Fallacies of sola scriptura

[inkaneer]

Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
Not now they would not. Too much water has gone over the dam for them to admit that. But it is what it is. Do not forget that the whole Eastern Schism was resolved at the Council of Florence if only temporarily. There the Eastern Bishops and theologians agreed with the Western Church on a definition of the filioque. But once the Eastern Bishops returned home they were subject to a political firestorm which caused them to renounce their agreement. This concept of “doctrine by popular vote” is entirely foreign to the New Testament. It certainly did not occur at any of the earlier councils. Quite frankly the Eastern Bishops abandoned their teaching authority in favor of what we would call today “political correctness” but in those days was more probably called “saving your butt”.

The schism was indeed a politically motivated event and stemmed originally from the emperor removing the legitimate patriarch named Ignatius in favor of one of his friends named Photius. The move did not work and Ignatius was later reestablished as the patriarch. Subsequently Ignatius died and once again Photius found in the Filioque an excuse for throwing off all dependence on Rome. None the less at the council of Florence the Catholic doctrine was accepted by the Greek bishops and representativess who were present and the Creed was sung both in Greek and Latin, with the addition of the word Filioque. It is clear therefore that the filioque was a political issue and not a theological one.

One more thing on the filioque. The Nicene Creed was enlarged at the Concil of Constantinople to include the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father. This addition to the Nicene Creed was directed against the followers of Macedonius who claimed that the Holy Spirit was created by the Son and thus denied the Procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father. In the East, the omission of Filioque did not lead to any misunderstanding. However things were different in Spain. The Goths had renounced Arianism and professed the Catholic faith. Arianism had a different concept of the Trinity than the conventional christian view. They believed that God the Father working through the Son, created the Holy Spirit, which was subservient to the Son as the Son was to the Father. In correcting this error the relationship of the Holy Spirit to both the Father and the Son, not as subservients, but as equals needed to be addressed and was with the Creed with the added filioque.

By the way this guy Macedonius was none other than the bishop of Constantinople. Another bishop of Constantinople was a guy named Nestorius. Two bishops of Constantinople and two heretics.

There are some quite capable Orthodox here who can debate your statements if they choose. That wasn’t my point. My point is only that the claims of even virtual doctrinal unity between Rome and the EO are suspect.
Lutherans come down on the Catholic side of the Filioque anyway.

Jon

I’m sure there are capable Orthodox who can debate my statements. I have engaged in such debates with Orthodox in the past so I see no problem there. But in regard to your claim of doctrinal unity between Orthodox and Catholics being suspect I asked you for examples which you have not supplied. It was I who brought up the filioque and Papal authority issues. Now where is the evidentiary proof to back up your statement? Or are you willing to admit that you made a statement for which you had no evidence and you never thought someone would call you on it?

 

[jerryb1020]

QuickCat,

Thank you for responding to my original post (#26) in this thread. I wanted to get a non-catholic view of the idea that we should believe everything the Apostles believed and I found your responses interesting to say the least. You seem to be absolutely sure that your interpretations of the Bible are the correct ones and would be approved by Jesus Himself.

What I am curious about now is: Given your beliefs, if Jesus commissioned you to teach the whole world, and assured you that ‘whatsoever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven’, what are three or four main doctrines you would require so that whatever entity you structure would be unified as you perceive Christ wanted when he prayed for unity, and how would you take your message to the whole world?

As I have read your responses to various posts, including mine, I gather that ‘Religion – No’ means that you do not belong to a formal church that is identified by a denominational name. Let me know if I am wrong on this.

JB

 

[Philthy]

I’m not a theologian, but the way I’ve expressed sola scriptura is, to my understanding, the way Lutherans practice it.

This is sorta what I mean about the inherent vagueness in SS and the inability to meet some very basic practical criteria. You dont know whether this is “the” Lutheran practice of the doctrine? How can something so fundamental and so mundane (we’re not talking about the Trinity here) as SS not have been nailed down by now?? Sonething doesnt make sense about this entire topic. It shouldnt be that difficult to articulate, definitively and reveal to the faithful. I can only surmise that the reason this is so is because it is not actually contained in Scripture and was not part of Tradition and has not actually been definitively revealed.

Does that answer your question?

Jon

I appreciate your efforts. I think if you would try giving a brief answer to each of the other questions I had asked it would be very helpful…

 

[inkaneer]

Originally Posted by JonNC
I’m not a theologian, but the way I’ve expressed sola scriptura is, to my understanding, the way Lutherans practice it.

