of the letter, but I’m not attempting to be poetic, and definitely not dealing w. a frequent reader of scripture. BUT THERE’S ch. 2.

It seems to me that it is you who is trying to be contentious about the obvious. First there is the obvious fact that Paul claims “my gospel”, then there seems to be some lack of understanding on your part that the original NT had no chapters and verses. These were added later. You are also making an error in assuming 2nd is not a “frequent reader of scripture”. Nothing could be further from the truth. He may not read it with the same bias you do, but he is very familiar with the contents.

 

[guanophore]

Pauline theology… or the 12 or 13 letters of Paul favors heavily with confessional Protestant theology. If you disagree, I challenge you to start the thread in discussing our theologies with only using the 13 letters of Paul.

Although I disagree that Pal favors Protestant theology heavily, the reason this error has been propogated is from the very “method” of hermeneutics you suggest. The Gospel was never meant to be gleaned solely using the 13 letters of Paul. This approach has spawned more errors in the gospel message than the 1600 years that preceded it.

One thing Jason IS right about, the gospel Paul preached was not separate or different from that of all the other Apostles and evangelists.

 

[guanophore]

Christianity stems from the teachings of the 4 gospels. If you disagree, I challenge you to start a thread that states that THERE IS SUCH A THING AS THE GOSPEL OF PAUL.

Well, in this case, you are both wrong. Christianity stems from the person of Jesus, who committed the good news to the Apostles. He then authorized and empowered them to teach “all that I have commanded you”. They were teaching and preaching it for decades before one word of the NT was ever written.

The “gospel according to Paul” evidenced in his letters preceded the four gospels in our NT. There was no difference in content, but Paul received his gospel from Christ and through the Church before the writing of the “memoirs of the Apostles” that we know of as the four gospels.

 I have no interest in offshoots or what have you.  I'll discuss paul for the sake of discussing paul, but I'm not going to sit here & listen to side street babble about PAUL having a GOSPEL.  WAY out of context.

It seems that you are not ready for this discussion anyhow.

You still have not found a way to disregard all the passages where Paul claims “my gospel”. Until you do that, you can deny that they exist all you want, but the Scriptures testify otherwise.

It is not out of context, because the OP is asking Catholics to “preach the gospel”. He also seems to have taken his notion of what “gospel” is from the 13 letters of Paul. Therefore it seems relevant to understand what the gospel might be according to Paul.

He preached them, he went to great lengths to make sure the world at large understood what jesus did, but THAT sir, is NOT a gospel. It’s excellent in its teachings, and I cannot deny the truth of what paul is teaching, but there is no way on this planet or yours, that you will convince me that ALL of those books are the Gospel of Paul, I mean, call it what it is. No WAY is that a gospel. I’m sorry. Bend Christianity any way you like. I’m not going to subscribe to it.

I agree with you here. The NT was never intended to be a complete compendium of the faith, which is why it is counterproductive to treat it as though it is. Paul did not set out to write an orderly theology of Christianity. What we see in his letters is a reflection of his gospel, the one he preached all over the known world. However, Paul was not preaching from any of the books that we currently call the four gospels. He was preaching what he called “my gospel” before they were written.

 

[guanophore]

I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. - Jesus

Did Jesus die for the sheep or the goats according to the Word of God?

Both, but the goats do not hear his voice, and follow Him.

Jesus taught the truths of Calvinism.

I can see how it would seem that way.

Of course there is a lot of Truth in Calvanism, just as it is in every denomination of our separated brethren. But, Jesus also taught some Truths that demonstrate Calvanism to be wrong. One of those Truths is that Christianity is not a 'religion of the book" as Calvin seems to think.

 

[guanophore]

John 10:16

And I have other sheep that are not of this fold (Protestants, Anglicans, Orthodox). I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd.

This is a great example of inserting modern theology into Holy Scripture.

 

[guanophore]

We are just discussing and debating the truths of Christianity as revealed in the Scriptures.

Actually, no. YOU are discussing and debating from that perspective. Catholics read and discuss the scriptures in the light of what the Apostles believed and taught. These things have been committed to the Church, and though they are also reflected in the Scriptures, once the Holy Writings are removed from their context (the Apostolic Church) the meaning becomes lost, as it did for Calvin.

Romans 15:4

For whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction, that through endurance and through the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope.

Indeed, and the duty of instruction was given to those He called and appointed for that purpose. When what was written is separated from His teaching authority, all kinds of errors result. We even find people claiming that the gospel Paul preached was different from that of the other Apostles!

 

[2nd_Adam]

Although I disagree that Pal favors Protestant theology heavily, the reason this error has been propogated is from the very “method” of hermeneutics you suggest. The Gospel was never meant to be gleaned solely using the 13 letters of Paul. This approach has spawned more errors in the gospel message than the 1600 years that preceded it.

One thing Jason IS right about, the gospel Paul preached was not separate or different from that of all the other Apostles and evangelists.

I completely agree. I’ve heard your misunderstanding that you appear to think that Protestants weight too heavily on Paul when proclaiming the gospel. The reason for this has to do with God using Paul to write over half of the New Testament if you credit Paul for Hebrews. The entire Scriptures is the Word of God. Paul was given the task to expound the gospel more than any other Apostle (Romans and Galatians). And the Gospel of John is the most doctrinal of the four gospel accounts. Therefore, Protestants will use the gospel of John more than the other 3 gospel account to support biblical doctrine such as TULIP. James is more of a practical daily living book as compared to a doctrinal book. It is considered the NT Proverbs. Therefore, it makes no sense to use James chapter 2 to understand 13 letters of Paul. Peter wrote two small Epistles, so not much is recorded about Peter. The Book of Acts is more of a historical account of the earlier church as well as a record of the work of the Spirit. Hebrews was probably written by Paul. So, when you consider the books of the New Testament, Paul was used more than any other Apostle. What did Jesus tell us about the Apostles? I read an article on Catholic Answers that most Catholics are not that familar with the Bible. So, that is part of our misunderstanding of each other.

