For those who say the Bible is "sufficient" for salvation

[justinthemartyr]

Hi

To me Bible is not sufficient for salvation or for that matter any Scriptures of Hindus, or Buddhists or Zoroastriens etc unless they do not contradict Quran for support Quran, in my opinion.

The Quran is:

[98:1] In the name of Allah, the Gracious, the Merciful.
[98:2] Those, who disbelieve from among the People of the Book and the idolaters, would not desist from disbelief until there should come to them the clear evidence -**
[98:3] A Messenger from Allah, reciting unto them the pure Scriptures,
[98:4] Wherein are lasting commandments. **
[98:5] And those to whom the Book was given did not become divided until after clear evidence had come to them.
[98:6] And they were not commanded but to serve Allah, being sincere to Him in obedience, and being upright, and to observe Prayer and pay the Zakat. And that is the right religion.
www3.alislam.org/showChapter.jsp?ch=98

[2:106] They, who disbelieve from among the people of the Book, or from among those who associate gods with Allah, desire not that any good should be sent down to you from your Lord; but Allah chooses for His mercy whomsoever He pleases; and Allah is Lord of exceeding bounty. **
[2:107] Whatever message We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring one better than that or the like thereof.** Knowest thou not that Allah has the power to do all that He wills?
[2:108] Knowest thou not that the Kingdom of the Heavens and the earth belongs to Allah alone? And there is no protector or helper for you besides Allah.
[2:109] Would you question the Messenger sent to you as Moses was questioned before this? And whoever takes disbelief in exchange for belief has undoubtedly gone astray from the right path.
www3.alislam.org/showChapter.jsp?ch=2&verse=100

Thanks

This has nothing to do with the quran. The question posed is mainly for Christians, not Muslims. If you would like to pose the same question concerning the quran, do so in another thread please.

Trying to defend the muslim faith in this thread only confuses the topic more than it already is. Thank you

 

[mgrfin]

Can you explain that verse to me please?? Im not trying to be smart or anything…that really is a verse I have never quite understood, and when I saw it here…I thought…good…I can finally ask! Thanks in advance! I didnt mean to include the whole post as a quote…lol…I dont quite have this thing down real good yet!
have a blessed day!

I have only my own personal interpretation of this verse. I always saw it as the New Eve, Mary.

The old Eve never had a place in the Redemptive process. The New Eve is seen as Mary. Paintings of her show her with Crown of twelve stars over her head, a sceptre in her hand, and the snake (the devil), being crush by her heel. The war is against ‘her seed’, Jesus Christ, and the devil, Satan.

This is a combined picture of Gen 3:15, and Revelations 12.

There is no authoratative interpretation by the Catholic Church on this verse. That is pretty much true of the whole Bible. Off the top of my head, I don’t know of any ‘infallible’ interpretations of any verse of the Bible. So much for fears that Infallibility permeating all of the Church re: the Bible. Just the opposite.

peace

 

[justinthemartyr]

It can also be interpreted to mean the Church(her/she) both/and.

 

[justinthemartyr]

how can one say the Bible is sufficient for salvation? what, are you going to stick the Bible in your soul somehow? nope.

It takes Grace, then faith and evidence of that faith.

Scripture can help you along this journey, no doubt, but there will be many who are saved who never heard the gospel let alone read any of the Bible.

 

[mgrfin]

how can one say the Bible is sufficient for salvation? what, are you going to stick the Bible in your soul somehow? nope.

It takes Grace, then faith and evidence of that faith.

Scripture can help you along this journey, no doubt, but there will be many who are saved who never heard the gospel let alone read any of the Bible.

No, the Bible is not sufficient for salvation.

Membership in the Catholic Church is required: “outside the Church there is no salvation” even with bible in hand.

peace

 

[mark_a]

One of the opposing comments by Protestants against Catholics’ Sacred Tradition I hear is that the Bible is sufficient for salvation and no other revelation is needed. But what I don’t understand is why there is not a campaign on the part of such persons to eliminate those things in Scripture which are not necessary for salvation in the same sense.

For instance, the Bible attests to angels, but a Bible-believing Christian would have to acknowledge that whether or not a person believes in angels, as long as he believes that Christ died for our sins, he can be saved. No?

My point is: If the goal is to discard that which is considered unnecessary, then why not go all the way?

Who was that guy that said that to have eternal life you must love God above all with all your heart, mind, and soul; and love your neighbor as you love yourself?