This is sorta what I mean about the inherent vagueness in SS and the inability to meet some very basic practical criteria. You dont know whether this is “the” Lutheran practice of the doctrine? How can something so fundamental and so mundane (we’re not talking about the Trinity here) as SS not have been nailed down by now?? Sonething doesnt make sense about this entire topic. It shouldnt be that difficult to articulate, definitively and reveal to the faithful. I can only surmise that the reason this is so is because it is not actually contained in Scripture and was not part of Tradition and has not actually been definitively revealed.

The vagueness of sola scriptura is intentional. That is so no one can pin them down to a formal definition. Originally sola scriptura meant exactly what the Latin words said, scripture alone was to be the authority. But that was soon abandoned when it became obvious that scripture alone was unworkable. So now sola scriptura has morphed into fini scriptura meaning scripture is the final authority or we have scripture + the Lutheran Confessions as authority. Nevermind that the Lutheran Confessions are not inspired and are the “traditions of man” spoken of by Jesus.

While it is true that Lutheranism retained much of the Catholic Church it missed out on the most important one mark of the church. That was Apostolic Succession. They have none because unlike the Orthodox, no Catholic bishop defected from the faith to join Luther. Thus unlike the Orthodox their ordinations are invalid and their sacraments [except baptism and matrimony] are invalid.

 

[to_seek]

Here’s a question for those who believe in sola scriptura: Why do you believe in the Bible?
Because it is the only written book inspired by God that still exists today.
No, really. Why do you think everything the Bible says is true? You can’t quote a Bible verse because that’s like me saying (for the record, I obviously don’t really believe this, it’s just an example) “I’m never wrong because I say I’m never wrong and that has to be true because I’m never wrong”. See how that’s a logical fallacy?
I could ask you why do you think everything a Pope says or whatever the Magisteriam says is true, no disrespect here, but think about it for a moment.
The answer: We believe the Bible is true because the Church established by Jesus through its divine authority (thanks to the Holy Spirit) says that the Bible is true.
Did Jesus establish a Church or did he teach preach, heal and command the Apostles to do the same, this to contine down the ages? The upon this rock I will build my church actually means upon the word of Jesus The Rock I will build my church which I think is All those who believe in Him. Peter was not the rock. What do you think?
Jesus didn’t write a book or establish a book as Holy. The New Testament was written many years after Jesus’s death. What Jesus did was establish a Church and give it the authority to make infallible decisions on faith and morals. The Bible is a book full of truths of our faith. The reason we believe the books are true is because our infallible, divinely guided Church said so. So when Protestants believe in books of the New Testament, they are unwittingly following Catholic Tradition!

Not true, they are following what all christians do, they are reading The Word of God as inspired by The Holy Spirit. There is no such thing as infallibility. All Churches and men have failed over the Centuries, a lot of Popes went astray., and yes a lot of Protestant Churches too have deeply failed in their duties with believers. Second response, whoever said Popes were infallible when speaking ex-cathedra? I can understand being inspired by the Holy Spirit, but not infallibility because all of us are human and if a Pope who had gone bad so to speak were to speak quoting infallibility, would you still trust that word.? I wouldnt. So much is written about The Church, its almost like The Church is more important than anything else.

 

[paul_c]

Not true, they are following what all christians do, they are reading The Word of God as inspired by The Holy Spirit. There is no such thing as infallibility. All Churches and men have failed over the Centuries, a lot of Popes went astray., and yes a lot of Protestant Churches too have deeply failed in their duties with believers. Second response, whoever said Popes were infallible when speaking ex-cathedra? I can understand being inspired by the Holy Spirit, but not infallibility because all of us are human and if a Pope who had gone bad so to speak were to speak quoting infallibility, would you still trust that word.? I wouldnt. So much is written about The Church, its almost like The Church is more important than anything else.

you misunderstand the Chruch’s teaching on inafllaiblility. The Popes aren’t sinless. Infallibility means they can be trusted when teaching about faith and morals. The reasons they can be trusted include the following:

• We were told by Jesus that he would be with the Church until the end of the age.
• The Popes teach what they have been taught by their predecessors back to Jesus himself.
• The Popes have the Bishops/Cardinals and in fact the entire church to help them make sure they stay true to those teachings

If you can’t trust the Chruch that Jesus founded for this very purpose, who can you trust?