Here’s your challenge brother in Christ. Try to proclaim the gospel by only using the words of James. And try to proclaim the gospel with using only Peter. You can use the book of Acts too.

 

[2nd_Adam]

Both, but the goats do not hear his voice, and follow Him.

I can see how it would seem that way.

Of course there is a lot of Truth in Calvanism, just as it is in every denomination of our separated brethren. But, Jesus also taught some Truths that demonstrate Calvanism to be wrong. One of those Truths is that Christianity is not a 'religion of the book" as Calvin seems to think.

For whom did Christ die for is not a debate exclusively between Reformed Christians and Catholic Christians. There are many Protestants who woud be on your side of the debate of “for whom did Christ die for” when debating TULIP in Calvinism. It is usually the hottest and passionate debate on Protestant Forum sites. Let’s just agree that the death of Christ is only effectual for the sheep, okay? We both reject universalism. Christ came into this world to rescuse sinners from their condemned condition. For the Reformed Christian, we cannot see that Jesus failed in His mission to save sinners from their sin. Jesus rescuse mission is 100% effectual if Jesus saved all that God intended Him to save.

FOR WHO DID CHRIST DIE?
John Owen

The Father imposed His wrath due unto, and the Son underwent punishment for, either:

1. All the sins of all men.
2. All the sins of some men, or
3. Some of the sins of all men.

In which case it may be said:

1. That if the last be true, all men have some sins to answer for, and so, none are saved.
2. That if the second be true, then Christ, in their stead suffered for all the sins of all the elect in the whole world, and this is the truth.
3. But if the first be the case, why are not all men free from the punishment due unto their sins?

You answer, "Because of unbelief."

I ask, Is this unbelief a sin, or is it not? If it be, then Christ suffered the punishment due unto it, or He did not. If He did, why must that hinder them more than their other sins for which He died? If He did not, He did not die for all their sins!"

 

[2nd_Adam]

Actually, no. YOU are discussing and debating from that perspective. Catholics read and discuss the scriptures in the light of what the Apostles believed and taught. These things have been committed to the Church, and though they are also reflected in the Scriptures, once the Holy Writings are removed from their context (the Apostolic Church) the meaning becomes lost,

When I read the article on Catholic Answers stating that Protestants in general know the Scriptures better than most Catholics, and Catholics understand church history better than Protestants… we are where we are to that general truth. I agree that most Protestants are lacking in church history. It is apparent from this site that many Catholics are not as comfortable with the Scriptures as Protestants tend to be.

 

[2nd_Adam]

Originally Posted by 2nd Adam
John 10:16

And I have other sheep that are not of this fold (Protestants, Anglicans, Orthodox). I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd.

This is a great example of inserting modern theology into Holy Scripture.

You are aware that I twisted the Scriptures here to refute Mormonism, correct?

 

[zerinus]

What is the gospel that you are not ashamed of? Please proclaim the gospel to me to help me understand where I am in error.

I think several staunch die hard Catholics have turned up the discussion and friendly debate a few notches. I was told that I believe in a different gospel. Therefore, in light of the Apostle Paul, someone is believing in a false gospel under the curse of God. Please help me understand the true gospel by simply proclaiming the true gospel to me.

Thanks, and I will try to read it when I have time. I think when Paul and the Apostles proclaimed the good news of God, it was something much different than what you posted. The gospel proclamation recorded in Scripture is not a 15 page proclamation. What is the gospel according to the Apostle Paul?

I should have joined this thread sooner; but unfortunately time does not permit looking at all the discussions that are going on. Although your question is addressed to Catholics, I will have a go at answering it for you. A while back when you had just joined this forum, I asked you what you really believed in, and you directed me to this website, and said that you were a “Monergist”. After a bit more search, I found a more concise and to the point definition of “Monerigsm” on Wikipedia which can be read here. It turns out that “Monergism” is basically Calvinism repackaged in different words. It defines Monergism concisely as follows:

In its simplest form, monergism states that the regeneration of an individual is the work of God the Holy Spirit alone, as opposed to synergism, which, in its simplest form, argues that the human will cooperates with God’s grace in order to be regenerated. To the synergist, faith may arise from unregenerated human nature. Salvation is not complete until the individual performs some action(s). According to monergism, faith in Christ only springs from a heart first renewed by God.

This is pure Calvinism, and it is contrary to the teachings of Jesus Christ and the Gospels. The gospel of Jesus Christ is “synergistic” not “monergistic”. It teaches that human cooperation with God is necessary in order to bring about the individual’s salvation. This is what Jesus and His Apostles taught:

Mark 16:

16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Acts 2:

38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Both repentance and baptism are actions that require the cooperation of the believer. Without the cooperation of the prospective proselyte, neither act can be performed. God does not force anybody into heaven. They must want to go there, and they must voluntarily comply with the requirements. Hence Calvinism is a false gospel. It is a heresy and a great evil.

 

[2nd_Adam]

I Both repentance and baptism are actions that require the cooperation of the believer. Without the cooperation of the prospective proselyte, neither act can be performed. God does not force anybody into heaven. They must want to go there, and they must voluntarily comply with the requirements. Hence Calvinism is a false gospel. It is a heresy and a great evil.

I agree that all mankind is commanded to repent and be baptized. Do you believe repentance comes from within us, or does God grant repentance to His chosen ones?