 

[mgrfin]

Who was that guy that said that to have eternal life you must love God above all with all your heart, mind, and soul; and love your neighbor as you love yourself?

Regardless of Tradition, the Bible is not sufficient for salvation.

Reason: what meaning does one give to various tenets in the bible. Are Arians saved by their bible? Are Lutherans saved by their Bible? Are Anglicans saved by their Bible?

The answer is ‘no’ even if it is the same Bible. They interprete and give meaning to Scripture which is not in according with Catholic teaching. It is one of the reason why outside the Church there is no salvation.

Protestants try to console themselves that there is nothing there that we have and they do not. Look to the Eucharist, the Sacraments, Grace, etc. It is almost day or night different.

So, the Bible is not sufficient for Salvation.

peace

 

[mark_a]

Regardless of Tradition, the Bible is not sufficient for salvation.

Reason: what meaning does one give to various tenets in the bible. Are Arians saved by their bible? Are Lutherans saved by their Bible? Are Anglicans saved by their Bible?

The answer is ‘no’ even if it is the same Bible. They interprete and give meaning to Scripture which is not in according with Catholic teaching. It is one of the reason why outside the Church there is no salvation.

Protestants try to console themselves that there is nothing there that we have and they do not. Look to the Eucharist, the Sacraments, Grace, etc. It is almost day or night different.

peace

All good points.

So, the Bible is not sufficient for Salvation.

But sufficient doesn’t imply best.

 

[Krocker]

Dear Krocker, the reason we believe what we believe is because the proper authority to know what is correct has told us what to believe. The “materialist” mind can’t abide that. People were “freaked out” by the fact that the appearence of bread and wine was said to be not what it appeared to be but was in fact what it was. The Body and Blood.

**My point exactly. First, YOU obviously define what “proper authority” means to you. Maybe you should consider that nobody else in the world agrees with you that the Catholic Church’s tradition, without scriptural support, is the “proper authority.” So, go on believing what you want, but when a protestant says their “proper authority” is something else, you should not be offended nor can you do anything to contradict their belief – as it is the same house of cards upon which your belief rests. Neither of you can prove it, it’s ENTIRELY on faith. You can believe only you are right, but I guarantee you, so will they. So where does that get you? Nowhere, but a bunch of people yelling at each other about why their FAITH is right. And if you think ONLY Catholics get the Truth, then use the same analogy with Mormons – who were the only one’s to get the “truth” of the latter day saints. My whole point is, if you want to claim something is more than just faith, then prove it. If you don’t, then call it what it is. Catholics have a REALLY hard time with this because it’s been rammed down their throat so much that their RIGHT and everyone else is wrong. (See mgrfin’s Dec 19 post). Second, if you’re so sure that the eucharist is the body and the blood, do a DNA test and a blood alcohol test! You, again, exactly made my point. One of two things happened: (a) the ECFs really believed the bread and wine were flesh and blood – and this freaked people out, or (b) the ECFs really believed it was flesh and blood, but not really in our human sense – so why were people freaked out then? If (a), prove it with scientific methods available to us today. If (b), then explain why people were freaked out in Christ’s age, and why writings of ECFs seem to suggest it was “really” flesh and blood. **

People can WANT whatever they like, but they’ll get what they’re given, which is the truth. If people choose not to accept the truth as given, then they’re free to find what truth they can find wherever they think they can trust to get it. But why trust one source over another?

** Same thing. What is your definition of “Truth”? Why trust your source over someone elses? Why trust that a Jesus tortilla is or is not more “truthful” than an apparition of Mary? Definitionally, it must be one of two options: (a) Faith, or (b) Proof. If you can’t prove it, call it what it is. **

No. You’d BE crazy because even YOU’D know you’re either lying or are deluded. There is NO trusting that ANYTHING is TRUE if you accept no authority AS truth telling.

** Beautiful!! Exactly my point. It’s CRAZY for me to believe exactly what the Catholic Church believes.**

If you don’t believe what you believe, then that’s your problem. By that I mean that you DO claim that you know some things “infallibly” (what you DO believe), while you claim that other things are not infallibly known (that which you DON’T believe).

Do you or do you not believe what you believe, and how do you infallibly know it? If you DON’T infallibly know it, then you don’t REALLY believe it, now do you?