 

[QuickCat]

He is writing to them about the new faith. It doesn’t make any sense for an Apostle of Christ to teach them how to be good Jews. In Acts 15, James clearly speaks up after Peter to explain how Christianity does not have to adhere to the Jewish tradition of circumcision. James advances Christianity among the Jewish diaspora.

The text in James 1 clearly has him promoting “pure religion”. As his example of pure religion he describes an act of love, which is the hallmark of Christianity. Religion is described in Scripture both positively and negatively. On this occasion it is positive because it is pure religion, undefiled.

Once again, the text reads:James 1:26-27 If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man’s religion is vain. Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.

James proclaims a “kingdom” gospel, not Biblical Christianity. Where does he write: “Believe on the LORD Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved!” You confirm what Karl Keating told me years ago: “Catholics don’t know anything about ‘rightly dividing the Word of truth.’” I repeat, “Biblical Christianity is not a ‘religion’ it is a relationship.” When one believes on the Lord Jesus Christ he becomes a child of God, a joint heir with the Lord Jesus Christ and he is “complete” in Him. Religion doesn’t teach these truths.

 

[po18guy]

You fail to realize that James, one of the first books written during the Acts period, writes to Israel. He is not writing about Biblical Christianity, but to Judaism. Note in James 2:2 “If a man come into your assembly” [synagogue]. You fail to “read the address on the envelope.” He writes to the “twelve tribes scattered abroad.” Which tribe do you belong to. Religion is only mentioned about 5 times in the N.T. and it is always the Jewish religion. Satan uses religion in an attempt to counter the plan of God. Religion is a bondage system that enslaves people. Look at every religion in this world - all of them teach a system of works for “hoping that you can work hard enough to get to heaven.” At the end of life there is still that doubt that you made it. I recall a video team interviewing folks who are coming from church service and they are asked: “How do you plan to get to heaven?” About 24 of them answer, “Well, I hope that the good things that I do will outweigh my sins and that God will give me credit for all the good that I do. And I try to keep the ten commandments” *. Finally one young lady says, “I will get to heaven based on what the Lord Jesus Christ did for me on the cross. He paid my sin debt; He is my Savior and my Lord.” Interestingly, I have asked many of my Catholic friend how to get to heaven. Rarely to never do they mention the Lord Jesus Christ. Almost uniformly they tell me to “keep the commandments.” When I ask when what they are, they always reply, “Well, you know…” A priest told me that “everyone” is saved - no mention of the Lord Jesus Christ. A monsignor told me to pray “three times a day, it doesn’t matter what you pray, but you must pray three times a day.” No mention of the Lord Jesus Christ. ???*Two things: You consistently speak of “biblical Christianity”. This heresy was spawned upon the earth over 1,500 years after Christ established his Church. “Biblical Christianity” is not biblical, and is neither the teaching nor the practice of Christ or the Apostles. It remains amazing what good can be done by those who rely upon man’s ego to determine their bible-only doctrine, but it is most certainly not the faith which Christ established. It resembles it to varying degrees, but again is neither the faith, nor the practice of the Apostles. This is the source of all your difficulty with those who practice the Apostolic faith.

Second, you appear to be judging the Catholic faith based on your claims regarding a few who practice the faith. You do not mention those who do correctly practice the faith. You do not mention having read the Catechism, or inquiring of those who have. Your own methodology in judging the faith will always fail you in a search for the truth. Seek the truth of the faith and do not be distracted by, or attentive to, those who do not correctly practice the faith. If you investigate the unbroken history of the faith, the teaching and practice of the early Church, as well as open your heart to the presence of Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist, you will have discovered the completeness of God’s revelation. Anything short of this is only salving the ego.

Jesus Christ is the source and summit of the Catholic faith. You cannot discover the fulness of Truth by focusing on a few examples who do not follow that same fulness. Truth is not some thing. Truth is someone: Jesus Christ. Because you have chosen to focus on those who do not correctly practice the faith, you have stopped short of discovering the beauty of that same faith. It also reveals a bias and a limitation in your quest for Truth. Deny yourself, as Christ taught. Take up your cross and open your heart fully to Christ. Your concerns will melt away. Now, that’s biblical.

 

[QuickCat]

QuickCat,

Thank you for responding to my original post (#26) in this thread. I wanted to get a non-catholic view of the idea that we should believe everything the Apostles believed and I found your responses interesting to say the least. You seem to be absolutely sure that your interpretations of the Bible are the correct ones and would be approved by Jesus Himself.