** I don’t INFALLIBLY know what I believe. I am not infallible. Neither are you. Yet you claim it. Again, this is my whole point, if something is infallible then it is contrary to “faith.” Faith only exists when you can’t prove something, as is the definition of faith. (Dictionary.com defines faith as “belief that is not based on proof.” How can something be infallible if you can’t prove it? It can’t be. (Dictionary.com defines infallible as “absolutely trustworthy for sure.”) How can something be “absolutely trustworthy” if you can’t “prove” it? Read the definitions for your answer. **

 

[mgrfin]

** I don’t INFALLIBLY know what I believe. I am not infallible. Neither are you. Yet you claim it. Again, this is my whole point, if something is infallible then it is contrary to “faith.” Faith only exists when you can’t prove something, as is the definition of faith. (Dictionary.com defines faith as “belief that is not based on proof.” How can something be infallible if you can’t prove it? It can’t be. (Dictionary.com defines infallible as “absolutely trustworthy for sure.”) How can something be “absolutely trustworthy” if you can’t “prove” it? Read the definitions for your answer. **

I don’t know infallibly what I believe?. Of course, I do

Faith is belief on the word of God alone, who can not deceive nor be deceived.

Let’s put it this way. If I believe something God testified to I believe it on faith. If I had doubt about it, then I don’t believe it.
In one case, I know it infallibily - I am absolutely sure. In the second case, I know it fallibly. If you don’t like the word ‘infallibly’ insert the word ‘certainly’. Knowing infallibly is knowning with certainity.

You can believe something on the testimony of someone else. We do it all the time. Point is, in matters of Faith it is God whose testimony I have.

Knowing infallibly and being infallible are different things, and are those things you are confusing.

Peace

 

[Krocker]

Faith is not an “unprovable belief”. Faith is a truth revealed to us by God, who can neither deceive, nor be deceived.
That is why we don’t have to prove anything since it was revealed to us by God.

See the dictionary for your assertion regarding “faith”. If your “faith” is revealed by God, then PROVE it. If you can’t, it’s faith. Obviously, it can’t be proven scientifically or any other way, so that is really a dead issue. If you could PROVE it, everyone would be Catholic and you would have an obligation via the great commission to make sure everyone was Catholic. They aren’t, and you haven’t, so end of story.

And if you continue with your assertion, then “God revealed to me that Catholics turned away from the Truth for the reasons stated in the 95 theses, Catholics are a Marian cult, and Catholics created the doctrine of infallibility to ensure their own historical power via fear over all of humanity.” And, if you want to be consistent, don’t you dare ask me to PROVE it either … because I’ll just say “God told me so.”

 

[Krocker]

Regardless of Tradition, the Bible is not sufficient for salvation.

Reason: what meaning does one give to various tenets in the bible. Are Arians saved by their bible? Are Lutherans saved by their Bible? Are Anglicans saved by their Bible?

The answer is ‘no’ even if it is the same Bible. They interprete and give meaning to Scripture which is not in according with Catholic teaching. It is one of the reason why outside the Church there is no salvation.

Protestants try to console themselves that there is nothing there that we have and they do not. Look to the Eucharist, the Sacraments, Grace, etc. It is almost day or night different.

So, the Bible is not sufficient for Salvation.

peace

Wow, such certainty. Okay, then, what do you need for Salvation outside of scripture?

 

[Krocker]

I don’t know infallibly what I believe?. Of course, I do

Faith is belief on the word of God alone, who can not deceive nor be deceived.

You can believe something on the testimony of someone else. We do it all the time. Point is, in matters of Faith it is God whose testimony I have.

Knowing infallibly and being infallible are separate things, and are those things you are confusing.

Peace

ps is there a reason why you are screaming at us with your bold type. It is very annoying, counselor.

Do you have a transcript of God’s testimony? How do you know what God told you? The answer is you don’t. You believe what the Church says God told them. Great answer. Absolutely no support and you claim it to be incapable of retort. Absolutely breathtaking in comparison to a 5 year old. I think I’m done responding to you. And, by the way, you’re no better than many of the Bob Jones protestants from which you come. No support and “we’re the only one’s going to heaven.” God help you. I also bet you’re an ornery old man of … what … about 70? Precious. Come back with some support, or simply claim “faith” all you want. But you’re fooling no one, except maybe yourself.

 

[Krocker]

Mgrfin,

You wrote: “ps is there a reason why you are screaming at us with your bold type. It is very annoying, counselor.”

Response: Sure is, it’s called pointing out hypocrisy … which is also very annoying, at least to someone trained in logic when dealing with those who are illogical. Thankfully, most of you aren’t. Thus far, you are the greatest offender. I would love to get you on the stand … you’re head would be spinning my friend.

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CalmDownWisWins
Dear Krocker, the reason we believe what we believe is because the proper authority to know what is correct has told us what to believe. The “materialist” mind can’t abide that. People were “freaked out” by the fact that the appearence of bread and wine was said to be not what it appeared to be but was in fact what it was. The Body and Blood.

My point exactly. First, YOU obviously define what “proper authority” means to you. Maybe you should consider that nobody else in the world agrees with you that the Catholic Church’s tradition, without scriptural support, is the “proper authority.”

We all choose who we will accept as our authority. That is a given. The question is whether we really give any authority outside ourselves REAL authority over us as (not yet provably incorrectly) “infallible”, or not. If my infallible authority proves itself not to be infallible in what it claims to know infallibly, then I am COMMANDED (by God by the way) to withdraw my assent to it’s authority. You regard any claim of infallibility as grounds in itself to disregard said claimant as having authority over you. I don’t, until it actually proves itself wrong.

Once again, if you claim that any claim of infallibility to be impossible to accept as an INFALLIBLE rule which you follow, then you have just contradited yourself quite nicely, and given me good reason to discount your opinions as regards “infallibility” and it’s consequences.

The Church’s (Catholic) authority is based on ALL revealed truth given by God. Part of the support of that authority is scripture, which was created BY the Church as the Body of Christ which includes it’s Head Jesus Christ as well as the “rest” of the Holy Trinity.

Apparently you think that Catholics regard Tradition (Catholic) as the SUPREME authority over that even of scripture, which is not correct. Please do a bit of research on the Church before making statements about things you are ignorant of. Thanks.

So, go on believing what you want, but when a protestant says their “proper authority” is something else, you should not be offended nor can you do anything to contradict their belief – as it is the same house of cards upon which your belief rests.

I’m not offended by people being uneducated in the truth. I’m also not interested in contradicting their beliefs. That their beliefs are easily shown to BE self-contradictory is not MY problem but theirs, and I’m BOUND by charity to show them how they are undereducated and self-contradictory.

The materialist sees all “revelation from God” and claims of “infallibility” as PROOF that anything non-materialistic is built on a “house of cards”. That both the protestant and the Catholic are equally believers in “houses of cards” is of interest only to materialists. ONLY materialists actually believe that infallibility can not exist, and only materialists who are ignorant of the phrase 1+1=2.

Neither of you can prove it, it’s ENTIRELY on faith. You can believe only you are right, but I guarantee you, so will they.

I have no problem with them believing as I do that they are entirely correct in what they believe infallibly. The discussion here is about “infallibility”, which they (protestants) place only in themselves preemptively (due to “disappointment trauma syndrome” either/both personally and/or historically), and the self-limiting behavior that that results in.

So where does that get you? Nowhere, but a bunch of people yelling at each other about why their FAITH is right.

I’m only interested in TELLING them about the good news, and not convincing them at all. A basic tenet of being Catholic is that force is not to be used to “convince” anyone to believe as we do.

You dislike so-called “yelling at each other”, when in fact what you’re seeing (hearing?) is conversation, and not “battle”. Because you dislike the “noise” eminating from others talking does not mean that that “noise” is not worthwhile.

more below–>

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

from above:

And if you think ONLY Catholics get the Truth, then use the same analogy with Mormons – who were the only one’s to get the “truth” of the latter day saints. My whole point is, if you want to claim something is more than just faith, then prove it. If you don’t, then call it what it is.

You think “faith” is “I’ll believe this while it makes sense to me”, while we (non-materialists) believe that faith is “truth told by a trusted truthteller who hasn’t been proved untrustworthy”.

Mormons have just as valid a faith as anyone else given the framework of that faith to those who trust the sources of the truths of that faith. To Catholics the sources of Mormon “truths” are weak.

Catholics have a REALLY hard time with this because it’s been rammed down their throat so much that their RIGHT and everyone else is wrong. (See mgrfin’s Dec 19 post).

But we are right in what we’re right in, and only those who are wrong in what we are right in are wrong. They may have part of the truth, but not all of it as we do.

You think that we’re ALL completely full of excrement because we’re not materialists who infallibly claim that claims of infallibility prove that non materialists are delusional.

Second, if you’re so sure that the eucharist is the body and the blood, do a DNA test and a blood alcohol test!

I explain this again. The Host is Jesus’ Body and Blood inder the appearance of bread and wine. The APPEARANCES are the humanly sense-able things that are utterly that of bread and wine and are not in any way sense-able as Flesh and Blood. But the REAL PRESENCE is that of Jesus’ Body and Blood!