What I am curious about now is: Given your beliefs, if Jesus commissioned you to teach the whole world, and assured you that ‘whatsoever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven’, what are three or four main doctrines you would require so that whatever entity you structure would be unified as you perceive Christ wanted when he prayed for unity, and how would you take your message to the whole world?

As I have read your responses to various posts, including mine, I gather that ‘Religion – No’ means that you do not belong to a formal church that is identified by a denominational name. Let me know if I am wrong on this.

JB

Hey JB, top of the morning to you. When our Lord Jesus Christ was on earth telling the 12 about binding and loosing He had the coming earthly kingdom in mind. Just read Mt. 19:28. The 12 will sit on 12 thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel. Main doctrines? [1] Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved. [2] The seven unities of faith as outlined by Paul in Ephesians 4:4-6. [3] Follow Paul as he followed the Lord Jesus Christ. [4] Know that our “citizenship” is in heaven and not on the earth. [5] Test the things that differ - know and teach the differences between our Lord’s earthly ministry to Israel and His heavenly ministry to the Body of Christ through Paul. Etc.

 

[QuickCat]

Two things: You consistently speak of “biblical Christianity”. This heresy was spawned upon the earth over 1,500 years after Christ established his Church. “Biblical Christianity” is not biblical, and is neither the teaching nor the practice of Christ or the Apostles. It remains amazing what good can be done by those who rely upon man’s ego to determine their bible-only doctrine, but it is most certainly not the faith which Christ established. It resembles it to varying degrees, but again is neither the faith, nor the practice of the Apostles. This is the source of all your difficulty with those who practice the Apostolic faith.

Second, you appear to be judging the Catholic faith based on your claims regarding a few who practice the faith. You do not mention those who do correctly practice the faith. You do not mention having read the Catechism, or inquiring of those who have. Your own methodology in judging the faith will always fail you in a search for the truth. Seek the truth of the faith and do not be distracted by, or attentive to, those who do not correctly practice the faith. If you investigate the unbroken history of the faith, the teaching and practice of the early Church, as well as open your heart to the presence of Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist, you will have discovered the completeness of God’s revelation. Anything short of this is only salving the ego.

Jesus Christ is the source and summit of the Catholic faith. You cannot discover the fulness of Truth by focusing on a few examples who do not follow that same fulness. Truth is not some thing. Truth is someone: Jesus Christ. Because you have chosen to focus on those who do not correctly practice the faith, you have stopped short of discovering the beauty of that same faith. It also reveals a bias and a limitation in your quest for Truth. Deny yourself, as Christ taught. Take up your cross and open your heart fully to Christ. Your concerns will melt away. Now, that’s biblical.

Dear One: I have never, in all my years, had a Catholic present the gospel of the grace of God to me. I have never met a Catholic [clergy or lay] who actually knew the gospel of the grace of God. Also, for your information I am a true believer in the Lord Jesus Christ and what He did for me when He went to the cross. I know that I am saved for time and eternity. I know that I will be face to face with my wonderful Lord Jesus Christ the moment my life ends on this earth. I follow Paul as he followed the [heavenly] Lord Jesus Christ. I can say with Paul that I know in whom I have believed and am persuaded that He is able to keep that which I have committed unto Him…

 

[inkaneer]

Not true, they are following what all christians do, they are reading The Word of God as inspired by The Holy Spirit. There is no such thing as infallibility. All Churches and men have failed over the Centuries, a lot of Popes went astray., and yes a lot of Protestant Churches too have deeply failed in their duties with believers. Second response, whoever said Popes were infallible when speaking ex-cathedra? I can understand being inspired by the Holy Spirit, but not infallibility because all of us are human and if a Pope who had gone bad so to speak were to speak quoting infallibility, would you still trust that word.? I wouldnt. So much is written about The Church, its almost like The Church is more important than anything else.

When you say, “…a lot of popes went astray” what exactly do you mean? Do you mean they went astray by committing sin? If so, then I say so what? Show me where scripture says that won’t happen because I can show you in scripture where it did happen. Do you mean that popes went astray by teaching error? I say you are wrong and demand that you support your allegation with evidentiary proof. Because I can show you in scripture [in several places too] where Jesus said that will not happen.