To a materialist this is total rubbish. So be it.

You, again, exactly made my point. One of two things happened: (a) the ECFs really believed the bread and wine were flesh and blood – and this freaked people out, or (b) the ECFs really believed it was flesh and blood, but not really in our human sense – so why were people freaked out then?

People “freaked” because they either couldn’t believe that the Host was really Christ’s Body and Blood which had the appearance of bread and wine, or that it really WAS really Jesus and cannabalism was NOT acceptable.

Some people, no doubt, also REMAINED because they thought that Jesus was just being “symbolic”, and this “mock-cannabalism” was a harmless fiction. These people were the “seeds” of all future heresies.

If (a), prove it with scientific methods available to us today. If (b), then explain why people were freaked out in Christ’s age, and why writings of ECFs seem to suggest it was “really” flesh and blood.

It was really God’s Flesh and Blood. It really had the appearance of bread and wine. This explains your dilemma. Accept it or not, based on your infallible discernment process.

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

Quote: CalmDownWisWins:
People can WANT whatever they like, but they’ll get what they’re given, which is the truth. If people choose not to accept the truth as given, then they’re free to find what truth they can find wherever they think they can trust to get it. But why trust one source over another?

Same thing. What is your definition of “Truth”? Why trust your source over someone elses? Why trust that a Jesus tortilla is or is not more “truthful” than an apparition of Mary? Definitionally, it must be one of two options: (a) Faith, or (b) Proof. If you can’t prove it, call it what it is.

Truth is that Given by God as told by His authorized representative in all matters of faith and morals, as well as that coming from a sense of natural law, which is also from God, that doesn’t contradict that which is from the former source.

I trust my source because it has been PROVED to me that I should trust that (those) source(s), and while I can’t prove to others that my proof is actual proof, I don’t need to. They need to prove their own sources of truth to themselves, as that is the nature of “proof” in the realm of faith and morals.

Can you prove that 1+1=2? How? Can you prove to the blind that blue is more pleasing than acid-green? How?

Proof of God comes only from within, and is not “transferable” across the “gap of persons”. My proof is not proof to you. If you won’t do the work that only you can do to prove that God exists, and that this way of knowing God is better or worse than that way of knowing God, then you will never have proof, because you can’t get it from anyone but through your own work of confirmation.

You seek “absolute objective proof” while simultaneously rejecting the possibility of what you seek. That is the frustrated need that Satan uses to keep you enslaved in chasing your own tale up your own backside, wasting time on this planet, until you’re so exhausted that in the end you’d rather just have the “peace” of oblivion than any “promise” of that silly God-thing.

The problem is that in that time between your “living” and your “oblivion” the truth of that rejection will cause torment of “infinite” expanse and intensity.

The materialist soothes themselves that that is acceptable because oblivion comes quickly after “life”, while we believe that oblivion never comes at all.

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

quote: CalmDownWisWins:
If you don’t believe what you believe, then that’s your problem. By that I mean that you DO claim that you know some things “infallibly” (what you DO believe), while you claim that other things are not infallibly known (that which you DON’T believe).

Do you or do you not believe what you believe, and how do you infallibly know it? If you DON’T infallibly know it, then you don’t REALLY believe it, now do you?

I don’t INFALLIBLY know what I believe. I am not infallible. Neither are you. Yet you claim it.

Do you or do you not know and believe that infallibility is not possible?

PEOPLE are not infallible. The ability to BE infallible in those decisions/knowledge-items claimed AS infallible is how infallibility operates. Not everything that the Pope, for example, says is infallible, and some things which I say ARE infallible, such as 1+1=2.

Your problem is not with those who claim the obvious (infallibility in some things) but with the concept of infallibility itself, which you also claim while not realizing that you do so! This merely makes you look silly, as when you do that you contradict yourself directly and explicitly.

Again, this is my whole point, if something is infallible then it is contrary to “faith.” Faith only exists when you can’t prove something, as is the definition of faith.

That you don’t understand either “faith” or “proof” in the way they are used by people of faith is the cause of your errors.

To absolutely prove in a materialistic way that which is only knowable by interior proof via personal revelatory experience would in fact destroy the truth of that type of knowledge.

But luckily, that is impossible, by definition, because since that kind of knowledge only comes through personal revelation, which is NEVER a type or materialistic proof, knowledge of that type will never BE provable to a materialist in a convincing way, which won’t destroy the truth’s truth.