I find it totally illogical and even blasphemous that people will say that God can protect the scripture writers from writing error but that God can’t or won’t protect his church from teaching error especially when He said He would. So the ball is in your court to come up with the evidence to support your allegation. By the way this same allegation has been tried before and fell flat on its face but maybe you can come up with something that real protestant theologians could not. Go for it.

 

[Garland]

Quickcat, how long have you been mormon?

 

[inkaneer]

Dear One: I have never, in all my years, had a Catholic present the gospel of the grace of God to me. I have never met a Catholic [clergy or lay] who actually knew the gospel of the grace of God. Also, for your information I am a true believer in the Lord Jesus Christ and what He did for me when He went to the cross. I know that I am saved for time and eternity. I know that I will be face to face with my wonderful Lord Jesus Christ the moment my life ends on this earth. I follow Paul as he followed the [heavenly] Lord Jesus Christ. I can say with Paul that I know in whom I have believed and am persuaded that He is able to keep that which I have committed unto Him…

Did you ever think that the reason you never heard a Catholic layman or cleric present your “gospel of grace” to you is because your “gospel of grace” is your interpretation of the scriptures. Did you ever stop to think that there are other protestants out there who also have their own “gospel of grace”? And could you please explain to all of us poor Catholics why you consider yourself to be this infallible interpreter of scripture that you can say that the only christian church or denomination that has been in existence for 2,000 years since the time of Christ, long before there were any protestants, has been wrong for all of those 2,000 years. And while you are at it, please also explain why your allegation does not make both Jesus and scripture liars when it comes to hell not prevailing over the church that Jesus established.

 

[jerryb1020]

you misunderstand the Chruch’s teaching on inafllaiblility. The Popes aren’t sinless. Infallibility means they can be trusted when teaching about faith and morals. The reasons they can be trusted include the following:

• We were told by Jesus that he would be with the Church until the end of the age.
• The Popes teach what they have been taught by their predecessors back to Jesus himself.
• The Popes have the Bishops/Cardinals and in fact the entire church to help them make sure they stay true to those teachings

If you can’t trust the Chuch that Jesus founded for this very purpose, who can you trust?

Paul,

Good points. In addition, Jesus told the Apostles ‘Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.’ Since God is perfect, He could not bind an error. Therefore, whatever the Apostles and their successors bound as doctrines of the Church must be absolutely without error.

That’s also why, when anyone says the Holy Spirit ‘led’ them start a non-catholic church the are fooling themselves. A perfect God cannot lead people to teach error.

JB

 

[inkaneer]

Hey JB, top of the morning to you. When our Lord Jesus Christ was on earth telling the 12 about binding and loosing He had the coming earthly kingdom in mind. Just read Mt. 19:28. The 12 will sit on 12 thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel. Main doctrines? [1] Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved. [2] The seven unities of faith as outlined by Paul in Ephesians 4:4-6. [3] Follow Paul as he followed the Lord Jesus Christ. [4] Know that our “citizenship” is in heaven and not on the earth. [5] Test the things that differ - know and teach the differences between our Lord’s earthly ministry to Israel and His heavenly ministry to the Body of Christ through Paul. Etc.

How do you know Jesus had the earthly kingdom in mind? Do you claim to be able to read the mind of God? WHOA THERE, that should be a warning sign to any and all. Binding and loosening has nothing to do with judging Israel. Binding and loosening has to do with governing the kingdom which on earth is the church. Refer to Isaiah 22:22 where the OT chief steward [in NT the Pope] had the keys to the Kingdom [Peter got those] and could open [loose] or shut [bind] and no one could open [loosen] what the chief steward [pope] shut [bound] and no one could shut [bind] what the chief steward [pope] opened [loosed]. Your Burger King christianity of having things your way instead of the king’s way isn’t going to cut it.

 

[JonNC]

I’m sure there are capable Orthodox who can debate my statements. I have engaged in such debates with Orthodox in the past so I see no problem there. But in regard to your claim of doctrinal unity between Orthodox and Catholics being suspect I asked you for examples which you have not supplied. It was I who brought up the filioque and Papal authority issues. Now where is the evidentiary proof to back up your statement? Or are you willing to admit that you made a statement for which you had no evidence and you never thought someone would call you on it?