(Dictionary.com defines faith as “belief that is not based on proof.” How can something be infallible if you can’t prove it? It can’t be. (Dictionary.com defines infallible as “absolutely trustworthy for sure.”) How can something be “absolutely trustworthy” if you can’t “prove” it? Read the definitions for your answer.

Faith is that which IS proved to one by interior means, or there is no reason to have faith (hold belief) in it. That proof is called revelation (personal, or via a trusted source proved by personal revelation).

A thing that is claimed infallibly trustworthy, such as 1+1=2, must be proved that it isn’t trustworthy.

Go for it!

To the (selective) materialist anyone claiming that the revealed truth of 1+1=2 is INFALLIBLY CLAIMED is a lunatic because infallibility CAN’T exist!

Burn all Mathematicians! They claim that which can’t be claimed, and prove themselves EVIL!!!

To infallibly claim that infallibility doesn’t exist is to burn down all logic.

 

[mgrfin]

Do you have a transcript of God’s testimony? How do you know what God told you? The answer is you don’t. You believe what the Church says God told them. Great answer. Absolutely no support and you claim it to be incapable of retort. Absolutely breathtaking in comparison to a 5 year old. I think I’m done responding to you. And, by the way, you’re no better than many of the Bob Jones protestants from which you come. No support and “we’re the only one’s going to heaven.” God help you. I also bet you’re an ornery old man of … what … about 70? Precious. Come back with some support, or simply claim “faith” all you want. But you’re fooling no one, except maybe yourself.

You are really angry, counselor. Is there a reason for all this hatred of God and believers. Or does it just relate to Catholics?

Why not just leave us alone in our faith. Accusing us of being equivalent to 5 year olds? Where do you get off? It just galls you that intelligent adults, with as much education as you, if not more, have faith, given to them by God.

What do you believe? Everything is capable of retort, We live in an imperfect world.

You have some perfect science somewhere? Your recently founded religion,. is the creation of some man, and you believe he is leading you to heaven, and you are going to lock out all the Catholics?

What would like, Jesus come down so you can put your finger into his wounds, and your hand inside his side. Do you have his testimony that your protestant faith is superior to ours - why, because you have a law degree. So did the pharisees.

My age is immaterial. I believe as I believed as a youngster. “Ad hominem” arguments carry little weight here. Maybe you bully people in court, and you stomp if you don’t get your way.

We all believe on the testimony of others, except what we have seen with our own eyes. That is how life is.

I don’t know if you can hear how bitter you sound against Catholics. Would you like to put your non-denominational religion out here so we can learn from you?

I presented to you the falsity of believing solely in a book, the Bible, whose origins you cannot substantiate, authenticate, or verify. Apparently I hit a nerve.

peace

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

See the dictionary for your assertion regarding “faith”. If your “faith” is revealed by God, then PROVE it. If you can’t, it’s faith.

Apparently Krock(er)'s Holy Book is the Dictionary!

I don’t have to prove anything to you. You need to either prove or disprove what you’d like proved to yourself.

Why do materialists demand to be given things in the way they want them given to them even when they can’t get them in that manner?

Obviously, it can’t be proven scientifically or any other way, so that is really a dead issue. If you could PROVE it, everyone would be Catholic and you would have an obligation via the great commission to make sure everyone was Catholic. They aren’t, and you haven’t, so end of story.

It wouldn’t be much of a task if it could be easily proven in materialistic terms to everyone that being Catholic is what needs to happen.

The basic idea of spreading the good news, and converting people, is that the conversion must be from within each person. The way God set up “knowledge of truth in faith and morals” is that it specifically NOT be provable from without, but ONLY “experiencially provable” from within.

The way that conversion is “transmitted” is by resonant induction (example and pesonal resonance with that example), and not by rhetorical coersion (brute force pseudo-logic).

God made MEN, not slaves.

And if you continue with your assertion, then “God revealed to me that Catholics turned away from the Truth for the reasons stated in the 95 theses, Catholics are a Marian cult, and Catholics created the doctrine of infallibility to ensure their own historical power via fear over all of humanity.” And, if you want to be consistent, don’t you dare ask me to PROVE it either … because I’ll just say “God told me so.”

I’d be interested in knowing how you proved that to yourself, but your “proof” would be as silly as my “proving” to you anything that I believe.

Catholics believe that people believe what they do believe for reasons that are reasonable to them.

Materialists believe that people who don’t believe as they do are nuts. You’ve proven that quite well indeed! Thanks for the insights.