To back up my statement of what? That the EO do not accept papal primacy and infallibility, or the Western view of original sin, or the Catholic view of Purgatory and indulgences, and Transubstantiation?
Just a brief Google found this:
ukrainian-orthodoxy.org/questions/2005/differences.htm

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=Philthy;6657520]This is sorta what I mean about the inherent vagueness in SS and the inability to meet some very basic practical criteria. You dont know whether this is “the” Lutheran practice of the doctrine? How can something so fundamental and so mundane (we’re not talking about the Trinity here) as SS not have been nailed down by now?? Sonething doesnt make sense about this entire topic. It shouldnt be that difficult to articulate, definitively and reveal to the faithful. I can only surmise that the reason this is so is because it is not actually contained in Scripture and was not part of Tradition and has not actually been definitively revealed.

First, SS is not a doctrine. Who said it wasn’t nailed down? What I said was that I am not a theologian. This is sort of a catch 22; first we are said to be our own little popes who can personally interpret, but then if we say that we leave interpretation and practice to the church, the practice is suspect on those grounds as well.
I suspect there are millions of Catholics who cannot state the specifics of Catholic teaching, either. That, in and of itself, does not call Catholic teaching into question. It doesn’t even call into question Catholic catechesis, or the character of Catholics. Most Catholics - and Lutherans - allow the Church to teach.

I appreciate your efforts. I think if you would try giving a brief answer to each of the other questions I had asked it would be very helpful…

Thought I did. What did I miss?

Jon

 

[po18guy]

Dear One: I have never, in all my years, had a Catholic present the gospel of the grace of God to me. I have never met a Catholic [clergy or lay] who actually knew the gospel of the grace of God. Also, for your information I am a true believer in the Lord Jesus Christ and what He did for me when He went to the cross. I know that I am saved for time and eternity. I know that I will be face to face with my wonderful Lord Jesus Christ the moment my life ends on this earth. I follow Paul as he followed the [heavenly] Lord Jesus Christ. I can say with Paul that I know in whom I have believed and am persuaded that He is able to keep that which I have committed unto Him…

I must point out that you are still commenting on Catholics of your limited experience, but not on Catholicism.

One point to ponder: Each of those unfaithful Catholics of your acquaintance have one tremendous and infinite advantage over your current faith: They have eaten Christ’s Body and have drunk His blood. Unless you are or were Catholic or Orthodox, you have yet to experience the source and summit of the Christian faith.

 

[to_seek]

you misunderstand the Chruch’s teaching on inafllaiblility. The Popes aren’t sinless. Infallibility means they can be trusted when teaching about faith and morals. The reasons they can be trusted include the following:
Thank you for the definition of infallibility. You are correct there. However tell me if a Pope is in mortal sin, as some have been, would you still believe that anything they say has any truth. Surely light cannot mix with darkness?

• We were told by Jesus that he would be with the Church until the end of the age.
• The Popes teach what they have been taught by their predecessors back to Jesus himself.
• The Popes have the Bishops/Cardinals and in fact the entire church to help them make sure they stay true to those teachings

On the third point here, does the laity have any direct imput into this?
If you can’t trust the Chruch that Jesus founded for this very purpose, who can you trust?

 

[paul_c]

Dear One: I have never, in all my years, had a Catholic present the gospel of the grace of God to me. I have never met a Catholic [clergy or lay] who actually knew the gospel of the grace of God.

Of course yyou haven’t and you won’t because your Gospel of Grace is built on half truths. Yes, God provides grace to those who believe in Jesus IF you participate in the sacraments of the Church. . Yes, God will allow you to enter heaven IF you die in the state of Grace. But you need to get in the state fo Grace through the sacraments and you need to stay there by loving God and Neighbor and avoiding mortal sin. Yes, God will forgive your sins IF you contritely confess your sins to a priest, repent, do penance and receive absolution. So you see, your Gospel of Grace isn’t the whole truth. That’s why you will never hear it from a Catholic.

Also, for your information I am a true believer in the Lord Jesus Christ and what He did for me when He went to the cross. I know that I am saved for time and eternity. I know that I will be face to face with my wonderful Lord Jesus Christ the moment my life ends on this earth. I follow Paul as he followed the [heavenly] Lord Jesus Christ. I can say with Paul that I know in whom I have believed and am persuaded that He is able to keep that which I have committed unto Him…

You may be a believer in the Lord Jesus Christ, but your faith is not what he taught. Have you read the Sermon on the Mount? Here’s Matthew 7
21 "Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven.
22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name? Did we not drive out demons in your name? Did we not do mighty deeds in your name?’
23 Then I will declare to them solemnly, 'I never knew you. Depart from me, you evildoers

Note, faith alone isn’t enogh, you need to do the will of God…